King’s Speech

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

There goes Liz Truss’s trusted adviser—I think we all know how that turned out.

In 2024, Labour won 411 seats on 33.7% of the vote and a turnout of 59.7%. Last week, the results were fragmented across six or seven parties. There were gains for Reform, the Lib Dems and the Greens in England, and heavy losses for Labour and the Conservatives. Reform was actually down compared with last year, although you would not know it from the comments.

What is clear is that first past the post in the present circumstances is likely to produce distorted results, leaving most voters dissatisfied with the outcome. That in itself possibly explains why the turnout is down. In Scotland, we had Scottish Parliament elections, and turnout was down there too. The vote share for the SNP, Labour and the Conservatives was sharply down. Reform and the Lib Dems were up, and the Greens were marginally up. That election in Scotland was widely described as a “meh” kind of election.

My take—and I was knocking on quite a lot of doors—is that most people wanted to see measures to turn Scotland around, to address declining education standards and waiting times in the health service, to provide care support, to focus on the weak economy and to address the cost of living. Independence was not the issue, and the fact that the SNP is absurdly claiming a mandate is a distraction from its monumental failure on all the issues for which it actually has direct responsibility.

The SNP’s incompetence in government will result in a massive financial, unfunded deficit, with alarming consequences coming down the track in Scotland. Something as important as breaking up the UK needs an honest and open debate and overwhelming support from the population—there is no such support, no open debate and no idea of where it is heading.

However, one economic issue that was live in the Scottish debate was the energy industry. The offshore oil and gas sector is in natural long-term decline and renewable energy investment is increasing; however, this is anything but a zero-sum game. The jobs created by renewable energy are not as numerous or well paid as those created by oil and gas, nor are many of them interchangeable. In this debate, Reform—let us be honest—are aggressive climate change deniers and would reverse the renewables policy and destroy the jobs that are being created in that sector. The Conservatives also prioritise oil and gas over renewables and would delay, or possibly abandon, net-zero targets.

The fact is that, thanks to the Iran war and the actual pace of transition, the UK is facing higher costs and increasingly relying on imported gas, mostly from the USA and a security-compromised Middle East, when we still have significant economically recoverable reserves of our own. There is a contradiction here. We have signed a contract with Norway to bring gas from its gas fields through our gas fields, which we will apparently not exploit. I have been a long-term supporter of policies to achieve net zero—I was writing pamphlets in favour of renewable energy in the 1970s—but I have always agreed that the transition will take time, both in terms of jobs and investment and in terms of energy diversification. Net zero means just that—even when achieved, there will still be oil and gas in the mix. It makes no sense, especially faced as we are now with the insecurity of dependence on the Middle East, to accelerate the rundown of our own naturally depleting resources and to increase imports from Trump’s America, which may also prove uncertain as there are calls for America to keep it at home.

We are currently losing around 700 jobs a month, and major operators, such as our own BP and Harbour Energy, are talking of complete withdrawal from the UK continental shelf. I repeat: BP is talking about withdrawal from British oil and gas. A Government who are struggling for growth should think very carefully about policies that would destroy jobs and investment. I hope the Minister will address this issue, because there is growing pressure on the Government to do so. Briefing on the energy independence Bill says the aim is to:

“Manage existing oil and gas fields for their lifetime through legislation to introduce Transitional Energy Certificates, and show climate leadership by meeting the manifesto commitment not to issue new licences to explore new fields”.


There is therefore scope for enhanced recovery from existing fields by reducing the tax burden and allowing associated drilling—that is compatible with the Government’s policy. Without such changes, the lifetime of existing fields is likely to prove short. The argument that because world oil prices determine the price we pay, there is no benefit in production ignores energy security, balance of payments benefits and the retention of jobs and investment in the UK instead of exporting them to the USA and elsewhere.

On another tack, as a member of the International Relations and Defence Committee—our illustrious chair is sitting opposite me—my information on the impact of the war in Ukraine and the depleted state of UK defence has been pretty sharply brought home to me. I am astonished that defence and security do not have a higher salience in the debate in Scotland, when we know that Russian ships, subs and planes are cruising our seas and airspace all the time. The contract to build frigates for Norway on the Clyde, as well as for the home fleet, is surely positive, especially when the Scottish Government struggle to build ferry boats. But the idea that closing our air and marine bases—which is presumably what an independent Scotland would do—would make Scotland safer is mind-bogglingly naive. The defence investment plan is long overdue. It is urgently needed if we are not to signal weakness to our enemies, and it needs to focus on the capacity we have and that we can quickly develop.

That leads me to my final point, which binds everything together: reconnecting with the EU. Leaving the EU was a monumental error that weakened the UK and the EU. Had the vote taken place when the Ukraine war was under way and Trump was ensconced in the White House, I am certain that the result would have been different. As it is, we have been left bobbing around in the uncertain waters of the north-west Atlantic. Scotland voted to remain in the EU, but many have not recognised that the world is much changed. For the UK, including Scotland, the way back is not clear or straightforward; I accept that—our standing in the world has diminished. But asking for a reset while ruling out rejoining will sharply limit what can be achieved. The EU will not want to go down the Swiss route of myriad and ever-changing treaties and rules. Of course we should strengthen our relationships with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Commonwealth and others, but we should be clear that we accept that the reset is to set in train a process for Britain to become a fully participating part of the European Union.

For our own domestic reasons, we also need to adopt a reformed and more proportional electoral system. If we do not, we could end up with a Government with a strong electoral majority with under 30% of the vote. I doubt if the EU would have confidence in any agreement while that is a real possibility. Otherwise, we will be outsiders paying heavily for the privilege of trading on terms we have no part in shaping. EU negotiators will surely reach a point of saying, “Thus far and no further unless you rejoin”.

The situation is quite clear. We have a voting system that will give confidence that the UK can rejoin and stay within the EU, and we will recognise that unless we take a clear and decisive decision, we are going to drift in the north-west Atlantic for the foreseeable future.