PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026 - 27 January 2026 (Commons/General Committees)

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026.

I am grateful to you, Sir Desmond, and to the Committee for their consideration. The draft order was laid before the House on 16 December 2025.

The UK emissions trading scheme, the UK ETS, was established under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020 as a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme contributing to the UK’s emissions reduction targets and net zero goal. The scheme is run by the UK ETS authority, a joint body comprising the UK Government and the devolved Governments. Our aim is to be predictable and responsible guardians of the scheme and its markets.

Under the UK ETS, operators are required to monitor, report on and surrender allowances in respect of their greenhouse gas emissions. While most allowances are purchased at regularly held auctions, operators in certain sectors at risk of carbon leakage are given a number of allowances for free, referred to as free allocations. Free allocations reduce exposure to the carbon price for those sectors at risk of carbon leakage and reduce the risk that decarbonisation efforts could be undermined by production, and the associated emissions, moving to other countries.

Under the UK ETS, an operator is the person or company that has control over an installation. Installations are stationary units at which regulated activities take place. Sub-installations represent operations carried out at an installation in respect of which operators that receive free allocations are required to report activity levels for the purposes of the UK ETS.

We have brought forward this draft statutory instrument to enable important changes and improvements to the scheme. The first change that the instrument makes is to enable operators of installations to be able to notify their regulator that they wish to have their activity data for the 2020 scheme year, or 2020 and 2021 scheme years, excluded from the calculation of their historical activity level for the 2027-to-2030 free allocation period. That is in recognition of the fact that production levels may have been impacted during the covid-19 pandemic. Such operators will be able to notify their regulator during the second stage of the 2027-to-2030 free allocation application, which runs from 1 April 2026 to 30 June 2026, that they wish to have their activity data for 2020, or 2020 and 2021, excluded.

Legal change is needed to the free allocation regulation, because existing legislation would require regulators to calculate historical activity levels using activity data from all five years of the baseline period, or 2019 to 2023. If amendments are not made, there will be no legal basis for regulators to exclude 2020, or 2020 and 2021, data from the historical activity level calculation for any applicant. Using activity data for those years could result in historical activity levels that do not reflect normal activity, meaning that operators would receive fewer free allocations than they would otherwise be entitled to receive.

The second change that the draft instrument makes is gradually to phase out free allocation for sectors covered by the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism, or UK CBAM, starting over the 2027-to-2030 allocation period. That phase-out will be implemented through applying a UK CBAM reduction factor to the calculation of free allocation and will apply at sub-installation level. To do that, operators will be required to report which of their sub-installations serve the production of goods within the UK CBAM, which will enable regulators to apply the UK CBAM reduction factor to the relevant sub-installations. Legal change is needed as operators only classify their sub-installations by a specific benchmark and the corresponding carbon leakage status of that sub-installation. The instrument also requires operators to classify each sub-installation as relevant or not to UK CBAM.

Benchmarks are the efficiency standards used to calculate each installation’s free allocation entitlement. Installations closer to their benchmark have a higher proportion of emissions covered by free allocation, rewarding more efficient installations and incentivising decarbonisation. The third change that the instrument makes is to use current benchmarks for the purpose of calculating free allocation for stationary installations for the 2027 scheme year. The instrument also provides for the ability to update the benchmark values used to calculate free allocation for the years 2028, 2029 and 2030 of the 2027-to-2030 allocation period. Maintaining current benchmarks for the 2027 year will allow time for industrial participants to adjust to the changes.

Legal change is needed to the free allocation regulation because, under existing legislation, there is no provision to update benchmarks during an allocation period. The in-principle intent is to use the updated EU ETS phase 4 benchmarks in the 2028, 2029 and 2030 scheme years. That will be decided once the EU benchmark values are available, and subject to assessment of the impact.

Installations that permanently cease to operate are required to report on their activity in the final year of operation so that free allocation can be recalculated to reflect the cessation of activity. The amendment clarifies that operators are required to report on the activity levels of a sub-installation, whether that is due to permanent cessation, as is currently provided for, or the surrender or revocation of the operator’s permit.

The intended changes follow comprehensive engagement and consultation with stakeholders. The UK and devolved Governments carried out consultations that covered the provisions included in the statutory instrument. The free allocation review consultation ran from 18 December 2023 to 11 March 2024, seeking views on proposals to alter the free allocation methodology for the UK ETS stationary sectors to better target those most at risk of carbon leakage and ensure that free allocations are fairly distributed.

The free allocation review carbon leakage consultation ran between 16 December 2024 and 10 March 2025. It sought views on a draft UK-focused carbon leakage list, compiled by applying UK data to the existing carbon leakage list, as well as the trajectory for phasing out free allocations for sectors that will be covered by the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism. The relevant responses to those consultations were summarised in the authority’s response.

The changes in the draft order will deliver on commitments made by the UK ETS authority, improve the fairness of the scheme and increase certainty for both regulators and operators. They will ensure that free allocation continues to provide meaningful support to UK industry while maintaining the incentive to decarbonise and rewarding efficient installations. The amendments to the UK ETS will support its role as a key pillar of the UK’s climate policy. They demonstrate that we will take action to improve the scheme where necessary. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am sure that Members will have been hanging on to the Minister’s every word, but they may not have made it through the dense forest of governmentitis, so let me be very clear: the measures in the instrument, which will be imposed from 2027, will reduce the supply of free allowances, thereby increasing the carbon tax in this country. That is explicitly stated in the Government’s impact assessment.

Free allowances have been the mechanism that we use to protect businesses such as cement and steel from being undercut by cheaper imported products from countries that do not charge carbon taxes. That has meant that those businesses have not faced higher costs from the tax, and therefore, neither have consumers. Because of the CBAM, the protection is being moved to a tariff placed on imports at the border, which means the free allowances in the domestic UK market are being phased out. Members should be clear that that means the carbon tax will now start to be charged on the production of goods produced for the British market that otherwise had been protected by free allowances, and British consumers will face higher prices as a result.

What does this mean in practice? The carbon tax is paid by industrial businesses such as gas power stations, oil refineries and food manufacturers. The Government make them pay a tax for every tonne of carbon they release during their production. Naturally, those taxes are passed straight through to consumers in higher prices, so if the Government increase the carbon tax they increase the price of basic goods like electricity, petrol and sugar. The Government know that, because in the impact assessment for this legislation they admit exactly that: higher carbon taxes will be passed through to consumers as higher prices—it is in paragraph 18.8 for any Members who are checking. That means higher energy, food and petrol prices.

The Government insist that they need to do this because they have decided to link the UK carbon tax scheme to the EU’s. That was their decision—it was a political choice—and that alone has doubled our carbon tax since the start of last year. We are not talking about a slight increase; we are talking about a tax that has more than doubled in less than a year because of choices made by this Labour Government. Families across the country will have less money in their pockets, not because of an act of God or events outside the Government’s control but because of an active policy choice made by Labour Ministers. Doubling the carbon tax has increased electricity bills alone by £4 billion.

In fact, the carbon tax imposed by the Government now accounts for over £100 per year, or over 12%, of the average electricity bill. The increase is costing the wider British economy an extra £5 billion a year, and the legislation that Labour Members will vote for today will pile more costs on to consumers. The Prime Minister recently said that his priority is the cost of living, but across his Government hundreds of decisions like today’s are raining down more regulations and higher taxes, which are pushing costs up. These are policies that will push rents up, that have driven food prices up and that are landing on people’s energy bills.

The impact assessment accepts that today’s policy will push up energy bills but, extraordinarily for a Government who say that their priority is the cost of living, it does not give a figure of by how much. That is why the Prime Minister will fail and it is why this Labour Government are failing. There is no appetite, or accountability, in his Government for even understanding what these policies will mean for the consumer, let alone trying to act in the consumer’s interest.

Will the right hon. Member give way?

If I am wrong and the Labour party has an assessment for what the order will do to energy bills, perhaps the hon. Member can give us the numbers. I suspect that he will not be able to, but I will happily let him try.

You referred to paragraph 18.8 of the impact assessment.

Thank you, Sir Desmond; I appreciate that, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. Paragraph 18.8 says that the figures in the impact assessment

“should be treated with caution”

because they are

“at the upper end of estimates”.

Does that mean we should “treat with caution” everything the right hon. Member has said?

I think what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that the impact assessment makes it clear that consumers will face higher costs. The question I am putting to him is what that will mean for people’s energy bills. I suspect that is something that his constituents would be concerned about. Given that he does not have an answer, he should ask of his Government what it will mean for people’s energy bills.

Will the right hon. Member give way?

I will make some progress, unless the hon. Member has an answer on energy bills.

I can answer that quite clearly. The word “can” is written in paragraph 18.8; it does not say “will”. I think the right hon. Member’s assumption that these figures—which, as it is written quite clearly, only may lead to price increases—should surely be one for the Minister to answer in a minute.

It is absolutely extraordinary that the hon. Member does not accept that a higher price of carbon imposed on the production of goods in this country will raise costs. The cost of the carbon tax now accounts for—rather than pointing to the document, it is worth him listening to what I have to say—£100, or 12%, of someone’s electricity bill. That is clearly a cost that has been passed through. If Labour Members cannot understand that taxes on businesses get passed on to consumers, I am afraid I cannot help them in this debate. Make no mistake: this is a massive burden on consumers and businesses.

Why are the Government doing this? Who benefits? The Treasury will see an extra £1.8 billion in tax revenue because it has doubled the carbon tax. Through this legislation, by reducing free allowances, it will rake in even more from ordinary families who are already struggling. That is in fact the entire point. The aim of the carbon tax is to gradually increase costs for British industry until businesses have no choice but to spend hundreds of millions of pounds they do not have at the moment to decarbonise their production, or shut down and move abroad. The fact that companies are choosing to do the latter means that there will be no reduction in global emissions because those businesses are just moving elsewhere. There will be fewer jobs in Britain, and more businesses in countries that have more polluting regimes—so more carbon in the atmosphere overall.

Page 68 of the Minister’s impact assessment says that the carbon tax would be £25 lower by 2030 if the Government did not make the changes we are discussing today. As the Government have admitted, higher carbon taxes feed through to consumers in higher energy bills and higher costs. The Minister is asking us to approve legislation that, by his own assessment, will hurt industry, fuel inflation and make people poorer. When defending alignment, Ministers point to a Frontier Economics report that says that alignment will save £800 million, but that is supposedly saved over five years, and completely ignores the costs that higher carbon prices impose on the wider economy. To be clear, they are imposing a £5 billion tax rise on the economy every year, in the hope of saving just £160 million a year. That is incoherent to say the least.

When I asked the Department how increasing the carbon tax affects consumers and businesses, its response was that the Government were

“not able to comment on current prices and price movements”

because they do not dictate the market. That is total nonsense. They can and should forecast what this will mean for prices, and how much our constituents will pay in extra costs on their bills. All I am asking is for Ministers to be open about the costs, admit they are imposing them on businesses and the public, make the argument as to why they are justified to do so and then let the public decide. I do not think that that is too much to ask.

I ask the Minister these questions: what is his assessment of how many jobs will be lost because of higher carbon taxes? How many more domestic industries will be replaced by foreign imports, which we are already seeing in gas, steel, chemicals and refineries? Does he accept that reducing free allowances through this legislation will increase energy bills? His own impact assessment says that reducing free allowances will increase carbon prices by £25 per tonne, so will he publish an assessment of what that increased cost will add to people’s household bills?

The world is getting more dangerous, and our raw industrial power is hard power. The Government should not be making our industry even less competitive with soaring carbon taxes, and making us more reliant on foreign imports, just as the world is becoming less safe. It is the wrong measure for the wrong time, and for those reasons we will oppose it today.

This order is crucial in ensuring that businesses are not penalised for the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic. By correcting historical activity levels to account for reduced activity during covid-19 lockdowns, we ensure fair treatment for operators whose operations were disrupted through no fault of their own.

The order updates our efficiency benchmarks to reflect current industry performance and further drive decarbonisation: an essential goal that we must continue to pursue to protect our planet for future generations. The order also enables our carbon border adjustment mechanism to work effectively by phasing out free allocation where appropriate, ensuring a level playing field between domestic producers and imports. This is sensible housekeeping that supports both our climate ambitions and our industrial base, at a time when it is urgently needed.

Does it support the ambition of reducing bills?

I think, actually, that when we fix some of the problems around climate change, like investing in energy infrastructure and making sure that we take the true cost of business, that will eventually bring down bills. At the moment, Conservative Members seem to be saying that they do not want to account for the cost of climate change, which is maddening, considering their previous position.

This is quite extraordinary. We have debates in the House of Commons every week where everybody bemoans the price of electricity, yet we have here an order that will increase bills on businesses significantly. When we reduce the annual allowance for those industries, we are increasing their bills. We have debates about businesses shutting down and having to be propped up by the Government in order to protect communities and jobs. And why are they shutting down? Because of the energy cost—all of them, without exception. This order, and this emissions trading scheme, is driving up bills, and is the sole reason why industries are leaving the country and going overseas.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I would be delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who I hope will clarify whether he has spoken to any of these industries, and the communities who are having their jobs slaughtered because of this lunacy.

I am sure the hon. Member, as somebody with a great degree of business experience, understands the global trading environment that we sit in, and the energy shocks that come from events like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I thank him for his note on talking with businesses in my constituency. I spend a lot of time talking with businesses in my constituency; I do not know whether Reform UK does the same. Would he like to clarify that?

The reason so many industrial businesses are shutting down, whether it is at Mossmorran, Grangemouth, Immingham or elsewhere, or in the automotive sector, is because of the high cost of electricity. This emissions trading scheme, and the linkage of it to the EU emissions trading scheme, has driven up the carbon taxes, which of course has therefore driven up bills and costs. Therefore, industries are less competitive and, as was previously said, those businesses have to pass the cost on to the consumer.

What this is doing is making our industry and businesses less competitive, and the tragedy of that is that we are therefore destroying growth and jobs. All we are doing is sending these industries overseas, and then the carbon dioxide is produced over there, we have lost the jobs, we have lost the money, and we have become poorer. For that reason, I will vote against the order.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I want to make a couple of quick remarks, partly in relation to the ceramics industry—I am a one-trick pony at these events.

The sector is very grateful that it is not included in CBAM, for some of the reasons that have already been discussed. The current arrangements in the sector are quite challenging. I know the Minister is acutely aware of that, and has been a steadfast ally in some of our work to seek long-term support for a sector that is very difficult to decarbonise—it is incredibly difficult to improve on the technology because of the way in which it is set up—but is also 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, our growing exports, our pharmaceuticals or the factories that we need, because we cannot make steel in this country without ceramics.

Let me put a couple of questions to the Minister. The first is on the allocation of free allowances. I recognise that CBAM will reduce the free allowance allocations that are put to those sectors that will be a part of it. Would it be possible to consider a reallocation of those free allowances to a sector that is not in CBAM and does not necessarily want to be, but for which the decarbonisation programme is most difficult—namely, the ceramics sector? 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 Trade Remedies Authority, which was set up by the previous Government, does not necessarily have the teeth to levy the import tariffs necessary to create a level playing field for consumers.

Secondly, where does the Minister see the cap going in future years? I am aware that a consultation was started by, I believe, the right hon. Member for East Surrey when she was the Secretary of State in the last Government, on how we could incentivise decarbonisation through raising taxation on the most polluting sectors. The Minister will be aware that 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 in those sorts of kilns is simply not available; the profit margins on their products do not allow for it. Hydrogen is not a technology that is yet proven to be viable because of the chemistry that necessarily takes place inside a kiln. We are wedded to gas for the foreseeable future, and therefore wedded to being one of the country’s last remaining polluting industries. What the sector fears is 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. That cost will then simply be passed on to consumers, or—

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will not, I am afraid. That will not then allow the sector to put in the investment needed to bring down the factories’ outputs through new technology. When the Minister sums up, will he address those two points? The sector—I think I am meeting them later today—will be glad to hear him do so.

I will make some general points and then ask a Northern Ireland-specific question of the Minister. I really am amazed that in a debate where the starting point is that free allowances are to be removed, there is any serious dispute about the contention that an inevitable consequence of that is a rise in cost. One inevitably follows the other. If we take away something that is free to business and impose a charge, inevitably there will be something to pass on, which will be passed on to consumers. Indeed, the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) referred to paragraph 18.8 of the impact assessment, trying to make something out of the fact that the word “can” is used in the context of price increases, but he did not read on, because it continues—

“enabling substantial price pass-through.”

To whom? To the consumers.

What is abundantly clear is that, in liquidating the free allowances, the Government are saying—although it is sure to be hidden in verbosity, the impenetrable wording of this document—is that, de facto, the costs are going to be passed to the consumer. We all know, as has been said already in this debate, that means that businesses will not be able to continue in many cases, or in some cases might move abroad—all the consequences that could flow from that. It is retrograde, not progressive in any sense.

My next point is that within the draft order, it seems to me—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the ultimate destination is to attach ourselves to the EU benchmark without knowing what the EU benchmark will be, without ever being able to have an influence on what it should be. We are signing a blank cheque in pursuit of realignment with the EU, whereby it is the EU benchmark that will in future dictate what the levels are. That seems to me to be the height of madness.

I come now to my Northern Ireland-specific question. I assume I am right in thinking that emissions trading applies generally and therefore obviously includes electricity. If that is right, considering that Northern Ireland is, sadly, in a different emissions trading scheme in regard to electricity, how will the regulations apply, if at all, to electricity in Northern Ireland? Will the Minister please explain that? What are the consequences if the draft order does not apply, or if it does apply to a region whose electricity production is under a different ET scheme? That is a practical question. I would like to get a clear answer from the Minister, because frankly nothing is clear about the 104 pages of impenetrable prose that goes with the attempt to push this order on the British people.

I thank everyone for their contributions to the debate, which was considerably more fulsome and energised than is usual for a 4.30 pm Committee. I am incredibly grateful, because Members in all parts of the Committee made a number of points, giving me the opportunity to clarify some details of the workings of the scheme.

The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey, said that it was a very dense report with a lot of governmentitis. I know that she understands the details of this subject well, because she is the former Secretary of State, but I appreciate that it is technical, and it behoves all of us to try to explain as clearly as possible what the draft order means.

I will start by addressing some of the specific points in the draft order and then talk a bit more generally about some of the points that Members have raised. I appreciate the concerns on both sides of the House about the impact on industry and the risk, when we are decarbonising industry, of deindustrialisation. I know that this concern is sincerely felt by everybody in this room, even if we might differ at times on what we think the best approach is. That is why we have been so careful to consult industry on these measures, as I outlined in the long catalogue of dates in my opening speech. We have consulted carefully with industry and made sure we have listened to what they have said.

Some of the issues here run quite broadly around industrial competitiveness. Possibly one of the main points to recognise is that it is important through the whole decarbonisation process that industry manages to maintain access to its key markets, and clearly one of the key markets is the EU. That is where we come to the discussion about linking the EU ETS and the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism with the EU to enable our UK industries to continue to trade there. Negotiations with the EU started in November, but I want to be clear that they will only conclude in this way if it is in the UK interest to do that. We will continue to consult with UK industry on that matter too.

In relation to points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, the ceramics industry made three specific requests during the consultation. We managed to adopt requests to include ceramics on the carbon leakage list, no tiering of free allocations, and greater engagement with the ceramics sector, which is why we set up the UK ETS working group. My hon. Friend asked me specifically if we could reallocate free allocations from other sectors to ceramics. That is not possible within the current rules, but that does not mean that I am not aware of the issues surrounding the ceramics sector. We can use the UK ETS group to look at ETS issues, but we should also look more broadly at the concerns of the ceramics sector. I look forward to starting that conversation over dinner with my hon. Friend and the ceramics industry later this evening.

On the question of power and the impact of the instrument on energy bills, the important point is that the ETS applies to power that is produced from fossil fuels, not renewable energy. This Government’s policy is to pursue our clean power mission by 2030, which involves investing in the cheapest forms of power available, in onshore and offshore wind, solar power and nuclear energy. The purpose of the ETS is to incentivise that. The carbon price incentivises investment; it provides the incentive in power and in industry to invest in new green technologies.

Originally, the choice was between coal and gas, but there is no coal in the system anymore; there is only gas. Even in the Minister’s clean power plans, 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. Even in his plans, gas will set the price 50% of the time. He is needlessly imposing a tax that inflates that price of gas to the consumer when there is no other choice available. Will he at least come up with a forecast for what this will mean for energy bills and consumers in this country, considering that they do not have another choice, even in the Minister’s plans, apart from using gas power?

I think what the shadow Secretary of State has outlined is exactly the success of this policy—it has driven coal out of the system in favour of cheaper power. That is exactly the point of the ETS and the industrial investment. Of course, as we said, we are pursuing our clean power mission for energy security and to lower energy bills, as well as to ensure that we also have green energy.

Can the Minister explain why his impact assessment says opposite things on the same page? In respect of the £92 million direct net cost to business, on the one hand, it says:

“our working assumption is that all costs are incurred to business, with no indirect impacts to households.”

In the very next paragraph, it says:

“we estimate that cost-pass through for most sectors could feasibly be at 80-90%”.

Both those things cannot be true, can they?

What can be true is that there are both costs and savings for industry, particularly the savings for industry associated with being a member of the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism, which will come into force in 12 months. If we link the UK and the EU ETS, that will enable UK industry to trade freely within the EU, as it has done in the past.

Will the Minister give way again?

No, no—I have dealt with that.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim asked me about the issue in Northern Ireland, which is a separate electricity zone. Electricity generators in Northern Ireland have not historically received a free allocation, and in future, the free allocation rules on electricity generation will apply in the same way for the UK and EU operators, assuming that there is linkage.

I will return to the point about industry that was made by the shadow Secretary of State, among others. Clearly, the drive is to incentivise investment in industry, and that is precisely what the policy does; that is precisely the mechanism of the carbon price. It is a fallacy to assume that the investment in industry will result in less efficient or more expensive industrial products. That is certainly not the case for the steel industry, where investing in green technology results in lower production costs. The Government’s policy framework gives industrial companies a clear investment framework.

I appreciate the Minister’s graciousness in understanding our concern for industry. His priority is decarbonisation, but I am sure he will understand the very real risk that it is not the case that the UK is decarbonising, because those industries are not remaining in the UK and cutting their emissions; instead, UK businesses in those industries are going abroad, often to countries that have more polluting regimes than the UK—which has some of the cleanest electricity of anywhere in the world—including places that are still powered by coal. Rather than reducing global carbon emissions, we will actually increase emissions by moving our businesses from the UK to countries that have more polluting regimes. That will mean fewer jobs in Britain for more carbon in the atmosphere. Do the Government plan to monitor whether that is happening, and if it is, will the Minister change course? Surely he would agree that such a scenario would not count as decarbonising well; in fact, it would not be decarbonising the planet at all.

The shadow Secretary of State and I are clearly both concerned about the same thing. I know that that concern is shared across the House, but deindustrialisation and decarbonisation need not be in competition. Sadly, under the previous Government, there was a 30% reduction in UK cement production, a nearly 50% reduction in automotive production and a 30% reduction in chemicals production. That is why, alongside the ETS policy, we published our industrial strategy; it is why I introduced the British industrial competitiveness scheme to reduce energy costs for 7,000 manufacturing businesses; and it is why we increased the supercharger to 90% for energy intensive industries.

Clearly, we recognise that energy costs have been too high in the UK for industrial businesses as well as consumers. That is primarily a result of the policy of the previous Government to leave us at the mercy of petrostates and fossil fuel dictators, on the rollercoaster of fossil fuel prices. The shadow Secretary of State said that my priority is decarbonisation. I happen to be in a place where there is a happy coincidence between energy security, decarbonisation and the lowest cost of energy. That is recognised by industry, and that is why it is Government policy.

Will the Minister give way?

I feel I have detained the Committee for too long, so if the right hon. Member will excuse me, it would be a good idea to draw the debate—and we have had a good debate—to a close.

The statutory instrument will give certainty to the industry around benchmarks and free allocations. The free allocations reduction is specifically for those sectors that are part of the carbon border adjustment mechanism, so some other sectors will not be affected. The legislation needs to be in place for applicants to apply for their free allocations for the period to April 2026. The statutory instrument will implement the proposed improvements to the scheme.

These changes have the support of the four Governments of the UK. That consensus on advancing carbon pricing policy adds to the strength of the UK ETS. I therefore commend the draft order to the Committee.

Question put.