King’s Speech

While the Government have made remarkable progress, the House needs no reminding that our mission has taken on renewed urgency and importance following the conflict in the Middle East and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Just as we saw four years ago when Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine sent gas prices soaring, the impacts of 21st-century conflicts are felt far beyond the battlefields. Once again, it is businesses and households here, including, as is so often the case, the most vulnerable in our society, who are bearing the brunt of wholesale price rises. In response, the Government have taken direct action to bring down bills, as well as expanding the £150 warm home discount to 6 million people.

There are those who believe the long-term solution to this latest fossil fuel crisis lies in doubling down on our dependence on oil and gas—the very problem which led us here. This Government believe that would represent a failure to learn from multiple crises going back to the 1970s and an abdication of our responsibility to households and businesses across the country, which would continue to suffer. Instead, as the Energy Secretary has set out in the other place, we are going further and faster for clean, secure, homegrown energy to ensure we are never at the mercy of volatile fossil fuel markets again.

That means bringing forward the next renewables auction to July, exploiting untapped public land for solar and batteries, and working across government to speed up the electrification of our economy. It also means taking direct action to break the link between gas prices and electricity prices, which is responsible for some of the extreme costs that we have seen in recent years. Noble Lords will be aware that successive Governments have failed to address the complex challenge of delinking but, from next year, we will seek to transfer existing low-carbon generators that have renewable obligation contracts and which supply about a third of our power on to fixed-price contracts that deliver value for money for consumers. In doing so, we will safeguard households and businesses from spikes in the price of gas.

The next great step forward on the road to energy security, as set out by His Majesty in the gracious Speech, is our energy independence Bill. This legislates for the powers that government needs to deliver the full benefits of the clean energy transition to the British people. It will underpin action on three core objectives.

First, it is about standing up for working people by tackling the cost of living crisis. The energy price cap fell by £117 in April because of the decision taken in last year’s Budget to move the cost of some levies from bills to the Exchequer. This Bill will place that change on an enduring legal basis, removing an average of around £90 a year of costs from household bills, as part of the £150 reduction in costs announced in the Autumn Budget. It will also pave the way for the warm homes agency—a dedicated public body that will deliver the warm homes plan and tackle fuel poverty across the country. It will bring in new rules to ensure that landlords invest in home upgrades that cut bills for renters as well as giving the energy regulator the powers that it needs to be a strong consumer champion and stay ahead of a rapidly changing energy system.

Secondly, this Bill will speed up our drive for energy security as well as the electrification of our economy. That means transforming market, planning and regulatory frameworks to get projects, including offshore wind and hydrogen, built more quickly. It means speeding up the buildout of vital grid infrastructure, with a package of measures to reduce unnecessary delays, including reforms to land access rules and networks consenting.

Thirdly, the Bill will deliver a fair, managed and prosperous transition, with the North Sea at its heart. This Government’s view is that neither drilling every last drop nor turning off the taps completely is a realistic plan. Instead, we are led by the science, the facts and the needs of workers and communities, so we are managing existing oil and gas fields for their lifetimes, including through new transitional energy certificates for areas adjacent or in close proximity to existing fields, linked via a tie-back. We are also demonstrating the climate leadership that people expect of us by meeting our manifesto commitment not to issue new licences to explore new fields and the commitment to ban fracking.

At the same time, we will keep investing in the rapidly growing energy industries of the future and help workers and communities take up the opportunities that they offer. Bearing in mind that the green economy is expanding three times faster than the economy as a whole, we are locking in this growth for the future. The Bill will also expand workers’ rights and protections, as we pave the way for a new generation of good jobs in clean energy.

In the gracious Speech, His Majesty also set out plans for the nuclear regulation Bill. It is no exaggeration to say that we are on the cusp of a new age of nuclear power in this country, driven by government investment in the biggest nuclear building programme in half a century—from Sizewell C to our small modular reactors programme with Rolls-Royce SMR.

Nevertheless, according to last year’s Nuclear Regulatory Review, the sector is still held back by a system that is overly complex and “bureaucratic”, and which favours process over safe outcomes. The environmental impact assessment for Sizewell C, for example, was 44,000 pages long and left neither side particularly happy. It is not hard to see why the UK is the most expensive place in the world to build new nuclear.

The measures in the nuclear regulation Bill will deliver a pro-nuclear, pro-nature approach to building, with a co-ordinated system that reduces costs and timeframes. This is not about compromising safety; it is about simplifying a needlessly unwieldy and frustrating system so that we can unleash the potential of this rapidly growing industry. It epitomises everything that this Government are doing to get Britain building things and owning things again. Alongside the energy independence Bill, that is how we will become more resilient and create more opportunities for today’s and future generations.

Turning to technology, the gracious Speech was clear that every path to stronger growth in this country has innovation front and centre. That is why this Government have made a record investment of £86 billion in research and development, as well as launching five AI “growth zones” across the country. In the Department for Energy, we are exploring all of the possible ways in which AI can improve our power system and cut out inefficiencies.

The Government’s task is not only to fuel innovation but to help people navigate and benefit from the changes that new technology inevitably brings. Free AI training is being rolled out to 10 million people—a third of the country’s workforce—in the biggest national training effort since Harold Wilson’s Open University. We are introducing a national digital ID through the digital access to services Bill, which will provide people with a free and optional proof of identity to access services without needing to rely on physical documents that can get lost or be stolen.

It is clear that people need to trust the technologies they use every day and, in particular, that their children are safe online. In the last eight months, we have legislated to make online content that promotes self-harm and suicide a priority offence in the Online Safety Act, and we have stood up to X to stop the spread of intimate deepfakes on its platform. Our cyber security and resilience Bill will better protect our most essential services, such as hospitals and water supplies, from advanced cyber attacks.

We know that parents everywhere are grappling with how much screen time their children should have and the impact of social media. That is why we are running a national consultation on the best ways to protect children’s well-being, including a possible social media ban, overnight curfews and other measures. The question is not whether we will act but how.

The gracious Speech set out plans for an “education for all” Bill, based on the principle that every child should be supported to achieve and thrive. The measures include national inclusion standards, with tools to help teachers identify and support those with additional needs. For those with the most complex needs, new specialist provision packages will be designed with experts and tested with parents to set out exactly what support is required.

We will set clear expectations of public services and hold them to account. For the first time, Ofsted will inspect nurseries, schools and colleges to see how well they include children with additional needs. We will regulate independent special schools, ensuring that children get the right placements without unnecessary costs. We are investing billions of pounds across the system to support early intervention and make it easier to access specialist expertise. We will also invest in the transformation of local SEN—special educational needs—services, including £1.8 billion to bring experts, such as speech and language therapists, into settings.

Finally, let me touch on culture. This Government are determined to maintain the UK’s reputation for world-class events, while ensuring that working people up and down the country can both enjoy them and feel the wider economic benefits in their communities. The new sporting events Bill will ensure that events such as the 2028 European football championships can be delivered as efficiently as possible, while securing the jobs and world-class facilities that our regions deserve. It will also strengthen our claim to host future global events and tournaments, including the 2035 FIFA Women’s World Cup.

We also need to ensure that real fans have fair access to matches, concerts and other major cultural events. For too long, fans have been ripped off by touts buying large volumes of tickets online at an industrial scale and reselling them for vastly inflated prices. We are introducing secondary ticketing laws to end the scourge of touting, by making it illegal to resell a ticket for more than its original cost. In this context, I pay tribute to the work of Robert Smith of The Cure, who has done exactly that with his ticket prices and world tours and has encouraged many other artists to do the same—I thereby out myself as a dedicated Cure fan in the process. This will support our world-leading creative industries by diverting profits back into our live events sector and the pockets of hard-working people. This could save fans £112 million each year and result in a £37 reduction in the average ticket price on the resale market. Therefore, Robert Smith’s efforts will become just the norm as far as tickets are concerned, with all the consequences that that involves.

I began by setting out some of the challenges we face as a country in a world which is more volatile and dangerous than many of us can remember, but as the expression goes, necessity is the mother of invention. As we face up to these challenges, we have an opportunity to strengthen our foundations, and not just get through hard times but build something stronger from them: by getting off the rollercoaster of fossil fuels and embracing the security of clean, homegrown energy; by putting science and technology at the forefront of economic growth; by ensuring every child gets the support they need to succeed; and by making the UK one of the best places in the world for sporting and cultural events, with British citizens feeling the direct benefits. That is how we will make our nation more resilient while ensuring everyone has the platform they need to go forward and thrive.

Under-25 apprenticeship starts are down, gender-questioning guidance has been watered down, parental and school freedoms have been reduced, and the Government have yet to put forward a concrete policy regarding poor-value degrees which shackle graduates with decades of spiralling debt. My noble friend Lord Markham will speak to that latter point, but I can only hope that the Government recognise the damage of these policies in the last Session and will have learned something from them.

Turning to the focus of my contribution—energy— I declare my interest as an independent consultant to Terrestrial Energy, a US nuclear technology company developing generation 4 advanced nuclear technologies. In the light of the still mounting costs of energy, I shall use this opportunity to give an overview of the policies that have brought us to this point and highlight the need to change course in order to prevent this Session’s legislation rendering us entirely energy dependent upon undependable power and unreliable imports.

The Secretary of State is doubling down on his headlong rush towards renewables without properly acknowledging the consequences of this approach. Britain continues to suffer some of the highest wholesale electricity prices in the world. Since the Government were elected on the promise to reduce energy bills by £300, they have risen by £73. Meanwhile, constraint costs reached £1.7 billion in the past financial year, while balancing costs stood at £2.7 billion. By the Secretary of State’s 2030 target, those combined costs are projected to rise to £15 billion.

The blind pursuit of renewables is costing the British economy and the British people. The problem is not renewable energy itself, but rests on the fact that there is currently an absence of perspective and balance in the Government’s strategy. The Secretary of State is committing the country to intermittent power generation without ensuring that sufficient firm power exists to support it. Hoping that the wind will always blow and the sun will always shine cannot and will not deliver a competitive, affordable and secure energy sector. What it will do is leave the British public increasingly dependent upon the whims of the weather, while paying for the privilege.

The Secretary of State does at least quietly acknowledge the need for firm power. We welcome his acceptance of the Fingleton regulatory review and look forward to working constructively with the Government on its implementation in the forthcoming nuclear regulation Bill. Nuclear power should form the future foundation of our national energy system. It remains the only source of low emissions and firm power capable of delivering genuine domestic energy security. However, the Fingleton reforms will have to cut through the layer upon layer of environmental and planning bureaucracy that has paralysed development. We will see whether the Government are really going to take on the many MPs in the parliamentary Labour Party and the Green Party when it comes to accelerating the delivery of new-build nuclear.

Recent nuclear projects have been characterised by soaring costs and ever-extending construction timelines. Environmental impact assessments and planning procedures have too often become more burdensome than the construction of the plants themselves—and that is before we even begin to discuss the procurement of the most cost-effective technology. We welcome the announcement of the Rolls-Royce SMR development at Wylfa, but it is disappointing that building will not commence until 2030. Meanwhile, there is ample room on that site for a gigawatt-scale development as well, to commence development much earlier alongside Rolls-Royce.

All these projects need skills, and there is an acute shortage at all levels, from technical skills—welders, electricians and general engineers—to apprentices both graduate and postgraduate. I was pleased to hear the Minister’s comments on this skills shortage for renewables, but I encourage the Government to consider establishing an SMR fleet technical education centre in North Wales to complement the work of the Bangor University nuclear department at M-SParc. There is also an urgent need for a thermal hydraulics facility and a materials test reactor to put us at the forefront of global research. If we are to build global expertise in this field, we need to start developing this critical infrastructure now, not only to provide technical support and training facilities for the operating fleet here and overseas, but to create high-value clusters around these technologies of the future.

I sincerely hope that the forthcoming legislation will address these shortfalls, but such reforms will inevitably take time to produce results. Given the projected timelines for Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, nuclear power is unlikely to provide reliable, large-scale firm power before the mid-2030s. In the meantime, we must still rely upon oil and gas as the foundation underpinning intermittent renewable power. The Secretary of State knows this. Last year, he instructed NESO to ensure that 40 gigawatts of backup electricity generation is available by 2030 through new gas-fired power stations to guarantee supply when wind and solar output is low. Yet, while he acknowledges this, the Government have simultaneously pursued policies that make oil and gas less secure and more expensive. Indeed, the flagship policy in the energy independence Bill will be the statutory ban on the licensing of new onshore oil and gas fields in the North Sea.

Gas still accounts for roughly a quarter of our annual energy consumption, half of which is imported. Banning new licences will only increase our reliance on these foreign imports. Increasing reliance on imports makes little environmental sense; in fact, it is positively damaging. The average carbon emissions intensity of North Sea gas production is 24 kilograms of CO₂ per barrel of oil. The Jackdaw field, were the Secretary of State to approve it, would produce just 8.5 kilograms per barrel of oil. That is what the ban on licensing will prevent. And what will replace it? In its place, we will be reliant on imported LNG, which has an average carbon emissions intensity of 85 kilograms per barrel of oil. That is not a sustainable energy policy.

Similarly, banning new licences only makes us less secure. Renewables and firm power are inseparable. Wind and solar provide only as much security as the reliable backup capacity supporting them. By relying on imported LNG, we make ourselves very vulnerable to international instability. The most recent war in the Middle East demonstrates precisely why dependence is so dangerous. What happens when the Ras Laffan is disrupted? What happens when global shipping lanes close? What happens when another international crisis sends imported energy prices surging overnight?

We have already seen, specifically across the Iberian Peninsula, the very real risks associated with instability in energy supply. Blackouts become a real risk and carry with them profound economic and human consequences. We constantly hear that the North Sea is a declining basin, yet for 40 years annual projections have repeatedly underestimated the remaining reserves. Norway was supposedly written off in 2010, yet last year it produced 4.1 million barrels of oil a day compared with the United Kingdom’s 1 million. It drilled 49 exploration wells—us, none. The only thing that separates many of these fields is an arbitrary line across the continental shelf.

With constantly improving technology supplemented by AI, the potential to exploit undiscovered reserves remains substantial. The companies are ready to invest; the expertise exists. All that is lacking is a Government willing to reconsider their own self-defeating policy.

Beyond the environmental incoherence and insecurity inherent in the Government’s policy lies the question of cost. The Minister will no doubt continue to argue that oil and gas prices are set internationally and that increasing domestic production therefore brings little benefit. But this ignores the economic reality. The more Britain develops its own reserves, the less exposed we become to international supply shocks, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere. Greater domestic supply does not insulate us entirely from global markets, but it does improve resilience and it reduces the current exposure to volatility.

Secondly, quite apart from production levels, the Government still exercise enormous influence over energy costs through taxation. The reason why energy bills now sit £73 higher than when the Government took office is not merely international pricing; it is that the Government are accelerating towards net zero while loading additional policy costs and levies on to consumers to fund that transition.

Even if wholesale prices were to halve over the next five years, forecasts suggest that consumers would still face electricity bills 20% higher than they currently stand. It is no wonder that, faced with these burgeoning costs, the Treasury’s own economic modelling predicts that energy-intensive sectors will be forced to cut over 160,000 jobs this year. That loss is a direct result of deindustrialising, high-cost policies and, thus, entirely lies at the Government’s feet.

The economic principle remains straightforward: if you reduce taxation and regulatory burdens, you reduce costs, and the market does the rest. If the Government were serious about lowering bills, they would consider the Conservative proposal to scrap the renewable obligation scheme, which currently guarantees some wind farms prices three times above the market rate for electricity. They would repeal the energy profits levy, stimulating investment and protecting jobs in the north-east of Scotland, and they would remove the carbon taxes which continue to inflate electricity costs for households and businesses alike.

Jobs are declining and bills are rising. Far from increasing our energy security, the Government’s current approach risks making Britain more vulnerable to blackouts and more dependent upon unstable imports.

True energy independence requires reliable, firm power on which the wider system can safely operate. In the long term, I hope sincerely that nuclear energy will fulfil that role, but, until the necessary reforms are enacted and new nuclear capacity is operational, we face a straightforward choice: imported oil and gas, or domestically produced oil and gas. The latter is environmentally preferable, supports British jobs, generates revenue for public services, reduces exposure to international instability, and helps moderate costs for consumers. The Government remain trapped within a dogma that serves no one except the most rigid net-zero ideologues. The forthcoming legislation gives Ministers an opportunity to rethink that approach. They should seize that opportunity, reduce the tax burden, restore investment confidence and allow domestic production to proceed. If they do that, Britain may yet achieve genuine energy independence.

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.

My amendments did not stop with child safety. They extended to AI accountability, data sovereignty, public sector dependency, workers’ and creatives’ rights to their labour and property, procurement, security and the basic question of whether this Government are willing to govern in the national interest rather than subsidising and creating further dependency on a handful of rapacious American firms. This is not a collection of isolated failures; it is a pattern. Again and again, when forced to choose between the needs of UK citizens and democratic accountability or the demands of Silicon Valley, this Government have chosen the latter.

The King’s Speech says remarkably little about tech, an issue that controls every aspect of private and public life. The Government promise transformation, efficiency and empowerment for UK citizens, but their legislative programme does not provide the means. If there is a beautiful technological future over the horizon, I am afraid this is not it. Unless we recover the confidence to govern technology in the public interest, the Government will be found profoundly wanting, particularly where children are concerned. This weekend, I spoke to campaigners in Canada who are supporting UK families as their loved ones are groomed by chatbots, because our Government refused to provide a route to protection—in fact, they whipped against it. It is on our watch that lives will be lost.

Where in the gracious Speech is the legislative vehicle to deliver the urgent changes needed to the online safety regime? Where is the strategic approach to AI safety? Where is the careful balancing of ethics with innovation? Where are the laws binding development on superintelligent AI? Will the Minister please comment?

Finally, as the bishop of a diocese with over 280 schools, and which has two of our own MATs and is a partner in 22 further MATs, and on behalf of the Church of England, I welcome the proposed reforms of the special educational needs system. They align with the Church of England’s vision for education, centred on human dignity, belonging, inclusion and enabling every child to flourish, regardless of their needs or abilities. However, we need to pay much more attention to the ordering of the digital world our children will inhabit.

In the book industry, we must protect the creative pipeline with robust copyright and ensure that writers are fairly and transparently remunerated. AI is trained on human creativity. Human imagination has never been more important or more under threat. Reading for pleasure should be nurtured throughout the school years, including a re-evaluation of cuts to arts and humanities in further education, which the Minister might want to comment on later. Interestingly, McKinsey has pivoted to hiring philosophy and literature graduates, who are able to think creatively and are better equipped for the AI world of work.

The Government have a key role to play in reversing the decline in reading for pleasure, restoring its enrichment and joy for a generation, and thereby turbocharging the creative economy. The journey has only just begun.