National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

Debate between Lord Spellar and Lord Whitehead

Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I disagree with the noble Baroness. The recent episode showed that, even in relatively new circumstances of extreme heat—rather than the more normal issue of energy margin certificates being issued because of the effect of cold and winter on the system—the system stood up to it very well and managed to make sure that customers were not deprived of their power. As I said, the system was maintained to run at between 49.5 hertz and 50.5 hertz at all times. That is a sign that the changing nature of the system will be able to deal with these issues very well in the future.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister address the concern that the NESO inquiry is being conducted by a firm of City lawyers rather than electrical engineers? That gives the impression that the allocation of blame and legal liability is seen as more important than the integrity of the system. Is not part of the current problem that the privatised companies save money by running a lower margin of capacity than the old Central Electricity Generating Board? That, along with the changing patterns of demand and supply, make the system less stable and more vulnerable. What is the Minister doing about it?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

Many things are being done alongside the changing nature of the system to make sure that it retains its resilience and ability to supply power on a no-failure basis. These include continuing to build out the grid, and bringing forward ancillary services, new forms of artificial inertia, long-duration storage and many other new instruments that the system will have to make sure that it continues on a stable and reliable basis. On the whistleblowers, yes, the investigation team will be led by a law firm, but it will report to a review panel consisting of the chair of the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, the shareholder non-executive director and the Ofgem director-general. That is entirely in line with making sure that whistleblowers’ interests within the energy delivery system are properly protected.

National Emergency Plan for Fuel

Debate between Lord Spellar and Lord Whitehead

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

Yes, indeed I can assure the noble Lord that that is the situation. It is what is set out in the national emergency plan for fuel, particularly in terms of the kinds of interventions that can be deployed in a fuel emergency, ensuring that the least invasive measures are carried out first. As the noble Lord will know, there are circumstances in which the military could be involved in making sure that fuel gets to the right destinations and that it is carried and delivered securely and reliably. That is all in the national emergency plan for fuel—a plan that we are not intending to implement at the moment because the circumstances envisaged by that emergency plan are not in place.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister assure us that steps are being taken to ensure that we have adequate storage for fuel and gas? The situation that the Government inherited was certainly unsatisfactory for gas and, given the unstable international environment, we clearly need much more reserve capacity to provide resilience.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to raise storage and resilience. As far is gas is concerned, we have reliable supplies from a range of sources. Most notably, 43% of our supplies come from UK fields. A further 20% comes from Norwegian fields, some of which can be landed in the UK only when it has come from the fields. Only a small percentage comes in from LPG and other tankered arrangements. The question of supply, therefore, is about supplementing those secure supplies with a reasonable amount of reserve facility. That is indeed in place, in terms of eight reserve supply arrangements, as well as the development of the former Rough field in the UK for gas supply purposes.

COP Climate Negotiations: Cities

Debate between Lord Spellar and Lord Whitehead

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Baroness will be aware of what the UK Government have done to support cities in the COP negotiations. There are, as we might say, good COPs and bad COPs. COP 28— a particularly good COP—was the occasion of the UK support for, and promotion of, the CHAMP pledge, the Coalition for High Ambition Multilevel Partnerships, which involves cities centrally in what is happening in COP negotiations in future. The Local Governments and Municipal Authorities Constituency, the LGMA, is the official body as far as COP is concerned, but the UK is committed to making sure that the C40 cities group—which, after all, is led now by the Mayor of London, Sir Sadiq Khan—will play a central role in COP negotiations in the future.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, will there not be greater support for these measures from the citizens of those cities and towns in the UK if they can see the benefit coming through to them in their work? What steps are the Government, and those towns and cities when they are commissioning work, taking to ensure that, whenever possible, the work is sourced from the United Kingdom, unlike so many cities that are, for example, buying buses from China with all the other attendant issues?

Net Zero: Civil Society and Faith-based Organisations

Debate between Lord Spellar and Lord Whitehead

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will be well aware of the tremendous amount of work that needs to be done on the infrastructure changes to bring about net-zero energy for the future. Of course, that entails bringing forward new infrastructure—which, by the way, the previous Administration completely fell down on in terms of the green transition—but that needs to be done, in terms of the theme of our discussion today, with the involvement of local communities and local areas in getting that new infrastructure in place in a satisfactory way. The question of undergrounding or otherwise of cables for the future is something that clearly needs to be considered, as does the overall benefit of that new infrastructure for those communities in terms of bringing their bills down, bringing clean energy to their communities and making sure that the green transition is carried forward as best as possible at local level.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

I commend the Minister for his favourable mention of government/publicly owned Sheffield Forgemasters and its role in the small modular reactor programme. Could he therefore reassure the House that the vessels for the first-in-class modular reactors, which we are funding through Rolls-Royce, will in fact be built at Sheffield Forgemasters and not shipped in from overseas?

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

As I think my noble friend will be aware, we are in the process of developing a first modular nuclear reactor with Rolls-Royce. Considerable progress has been made in that development but as yet no decisions have been taken about exactly where the components of that new modular reactor will be built, subject to the general commitment that the highest possible percentage of the components for small nuclear reactors, and other parts of the nuclear programme, will be sourced in the UK. Certainly, it will be the Government’s intention to make sure that that commitment is met to the greatest possible degree.