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.

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.

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.

National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy Generation

Earl Russell Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Grand Committee

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne. My university career was spent studying nuclear strategy, so I welcome the work that the Nuclear Threat Initiative has done. It has also been fascinating to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, studied nuclear engineering. What expertise we have with former Energy Ministers around the Room.

I also very much welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, to the House of Lords. She talked about pinching herself—I have been here for two years, and I can say that it is worse after you have had a holiday. I congratulate and welcome her, and I know that she will make a valuable contribution to the House, as she did as an MP in fighting for her constituents.

I thank the Minister for bringing forward this debate. I apologise in advance that I will put several general questions to him, but I do not expect answers to everything that I raise today. I welcome this national policy statement on nuclear EN-7. Much of it is about SMRs and AMRs and about the energy we need—predominately for AI and data centres in the future. Indeed, if there is no energy, there is no AI. The alternative to small modular reactors is that they will turn to gas-powered turbines, which would be an absolute disaster for our net-zero ambitions.

This Government are clearly serious about taking this forward, which I welcome. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, remined us, the UK is in a global competition, and, as other Members have said, time is short, even though these things are happening at pace. Personally, I well recognise the need for nuclear energy as part of our energy mix, particularly for baseload power. I also recognise the role that SMRs can play for data centres and the harder-to-abate industries. This is obviously a moving space. If we were making counter arguments, we could say that the cost of renewables continues to go down and, as yet, we do not have a commercially operating SMR—we have many in development but not one in place already. However, I welcome this development, and I welcome nuclear as part of our energy mix to meet our net-zero goals.

EN-7 is about modernising our planning processes to make sure that they work, deploying projects after 2025 and ensuring longer-term planning. Can the Minister explain how EN-7 will be integrated with the energy spatial plans, when they are ready, and how they will fit together? EN-7 is designed to be more flexible and—as many noble Lords have said—it needs to be so in order to incorporate the new technologies. It is broader in scope, and it will enable site selection to be done by the developers themselves, whereas previously it was done by the Government—let us hope that that will speed up things. It will be done on a “first ready, first served” framework, once developers pass through a series of checkpoints.

EN-7 will supersede EN-6, but EN-6 will not be withdrawn and remains a material consideration. The removal of time limits and the focus on criteria-based selection aim to open up more sites. Generally, we welcome this policy, as I said. We welcome that the Government are taking it seriously and bringing forward new policies and plans to implement these new technologies and make this happen. The Government’s policy is better developed on SMRs than it is on AMRs—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, made quite strongly. Picking that up, what further work will the Government do to progress the AMR side of things?

Previously, before this policy, this country had only eight sites licensed for nuclear power. As we move to SMRs, we are moving to a completely different system where any site can potentially have small modular reactors if it meets the appropriate criteria. We need to acknowledge, in this Room and on the record, that this is a huge and fundamental change. I will come on to that later, but these are big and important changes.

The Government’s press release talked about slashing red tape,

“ripping up archaic rules and saying no to the NIMBYs”.

That is a bit unhelpful. We have new technologies and planning processes, and it is important that the Government take the time to explain, consult and provide reassurance. As we have a whole new system, with new nuclear power plants, we need a new way to assess the risks that this changed system brings with it. That is important, too.

My understanding is that SMRs are happening and should be going to tender by next March, which is welcome. Can the Minister confirm that it is still the Government’s plan to tender for two SMRs?

I wish to pick up some of the concerns from the consultation. Waste was one of them: the management of radiological waste and spent nuclear fuel and putting that in the context of the fact that we still lack a geological disposal facility. Depending on what design is chosen, it is possible that we will continue to generate waste from even small modular reactors. How will these challenges be met? How will this fit with the need for the geological disposal sites that are not ready? There will be allowance for interim storage. How will that system work? What do the Government mean by “interim” in that context? What general timeline are the Government working to for the GDF?

Who bears the cost here? Small modular reactors, in particular, could be from one commercial company providing energy. Where does the cost of the processing and long-term storage of waste sit? Does it sit with the state or with the company? These are fundamentally different, in that they are providing power to a company. Will the Government update EN-3 in relation to waste for SMRs and AMRs? Is that planned? I am not certain.

I turn to the site selection criteria. The semi-urban population density criteria remain, which is absolutely right, but is there a conflict between that and powering data centres? I may be wrong, but my understanding is that most data centres are in fairly urban populations. Do the Government know whether that is a tension? I know that they are thinking about reviewing that. If that policy is reviewed, could the Minister give some reassurance about how that might happen, including the processes, and that there will be some scrutiny around that?

On climate change, which is one of the key criteria that need to be looked at, we are in the middle of—until it started raining today—a dry spring. Water usage is one of those primary concerns, particularly the impact of abstraction on water bodies.

There is also the security of these sites. The Office of Nuclear Regulation used to provide security for nuclear sites. I think it is still not certain whether it will take up the role with SMRs. Is that still to be decided? How will that work? If there are more sites, more need to be protected. There will also possibly be more nuclear material moving around the country to fuel these sites. Is there a policy coming on that? Is that still to be determined? The response cryptically said that there was not uniformity of views on everything. Are there issues for the Government that come from the consultation? Were there particular areas where the consultation responses picked up issues? Will that be subject to further review?

The need for a skilled workforce has been mentioned. We have not built new nuclear for a while. We have the nuclear skills task force but the words were “careful future management”. The hope is that we can grow our nuclear industry. We have two nuclear engineers in this Room. This is important much needed jobs and skills and growing our economy.

The communication bit is important for me. This is new stuff and a change of siting policy. I call on the Government to work with communities and to communicate in more open and co-operative language around these matters—this point has already been raised here—and to provide community benefit where that is possible. It may not be possible in all cases, but providing community energy through waste heat might be an option in some dcases.

Does the Minister see a role for SMRs in helping with grid balancing and providing baseload where we are providing these this energy to data centres? Are there options in terms of stabilising the grid?

My final point, noble Lords will be pleased to know, is around AI and energy. As we transition to net zero, we need at least to double the amount of electricity by 2050, and noble Lords have made the point that that need might be much greater. At the moment, data centres consume 2.5% of our electricity, but that is going to rise to 10% by 2050. Against that background, the general demand for electricity is going to double. There is no doubt that nuclear and the need for data centres will rub up against our need for net zero, and there will be competition for resources, workforce, government time, money and so on. That needs to be looked at. We had a Question to the Minister in the House the other day. There are loads of opportunities for us to make better use of AI to become more energy efficient, run our grid better, run our industry better and use less energy across so many sectors of the country from manufacturing to transport and everything else. While I welcome the creation of the AI Energy Council, I call on the Government, if they are embracing AI and providing energy, to put as much energy into trying to make sure that AI is as energy-efficient and energy-saving to the country as it possibly can be.

Nuclear: Small Modular Reactors

Earl Russell Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on living in Suffolk. Only a few weeks ago I had a meeting with Suffolk local authority leaders to discuss these very matters. He is right in the sense that, as I have already said, we are moving rapidly towards final investment decision on Sizewell C. I very much hope we will be able to get that over the line. We have committed £2.7 billion of funding through the Sizewell C devex subsidy scheme to support the project’s development during the current financial year. It consolidates the Government’s position as the majority shareholder in Sizewell C and is laying the foundations for final investment decision and, we very much hope, a 3.2-gigawatt nuclear power station that will power 6 million homes for 60 to 80 years.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, this Government are clearly committed to making progress on SMRs, primarily to help power AI. AI will be a great consumer of power but equally has great opportunities to bring huge energy savings and efficiencies. I welcome the recently launched AI Energy Council, but are the Government doing enough to bring about the required AI energy efficiencies? I ask the Government to publish a full AI energy efficiency strategy for making the best use of AI that sets out clear targets for AI to be better than carbon-neutral before 2030.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we are well aware that both AI and data centres will lead to a major increase in electricity demand. We are also aware of experience in the US, and interest in this country, in linking these AI data centres to nuclear development. The EN-7, the siting policy for nuclear sites, which we are debating in your Lordships’ House on Wednesday, gives us a more flexible siting policy as a result. We are well aware of the potential. We are working very hard to consider how we can encourage this development with private sector funding. I take the noble Earl’s point about the need for us to be very clear about where we are going in this area; I very much accept that.

Methane (Environment and Climate Change Committee Report)

Earl Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Grand Committee

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, before I start my speech, I will reflect the comments that we have just heard. I did not manage to get into the noble Viscount’s Oral Question today, but I am deeply concerned about what the Americans are doing to the fundamental scientific basis for our understanding of climate, so I echo those comments.

As a member of this Select Committee, I speak in support of the report, and I thank our excellent clerks and researchers and everyone who made it possible, including our witnesses and our chair. If the noble Lord, Lord Jay, is a climate methane learner, at times I felt like a methane mediator. This was a difficult report to get over the line, but I am very pleased that we managed to do so. I also thank the Government and the Minister for their response. I note that we have a shared ambition in this area, if somewhat different approaches.

I will speak on the need for urgency in the global fight against climate change and on the need to buy time in our fight for survival, which can be brought about only by cutting our methane emissions now. I want to see the Government become the global champion that the pledge deserves. The UK has a real opportunity, having joined Brazil in co-chairing the Climate and Clean Air Coalition. The one thing that we do not have is time. As Bill McKibben has said:

“If we don’t win very quickly on climate change, then we will never win … It’s what makes it different from every other problem our political systems have faced”.


As we have heard, methane is the second-most significant greenhouse gas. While it has a short lifespan— I like the analogy between the bully and the teacher—compared to carbon dioxide, its potency as a heat-trapping gas is far greater: it is some 80 times more powerful than CO₂ over 20 years. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, said, in that way, it is a devastating gas. Methane emissions contribute to one-third of global warming. Tackling methane is rightly recognised as one of the fastest and most cost-effective ways to limit the near-term global temperature rises.

Professor Forster, in his evidence to the committee, said that such actions

“could lower the trajectory of global warming from 0.25 degrees celsius per decade to 0.1 degrees celsius”.

Cutting methane emissions rapidly does not just limit future warming; it slows rates of warming over the coming decades to buy time to implement the deeper and far more complex decarbonisation actions that we must take. Methane cuts are essential in reducing the immediate, devastating and costly real-world impacts of extreme weather and crop loss that we face now and will experience much more going into the 2040s. We have no other policy options to buy time—this is the only one.

The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, said that we should rightly be proud of what the UK has achieved to date. We achieved a 62% drop between 1990 and 2020, a larger percentage than any other OECD country. The UK rightly played a pivotal role in the Global Methane Pledge at COP 26, where 150 countries signed up to reduce their methane emissions by 30% by 2030.

I welcome the Government’s engagement with our recommendations—that is beneficial. The Government point to the existing delivery plan for carbon budgets and the framework for tackling methane. They highlight ongoing work across sectors and are leveraging the UK’s expertise internationally. However, our report argues that the Government must go further if the UK is truly to solidify its role as a global leader and champion the methane reductions required. The Select Committee recommends publishing a dedicated UK methane action plan providing clarity and focus for all sectors, including sector-specific targets and plans. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, it is disappointing that the Government have disagreed with this recommendation, saying instead that they are covered in existing budgets. While methane is indeed part of the broader net-zero strategy, the unique nature of methane and the opportunities it presents warrant a specific, transparent and dedicated plan outlining priority actions, costs and benefits.

I will just say a quick word specifically about the sector. Farming is now the key sector: it is the largest UK source, contributing half of all our methane, 85% of which comes from cattle. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, farming is perhaps more exposed than any other sector in the UK. Indeed, as we move forward, we have very difficult choices ahead. It is important that we have a balance in these things, but there are certain quick wins that we can do. We need slurry management, selective breeding and the farming and food road map. As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, farmers have the knowledge but need the power to do something about this.

In our energy sector, we are wasting enough energy from venting and flaring to power 700,000 homes. Venting and flaring need to end. I point out the recommendation for urgent transparency and accountability in these sectors.

Turning to waste, we need to do more and make sure that we have food collection across the country and enough anaerobic digesters to make that target a reality. We need to do more on landfill and about the fact that waste crime is out of control in this country, with 18% of our waste ending up in the hands of criminals.

The Government mention the UK Emissions Trading Scheme Authority and are considering including methane emissions from the upstream oil and gas sector. This is welcome, but it is not the commitment needed to align with our international partners, who are developing robust standards, including for imports. Robust MMRV is critical for both domestic progress and international accountability. I hope that we will see a UK-EU ETS alignment soon and that the UK will meet EU standards in this area.

The report called for the UK to use its expertise to encourage the establishment of an international body to verify the methane pledge participants’ action plans. The Government’s response points to the Climate and Clean Air Coalition as being a well-placed body. We recognise that it is valuable, but we call specifically for a body focused on verification to ensure accountability and the transparency of data. Data from the UN’s alert system, highlighted at COP 29, showed a stark gap: more than 1,200 alerts about large oil and gas plumes were issued, but only 1% of those resulted in mitigation steps. Data is helpful but if nothing is done with it, it is no better than having no data at all.

The UK, having co-launched this, has a real opportunity. We should go beyond domestic action and do more in the international sphere. We should not be content with just keeping our work at home. We now have 25 satellites orbiting the world; super emitters have nowhere to hide. Abating leaks needs to be done on an international scale. As somebody in the UN said:

“It’s plumbing. It’s not rocket science”.


Abandoned fossil fuel infrastructure now emits more methane than Iran and is fourth-largest global source. The International Energy Agency’s Global Methane Tracker 2025 report, just issued, shows that global methane emissions are stubbornly high. There were nearly 120 million tonnes of methane emissions in 2023, and the global energy sector may have emissions that are 70% higher than officially reported.

I call on the Government to do more with our international oil and gas expertise, particularly in leak detection and repair, and to do more to help countries that are struggling to repair their leaks. This is one way in which the UK Government could demonstrate their leadership in this area and provide a very useful source of help to the globe.

To conclude, a dedicated methane action plan is necessary for clarity and focus, particularly for harder to abate areas. I call on the UK to go further and really be the true champion this treaty requires. Deploying our technical expertise to help identify and fix large leaks internationally is a powerful example of how we can drive action, slow the immediate pace of global warming and keep up the vital momentum on this crucial climate issue.

Climate Change: Progress

Earl Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I recognise the argument, but if every country that emitted the same emissions as the UK does took action, we would have a critical impact on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Obviously, we negotiate within the COP process to encourage multilateral agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but I think that the real lesson of this report is that it sets out in detail the risk to this country and the world of the climate change that will come unless we act towards achieving net zero and reducing our greenhouse gases. This is a very stark reminder of why we should not detract from our pathway to net zero.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, the hottest day, the second wettest winter and the second worst harvest on record have all been in the last three years. Given that this report did not find evidence for scoring a single outcome as “Good” in terms of adaptation delivery, and little evidence of change, can I seek the Minister’s reassurance that the Government have heard the very urgent calls for action without further delay, and that the Minister accepts that this must serve as a turning point in our approaches to adaptation delivery?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Earl is absolutely right. The Committee on Climate Change said:

“There is … unequivocal evidence that climate change is making extreme weather in UK, such as heatwaves, heavy rainfall, and wildfire-conducive conditions, more likely and more extreme”,


and the points he raised are absolutely right. We take this report very seriously. We have been in office 10 months, and we are reflecting on the specific points that the committee has made, area by area. By law, we have to respond by October, and I assure the noble Earl we will take this seriously and give a serious response. As I said earlier, this will lead into the work that we need for the NAP4, starting in 2028.

Energy Prices: Energy-intensive Industries

Earl Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath)]

My Lords, I of course recognise the challenge that high energy prices pose for UK businesses. I am very well aware that the Urgent Question in the Commons related to a ceramics company in the potteries, Moorcroft. Let me say at once that my thoughts are with all those workers affected, and I know that Ministers are working very hard with the company and the industry to talk through some of those issues.

I say to the noble Lord that the structure we have in relation to energy prices is the same as the one his Government left when they left office last July. We know that the main reason why we have high energy prices is our reliance on international gas and oil markets, which related back to the shock to the system from Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. We believe as a Government that the faster we move to decarbonise, the more we can provide energy security and cheaper energy, and that this is the best way to go forward. If anything came from the previous Question about the advice of the Climate Change Committee, it is that we cannot afford to let go or slow down in relation to climate change. We do not have that luxury; we need to press on.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, our industrial energy prices are too high and our transition to net zero must not come at the cost of specific industrial sectors. The Minister has noted that the original Question in the Commons was in relation to our pottery industry. It is clear that the energy supercharger is helping, but what more can be done to make sure that it is helping all our industries? It is also no secret that the Government are looking at energy market reform in our domestic sector, so can the Minister say what action is being taken to help with industry’s energy costs? What thoughts have the Government had about setting up a permanent independent body to advise the Government on the complex matters involved in the energy market reform policy?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is of course right to refer to the energy supercharger: £470 million is being contributed towards helping companies which are major energy users. Obviously, we look at the scheme and at whether any changes should be made, but as regards energy market reforms, we are certainly looking at a number of issues in relation to the electricity market. We are looking at issues to do with zonal pricing and the rebalancing of the cost of electricity and gas. But these decisions are not easy and there will be gainers and losers, so we have to take this very carefully. The ultimate answer to the noble Earl’s question is that we need to decarbonise as quickly as possible. That will give price stability and certainty to industry.

Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind and Solar Generation) Order 2025

Earl Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the persistence of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on this subject and to how she has carried this end of Parliament on a number of occasions.

I normally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on an awful lot of things but I do not quite agree with her here. I spent most of my bank holiday break in an EV in Yorkshire, and I was delighted at how easy it was to recharge it. It was the first time for quite a while that my wife and I had been on a long journey in an EV. The difference in the charging network was absolutely amazing. I praise the previous Government’s EV charging policies as much as I praise the present Government for achieving that, but I recognise —from the Cornwall aspect—that there is a challenge here for really rural areas, and certainly when tourists come to our areas.

I wanted to contribute today to say that I very much welcome this SI and the move to go back properly to onshore wind. It is an important way in which our landowning and farming communities can diversify their income.

I turn to the limit on solar. On every solar farm I have visited in the past few years, I would ask the owners, “What is the energy capacity of this?” They would say, “It’s 49.5 megawatts”, because they do not want to trip over that barrier into the national planning scheme. So I welcome the fact that this SI will make that a lot easier.

However, the one question I would like to ask the Minister—this was raised by the Opposition Benches in the earlier debate on energy security—concerns warehouse roofs and commercial roofs. I am a great supporter of solar but, like me, many people ask, “Why are we not managing to have many more solar applications on existing commercial, industrial and car park roofs?” I recognise that there are often different owners—there is the landlord, and then there is the company that occupies under a lease—so the relationship between owners for commercial buildings is never easy. However, I say this to the Minister: it cannot be beyond the ability of the Government to find a mechanism to incentivise that to happen. It would get huge plaudits from all sides of political opinion if we managed to achieve that. It would also help with the understandable reservations that there sometimes are around the agricultural use of solar, by showing that the right things are happening in other areas too.

I would be interested to understand from the Minister when the planning regime—as we know, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is in the other place at the moment —will become law, as it surely will. It may be amended in various ways as it passes through both Houses, but might it affect this matter in any way?

I very much welcome this SI and hope that we will see a rejuvenation of onshore wind. As I often say, from my own house, I can see—the last time I counted, at least—between 30 and 40 wind turbines. I live on a hill and, to me, they are part of a living countryside. There are right places to put them and there are wrong places to put them; we should leave it to local authorities to decide what those are.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak in favour of this order. I thank the Minister for outlining its purpose.

The Liberal Democrats have always championed renewable energy. For too long, this country has suffered from the failures of the previous Conservative Government to invest in clean power and to insulate our homes, contributing directly to the energy crisis and leaving householders and businesses facing soaring bills. The vast majority of people in this country want more action on climate change. That is why we welcome this instrument as another important step in supporting the deployment of onshore wind and solar, which are both crucial to achieving the Government’s mission for clean power by 2030.

We are particularly supportive of the lifting of the effective moratorium on onshore wind. This was a deeply short-sighted and irresponsible policy, introduced via the planning changes in 2015 and 2016, which created a de facto ban in England. This ban limited deployment and caused the pipeline of projects to shrink by over 90%, with less than 40 megawatts of onshore wind generated during this decade. The reintroduction of onshore wind projects of over 100 megawatts into the nationally significant infrastructure project regime is crucial. The order reverses those damaging policies and places onshore wind on the same footing as other generation technologies such as solar, offshore wind and nuclear power stations. This provides an appropriate route for large-scale projects and offers greater certainty to industry.

Similarly, we support the decision to raise the NSIP threshold for solar projects from 50 to 100 megawatts. This change is needed in part due to technological advances in solar panels and aims to ensure that applications are processed efficiently through the appropriate planning regime. The previous threshold incentivised developers, as we have heard, to cap their capacity below 50 megawatts to avoid triggering the NSIP process. Raising the threshold should incentivise projects to develop on a more optimal and efficient scale and to ensure that mid-sized projects access a more proportionate planning route via local planning authorities. What assessments have been made of local planning authorities’ capacity and funding requirements to take on this extra work? They must be adequately resourced and supported to handle the influx of potentially larger-scale solar projects.

While we support the ambitions to streamline planning for major projects, concerns remain. The NSIP regime involves decisions made by the Secretary of State, and some respondents to the consultation expressed concern that this process might overly centralise decision-making and bypass local authorities and communities. This is particularly pertinent when considering large projects that can have a significant impact on local landscapes and communities. It is vital that the Government strike an appropriate balance between building nationally important infrastructure, protecting our precious landscapes and ensuring that local communities have a meaningful say. This Government must do more to work in partnership with local communities and ensure that they benefit from the infrastructure that they host—more “working with” and a bit less “doing to”.

How will the Government ensure that local voices are genuinely heard and their concerns addressed in the NSIP examination period, particularly for onshore wind? Can the Minister provide more detail on timelines for these frameworks and assure us that they will ensure that the balance between deploying renewable energy, protecting nature, ensuring food security and considering where best to locate projects is effectively struck?

Finally, the decision to set the solar threshold at 100 megawatts aims to avoid artificial capping and incentivise optimal site sizing. The impact assessment mentions monitoring and evaluation plans, looking at whether projects are clustering below the new thresholds and whether planning timelines for projects have increased. Can the Minister confirm how the planned post-implementation review and ongoing monitoring will assess whether the 100-megawatt thresholds are achieving the desired efficiency and optimal site sizing? All these projects will require timely grid connections, and I encourage the Government to support agrivoltaics.

Other noble Lords spoke about the need for more solar on rooftops and in car parks; for example, France generates 5% of its electricity from car parks alone. The Government may want to look at an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill on that. I very much welcome signs from them that new homes will have solar panels installed. There are issues around the way that some of the warehouses have been designed; they have not been built to take the weight of solar panels.

These legislative changes are a necessary step, but successful implementation requires careful consideration of local impacts and ensuring that our planning system is robust and balanced and takes communities with it.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I apologise to the Minister for missing the first moments of his speech, but as somebody who was taken to a tribunal by those who do not believe in climate change for daring to suggest that we had in effect banned onshore wind, I feel very strongly that this is an ideal moment to say how important onshore wind is.

Near to where I live in Suffolk, in the town of Eye, which I used to represent in the old Eye division, there is some onshore wind. When it started, an awful lot of people opposed it; they thought it was going to be very ugly and did not like it. Now it has become iconic. Recently, I was pleased to see—this Committee’s chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, will be interested in this—that an attractive ballet was put on using it as the background, showing a wholly different way in which people have accepted it.

I get very tired of people who are very much in favour of having electricity themselves but complain about its expense, which is the cost of gas, and then are opposed every time to having any further renewable electricity. We ought to be supporting this and seeking ways to introduce onshore wind, wherever that is suitable. There are places where it is not suitable; that is perfectly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, rightly said.

Onshore wind and offshore wind need to be linked to the national grid system, but I hope the Government will recognise that the best way to get support for that is always to find the most appropriate way and try to avoid unnecessary pylons—then you can honestly say to a community: “I’m afraid that here there is no alternative”. I hope that people will recognise that, if we spend a great deal more on the distribution of electricity, the only people who will pay for it are the customers. We have to get that balance right. I hope that the Government will look more closely at alternatives and be able to show why they choose pylons.

On what my noble friend Lady McIntosh said, I have to say that it is not acceptable. It is no good; we will have to take electricity from where we make it to where we use it. If people want electricity, that is what we have to do. Frankly, there is no connection whatever between this and what happened in Spain. The constant desire to write down what is so essential to us seems to me very sad.