Energy Security

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), who speaks with great authority and talks a lot of good sense.

I have to say to Labour Members that a change of Prime Minister will solve nothing. We tried that four times, and it did us no good at all. This King’s Speech should have been an opportunity for fundamental reform, but do the Government have the courage to do that? We Conservative Members suspect that they do not. For too many years, we have concentrated on wealth redistribution, rather than wealth creation, and we are getting poorer and poorer, and less and less able to do the things in the public sector that we want to do. But let me start with a more consensual point, and welcome the Government’s commitment to the nuclear fusion site at West Burton, which is only two miles from the town that I represent. I see that the Minister for Energy is present, and I have talked to him about this. This is fantastic, cutting-edge technology. Only this morning, I received a letter from the West Burton chief executive, who said

“At the heart of STEP FUSION is a world-leading technical effort.”

Those people who say that Britain is broken should look at the thousands of jobs we are creating, and the millions of pounds-worth of investment. The chief executive thanked us. He said:

“The UK is recognised globally for its lead in fusion regulation, having set a proportionate approach comparable to industrial processes through the 2023 Energy Act.”

So there we are: we have consensual, working-together, cutting-edge technology.

We have heard a bit about solar farms. I visited over 30 villages in my constituency during an open churches festival this weekend, including the village of Fillingham. At Fillingham aerodrome, I saw solar panels being built. Nobody seemed to care that there is a brownfield site to hand, measuring 100 or 200 acres, but there is solar planned for 16,000 acres of prime agricultural land around Gainsborough. I heard what was said earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). What we need is a moderate approach. From my cottage, I can climb a hill on the Wolds and look across the North sea, and I can see that we are world leaders in offshore wind. That is fair enough, and it is popular, but I am talking about using 16,000 acres of prime agricultural land for solar, with all the profits going to entrepreneurs in London and large landowners.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said; and I always find his contributions interesting. My Committee heard from the Country Land and Business Association on the subject of solar panels on agricultural land, and its evidence was clear: this does not have the impact that is feared, and is actually often beneficial to farmers in providing them with an alternative revenue stream without affecting their ability to grow crops.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course, getting £100,000 a year for owning 100 acres is a wonderful incentive, but is it possible to grow those crops? We are the breadbasket of England. Is it possible to grow wheat and barley where there are solar panels? But I do not want to go on about it; we know the arguments now.

As for nationalising British Steel, we do not take an ideological view. Hundreds of my constituents work in British Steel. Greg Clark ran it for nine months, and paid all the wages. I personally am neither for nor opposed to it. However, just nationalising British Steel will not make a difference when we have the highest energy costs in Europe. That is the real problem, and it is the problem that the Government need to address. Let us not get bogged down in the arguments about whether to nationalise. Let us find a private sector buyer. Let us get the workers back into operation, get our blast furnaces moving, and not be over-worried about ideologies. We want to create virgin steel.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point about British Steel, where hundreds of my constituents work. Does he agree that in the short term, nationalisation may be the way forward, but in the longer term, we need to get private sector investment into the industry, and the way to achieve that is to reduce energy costs? That is absolutely critical, not just for steel but for so many of our heavy industries.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My hon. Friend is very well respected in his area for the fantastic amount of work that he has done in Scunthorpe. He is constantly holding the Government to account, and indeed working with the Government. We have to do this together to protect our steelmaking capacity, for the sake of our industrial wealth.

I agree—we all agree—that the energy independence Bill provides a framework for transitioning the UK energy market away from fossil fuels and towards alternative forms of energy. We have no problem with that; it is sensible in the context of nuclear energy. However, the ideological pursuit of renewables is doing harm, and is at odds with achieving energy security when we have our own fossil-fuel resources in the North sea. It is not a zero-sum game. I do not see the ideological virtue of simply exporting our carbon emissions, which we are doing.

[Ms Billington]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

No, I must make some progress. I do apologise.

I should have thought that we could have a compromise on this. We could have a policy that is sensible, gradually moving away from fossil fuels and gradually becoming a more green-energy economy, but we should not simply export our emissions and set arbitrary dates.

As this is a debate on the King’s Speech, I hope you will you forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I mention another subject in the short time available to me. When you get to my age, you can say unpopular things; I have not got much longer anyway. [Hon. Members: “Aah!”] I have two minutes!

The problem with our country is that we are governing by focus group. What do focus groups want? They want less tax and, of course, better public services. Debt is already 100% of GDP, and within 50 years, because of the triple lock and other benefit increases, it will be 170%. Of course the old vote, but the old have children and grandchildren, and we have a responsibility to younger people in our country. The Government know that the present system is unsustainable. While the average increase in the triple lock measures over the past 13 years—and we brought that in; it was supposed to be a temporary measure, but no party has the courage to change it—has been about 40%, pensions have gone up by over 60%. That is nearly £20 billion of annual additional costs so far, and that will get bigger every year and more unaffordable. The gap is likely to grow to £120 billion, if not more, by 2050, exacerbating the economic crisis. Whoever becomes Prime Minister will have to cope with that. By then, there will be 20% to 25% fewer taxpaying workers—our children and our grandchildren—per pensioner in Britain.

Of course we have to care for old people, particularly old people in poverty, and divert resources to them, but we must remember the younger people as well. This is entirely unsustainable. Yes, we want to keep a triple lock, but not the triple lock. We want it to be the average of the three indices, so that the amount does not go up exponentially every year. The Government should do the right thing by the nation, and bring in a measure to that effect. They should make our finances affordable, and those on my party’s Front Bench should not oppose them. We should govern in the national interest. We should make our finances sustainable, and then we really can help the people who are most in need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who represents a party that for the best part of 10 years had a presumption against oil and gas, for now seeking to be a champion for that industry. There was a global oil price crash in 2014. What did we do? We implemented a policy of maximum economic recovery. We cut taxes and stemmed job losses—the exact opposite of what this Labour Government are doing in the North sea, where they are accelerating the decline, making thousands of people redundant.

It is frankly offensive to call the Bill that will be introduced the energy independence Bill. It is an energy dependence Bill, which will make us more dependent on foreign imports, more dependent on China and more dependent for gas on Norway, which drills it from the very same sea that this Government are banning Britain from exploiting. That is insanity. Once again, the Secretary of State has put his ideological fantasies before doing what is right for the people of this country.

The only people who will be cheering this on are those in Moscow, Tehran and Beijing who, to be fair, will probably themselves be incredulous—unbelieving of their luck—that they have such useful idiots in the form of this Labour Government, cheered on by the SNP, with their decade-long presumption against oil and gas, and the Liberal Democrats, who have a different position depending on which part of the country they happen to be in at the time. All are choosing to make the UK poorer, colder and more vulnerable to outside influence.

Let us be absolutely clear: the position of this Labour Government on oil and gas is downright dangerous. By proposing to legislate for a ban on all new licences, they might as well be hanging a “closed for business” sign over the North sea. I—and it is not just me—do not understand the logic of these actions. The Secretary of State, his Ministers and the current occupant of No. 10 repeatedly tell us that oil and gas will have a role in the UK for years to come. They are right: roughly 85% of homes in the UK rely on gas for heating and more than 90% of vehicles in the UK rely on fossil fuels, so this will not end overnight. All that this legislation will achieve is our increasing reliance on shipments from abroad, at higher cost, with higher emissions and with fewer jobs here in Britain. I—as well as the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Secretary of State for Energy, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), and others—come to this House time and again to highlight the damage that this Government’s approach is causing to communities in and around Aberdeen and north-east Scotland.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The Secretary of State claims that he is leading a moral crusade, but he is simply exporting emissions. It is like saying, “Lord, I will not sin, but I am quite happy for people to sin on my behalf.”

[Andrew Bowie]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are exporting emissions and exporting jobs, and that is having a detrimental impact on our economy and communities up and down this United Kingdom, not least in north-east Scotland. I see that every time I go home. One thousand jobs will be lost every month under this Labour Government, and we will lose out on £50 billion of investment. Pubs, restaurants and shops are closing up in the granite city under this Labour Government. The impact is being felt across the country—it is true—but it is in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland that the pain is most acute.