Climate Change: Progress

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Krebs]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the publication on 30 April of the report by the Climate Change Committee Progress in adapting to climate change: 2025 report to Parliament, what plans they have to increase efforts to adapt the United Kingdom to the effects of climate change.

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

My Lords, the Government are committed to strengthening the nation’s resilience to climate change. We welcome the Climate Change Committee’s latest report and are carefully considering its recommendations. We will respond formally in October, as required by the Climate Change Act. In the meantime, we are working to strengthen our objectives on climate adaptation and to improve the framework that supports departments and communities in managing the impacts of a changing climate.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. The report from the Climate Change Committee points out that there has been no progress in adaptation to climate change since the previous report. During the eight years that I chaired the adaptation sub-committee, we said exactly the same thing. As Yogi Berra would have said, “It’s déjà vu all over again”. The report also says that the Government have no specific measurable targets or objectives for adapting to climate change. I will ask the Minister about just one area. The report estimates that by 2050, approximately one in four properties in this country could be at risk of flooding if there were no adaptation to climate change. My question is: is this an acceptable level of risk? If not, what level of risk do the Government think is acceptable?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, first, on the substantive point that the noble Lord makes about progress, he will know that we are not yet halfway through the national adaptation programme 3. Therefore, the response to the Climate Change Committee, which is due by October, will very much reflect the work in progress in terms of what we need to do to beef up the current plan and implementation and to look forward to the NAP4, which starts in 2028. We are not complacent; we take the committee’s report very seriously, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and her committee for the work they have done. On the noble Lord’s substantive point on the issue of objectives, I very much accept that that is one of the matters we will be considering over the next few months. Secondly, on flooding, of course the report of the committee and the prediction it has made about the 8 million properties that are at risk of flooding by 2050 is something that no Government could take complacently. He will know that we have already committed £2.65 billion to repair or build flood defences, and of course we will look further into this matter in light of the committee’s report.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Will the Government rule out any new development on functional flood plains, particularly in zone B, which is the most at risk of flooding? If the Minister rules that out, he has a good chance of having more resilient houses in other places. Will the Government undertake not to build on functional flood plains?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not going to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that we are going to rule this out completely. The noble Baroness will know that flood-plain building is possible in the UK at the moment. It is a heavily regulated process with significant planning requirements. We will obviously continue to look very carefully at these issues and whether the requirements are sufficient, but we do not think that a blanket ban is appropriate.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, how much influence can the British Government have on climate change, when many countries are still pumping out more and more gases that will damage the climate? How do the Government assess what we are doing and what other countries are doing?

[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.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, the report points out that one area in which we have actually moved backwards is the resilience of our water system, not least the atrocious situation that we still have in terms of water leakage. Is this not an example of Ofwat and the water companies letting us all down yet again? What will the Government do about it?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to point out issues in relation to water, water leakages and the performance of water companies. He will know that the Government are engaged in considerable discussions about the future of the industry. I have noted that the Committee on Climate Change in its report says:

“Through the reforms to the public water sector, currently being considered by Defra and Ofwat, the next water regulatory settlement … should fund and encourage more ambitious options to get the sector back on track for its demand and leakage reduction targets”.


We will obviously look at that very carefully.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The impacts of climate change and the need for adaptation are often seen in terms of physical structures and infrastructure, but would the Minister agree with me that there are important effects on health and that it is very central that his department talks to the Department of Health about the effects of, for example, the heatwaves, to which reference has been made, and the effects of changes in our and other countries’ climates that mean that we may see diseases that we do not think of as being relevant to the UK here in the very near future?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will be aware that the committee’s report refers to heat-related deaths rising in the UK as a result of what is happening to our climate. Since publication of the national adaptation plan 3 in July 2023, we have taken on board that point. The last Government published the fourth Health Effects of Climate Change (HECC) in the UK report in December 2023, detailing the risks. We have updated the NHS Green Plan Guidance in February 2025, setting out key actions each integrated care system and trust should undertake to strengthen their resilience to climate impacts, and we are very much on the case on this.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, surely in relation to climate change we must be pragmatic in this area and not dogmatic, so my question to the Minister is simply: why do he and his boss, the Secretary of State for Energy, refuse to listen to their closest advisers? Dr Fatih Birol, head of the IEA, says now that investment in oil and gas is required to support global energy security. Tony Blair says net zero is doomed to failure, and Gary Smith of the GMB says the transition to net zero has

“cut … emissions by decimating working class communities”.

Why does the Minister continue to focus on international gas markets when we have an abundance of domestic, cheap, accessible and clean gas under our feet, both onshore and offshore, that would allow us to be energy independent once again and reindustrialise our working-class heartlands? Surely now is the time for the Minister to go back to his boss and tell him to “Drill, Mili, drill”.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, if I may say so, that sounded like a very dogmatic question. The noble Lord would be forgiven for not thinking that, in government, his party passed legislation committing us to net zero in 2050. As for the points he makes in relation to jobs, he will know that, in February, the CBI published a report showing that the big growth in the economy in the last year or two has been in the net-zero green sector and that there are nearly 1 million people now employed in that sector—it is the fastest-growing part of our economy. On the Tony Blair Institute, I am a great admirer of Tony Blair, but I have disagreed with him on one or two issues. The report was a global assessment, and it recommended a particular emphasis on nuclear, carbon capture usage and storage and reform of the planning system; we are doing all of that.

Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind and Solar Generation) Order 2025

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind and Solar Generation) Order 2025.

Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, this instrument, which was laid before the House on 10 March 2025, is another important step in supporting the deployment of onshore wind and solar, which are critical in achieving the Government’s clean energy superpower mission, including clean power by 2030. An effective planning system is key to unlocking the new infrastructure that our country needs to underpin our energy security and resilience. It is important that planning applications are determined through an appropriate planning route that reflects a project’s size, impact and complexity and in which potential issues are identified and mitigated as necessary.

The nationally significant infrastructure projects—NSIP—regime is governed by the Planning Act 2008, where decisions on development consent are made by the Secretary of State for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. The NSIP regime applies to larger projects, with a megawatt threshold determining which energy-generating projects are deemed nationally significant. The NSIP regime provides the largest, most important projects of strategic importance with a single unified approach to seeking development consent, where applications are determined by Ministers balancing local impacts against the wider national benefits. Following submission, an extensive examination period will commence whereby interested parties, including local authorities, people of office and the general public, can make written or oral representations to the examination. This ensures that the voices of communities are heard during the decision-making process.

Until recently, a de facto ban on onshore wind generation in England severely limited deployment. Changes introduced in 2015 saw stringent tests introduced into planning policy alongside the removal of onshore wind generation from the NSIP regime in 2016. These changes set an almost impossible bar to meet, resulting in the pipeline of projects sinking by more than 90%, with only 40 megawatts of onshore wind generation consented and becoming operational in the intervening period.

In July 2024, this Government disapplied those planning policy tests and committed to reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime, reversing the damaging policies of the past decade and placing onshore wind on the same footing as solar, offshore wind and nuclear power stations. As such, through this instrument, onshore wind projects with a generating capacity of more than 100 megawatts in England will be consented under the NSIP regime. The 100-megawatt threshold reflects the advances in turbine technology over the past decade, with modern turbines being larger and more powerful. Reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime will provide an appropriate route for nationally significant projects to seek planning consent where they are of a scale and complexity that can carefully balance local impacts against national benefits and meet the UK’s wider decarbonisation goals. This will provide greater confidence for developers and incentivise bringing forward projects.

Solar has been subject to a 50-megawatt NSIP threshold since it was originally set in the Planning Act 2008. However, much like onshore wind, solar panel technology has seen significant advances in efficiency, enabling a greater megawatt yield per site. Evidence suggests that the 50-megawatt threshold is now causing market distortion. With modern technology, mid-sized generating stations now have a generating capacity greater than 50 megawatts and therefore fall within the NSIP regime. We think this is likely to be disproportionate to their size, scale and impact, and it has resulted in a large amount of ground-mounted solar projects entering the planning system and artificially capping their capacity at just below the 50-megawatt threshold, leading to the potentially inefficient use of sites and grid connections. Therefore, this instrument raises the NSIP threshold from 50 megawatts to 100 megawatts for solar to ensure that mid-sized projects have access to a more proportionate planning route via planning authorities, which should incentivise those projects that would otherwise have capped their capacity to develop to a more optimal and efficient scale.

The Government are also mindful that mid and large-scale solar and onshore wind projects are preparing to enter the planning system and may have already invested and undertaken preparatory steps with the expectation of entering a specific regime. Changing the NSIP at short notice could result in projects entering a different regime than expected, with the potential to increase costs to developers or cause delays.

Therefore, the instrument also makes transitional provisions for onshore wind and solar projects that are already in the planning process when this order comes into force. These provisions will ensure that projects already progressing under one legislative regime will not be required to move to a different regime as a result of the order.

Through consultation, the Government sought views and supporting evidence on reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime at an appropriate threshold and revising the existing threshold for solar. We received a range of responses; most respondents agreed with the proposed approach of reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime, with a majority in favour of a 100-megawatt threshold. While we initially consulted on a 150-megawatt threshold for solar, based on further assessment and analysis of consultation responses, we concluded a 100-megawatt threshold would be more appropriate and better reflect modern technology.

In conclusion, we see this instrument as being another important step in delivering clean power, supporting the deployment of onshore wind and solar and establishing the UK as a clean energy superpower. It supports an effective planning system that will ensure that applications are processed efficiently through the appropriate regime and will avoid distortionary effects on deployment. These measures ultimately aim to support future energy security and resilience alongside our 2030 goals and wider decarbonisation targets. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the contents and the wishes of the department in this document. Personally, I am very disappointed that we are where we are. I am a veteran of pylon applications; I was fortunate enough to be elected to the Vale of York in 1997, where there was already a long line of pylons going through the heart of the Vale of York to be joined by another, even bigger, line of pylons within a matter of months of my election. We were promised that the original line of pylons would be removed because it was thought that both would not be needed and they are, of course, unsightly.

I prefer the situation we had under the outgoing Conservative Government.There was virtually a moratorium on onshore windfarms for a number of reasons. The Minister is potentially going to see a great deal of discontent from residents and communities along the route of the overhead pylons will inevitably follow, particularly onshore windfarms. To take the example of offshore windfarms, there are three stages to the application process. When there is an application for an offshore windfarm, everyone thinks, “Oh great, that won’t affect me out there at sea”. Then the second stage of the application is for a massive substation to bring the electricity on land. The third, and completely separate, stage of the application is that suddenly—hey presto—we are going to have overhead pylons to feed the electricity into the national grid. How many applications does the Minister think will fall under this new decision-making regime where onshore windfarms will be decided by the Secretary of State? How many lines of pylons does he envisage will follow on from the applications? Will his department come forward and dictate that these overhead wires should be converted to underground wires?

Alternatively, does he accept—he knows that this is a theme I have pursued quite religiously with him over the past few months—that, if an onshore wind farm is built in, say, the north of England, or in Yorkshire more specifically, the electricity generated will serve the local community? It is colder in North Yorkshire than in many parts of the rest of the country, and we have a distinct lack of electric vehicle charging points. If an onshore wind farm will be built, I see absolutely no reason why the electricity generated cannot serve the population living locally.

I regret the statutory instrument in the department’s name that the Government feel is appropriate or necessary. Solar farms of the size that the Minister is talking about—those of 100 megawatts—will take the decision out of local communities. Again, I would be interested to know how many he envisages there will be. His department, DESNZ, will not lead to many des reses. We will not have many desirable residences along the routes of these overhead pylons. In the case of the solar farms, how will the electricity generated—presumably in the gift of the Government—enter the national grid to feed into the hungry south, leaving the rest of us in heat poverty in the north?

With those few remarks, I regret that the statutory instrument was brought before us. If we learn one thing from the massive outage in Spain, Portugal and parts of France last week, it is that we are becoming completely too reliant on very unreliable sources of energy—sunshine and wind—because the sun does not always shine, and the wind does not always blow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. However, we are now dealing with a moving landscape and we have an accelerated programme on decarbonisation, which goes beyond what was set previously with the target for 2030. This is critical. This road map is critical to that, and so I am right to question whether these targets are real. They are moving around; they seem to be moving on an arbitrary and accelerated basis. I think it is relevant to ask the question about how these targets are moving, as the order as it stands risks damaging both the democratic process and the long-term success of our energy future.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been a really interesting debate. First, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that her views are not surprising, as she has managed to convey this to me over the last few months. Interestingly enough, I was interested in the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about EV chargers in Yorkshire because, as the noble Baroness knows, we had an Oral Question about electric vehicles two weeks ago. When I said that we were making progress in rural areas, she gave me the sort of look that suggested that she did not really quite take my point. But we are making progress; certainly, by 2030, we expect to see many thousands more chargers available, including in rural areas. I take the point, and I am not seeking to disagree with the general thrust that, to make this really work, we need to have chargers available to people in rural areas. But we think we are making progress.

On the onshore wind applications, we estimate—and I cannot commit to this—that there could be one or two projects per year entering the NSIP regime.

We do understand that pylons are not going to be popular. The issue, as always, is that undergrounding is much more expensive. The figures that we have are very rough estimates, but they indicate that under- grounding is perhaps five to 10 times more expensive. As part of the trade-offs that we see in this area, I am afraid that we will continue to have to use pylons.

On whether onshore wind energy will serve local communities, one of the benefits of lifting the de facto ban and allowing onshore wind projects to build again in England is, of course, to ensure that clean, homegrown energy is being produced closer to centres of demand. In our various debates today, we touched upon REMA, the review of electricity markets arrangements; of course, we are looking at one of the options for zonal pricing, which we are considering alongside other options for reform of the national wholesale market, but it would strengthen locational operational signals in the electricity market.

By implication, the noble Baroness raised the issue of cumulative impact; she mentioned in particular offshore wind leading to substations then grids. We are commissioning NESO to develop a strategic spatial energy plan, which will, in one case, support a more actively planned approach to energy infrastructure across England, Scotland and Wales, both at land and at sea. It will do that by assessing and identifying optimal locations, quantities and types of energy infrastructure required for generation and storage across a range of plausible futures. The first iteration of the SSEP is due for publication in late 2026. That is not a direct response to the noble Baroness, but it shows an understanding of what she is saying.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, has talked to me about Suffolk and Sizewell; I will not tempt him to intervene, though I fear I may have just done so. I met local authority leaders in Suffolk last week to discuss their issues with cumulative impact. One issue is about different operators bringing separate applications that conflict, as well as the challenge that a local authority has in dealing with both that and the accumulation. It is something that we well understand.

The capacity of local planning authorities is of course an important consideration. Local government has concerns and challenges around this; again, Suffolk local authorities raised the issue with me. There will be a review of resourcing in key organisations across the planning system to determine whether they are suitable for handling an increased number of projects in the coming years. I should say that these issues also relate to my own department, because of the national applications that the Secretary of State has to consider, as well as to Natural England and the Environment Agency. If we are to reform the planning system in the way we wish, these matters need careful consideration.

On local concerns, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is clearly right that this will allow more applications locally because the bar will be raised in relation to the areas I have talked about. As the Planning Minister in our department, I see the projects that come through for national consent; they are extensive in setting out the examination process, in which communities have extensive engagement opportunities. I want to make it clear here that, for the applications that come through the NSIP programme, we ensure that local views are taken into account by decision-makers.

On post-implementation monitoring, the impact assessment sets out a number of metrics that will monitor this legislative change, including the volume of applications coming forward; the size and scale of projects; and the average cost and times of receiving consent. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for what she said and for her work in this area. It is nice to see that the Government are coming forward with proposals that are very much in line with her previous amendment.

On the issue of warehouse roofs and commercial roofs, and the earlier discussion about new housing, my understanding is that this is a matter for building regulations. There is discussion across government in this area, and I cannot go any further than what I said earlier this afternoon: we clearly see the potential here and we want to take advantage of it.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A, and do propose Amendment 2B in lieu—

2A: Because it would alter financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

2B: Clause 3, page 2, line 18, at end insert—
“(e) measures for ensuring that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in its business or supply chains.”

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

My Lords, I will also speak to Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. It is good to welcome the Great British Energy Bill back to your Lordships’ Chamber. I again thank all Members of this House for their continued scrutiny of this important Bill.

We are here to discuss specifically the issue of forced labour in Great British Energy’s supply chain—something that I have been adamant, throughout the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House, that the company will tackle. As I have stated in previous debate, we expect Great British Energy not only to abide by but to be a first-in-class example of adherence to the UK’s existing legislation and guidance. That is demonstrated by the commitments made by my colleague, the Minister for Energy, in the other place.

Great British Energy will appoint a senior individual dedicated to providing oversight to ensure ethical supply chains. I am delighted to confirm that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, one of Great British Energy’s non-executive directors, will take up that role. Her role as chair of the House of Lords Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee positions her extraordinarily well to lead on the issue, ensuring robust practices across Great British Energy in tackling forced labour.

In addition, my officials are working to ensure that the statement of strategic priorities outlined in the Bill, which will be published within six months of Royal Assent, will include an overarching expectation that Great British Energy proactively works to deliver on these commitments.

I think the House will also be pleased to hear that the cross-departmental ministerial meeting with my department, the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will convene for the first time in May to accelerate work across government to tackle forced labour in supply chains across the whole economy. To underscore the Government’s commitment, a letter will be sent to all FTSE 100 companies following the aforementioned meeting to communicate our expectations regarding responsible business practices, including on modern slavery.

I turn to the amendments. Amendment 2B, tabled in my name, relates to Clause 3 and makes clear that addressing forced labour in Great British Energy’s supply chains is within the scope of the objects of the company. I recognise the breadth of concern across Parliament on this issue—I pay tribute in particular to the outstanding work of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in this area—particularly on how Great British Energy will tackle forced labour in its own supply chains.

That is why the amendment has been tabled. It makes clear that Great British Energy is committed to adopting measures so that it can act on any evidence of forced labour in its supply chains, as we would expect of any responsible company. The amendment will strengthen our existing framework and demonstrate the commitment of both Great British Energy and the Government to maintaining supply chains that are free from forced labour.

To ensure the effectiveness of this approach, GBE will respond to and take action on any identified issues or concerns that arise relating to forced labour, including any raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The amendment is in addition to the expectation that Great British Energy is to be a sector leader in tackling forced labour, as will be outlined in the statement of strategic priorities. These measures will ensure that Great British Energy can and will prioritise doing everything in its power to remove instances of forced labour from its supply chains.

I turn to Amendment 2C, to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will speak in a moment. I thank him for taking the time and effort to develop and table his amendment and for the continued engagement I have been able to have with him over the weeks since this Bill left your Lordships’ House. The Government wholeheartedly agree on the importance of tackling modern slavery in energy supply chains and are committed to tackling the issue.

I recognise the drafting skill of the noble Lord in bringing the original amendment, the wording of which is remarkably familiar to me. I think the amendments are very much in the same frame, but the reason we have come forward with our own wording is that officials looking at the language of his amendment have identified one or two issues. First, the language suggesting

“the eradication of goods and services”

is unsuitable as it may be interpreted as the physical destruction of goods or services. We think the focus should be on ensuring that Great British Energy takes all reasonable measures to develop energy supply chains free from forced labour.

I can assure the House that following positive discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we accept that Great British Energy’s role in tackling forced labour in its supply chains could be made explicit in the Bill’s objectives, and that is exactly why I have tabled my own amendment.

In conclusion, I am very grateful to noble Lords who have taken part on this issue. Again, I particularly acknowledge the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We have listened very carefully to what noble Lords have said. I believe the amendment I have brought accords with the principle of the debates that we have had in your Lordships’ House, and I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome the Government’s decision to listen to the constructive challenge from this House and improve the Bill by ensuring that Great British Energy supply chains are not associated with modern slavery in China. I give my thanks and gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. Without his careful consideration and persistence in raising this issue, we would not have achieved such a positive change to this legislation.

The amendment to the Bill serves as a simple yet essential safeguard. It ensures that public funds will not support companies tainted by modern slavery in their energy supply chains. The UK has stood against forced labour and exploitation for many years. If this Government are serious about their transition to clean energy, which they refer to as being just, we must ensure that Great British Energy, as a publicly backed entity, operates to the highest moral and legal standards.

There is clear precedent for this approach. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires companies to take responsibility for their supply chains. Yet we know that modern slavery remains a serious issue in the global energy sector, particularly in sourcing solar panels, batteries and raw materials such as lithium and cobalt. If there is credible evidence of modern slavery in a supply chain, public funding must not flow to that company. This is a basic ethical standard. It is also a matter of economic resilience, because reliance on unethical supply chains creates risks for businesses, investors and the public. Therefore, this amendment strengthens the integrity of our energy policy. It aligns our economic ambition with our moral obligations, and it sends a clear message that Britain’s clean energy future must be built on ethical foundations.

To conclude, I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the many other noble Lords who supported him in securing this powerful victory. This positive change to the Bill serves as a testament to the integral role of this House in scrutinising and ultimately improving legislation.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Offord, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I totally agree with the point that we have reached what I call a strong consensus around this issue. I am grateful to noble Lords for supporting the process of reaching agreement across the House and in the other place.

I will reconfirm what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said: he has met the chair of Great British Energy, Jürgen Maier, who has stated that, as a publicly owned company, it is only right that GB Energy is an exemplar of ethical and moral supply chain practices. That must be the answer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, when he pondered whether we were putting GBE at a disadvantage. I understand the point that he is making, but I prefer to see this in a positive light: that GBE will be an exemplar and, I believe, will influence the market to the good. I am therefore confident that we will not have the potential problem that he has rightly identified.

Wales: Nuclear Power Generation

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jones of Penybont]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to develop nuclear power generation in Wales.

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

My Lords, we recognise the significant contribution that Wales has made to British nuclear power and value the experience and skills within the industry in Wales. We are committed to new nuclear, and I welcome interest in new projects in Wales. We have just consulted on a new nuclear planning framework, EN-7, which sets the criteria for development at previously designated sites, as well as empowering developers to identify new locations.

[Lord Jones of Penybont (Lab)]

My Lords, some weeks ago in this House, there were questions about the reluctance of the Scottish Government to approve new nuclear power stations. Now, I am not here to defend the Scottish Government—thankfully—but I can say that, despite the full support of the Welsh Government, the last UK Conservative Government failed to deliver the new reactor at Wylfa B. Given that, will the Minister give an assurance that a more positive approach will be taken to any new applications at Wylfa and Trawsfynydd to avoid the empty rhetoric of the past?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend and congratulate him on his outstanding leadership in Wales, particularly for the support from the Welsh Government for new nuclear. As far as Wylfa is concerned, I know that it is considered by many to be one of the best potential sites in the UK for new nuclear development. We will set out our plans in due course but, as a Government, we are strongly committed to nuclear energy as an essential baseload to our future mix.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, if the Government are serious about developing nuclear power with urgency in Wales, will they please take a twin-track approach, with priority being given to those sites which already have nuclear accreditation, such as Wylfa and Trawsfynydd, which the noble Lord mentioned, being developed as quickly as possible for climate and energy purposes, and for any other new site, which may need brand new planning safety approval, to be seen as a possible future site geared to economic growth objectives?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I take the noble Lord’s point. EN-7, on which we are consulting, gives us a much more flexible policy on siting, but those sites identified in the current planning statement, EN-6, clearly have very favourable attributes, and this is where I think Wylfa has to be considered. His overall welcome support for new nuclear is to be acknowledged and welcomed.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, some of us have been talking to the main SMR producers this very morning. Their general message is that wait, delay and obstruction are their findings in dealing with the British Government, unfortunately. They are waiting for site sales to be settled, for the GDA and DCO processes to be accelerated, and, obviously, for the government lead that they all need. They say that they could produce earlier, by years, than anything that could come from Sizewell C or other, larger developments. They point to the facts that they could do it without government money and that the order books are rapidly filling up in all other countries. There really is a sense of urgency if our nation is to reach our desirable goals on reliable, affordable energy. Please can the Minister get on with the job?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with the last statement by the noble Lord, but I do not agree with what he said. The Government are very focused on development of new nuclear. He knows that, in relation to small modular reactors, we have a process by Great British Nuclear, which is going through a detailed series of negotiations, with final decisions to be made over the next few weeks. We were bequeathed that process by the Government that the noble Lord supported. His party did not open a single nuclear power station. I can tell him that, as far as SMRs are concerned, I have been to many fora discussing this with companies. They are clearly awaiting the outcome of the GBN process, and we will make progress following that.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Penybont. The Minister needs absolutely no reminder from me of how important Wylfa is to the people and economy of north Wales, but, since the Government’s own calculations say that the delay is costing £90 million a year in lost revenues and lost opportunities in the supply chain and others, can he tell me what steps the Government are taking to prevent further delays at Wylfa?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I think I have said that we will set out our future ambition for plans in due course. We have focused very much on getting Sizewell C over the line, and we hope a final investment decision will be made over the next few weeks. We have the SMR programme, we are very keen to see the development of AMRs as well, and we will set out our ambitions in due course. But there is no question about our commitment to taking this forward; we took the decision in 2007 to go back to nuclear. What is so disappointing is that the last Government had 14—it is all very well for noble Lords to shake their heads, complaining about what I am saying. They do not want to hear the facts. They had 14 years to sort this out, and they did not.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, in the light of the outage in Spain and Portugal over the last 48 hours, are not devolved and diffuse sources of clean energy absolutely crucial to our security? What measures will the Government take on the back of what is happening in Spain and Portugal to ensure that we can disconnect from the grid if need be in order to maintain sources across the country?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

We have to be very careful in drawing any conclusions about what happened in Iberia in relation to our own situation—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I do not think we know the causes of what happened yet, so it is a bit early for noble Lords to start speculating on what direct relationship it has with this country. But I agree with what my noble friend says, that we want diverse electricity sources. That is what clean power is going to give us. We are going to have a number of renewable energy sources, we have nuclear as our baseload, we have gas, hopefully with carbon capture, with the ability to switch it on and off, and we will have clean, homegrown power. That is the way to energy security.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, the Inter-Ministerial Group for Net Zero, Energy and Climate Change met in March and issued a communiqué. The four Governments of the UK were represented there, the UK Government being represented by the Minister for Energy. In the section entitled “What was discussed”, four items are named, but nuclear energy is not one of them. However, it says that they talked about what would be mentioned at future meetings. This seems an ideal opportunity to discuss something which is at the core of net zero. Is the Minister able to comment on that and give an undertaking that, at future meetings of this important interministerial group, this will be on the agenda?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, that is a very good point indeed. Of course, one has to face up to the fact that the Scottish Government are not in favour of new nuclear development, despite the rich heritage there, and despite how much of Scotland’s electricity at the moment comes from nuclear development. But certainly, the noble Earl is absolutely right to say that, in these kinds of discussions, the role of nuclear is very important, not just for what it provides but for the growth it can bring to our economy, very highly skilled jobs and a lot of infrastructure investment as well. So the case for nuclear is very strong indeed.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, the Welsh Government are clear that the development of Wylfa has the potential to be the single largest investment project in Wales. I welcome the response the Minister has given, saying that work will be done on this in due course, but could he be clearer on what “in due course” means? Can I push him further? Will serious consideration be given to using these sites for either long-duration energy storage or for data centres if the Government decide that they are not fit for future nuclear?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very wary of getting into detailed speculation about the future of Wylfa. Clearly, it has great potential. I am not prepared to define “in due course”, but I can say to the noble Earl that we recognise the urgency of the situation in giving certainty to the market about our level of nuclear ambition going forward over the next 10, 20 or 30 years. On the issue of AI data centres and the links to AMRs, we very much recognise the potential there; we are discussing that with developers, and we are also looking at our regulatory system to ensure that it is fit for purpose in relation to that kind of development.

Transport Decarbonisation Plan

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to revise the transport decarbonisation plan.

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

My Lords, the Government are committed to decarbonising transport in support of our national mission to kick-start economic growth and make Britain a clean energy superpower. We will encourage the rollout of electric vehicles and work to reduce emissions from shipping and aviation. The Government will produce a plan later in the year for reducing emissions from all sectors, including transport, in line with our legislated carbon budgets.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer. Freight is a key area. Will the Government encourage low-carbon investment and give business certainty by urgently bringing forward a clear regulatory road map to decarbonise heavy goods vehicles?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we are looking at the regulatory system around heavy goods vehicles; the noble Baroness will know that HGV decarbonisation remains a challenge, with issues in relation to higher upfront costs and limited charging and refuelling infrastructure. We have a number of initiatives to tackle this, and some improvements are being made. I also very much take her point about the incentivisation of a shift away from HGVs. She will be aware that the Department for Transport operates two freight revenue grant schemes to encourage modal shift from road to rail and water.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree that green hydrogen power has an important part to play in transport decarbonisation. Can he set out, perhaps by writing to me, what support his department and the Department for Transport can give to innovative companies such as Clean Power Hydrogen in Doncaster in developing transport innovation to assist in achieving net zero?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend is assiduous in her promotion of Doncaster as a place where much innovation takes place in the decarbonisation area. I am very happy to pass that on to my noble friend Lord Hendy. I should say that we think that hydrogen does have a potential role to play in decarbonising heavier applications, such as aviation, shipping and some buses and heavy goods vehicles. I take my noble friend’s point and am very happy to arrange the opportunity for this to be discussed further in government.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, the key next step in decarbonising the aviation sector will be the broader development of sustainable aviation fuel. To ensure that we have a SAF industry in this country, the Government are rightly building on the work done by the last Government in taking forward plans for a revenue support mechanism. That will, of course, require legislation, and a SAF Bill was in the King’s Speech. Can the Minister give us an idea of when that Bill will come before Parliament?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, no, I cannot give a specific answer, but the noble Lord makes a very important point. He will know that international aviation comes within the calculations in relation to carbon budget 6, so we need to take decisive action in this area. We have the SAF mandate, which he has referred to. For 2025, the overall trajectory is set at 2% of total fossil fuel jet supplied; this will increase annually to 10% in 2030 and 22% in 2040. We are building on what has gone before and taking it very seriously.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to invest further in the national cycle network? Cycling was heavily promoted during the Covid period but seems to have gone backwards since then. It is an important part of decarbonisation. How can we move it forward?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is such a pleasant surprise to hear some Member of your Lordships’ House speak positively about cycling, in place of the usual diatribe that we hear from noble Lords on that subject. I am a little biased in this area, as noble Lords will understand. I know that the Government are talking to UK cycling bodies, and we have ambitious plans on active travel. On 12 February, we announced details of almost £300 million of funding over 2024-25 and 2025-26 for local authorities to provide high-quality and easy, accessible active travel schemes in England, but I very much take and support the point that he raises.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, what conversations has the Minister had with the management of Nissan UK, which has said this week that government energy policies are making motor manufacturing unsustainable and that the most efficient Nissan factory in the world is now under threat of closure?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have not personally had a conversation with that company, but clearly the Government collectively are in earnest discussions with important motor manufacturers. On the question of energy prices, I say to the noble Lord that I very much regret his party’s retreat from net zero. The last thing that we need to do is fixate on fossil fuel. The international market in fossil fuel prices is vulnerable after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has caused the problem of high prices. We need to move as quickly as possible to clean power, because that is the way for stable pricing and the assurance that companies need.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the ways of reducing the emissions from heavy goods vehicles is to use fewer of them and send the goods by rail. What is my noble friend’s Government doing about electrifying some of the rail network, which would enable much more freight to go by electrically hauled locomotives as rail freight and reduce the number of heavy goods vehicles still using diesel?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. As my noble friend Lord Hendy has referred to the House over the last few months, updated plans are being developed by Network Rail for where and when electrification is required to deliver a fully decarbonised railway system over the next 25 years. I should also say that the Government are supporting the development and deployment of battery technology through innovative trials, because this has application in relation to railways as well.

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I have been told the Department for Transport will not classify hydrogen-powered internal combustion engines, which are the only way of dealing with the heavy transport—large lorries, earth-moving equipment and stuff like that—as being net zero. Europe and America apparently take the opposite approach, as you can easily filter out the NOx, which is the problem. Should not the Department for Transport look at this again, so that we can join the future modern world in terms of heavy earth-moving equipment?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very happy to refer the noble Earl’s comments to the department. I repeat that, while in the main battery electric remains the dominant zero-emission technology for cars and vans, we think that hydrogen has a role in relation to heavy goods vehicles. I am certainly happy to refer his point to the department.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, in his original Answer, the noble Lord referred to rolling out electric vehicles. Will he look at the situation in rural areas, where there is a dearth of electric charging points, with a view to mandating them going forward to ensure that there is a bigger take-up of EV vehicles with access to these charging points in rural areas?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, in relation to charge points, the reckoning at 1 April 2025 is that there are over 76,500 public charge points in the UK. There has been considerable progress in the last few months and years. The recent National Audit Office report on the state of the charge point rollout found that we are on track to deliver the 300,000 charge points that we anticipate we will need by 2030. In relation to rurality, there was strong growth in rural areas in 2024, where charge point numbers increased by 45%. I know that the noble Baroness thinks that we need to go further, and I take the point. We are making considerable progress now.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that not only do we need as much clean public transport as possible—for example, buses—but that they need to go to the right places at the right time and with the right frequency? I was recently in a bus station in Perth, where I noted that there was an electric bus going every 15 minutes from there to Glasgow and back, 24 hours a day. In relation to the new towns, which were the subject of the previous Question, is it not just as important that the residents of those new towns have access to clean public transport as to places of employment?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, absolutely, the noble Baroness makes an important point. In 2024, more than 50% of new buses registered were zero- emission. Progress is being made. She will know that the Government, in the bus legislation that is going through, are very focused on improving bus services generally, but embracing low-carbon buses is important in that.

Grangemouth Oil Refinery

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bryan of Partick]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of Project Willow in securing the Grangemouth oil refinery and the jobs of the skilled workers currently employed there.

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

My Lords, Petroineos’s decision to cease refining at Grangemouth is deeply disappointing. The Government have stood with workers from the outset. Alongside the Scottish Government, we announced a £100 million Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal package to support the local community. We launched Project Willow to find an industrial future for the site, identifying nine low-carbon business models that could create 800 jobs by 2040.

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply and for the commitment to the future of Grangemouth. The Project Willow report was paid for by the UK and Scottish Governments but was prepared

“solely on the instructions of Petroineos”,

the current owner of the site. Jim Ratcliffe, the billionaire majority owner of Ineos, is adept at getting Governments to pay for his projects while his company, and he personally, keeps the profits. The nine projects suggested in Willow offer a blizzard of possibilities when what is needed is a clear project that can be implemented as soon as possible. Will the Minister consider fast-tracking sustainable aerospace fuel, along the lines of the proposals from Unite the Union?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and of course I am very much aware of Unite’s proposal to transition Grangemouth into a sustainable aviation fuel plant. We are very grateful for the input from Unite and will continue to engage with the union. I have to say, though, that I think the Project Willow approach is the best way forward. It evaluated over 300 technologies and identified nine potential technologies. We have £200 million available from the National Wealth Fund to invest. The focus at the moment is twofold. One is to give support to the workers who are going to lose their jobs. The second is to encourage private investors to look at these proposals. We have the National Wealth Fund, with £200 million to invest, to act as an incentive and we are working very hard in relation to that.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my role as chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee. What will be the process by which the preferred option or options will be chosen out of the nine front-runners identified by Project Willow? To what extent will the Circular Economy Taskforce be involved in the decision-making?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, Project Willow set out nine potential developments. The most near-term developments include hydrothermal plastic recycling, dissolution plastics recycling and ABE bio-refining. On the question about the task force, I will certainly discuss with my colleagues the ability of the task force to input into this. Clearly, in terms of decision-making, the key thing now is to find investors for those projects. Clearly, the National Wealth Fund, with the £200 million that it is going to make available, will play an important role in that.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, the closure of Grangemouth is indeed a tragedy for the UK, and even more so for Scotland and for the 400 highly skilled jobs that are being lost. Of course, we know that this is what is referred to as the transition as we go from hydrocarbons to renewables, but, if you talk to the folk in Grangemouth, the problem, they say, is that this just transition is not very just. Indeed, if you talk to the folks in Aberdeen, they say that the just transition is not very just, as we now have data that shows that the transition of jobs from the North Sea oil and gas fields to renewable wind farms is running at 58%, and that jobs that were previously paid at £55k are now paid at £35k. So I ask the noble Lord to consider the patronising language of this just transition. Will he please go back to the department, drop the concept of a just transition and perhaps introduce a new concept called an affordable transition?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord is being unfair. Of course we want to see workers who are being displaced by changes in the industrial sector being helped and supported as much as possible, with additional training to enable them to accept good jobs in other sectors. At Grangemouth, a support facility is being made available, with training need analysts for each worker, and I gather that 300 such employees have already requested to take advantage of that. There are open evenings, career fairs and direct engagement with local employers.

As for the North Sea, I just make the point to the noble Lord that, although he has an obsession with gas, the fact is, as he knows, that the UK continental shelf is a declining basin. In the last 10 years, 70,000 people lost their jobs under the stewardship of the Government he served. I did not see much effort there by that Government to establish programmes to provide good jobs. We are at the early stages. We are working very hard. The green energy sector, including nuclear, has huge opportunities and we need to do everything we can to ensure that skilled workers being displaced in some areas of the energy sector are given every opportunity to take up new roles.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Given what the Minister has just said, is it not important that the sorts of skills, advice, training and support that he has described for Grangemouth are available much more widely if the transition is to take place effectively—and justly—in other areas? What plans are there to bring in the skills passporting programme that we have argued for for many years, as well as the specific training that will be needed?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I take the point, although I think it is right that we have some specific measures in relation to Grangemouth. I also think it is right to refer to a 2023 report by the CBI, which showed that there was a 9% increase in the green economy that year compared with 1% overall, and 950,000 people are now working in what could be described as a net-zero green economy. These are often very good, very well-paid jobs. We have a number of regional skills hubs. In the nuclear sector, we have a separate nuclear task force taking work forward in relation to this. The challenge we face is that, over the next few years, we need thousands more people to come into the low-carbon energy sector. We are doing everything we can, working with industry and with further education, to ensure that that happens.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, there are reports that, because of a loophole in the key energy scheme, Petroineos will get a windfall payment of £6 million. Rather than going to the multimillionaire Jim Ratcliffe, surely this money should be used for the retraining of the workers who are going to lose their jobs.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, obviously we should look very carefully at any loophole that may have been identified. I should make it clear that Petroineos has said that it has invested $1.2 billion since 2011 to maintain Grangemouth’s operation, recording losses in excess of $775 million during that period. Unfortunately, that is clear evidence that Grangemouth is not a viable commercial proposition.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, the closure of Grangemouth will make us more dependent on imports, as will the Government’s policy of not giving licences to extract shale gas or new licences for oil in the North Sea. The Government think that we can cope with being less dependent in normal times—I do not agree—but surely the Government must accept that there may come a time, in an emergency, when we will need to exploit our own resources. So why are the Government, on Saturday, cementing in the only successful shale wells on land in Lancashire, meaning that we will not be able to take advantage of them in future? Is that not an act of vindictive vandalism?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

So why then did the party opposite, when in government, not allow fracking to take place? It is pure hypocrisy to attack us for a decision that we have made firmly that we will not allow fracking to take place. I take the point about energy security and reliance on imports, but I say to the noble Lord that the UK Government are required to hold stocks of oil as a member of the International Energy Agency. At the end of January 2025, we had the equivalent of 130 days of net imports, substantially higher than the required 90 days set by the IEA. There is no complacency here at all: we of course keep that under very close review and energy security is always going to be our number one priority.

Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 4 March be approved.

Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, this instrument, which was laid before the House on 4 March 2025, forms an important part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that energy-related products are sustainable and efficient by enabling new regulations to be enforced as they apply in Northern Ireland. Ecodesign policies aim to reduce the environmental impact of energy-related products by reducing their energy consumption and use of material resources, reducing carbon emissions and saving businesses and consumers money on their energy bills. Energy labelling regulations help better inform consumers and encourage them to purchase more efficient products.

Following our departure from the European Union, Great Britain assimilated its regulatory regime for energy-related products standards into domestic law, which we may in future amend. Noble Lords will also be aware of the agreement reached by the UK and EU regarding the Windsor Framework, which helps to ensure the flow of trade within the UK internal market by removing trade burdens and safeguarding Northern Ireland’s place in the union. It allows Northern Ireland to maintain dual market access by continuing to apply EU rules with respect to the regulation of energy-related products. We see it as a necessary element of the commitment to keep the enforcement legislation for Northern Ireland up to date.

This statutory instrument is therefore required to enable market surveillance authorities properly to enforce the latest EU rules which apply in Northern Ireland, ensuring legal consistency and fulfilling the UK’s international obligations. The instrument will update both the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products Regulations 2010 and the Energy Information Regulations 2011 with respect to Northern Ireland. These updates will ensure that the specific Northern Ireland tables in the 2010 and 2011 regulations accurately reflect the latest product-specific ecodesign and energy labelling measures and enable these measures to be enforced by the relevant market surveillance authorities.

Seven new EU product regulations will apply in Northern Ireland. The ecodesign regulations include: smartphones, mobile phones, cordless phones and slate tablets, which will be regulated for the first time; fans driven by motors with an electric input power between 125 watts and 500 kilowatts; household tumble dryers; and local space heaters. The energy labelling regulations cover household tumble dryers. The ecodesign regulations seek to improve the energy efficiency of all products, while new energy labelling regulations reflect new labelling standards.

Repairability and recyclability of products has been included for the first time under EU ecodesign, and certain energy labelling regulations, to ensure further sustainability and benefit consumers. The statutory instrument will extend the current ambulatory references to EU measures in the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products Regulations 2010 and the Energy Information Regulations 2011 for Northern Ireland. This will ensure that these schedules continue to reflect the most up-to-date versions of these EU ecodesign or energy labelling measures in force, whether amended or replaced, while minimising the need for further updates to the enforcement regulations.

The requirements updated by this instrument will not restrict manufacturers’ ability to sell into the EU or Northern Ireland, unless they are not willing to meet the EU’s regulations. The EU’s higher standards are likely to become the industry default, and we can assume that manufacturers are likely to choose to meet those standards. If this is the case, the measures will have no impact on traders who abide by the relevant standards.

Since in Great Britain we will look to achieve higher product efficiency, it is very likely that Great Britian will seek to attain similar standards. As such, we will consult as soon as possible on the merits of mirroring the new EU regulations, with the first of these, on tumble dryers, expected to be launched shortly. Our intention is to apply the measures on a UK-wide basis to maintain the smooth functioning of the UK’s internal market and because we share similar goals on product energy efficiency. Our consultations will be on the appropriate means to achieve this aim.

I acknowledge that we are currently on a journey, reflecting on the benefits and processes of such regulations. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for their initial scrutiny of this statutory instrument. This included their reflections on how these types of instruments should be handled. I reiterate our commitment to continue to publish Explanatory Memorandums on EU regulations, consistent with our commitments to Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I recognise that issues relating to Northern Ireland and protecting its continued status as an integral part of the United Kingdom’s internal market are important to Members of this House, just as they are to the Government. We take these matters seriously, and we are determined to act in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland and in line with the international agreements that reflect the status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. I commend these regulations to the House.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

It is crucial that we strike a balance between ambitious environmental goals and the economic realities faced by businesses and consumers. We must ensure that these regulations are not only effective in promoting energy efficiency but also fair and manageable for all affected parties. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response and clarification on these important concerns.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting debate on this statutory instrument for their contributions. I also note also the thanks from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, to my noble friend Lord Coaker and the Secretary of State for Defence in relation to the JR position, which I am sure is much appreciated by them.

Obviously, I have listened with great care to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Morrow, in relation to the Windsor Framework and the interrelationship with the EU. I also listened with care to the input of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and his assessment of the framework. As he said, despite the frustrations it has also brought achievements.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was very supportive of the Windsor Framework, but suggested there were some issues that needed consideration. We will look with great interest at the outcome of the independent review by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the work of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, mentioned evidence that has recently been given to that committee.

On the issue of our response, consultation and the Select Committee’s recommendation on how we should handle such instruments in the future, we are committed to publishing further changes through parliamentary Statements to both Houses. I recognise that issues relating to Northern Ireland and protecting its status as an integral part of the United Kingdom’s internal market are important to the Members of the House, as they are to me and to the Government.

I said in opening that we are on a journey. We will very much reflect on the comments that have been made by noble Lords in the debate. We are very much committed to the Windsor Framework, but we want to make sure that it operates as effectively as possible. I do not ignore the comments of noble Lords who are not in favour of the Windsor Framework, but there is no doubt that we need to look at the way it operates and see where there can be improvements. I hope noble Lords will not think that I am rejecting the tenor of the remarks made about seeking to improve the way we do these things. My department is committed to doing that.

The ecodesign and energy labelling laws will update the pre-existing enforcement regime in accordance with what was agreed in the Windsor Framework. If we do not update regulations with respect to Northern Ireland, market surveillance authorities would not be able to enforce the law and we would then risk breaching our obligations under the Windsor Framework. We think that consumer products, ecodesign and energy labelling go hand-in-hand with providing consumers with valuable information, enabling them to make an informed choice and eventually driving the market towards more energy-efficient products.

I have listened to the comments about consumer information and awareness. I will take that back to the department in relation to making sure that as much information as possible about the implications of these regulations is made available to members of the public in Northern Ireland. Of course I take that point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, raised an important point on consultation. The issue here is that, under the terms of the Windsor Framework, Northern Ireland remains aligned with EU single market rules for certain goods and maintains access to this market. As such, these new regulations automatically apply in Northern Ireland under Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Of course, the substantive changes being discussed were adopted by the EU in 2023 and April and July 2024.

The fact is that we are fulfilling our obligations by making sure that we can then legally enforce regulations as they apply in Northern Ireland. We are committed to the UK internal market and we wish to support Northern Ireland’s place in it. I repeat: the work of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, which will examine how to strengthen the role of Northern Ireland in the Windsor Framework, clearly has very important work to do, and we will study its outcome very carefully. As a department and a Government, we would obviously wish to support the new committee in carrying out its functions. As I have said, the independent review from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, will also be of great interest.

I understand what noble Lords have said about consultation. I should say that the Government did carry out extensive assessment of these delegated EU Acts as they came forward over the past couple of years. Obviously, much of that work was done by the former Government, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, suggested. Notwithstanding the Windsor Framework and disagreement about it, we believe that Northern Ireland consumers are likely to benefit from the changes being introduced in terms of lower operational costs. The new smartphone regulations are an area where there is no current equivalent regulation already in place in Great Britain, but the regulation promises potential benefits for both consumers and businesses. Obviously, that is the point of us looking at the benefits of adopting similar regulations in Great Britain.

On the impact on Northern Ireland, which the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey and Lady Bloomfield, in particular referred to, the previous Government published Explanatory Memoranda on these regulations when they were adopted by the EU between 2023 and 2024. An Explanatory Memorandum was prepared but not published due to the timing of the general election and then the dissolution of the scrutiny committees. But more detailed internal department analysis in relation to tumble dryers has indicated that consumers in Northern Ireland would benefit from lower operational costs and improved repairability. We will set out the detail of the benefits for all UK consumers in mirroring tumble dryer regulations for Great Britain. We will shortly publish an impact assessment, alongside a forthcoming consultation, to mirror tumble drying standards for Great Britain. We will commit to consulting as soon as possible on mirroring the rest of the regulations in GB. Through this, we will be in a stronger position to evaluate impacts.

On the specific detail on tumble dryers, I am not sure I can answer all the questions that the noble Baroness raised, but we are aware that the EU’s regulation is a significant change from that in Great Britain. Only tumble dryers featuring the most efficient heat pump technology, which also makes them more economical in terms of running costs, will be allowed on the EU market. The EU’s regulation estimates saving €1 billion in user expenses by 2030 and a reduction of 10 terawatts of electricity by 2030. We are looking to consult on similar savings in Great Britain.

I am assured that, if the noble Baroness is planning a shopping trip to Scotland, she would not be arrested for buying a tumble dryer in Great Britain and bringing it back to Northern Ireland. I hope that reassures her.

On whether businesses operating in Northern Ireland will have to follow EU standards, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked, yes, of course there is a consequence from these regulations applying in Northern Ireland. This SI is about providing the relevant market surveillance bodies with the means to do that in accordance with the Windsor Framework.

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, mentioned extended ambulatory references. The current legislation already includes ambulatory references to automatically cover when EU measures are amended. The instrument extends this to cover when the EU measures referred to are replaced. That ensures that the schedules continue to reflect the most up-to-date versions of the EU ecodesign or energy labelling measures in force, whether amended or replaced, while minimising the need for further updates to enforcement regulations. We will none the less continue to publish Explanatory Memoranda on new EU measures.

To come back again to consultation, during the creation of this statutory instrument, officials consulted counterparts in the Northern Ireland Executive and the relevant market surveillance authorities. Officials in the Northern Ireland Executive were also consulted on the creation of Explanatory Memoranda commissioned under the previous Government, so we are aware of the product-specific regulation covered by this SI—I think that it was mostly done by the previous Government. Let me be clear, too, that the SI is only about updating the Northern Ireland enforcement regime to reflect the new EU measures, which will automatically apply in Northern Ireland by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, asked about market surveillance. It will be done by the Office for Product Safety and Standards in Northern Ireland, as for the rest of the United Kingdom. I have heard the points made about alignment, but I have to say that these matters in relation to Great Britain will be considered on a case-by-case basis, which is how the Government are approaching them.

I suspect that I have not answered all the specific questions, and I shall look through Hansard and follow this up with letters to noble Lords, but I hope that I have shown that the Government are engaging with Northern Ireland in an appropriate way and that we will reflect on these processes in the light of this debate and the report of the Select Committee. We look with great interest at the work of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee and the independent review of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. I hope that noble Lords will feel that we are dealing with these matters, controversy and disagreement though there may be in relation to the Windsor Framework, as sensitively as possible. These measures will bring advantages to consumers in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

Did I correctly hear the Minister say that he committed to the Government making a parliamentary Statement at each point when legislation changed automatically? I am grateful to him for confirming my point on the automatic updating of UK domestic legislation without any further parliamentary procedure, but on the point of how it is notified, could he confirm that that is indeed the case?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, what I think I said was that, in line with the scrutiny committee’s recommendations, we will commit to publicising future changes through a parliamentary Statement to both Houses.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, first, I thank everyone who has taken part in what seems to have become a fairly regular late-night discussion of a statutory instrument that goes slightly wider than the specifics. I also want to say a genuine thank you to the Minister, because he has certainly made us feel that he has been listening and that he will take back some of the points that have been made, when perhaps sometimes, in the busy schedule of all Ministers and officials, they do not get the detail of what is causing so many problems. I genuinely hope that he has learned something —I do not mean that he does not know what he is talking about, but I hope that he has learned a little more tonight about some of the very strong feelings.

My crucial point is that I never seem able to get Ministers, Opposition Front-Benchers, and certainly not the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrats, to actually say that they want to see changes to the Windsor Framework. They keep saying—the noble Lord has said it again tonight—that they are committed to the Windsor Framework. Yet, time after time in this House, we hear of all the things that are wrong with the Windsor Framework and how it is not working.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, will be a strong supporter of the Windsor Framework, as he has since the beginning—until, perhaps, there have been changes in all sorts of ways. We cannot ignore the realities of what is happening to the principle of it. As we have more such SIs and more discussion of them, I hope that we will finally get the Government and Opposition to recognise that this is not sustainable and cannot go on. In any kind of discussions with the European Union, the Government must put first and foremost the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a unifying force—as something that needs to be unified.

I will quickly remind people of all the other little things to do with the Windsor Framework that are just so annoying. There is the pets issue—the idea that you have to deal with extra bureaucracy to take your pet on holiday to Northern Ireland. We could not ban the live exports of animals for slaughter in Northern Ireland, and we cannot even get a ministerial answer to how many have gone off to other awful parts of the world to be killed in very cruel situations. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked a question, and he got the answer back that it was a devolved matter, but it was not devolved when the law was brought in.

People are still finding it very difficult to get seeds to Northern Ireland. There are many other issues, such as parcels. Very soon, someone in England wanting to send a present to their relative in Northern Ireland will have to send the parcel from a post office as if they are sending it to a foreign country. That is going to cost the Post Office more, as well, so where will the costs go? Every month, every week, every day, there is something new. Noble Lords need to realise that this issue is not going to go away, and we will continue to come back on it. But I thank everybody once again, and I would like to withdraw my regret amendment.

Heathrow Airport Closure: Resilience and Security

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I refer to my interest in the register as chair of the National Preparedness Commission.

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

My Lords, I extend my sympathies to all those affected by what happened at Heathrow. I also wish to praise the efforts of all the people who worked so hard to get Heathrow up and running again. The Government work continuously with industry, regulators and other stakeholders to improve and maintain the resilience and security of energy infrastructure and to minimise the risk of unplanned outages. Alongside Ofgem, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State commissioned the National Energy System Operator to carry out a review to investigate the power disruption to Heathrow. Once we have all the information, we will be best placed to understand any wider lessons to be learned on energy resilience and security for critical national infrastructure.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply, and I share his comments about the work put in to restore supplies. Some 30 years ago, the IRA had a credible and viable plan to bomb a whole series of substations around London to deprive London of electric power. It was thwarted only through the efforts of MI5 and the Metropolitan Police. Although it now appears that the fire was nothing to do with malicious action, it has demonstrated how significant substations are. What steps are being taken to ensure that substations around the country are properly secure against malicious actors?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his work, particularly the work of the National Preparedness Commission. The matter he raises is very important. The Government take the protection of energy infrastructure seriously. We continually work with industry and the regulators to ensure that proportionate security measures are in place at key sites. In relation to what happened, the cause of the fire is still under investigation, and that is why we need to ask NESO to investigate the situation thoroughly. If there are lessons to be learned more generally relating to the issue my noble friend has raised, of course we will take them very seriously.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

May I link the previous Question that the Minister has just answered with the current one about security? Is it true that, in this dash for installing green energy, solar panels and heat pumps, the vast majority of these bits of kit are imported? How is it possible to guarantee that our energy infra- structure in coming years will not be covered in a whole load of Chinese chips? Are we in danger of following in the erroneous footsteps of the Germans when they sold their energy soul to Russia for cheap energy and paid for it wholesale later?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, that is a bit of a stretch from the Question, but I congratulate the noble Lord on his method. We of course look at the issue of Chinese ownership and involvement in the energy sector. We take security risks very seriously. Equally, we take a consistent and long-term strategic approach to managing the UK’s relations with China. On the development of a UK supply chain, I agree with him. It is worth making the point that, even with solar, much of the value of work in installing it is held in the UK, and other parts of the energy sector are too. We are very keen to see the growth of a UK supply chain generally.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, when the substation caught fire, the Heathrow authorities decided that they needed to reconfigure all their internal electricity network, thereby turning off and back on again all the critical safety and computer systems, despite the fact that two other substations remained available to Heathrow. Does the Minister agree that it is important that both the inquiries that have been announced seek to understand why the Heathrow authorities felt that they were unable to transfer from one substation to another without restarting their computer systems?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, my understanding is that, in Heathrow’s view, the supply was insufficient to ensure safe and secure operation. Therefore, it proceeded to reconfigure its internal electricity network to enable the resumption of full operations, utilising the other two external supply points. This required hundreds of systems to be safely powered down and then safely powered up, with extensive testing. The Kelly review will analyse all the relevant material concerning the robustness and execution of Heathrow’s crisis management plans and the airport’s response. The review that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has commissioned from Ofgem will be looking at the issues of energy, the power outage and what lessons we have learned. We will have discussions with Heathrow to make sure that the terms of reference give us a comprehensive picture.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, it has become apparent over the last couple of days that Heathrow had submitted evidence to the environment committee of the House of Commons regarding the overrating of power requirements in that area, saying it felt that the net-zero pathway was not helping that. We are adding EV charging and heat pump requirements to the network on a daily basis, but not really doing the proper jigsaw puzzles to make this work. Ultimately, the responsibility has to be with Heathrow Airport for not having a back-up supply. I note that data centres in that area, which are hugely energy hungry, have back-up, and they never go out of power.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure those are things that need to be looked at and reviewed by Heathrow, and more generally in relation to the grid and network connections, which I think is part of the question the noble Lord raised. We recognise that, in moving to clean power, we need to strengthen both the grid and the network locally. We will be looking at these matters. We have had reports from the National Infrastructure Commission recently. NESO’s work and advice have led to the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, which sets out proposals on how we are going to reform the grid and expand it to meet some of those issues.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, last week’s events surely demonstrate how urgently we need strong regional transport infrastructure to complement and supplement airports in and around London. To that end, I am deeply grateful to the Government for their public commitment to the reopening of Doncaster Sheffield Airport. At the risk of a different stretch, can the Minister reassure the House that the Government will deliver on that commitment by ensuring adequate financial investment to support the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority and the City of Doncaster Council in getting flights off the ground once again?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, that was a nice try but I am afraid I am not going to respond in the way the right reverend Prelate might wish—although, if we are talking about regional transport hubs, I hope that this year we can celebrate the reopening of the Kings Heath station in Birmingham.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, do the Government accept—I think this is less of a stretch—that one lesson to be learned is that Heathrow’s lack of contingency and resilience plans means that a third runway is not feasible?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not take that point at all. Clearly, Heathrow had a resilience plan. One of the points of the investigations is to see how effective it is, and we are mindful of the impact the closure had on thousands of people. The noble Baroness knows that the Government believe that we need to expand Heathrow. It is a hugely important asset to the United Kingdom, but we have to make sure that any expansion is in line with our legal, environmental and climate obligations.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, on the subject of resilience, businesses and local councils, such as Ealing and Hounslow in west London, have long raised concerns about a lack of capacity and resilience frustrating their plans for growth. As I am sure my noble friend the Minister is aware, this was highlighted by the National Infrastructure Commission’s recent report on electricity distribution networks, in which it cited network constraints in west London brought about by the otherwise welcome installation of data centres—as we have already heard. Does my noble friend agree that we need to reverse the hopeless record on infrastructure investment by the previous Government and invest in a decent, future-proof grid which can cope with better growth for Heathrow and with homes and businesses in west London?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right; this Government are having to invest huge amounts into the infrastructure, which was neglected by the party opposite for years. He is right about the National Infrastructure Commission. It produced a report in February that said that, with demand for electricity set to double by 2050, the current pace of additional investment in the country’s electrical distribution networks needs to double. We are giving that earnest consideration.

Energy Prices

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sikka]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to control energy prices.

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

My Lords, the Government believe that the best way to protect bill payers and to mitigate the energy price spikes that we saw in 2022 is through our mission to deliver clean power by 2030. Under the default tariff price cut, Ofgem has capped the profits of energy suppliers in the retail market. In addition, the Government are reviewing Ofgem’s role to ensure that it is a strong consumer champion.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the reply. We need a glimpse of reality here: between 2020 and 2024, the UK’s 20 biggest energy companies made an operating profit of £483.4 billion—yes, noble Lords heard that figure correctly—which is a major cause of social problems. Steel, shipbuilding and engineering industries are struggling, 6.1 million households are in fuel poverty and 110,000 pensioners a year are dying in fuel poverty. The Government have three non-mutually exclusive policy options: price controls, public ownership, and worker-elected and consumer-elected directors on company boards. What proposals would the Minister like to offer for ending profiteering in the energy industry?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his support. The issue of prices is of course serious for both business and domestic customers. That is why we have the warm home discount and the support given to businesses that use energy intensively. Clearly, this is a continuing issue that will be solved only if we can wean ourselves off the international gas markets, which we are going to do by moving towards clean power. I just say to my noble friend that Ofgem does in fact cap the profits of energy suppliers in the retail market; they are capped at 2.4%.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we have some of the most expensive electricity prices in Europe, just at the point when our citizens need to turn away from fossil fuels to run their cars and heat their homes. I know that the Government are looking at electricity market reform, particularly zonal pricing. Will the Government work on a cross-party basis to develop those plans? When do they feel they will be in a position to bring forward legislation?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot give a definitive date for future legislation, as the noble Earl will understand, but he is right about market reform. We are considering fundamental changes, including zonal pricing. I understand that the previous Government looked at marginal pricing when they started their work but decided not to make any changes. On input, I would be very glad to meet with the noble Earl to discuss his proposals.

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised by my question: what price tidal power?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it depends on whether tidal power can offer value for money. I recently met with a number of developers who are interested in developing tidal power. I understand their passion and the potential, but we must ensure that it provides value for money. However, the door is open to further discussions.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The market for electricity in this country is obviously a very complicated one, but Ofgem made it clear in the announcement of the recent price increases that the link with international gas prices is influencing the current rise in the cost to consumers. Can the Minister assure me that, as we move to that clean power system, the REMA review that he mentioned will look at whether delinking the overall UK market from the price of natural gas internationally would be in the best interests of consumers?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, that is an interesting comment, and the noble Baroness is of course absolutely right. Our problem is that we are tied to international gas prices, and noble Lords who are fixated on our using even more gas need to consider the implications of that. We are looking at how future gas market networks would work in a situation where gas is used much more infrequently. On marginal pricing, the more we use renewables, the less we are concerned about the international market. The contract for difference limits enable us to pay the renewable developers at a price that has already been agreed, rather than worrying about what the international price market will be.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister is always reminding us from the Dispatch Box that our electricity is the most expensive in the OECD. He blames international gas markets for that, but our European neighbours are subject to the same markets and seem to have cheaper electricity. Take France, for example. Our electricity is 80% more expensive than France’s. Why is that? It has a more balanced energy system, and it uses nuclear for its baseload. It is a simple fact that just shy of 50% of our electricity bills is comprised of green levies, subsidies and network realignment. I ask the Minister to slow down. Can we now just take some time to reflect, and reassess this mad dash to renewables by 2030? Please let us not put all our eggs in one expensive and fragile basket.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord at all. I remind him that our electricity market structure and its reliance on the international gas market is an inheritance from the last Government, and the highest prices we had were under the stewardship of the last Government. In getting ourselves off these international market prices, going to renewables and using nuclear as the essential baseload, we can grow the economy and give ourselves security. I totally disagree about the speed; we need to do this as quickly as we can.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, do we not depend on high-priced gas because we rely on it when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine to make our renewables work? The answer therefore has to be to invest more in energy storage, which I think we are doing, to strengthen international grid links so that we can gain supply there, and to invest for the long term in nuclear power.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on all of that. I am glad that he mentioned the importance of nuclear energy as our essential baseload. With Sizewell C, the SMR programme, the opening of Hinkley Point C and the advanced modular reactors, we have the opportunity to have an excellent industry in the UK to give us low-carbon baseload energy.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, the best way to reduce the costs of energy is by not needing so much of it. Is the Minister strongly pressing his colleagues in government to get the Future Homes Standard out and implemented, so that families who buy new houses know they are not going to have to retrofit and will have low energy bills? When is that announcement going to be made?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

The noble Lord is clearly right that energy efficiency in our homes is necessary if we are going to meet the net zero target by 2050 and hold down the cost for domestic consumers. I cannot give him a date, but I can say that my department is working across Whitehall on the policies we need to enunciate to get going in that area.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, has the Minister noticed that the chairman of Électricité de France has just been sacked and that, understandably, advice has been given to EDF to spend less money on overseas investments and concentrate on power in France? Can he give us an idea of what effect that has on our one major nuclear development, Hinkley, where, of course, EDF is a major player, and on Sizewell C, where it is a minor but considerable player? Is this not rather dangerous, given that nuclear power, along with renewables, is absolutely necessary to get our costs down in future?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have noticed the change in leadership at EDF, and we look forward to having discussions in the future with the new person who has been appointed. EDF has made a major investment in Hinkley Point C and, as the noble Lord says, is an important minority shareholder in Sizewell C. We have enjoyed a good relationship with EDF. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero met with his counterpart in the French Government only a few weeks ago, and we maintain close contact with both the French Government and EDF. We will have to see how this unfolds over the next few weeks, but I am confident that we will see progress towards the opening of Hinkley Point C and a final investment decision on Sizewell C.

UK Energy: Grid Decarbonisation

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of their plans to decarbonise the grid by 2030 on the United Kingdom’s energy security.

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

My Lords, in an era of heightened geopolitical risk, switching oil and gas for home-grown clean energy from renewables and other clean technologies offers security that fossil fuels cannot provide. NESO’s independent modelling confirms that achieving clean power by 2030 is feasible, while ensuring security of supply without increasing costs to consumers, with scope for lower bills.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, this self-imposed target of decarbonising the grid by 2030 is all very admirable but is it realistic and is it achievable? Looking at my national grid app, it is telling me that right now, today, renewables are 43% of the grid and the rest is non-renewables. Noble Lords may have noticed that this is quite a good day for sun and wind, which is why it is at a high number. Last year, the average was 37% from green energy. That is precisely why this is unachievable, and a target that we cannot hit in 2030. In one simple word, it is called “baseload”. In China, they use coal for baseload and in America they use shale gas for baseload. That is why factory electricity is seven times cheaper in China and five times cheaper in the United States. We have abundant hydrocarbons in the UK and we have great nuclear capability. Is now not the time to review this target to make it realistic and, more importantly, affordable for British consumers and businesses?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

No, my Lords, and I very much regret that the Opposition have withdrawn their support for policies taking us towards net zero, particularly in view of the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady May, took the decision when Prime Minister to legislate for the 2050 net-zero target. It is interesting, in relation to China, that the IEA reckons that 60% of the global expansion in renewable energy between now and 2030 will be in China. As for the noble Lord’s obsession with fossil fuels, the reason that we have these high prices, which the party opposite bequeathed to the country, is the unreliability and volatility of the international gas and oil markets. Getting clean power gives us energy security and much more reliability in prices.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest in the register. Can the Minister please update the House on the progress his department is making with banning the imports of Russian nuclear fuel? Importantly, when will it be taking those measures, with all the benefits that will bring for not only energy security but national security and our domestic industries?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this question again. He will know that the Government have committed to prevent the import from Russia of nuclear fuels by 2030. We are discussing whether we could bring this forward. I am afraid I cannot give him any more information at the moment, but as soon as a decision is made, I will let him know.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, since the announcement by President Macron in the autumn of 2021 of the France 2030 agenda, France has been committed to closing the nuclear fuel cycle. This means that it intends to use its uranium more efficiently and to deploy nuclear waste in its reactors. It is motivated by the supposition that, by 2050, the stocks of uranium will be pre-empted by the Chinese and the Americans. What is the Minister’s reaction to this supposition? Is the UK likely to follow the lead of France?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord will know that through Urenco, at Capenhurst, we are investing a considerable amount of money into the HALEU programme to enable us to have the whole fuel cycle undertaken in the United Kingdom. This is good for energy security and good for exports. I understand the point that the noble Viscount makes about uranium. We are confident in the future supply, but I acknowledge his underlying point of the importance of nuclear energy as an essential baseload.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that consumers choosing green electricity as their preferred source of power is a powerful driving force for the increasingly rapid uptake of electric vehicles, for example, given that UK EV sales increased by more than 20% last year? Surely it is far better than relying on fossil fuel generation from unstable regions such as the Middle East and Russia for long-term energy security.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Baroness that the wholesale move to electrification, not just in power generation but in transport, industrial processes and home heating, will lead us to be much more energy secure. We will ensure that we make the contribution we need to make to deal with climate change and we can grow the economy and bring thousands more green jobs to this country.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, there appears to be a contradiction. Certain Ministers are encouraging the farming industry to use as much of the good agricultural land as possible to produce food, and yet other parts of government are hell-bent on having solar panels everywhere, including on our best agricultural land. What exactly is the policy of the Government on this?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not think there is any confusion at all. The policy is quite clear. We value our agricultural land, and the total amount of it that could be used by solar in future, over a considerable number of years, is less than 1%. The noble Lord may have noticed that, on 21 March, only two or three days ago, Great British Energy announced that its first major product will be the solar accelerator, which will enable hundreds of schools and hospitals across England to install new rooftop solar power. We are not just talking about the use of agricultural land. We want to see an expansion of solar, but it can be in relation to schools and hospitals and buildings as well.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, when will the Government make a decision about the awarding of a contract for advanced small modular reactors in this country?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, a process for small modular reactors is being undertaken by Great British Nuclear at the moment. It has undertaken a technology appraisal, tenders have now come in, and I expect that the outcome of the process will be known by the end of spring. That is tied into SR discussions.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, did the Minister note over the weekend the views of Unison and the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, along with the letter sent by a Holocaust survivor to Mr Ed Miliband, all supporting the all-party amendment, which was passed by your Lordships’ House by a majority of 50, saying that there should be zero tolerance for the use of slave labour in supply chains? When Mr Miliband went to China last week, did he raise the use of Uyghur slave labour in the manufacture of solar panels and other green technology? Did he raise the use of child labour in the DRC in lithium and cobalt mining and their use in green technology, including these solar panels?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand the noble Lord’s concern. He will know that the Great British Energy Bill is being debated in the other place in a day or two’s time. I understand the point that he raises and we will look at that letter with a great deal of consideration. We are committed to tackling the issue of forced labour in supply chains, and legislation and guidance are already in place to help businesses take action against modern slavery.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

Could the Minister, who is usually very clear, be a little clearer with us about what is meant by decarbonising the grid by 2030? A number of authorities are saying that that is not what is going to happen at all. A number of gas-generating electricity stations are already being commissioned, and when they are there in 2030, as they will be, they will emit large amounts of carbon dioxide. How is that going to be handled? How is it going to be buried? Have the contracts begun for carbon capture and storage? It does not appear that there is much sign of that.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that we signed contracts in December to launch the first carbon capture, usage and storage project. We expect that, by 2030, clean sources of energy will produce at least 95% of Great Britain’s generation, and gas power generation will be there mainly as a back-up.