King’s Speech
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, it is an honour to speak in this debate on energy security. I look forward to the maiden speeches of all the new noble Lords and noble Baronesses, and I wish them well in their time here.
If a week is a long time in politics, the period since the last parliamentary Session feels like an eternity. Our world continues to be ever more dangerous and unstable. Families and businesses are feeling the reality in their bills and their shopping baskets and have a sense that something is wrong with the way we are managing our affairs. If there is one lesson we need to draw from the turbulent events of recent months, it is that what we need now is not internal party politics and leadership battles but a change of policy backed by renewed ambition, upscaled delivery and a clear national commitment to cut dependence on volatile and unreliable fossil fuels.
I thank the Minister and his officials for the work they have continued to do, quietly and diligently, through a period of considerable turbulence. My gratitude is genuine, but it is not a substitute for greater urgency. There will be shocks ahead and we must be ready for them and honest about their impacts. The International Energy Agency has been clear that this global energy crisis is among the most severe. Global energy stocks are being depleted at record pace. There is a quality to this moment. Rather like watching an explosion at a distance, the flash has already occurred, the light has reached us, but the destructive pressure wave has yet to arrive. Our task is to prepare for what is coming, not to persuade ourselves that it will pass us by.
This crisis is not simply a question of oil and gas prices, uncomfortable as those are; it cascades through the whole economy, into jet and heating oil, diesel, fertiliser, food production, and supply chains of every kind. It will increase government borrowing costs in many economies, triggering recessions. The United Kingdom, with some of the most expensive domestic energy bills in the G7, is particularly exposed.
The longer we remain dependent on fossil fuels, the longer we remain price takers and not price makers, subject to decisions made in foreign capitals and boardrooms over which we have little influence. The cost of dependency is tangible. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit has calculated that the UK’s reliance on fossil fuels led to direct economic impacts of £183 billion in the four years following the invasion of Ukraine. To put that figure in perspective, it exceeds the entire annual budget of NHS England in 2024-25. These are not ideological arguments; they are arguments of economic necessity.
America, once our closest ally, now pursues a National Security Strategy that speaks explicitly of global energy dominance, backed by a denial of climate change—a belief that is contrary to responsible energy policy. The consequences are only beginning to impact us now and resolution of the Iran conflict is not imminent. In this context, or any other, it would be a “delusional fantasy”, as Ed Davey put it, to suggest that North Sea oil offers any serious answers to our energy insecurity. It does not, and the Official Opposition should stop pretending that anything else is the case.
The answer lies in what Carbon Brief has already demonstrated in hard figures: since the Iran conflict began, Britain’s existing renewables have shielded us from some £1.7 billion in additional gas import costs. That is hard evidence that clean power is already working and saving us money. The Climate Change Committee has also made it clear that the total cost of another fossil-fuel crisis of this kind would exceed the total cost of reaching net zero. This is the most powerful argument for added urgency.
I am genuinely pleased that the Government are moving at speed and scale towards the achievement of Clean Power 2030. Renewable projects to power the equivalent of 23 million homes have already been secured. We want Labour to succeed in this endeavour, not from any partisan generosity but because, if it does not, the days ahead will be considerably darker.
We therefore broadly welcome the energy independence Bill, and we will engage with it constructively, but we will press for a ban on fracking that contains no loopholes: one that cannot be quietly unpicked by future political pressure. We will seek to require solar panels on suitable new warehouses and car parks as a matter of standard practice. We also want communities to be genuine participants in the energy transition, not merely its hosts. People who live alongside new infrastructure ought to share in the benefits it generates. That means a right to sell electricity, restored funding for Great British Energy, directed in part towards community coastal onshore wind, and better access to local generation and storage. On market reform, we are clear: more levies must come off electricity bills, the system must properly reward clean power and a social tariff must be introduced for households that cannot absorb repeated bill shocks. These proposals are not radical; they are proportionate and compassionate.
Brexit has left us poorer, less secure and more energy vulnerable than we need to be. Our future lies in closer energy ties to our nearest neighbours. Rejoining the EU internal energy market and linking our emissions trading schemes, where that is practicable, will reduce costs and strengthen resilience. In a modern energy system, isolation is just inefficiency by another name.
On the nuclear regulation Bill, we recognise the case for faster delivery and for streamlining where it is genuinely warranted, but we will scrutinise the detail carefully. Public confidence in the safety and accountability of nuclear power is not a luxury; it is a precondition for its success and should be treated as such. Nuclear power requirements cannot override our nature protections. If Labour is backing a renaissance of nuclear power, it must extend to greater efforts to deal with the legacy of nuclear waste and ensure that those costs do not spiral.
The electricity generation levy Bill implements the pot-zero proposals that my party called for over a year ago. While we support them, these matters are rightly complex. Persuading companies to negotiate new contracts will also be complex and take time, while the savings may be slower than anticipated. Beyond this, more must be done to further fundamentally reform our outdated energy market arrangements. We call on the Government to develop proposals for a strategic reserve for gas-fired power stations outside the market, as we move towards a more wholly renewable energy market.
I turn finally to a matter that troubles me. I checked the gracious Address carefully. The word “nature” does not appear in it and the phrase “climate change” appears only once. We do not wish to see Labour following the Green Party’s latest example, so we call on the Government not to ignore climate and nature in their discourses. This omission reflects our real concern about the current limits of the Government’s vision and ambition. Energy security—any security—cannot be meaningfully separated from the climate and nature crisis. They are, as my party has long argued, two intertwined aspects of the same emergency.
Britain is one of the most nature-depleted countries. That matters for our food, our water, our health and our long-term resilience. Since 2020, we have had five of our worst harvests. Last year was the worst year for burning from wildfires. The real consequences of an ever-warming climate are a national security issue and must be treated as such. Our adaption pathways are, by any assessment, inadequate for the climate impacts already under way. We need a proper national strategy for nature and adaption: properly funded, integrated into policy-making and treated as a matter of national security rather than an afterthought.
I ask the Conservative Benches to return to the cross-party consensus on climate and nature that this country once led and that many of them helped to build. I ask the Government to stop treating nature as something that can be omitted from their legislative programme. This Government should lead the world on climate change and must provide adaption and support for those less fortunate who live on the front line of climate impacts.
The Liberal Democrats will support this Government where they act in the national interests and we will hold them to account, courteously but firmly, where they fall short. We stand ready to work co-operatively on the difficult decisions ahead, because on these matters co-operation makes the near impossible merely difficult and its absence makes the merely difficult impossible. The clean energy transition is not simply the right thing to do; it is the affordable thing, the secure thing and the only thing that seriously answers the crisis we are in. The opportunity is before us; let us not waste it.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, before we move on to the Back Benches, we have over 70 speakers taking part in the debate, including four maiden speakers, and I know that noble Lords are looking forward to well-informed and concise speeches. I encourage noble Lords to stick to the four-minute advisory time limit, so that we can finish at a reasonable time and give respect to other speakers in the debate. Whips are a kind and generous group of people, so please excuse us if one of my number needs to get up during the debate to remind people of the four-minute limit.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I note that, according to paragraph 4.42 of the Companion, the usual advisory speaking times still apply. It is 20 minutes for openers and winders and 15 minutes for everyone else. That includes the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.