Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

“is very difficult to decarbonise”

but that it is

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

The sector fears that,

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

leading to higher costs.

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, which were absolutely up to the rather technical nature of this SI—although I would say that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, managed to take in a large landscape on the whole question of whether a decarbonisation policy is good or not. I suggest that that debate is for another day because we are talking about some specific changes that are being made to a specific policy.

That policy relates, of course, to an overall adjunct to decarbonisation policy in general, which is to secure a good carbon price to underpin moves towards developing a more sustainable, low-carbon, green economy based on making sure that fossil fuels are at the margins of the energy economy, rather than at the centre of it; and that incentives are put in place for that to happen and for the economy to run on low-carbon energy in general.

If the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, considers that a bad idea overall, perhaps he might say so; he has moved a little way along that path. I do not think that the Bank has yet cashed in all its good will, but we need to set one or two things straight about how that relates to this SI. The free allowances that are presently in place for a number of energy-intensive industries that are in danger of carbon leakage as a result of low-carbon policies are being continued for 2026 but are being tapered down—not because the Government think that they are a terrible idea and that we ought to stop giving out free allowances but because we are on the road to CBAM, which is in itself a comprehensive shield against carbon leakage.

Having a series of free allowances running alongside a CBAM arrangement would therefore duplicate the protections that are, and should be, in place. Having a mechanism that enables the CBAM process to come into place, while making sure that the industry has the free allowances it needs to move towards CBAM, seems a very sensible thing to do to keep the overall low-carbon energy show on the road in the longer term. I have not heard from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, whether he thinks that CBAM is a bad idea; the industry generally thinks that it is a very good idea.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

The Minister has put two points back to me. First, I have no dispute with that; I think that decarbonising the industrial sector over time is a sensible policy. The problem is that, if you try to accelerate that decarbonisation into 2030 and you must raise electricity prices to the level the Government have done through a carbon tax, you make industry uncompetitive. If you make industry uncompetitive on the altar of long-term decarbonisation, you will have serious employment problems; that precise point was made by an MP in another place in speaking on behalf of ceramics.

My issue, therefore, is not with the long-term decarbonisation of industry; I am totally at one with the Minister on that point. My point is that, if you hurry this along on an artificial timescale of three years, you will have to put up carbon taxes and you will put businesses out of business, in effect, from the moment when they must face these carbon taxes, which are not imposed by their competitors around the world; they may, therefore, find themselves uncompetitive.

I am not arguing against CBAM but I am making the obvious point that, if you then remove these allowances—say you have free allowances of 10 out of 100, and you take 10 of those free allowances away—you have to acquire the other 10 allowances from the market. There is a significant additional cost; that is outlined very clearly in the impact assessment before us today. Indeed, paragraph 18.8 of that document states:

“These factors combined can lead to domestic prices being consistently higher than import prices, enabling substantial price pass-through”.


It is right here in the very document that we have been considering today, and it proves my point about an increase in prices—a significant increase from what are already very expensive electricity prices—that must then be passed through. Also, the nature of that pass- through goes even further than what I have said. Paragraph 18.7 of the impact assessment says:

“The results suggest that most sectors could pass about 80-90% of cost increases to consumers”.


It is the consumers who will feel the pain of this measure; that is the Government’s own clear statement on page 70 of the impact assessment.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

The Government are of course very well aware of the whole question of how energy prices should be kept within reasonable bounds. By the way, the noble Lord went on a bit about gas a moment ago. He should remember his own period in government, when the Government spent something like £70 billion trying to bring prices back down when they had got completely out of control with the spikes in the price of shipped gas coming into the UK, which rose to 600p per therm at one stage in the mid-2020s.

You could say that, because the Government at that time did not control international gas prices in the way that the noble Lord seems to think can be done— I very much doubt that the various measures he is proposing to regulate international shipped gas prices would have the effect on volatility that he thinks they would have—we are still open to that enormous volatility in gas across the world. Indeed, just recently the price spiked quite substantially—probably not to the extent that happened in the early 2020s, but that is a spectre that continues to haunt us with reliance on international gas and not going to a low-carbon economy.

I am on the side of insulating the UK economy from those enormous global changes in gas prices, particularly by moving, broadly speaking, not to a no-gas economy but to a low-gas economy as far as the future is concerned. That will be of tremendous benefit to UK industry and exports, and jobs and industry in general, because we will have a stable energy economy for the future, which will allow us to plan ahead properly without the spikes, volatility and panics that we have seen over the last few years. I think the noble Lord wants me to give way again.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

May I say how flattered I am that the Minister thinks that I was in government on this side of the turn of the century? I must look a lot younger than I thought I did. I have to go back to 1990, to be precise, when I was Minister for Energy and we started the offshore decarbonisation of gas. In fact, we stopped flaring at that time, at the same time as we set up a non-fossil fuel obligation to encourage renewables. We had low domestic and industrial gas prices in the United Kingdom because we encouraged combined-cycle gas turbines. I just wanted to place that on the record, but I say it in a spirit of deep gratitude to the Minister for thinking that I was in government only recently and that I obviously look far too young to have been a Minister in 1990—or perhaps I look far too old.

[Lord Whitehead (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that correction as far as his status in previous Governments is concerned. I was making a point not about his own distinguished period as an Energy Minister, which I appreciate was much earlier and perhaps in a rather happier energy era than we have today, but about the mangled response from the Conservative Government to the last gas volatility crisis in this country, and what resulted in terms of the money going out of the Exchequer for the attempts to protect domestic consumers and businesses from that spike, since he raised it as one of his concerns about this SI.

I ought to add, by the way, that, in the Government’s industrial strategy—yes, we have an industrial strategy, unlike previous Administrations—we announced additional support for 7,000 energy-intensive firms through the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which will reduce electricity costs by up to £40 per megawatt-hour. Through the British Energy supercharger, the Government are increasing support for the most energy-intensive firms by covering more of the energy network charges they normally have to pay. From 2026, the discount on these charges—namely, legacy costs, capacity market feed-in tariffs and so on—will be discounted by 90% from their present 60% level. That is a substantial boost to industry, as far as prices are concerned, by the direct actions of the Government under these circumstances.

I am conscious that I have spent rather too long addressing what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has perhaps wound me up to talk about more than I might otherwise have done. I have to now address the questions that were put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering—who I applaud for being, as it were, on the side of these particular measures and ideas from the other side—and the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

I have, to some extent, covered the questions that the noble Baroness put to me. The first allocation period will be extended to 2026 to ensure that the changes implemented from the free allocation review come into force in 2027, to align with the introduction of UK CBAM. On her questions on bills, emissions trading has been a key element of power sector decarbonisation. Therefore, maintaining a strong UK ETS and, dare I say it, aligning it with the much wider market that we can enter into, for the stability of the ETS, will not be a joining of the EU ETS but a linkage of the UK ETS to the EU ETS. The UK ETS will continue. It has been determined following a recent consultation discussion that it will continue until at least 2040.