Bill Esterson MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 10 Jul 2025 · Energy Planning · Hansard source

  More

  I think most of that question is probably better answered by Ministers, but as to what we found in our evidence, it is very much the case that we have to work with local communities to address their concerns about having to host significant amounts of infrastructure, as in the hon. Gentleman’s community. The point about putting solar or wind farms on brownfield land is a good one. I do not think anybody is against that, and I think that that is part of what the Government intend. The point is that there are occasions when that is not possible, but the key is to engage with people and take them with us by demonstrating the case for where infrastructure must go.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Energy Planning · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There is a good crossover between the Planning and Infrastructure Bill going through Parliament and the amendments made to the national policy statement. Our recommendations pick up some of the linkages between the two, as she suggests. The key point is how we speed up the process so that we can get to my final point, which is to get on and build the infrastructure, as she says.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Energy Planning · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for her service on the Committee—her contribution is always valuable in our discussions and in the questions we put to our witnesses. She rightly raises nature mitigations, which we looked at in our inquiry. As I mentioned in my statement, we heard that all too often developers do not implement the mitigations that they are required to make. It is very important—this is one of our recommendations to Government, as she implies—to ensure that developers carry out their obligations and implement the improvements that she refers to.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Energy Planning · Hansard source

  More

  I am also very grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution. He joined the Committee recently and has grabbed the agenda with both hands, as one of our most assiduous attenders. I think he and the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) match each other on attendance, actually—I do not want to give the wrong impression. He is correct: we need the Government to engage with our recommendations on enforcement of nature-positive solutions. He gives me an opportunity to reiterate that there is confusion on whether the need for planning consent precedes grid connection or the other way around. I think we could do with the Government clearing up some of those things.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Energy Planning · Hansard source

  More

  That is something that we have looked at as part of this inquiry and more widely. It is really important that those who host major energy infrastructure are taken on board. We made recommendations about early engagement, and about listening to rather than ignoring what local communities say about the potential for re-routing sites or routes for pylons. The right hon. Gentleman talks about solar farms, but are there other options? There is good evidence that when engagement is done in the correct way, compromise is often possible. Although not everybody will ever be happy in consultation, there are definitely better ways for these things to be done.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Energy Planning · Hansard source

  More

  It is important that we have proper co-ordination between developers and different projects, which we also touched on in our report. The national policy statement is the strategically important element of planning, so it is very much relevant to my hon. Friend’s point. I think she will find that some of the comments and evidence that we heard in our inquiry lend themselves to the point she just made.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Energy Planning · Hansard source

  More

  It gives me great pleasure to present our Committee’s first report of this Session, “Gridlock or growth? Avoiding energy planning chaos”. I think it follows on very nicely from the statement we have just heard from the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, especially given some of the questions that followed. I thank my Committee colleagues for their diligence and proactive engagement throughout the inquiry, which has enabled us to produce a detailed report in a challenging timescale. The Secretary of State, in his statement just now, addressed some of the concerns that we raised in our report about planning and the part it plays in ensuring that infrastructure is built, as he said, “in the right places, so that we can effectively provide power where it is required.” and at a cost that is affordable for domestic and business consumers. His focus on the serious problem of high energy prices for businesses is very welcome. The Committee has taken evidence on that, most recently yesterday when the Chemical Industries Association referred to a crisis in the UK’s industry caused by uncompetitive energy prices. In our report, we considered the role of the strategic spatial energy plan. The Secretary of State told the House just now that it will be published next year. Again, we welcome that—it was recommendation in our report—but we want much greater clarity on both how the clean power 2030 action plan and the SSEP relate to grid connections and the development consent process. We found evidence of significant confusion over the role that grid connections have in determining securing planning consent and, similarly, the role that having planning consent can play in securing a grid connection. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State make his commitment to the publication of the SSEP, but I encourage him to do so sooner rather than later. In the 1950s and 1960s, the country made substantial investment in a super grid, a secure and modern energy infrastructure designed to meet the country’s growing energy needs. It was designed to give us 30 years of resilience. In the 1980s, the grid was already coming under strain and was in need of continued investment, so what did the Government do? They privatised it. Sir Malcolm Rifkind provided the rationale. He said that the energy industry “should be able to make its own investment decisions based on its investment needs and on the resources that it can raise in order to fund that investment.” —[ Official Report , 13 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 790.] Unshackled from the state, our energy infrastructure was expected to attract its own investment, but for our vital grid infrastructure the promised private funding just did not materialise. At the time, a rising star of the Labour party, the then shadow Energy Secretary—some people may have heard of him—Tony Blair, challenged the market-led approach to energy infrastructure. He told this House: “even when the industry is privately owned abroad, in most countries major strategic decisions are taken by Governments, not companies.” —[ Official Report , 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 680.] He went on to say: “All those unresolved contradictions underline the stupidity, indeed the impossibility, of an energy policy determined by the interests of the private sector. The very considerations most critical to securing the long-term future electrical supply are the very ones least suited to the inevitable short-term demands of the market.” —[ Official Report , 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 687.] The then future Prime Minister’s predictions were sadly all too accurate. Today, whether we pursue renewables, nuclear or internationally traded gas, the reality remains the same: we urgently require overdue upgrades to our ageing energy network. The strategic direction of this Government is clear: to build and deliver the energy infrastructure that will cut carbon emissions, secure our energy supply in the face of serious and growing international threats, and reduce energy costs for households and businesses over the long term. If we get that right, the UK has the opportunity to become a global leader not only in developing and deploying low-carbon infrastructure, but in how we manage the transition itself. Energy security is the top priority for this Government, as it is for my Committee, of course. We want Britain to stand on its own two feet, producing energy on our land, on our shores and in our seas, and by our own workers, giving us the opportunity to seize back control of household bills. Political consent and public support for the energy transition are essential, because Britain’s national security depends on it. The Government have set ambitious targets for the UK’s transition to clean energy, underpinned by both international commitments and domestic legal obligations, but real progress will depend not on high-level debates about ideology or party politics, but on whether we can construct the low-carbon generation and transmission infrastructure needed to meet those goals in practice. That is where the policy statements come in. They provide essential planning guidance for local and national authorities on how to evaluate proposed energy infrastructure, and how such proposals interact with wider strategies and land use plans. We called our report “Gridlock or growth” because the choice is stark. If we get the transition right, the UK can benefit from clean, cheap renewable energy, cutting bills, boosting business and supporting the growth needed to fund better healthcare, education and pensions. But the current system for prioritising grid connections has become severely congested. Too many speculative projects with little chance of being built are clogging up the queue, delaying or blocking more viable ones. The system has effectively seized up. One of our clearest findings is the need for common-sense reform. The Government are right to propose moving away from a purely market-driven system, because that system, left unchecked, has led directly to the current gridlock. Planning authorities cannot remain blind to a project’s chances of securing a grid connection. A project’s prospects of grid connection should become a “material consideration” in the consent process. It is sensible at this time to have a guiding hand prioritising those projects most likely to deliver the energy generation we need, and to build the necessary transmission infrastructure to get that energy to businesses and households across the country. Of course, none of that will work without proper planning consent. That, in turn, depends on meaningful engagement between developers and communities; engagement that happens early and is focused on resolving issues before they become entrenched. That is a key part of how we avoid the lengthy and expensive legal challenges that have held the British energy sector back. Too often, new solar or wind farms, and the pylons needed to carry energy to homes and businesses, become flashpoints of local opposition. Communities are frequently consulted too late to shape the outcome, or not given real insight into the trade-offs involved. We heard that when people are told that underground or offshore options may cost more and lead to higher bills, they are often more open to overland options. Similarly, the Committee recommends that nature-positive infrastructure projects can engage and better galvanise public consent for development, and that there should be a presumption against building onshore wind infrastructure on deep peat. The Committee recommends that the National Energy System Operator should use strategic planning to foster earlier, deeper community engagement well before the formal consent stage, and that the Government require developers to engage early and meaningfully with local communities to identify potential impacts, explore mitigation options and commit to delivering them. We also heard that a significant proportion of proposed mitigations, despite having funding allocated, are never actually delivered. The failure of the system to enforce the measures erodes public trust in the process. The result of poor consultation is that nobody is satisfied: communities feel ignored, developers face avoidable delays and legal costs, planners and courts are burdened unnecessarily, and confidence in the system is undermined. The principles are simple: put the right projects in place through direction from the centre; secure consent and mitigations by building trust in the system, early engagement and proper enforcement; and build the infrastructure. The clean power plan and—soon please—the SSEP set the priorities. We have the investment and innovation potential supported by the industrial strategy. Lower bills, greater security and sustainability of energy supply are there for the taking. Let us take them and go from current gridlock to growth. I commend this statement to the House.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Energy Planning · Hansard source

  More

  I am also grateful to the hon. Lady for her contribution since the start of the Committee—she is another assiduous attender. She makes absolutely the right point. Where we have identified areas of ambiguity—there are many around grid connection and planning, which I have touched on before—the Government need to clear them up, so that decisions can be made in a timely fashion, developers can have the confidence and certainty that they need, and we can get on with the process of improving the infrastructure, the grid capacity connection and the supply of cheap clean energy.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q5. I am proud that the Labour Government are banning fire and rehire. I am proud that we are addressing the abusive use of zero-hours contracts and improving protections at work, particularly against unfair dismissal. Reform and its Tory friends voted against Labour’s workplace protections. [ Interruption. ] I do not know why Tory Members are heckling; when they were in government they promised to deal with fire and rehire, but despite the scandal at P&O, they did absolutely nothing about it. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is only this Labour Government who will ensure that people have fairness at work?

• 2 Jul 2025 · Heathrow Substation Outage: NESO Review · Hansard source

  More

  It beggars belief that no action was taken after the risks were identified in 2018 at the North Hyde substation. The NESO report highlights a lack of information-sharing internally at National Grid and externally between organisations. It draws attention to the energy companies not knowing that Heathrow had a 10 to 12-hour arrangement for switching supply, and that National Grid did not appear to know that Heathrow was a customer of the substation. It is a matter of immense luck that the explosion and fire took place at 11 o’clock at night and that no one was present; otherwise, this would have been a very different discussion, with people having died. The Minister highlighted the unacceptable lack of action by National Grid. Will he ensure proper oversight and information sharing internally at National Grid and externally between organisations, so that we have safety and resilience in our national energy system, where it applies to critical national infrastructure and beyond?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor is quite right to mention that business confidence is at a nine-year high. Does that not go to show that not only were the announcements in the spending review right for business, but her emphasis on stability and certainty in the economy is exactly what is needed? Moreover, it is in sharp contrast to the chaos, constant changes of policy and complete disaster in economic policy that we saw from the Conservative Government.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend the Minister recognises the importance to our energy security of securing the fuel supply at Lindsey. He also recognises the importance of engaging with the trade unions to attempt, at least, to reassure the workforce. I thank him for those actions and congratulate him on them, and indeed on the engagement that the Government have had with the sector since the election. Refinery operations are increasingly challenging, not least because of the volatility and uncertainty in international fossil fuel markets that the Minister just mentioned, but also because of the competition across the world. Phillips 66 and Stanlow, which he mentioned in his statement, are adapting to the changes in our energy system, taking advantage of carbon capture and the production of sustainable aviation fuel and biofuels. Will the Minister ensure that the UK refinery sector is part of the energy transition and a key part of our energy and industrial strategies, so that refineries play a key part in the future for the communities and workers that depend on those jobs at the moment, and so that we do not see a cliff edge?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Spending Review 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  The warm homes plan will mean healthier and warmer homes and will see lower bills and create jobs in communities right across the country. It is a very good plan, especially for those facing fuel poverty. The last Government’s home energy programme changed every few months, which meant that businesses could not plan and consumers had no confidence in it, not to mention the scandalous misapplication of fixed-wall insulation. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this is a long-term warm homes plan that will deliver warmer homes and cut bills to the benefit of millions of our constituents for years to come?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Fossil Fuels · Hansard source

  More

  Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Moving from gas to electricity in home heating is an important part of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Yet at the Select Committee hearing last week, we heard real concerns that people in energy debt are unable to disconnect from gas and are therefore still stuck paying standing charges. Will the Minister say what the Government’s plans are to remove that problem and ensure that more people can take up the opportunities presented by electrifying home heat?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Nuclear Power: Investment · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on delivering on his promise from 2009 and confirming Sizewell C, along with the vast array of commitments to a bright nuclear future for this country. The Select Committee looks forward to our inquiry in the autumn into the future of nuclear; we will be taking evidence and making recommendations to support the work that the Secretary of State has set out. We visited Sizewell C, and I also visited the nuclear physics department at the University of Liverpool. I learned in both cases about the jobs that will be available across the country. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he sees this as the start of both gigawatt construction of new nuclear and a big expansion into SMRs and AMRs, which are still a nascent technology, to support a very good future for nuclear generation in this country?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Regional Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to Steve Rotheram, the Liverpool city region’s metro mayor, and Liverpool city region MPs, who jointly asked for pretty much what he has announced for the region in today’s statement. I also congratulate him on recognising the value that transport investment has for communities and for growth. In 2027 a new fleet of electric buses will arrive in my constituency as part of the expansion into the borough of Sefton. Can he confirm that today’s announcement covers the improvement in grid connections and infrastructure for charging that will be necessary to take advantage of the very welcome transition to electric buses?

• 30 Apr 2025 · Energy Grid Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  There are some inconvenient truths for those on the Opposition Benches who wish to blame low-carbon energy for what happened in Spain and Portugal. As the Minister has said, the cause of the outage is unknown at this stage. In 2003, when there was a blackout in Switzerland and Italy, and in 2006, when the same happened in Germany, affecting the whole of the continent, there were no renewables in the system. That goes to show that it is far too early to speculate. Gas sets the price for our electricity 98% of the time in this country. Those who oppose the transition to low-carbon energy generation are opposing energy security for this country. They are opposing lower prices for our constituents and good, well-paid jobs. That is what this agenda is really about.

• 29 Apr 2025 · UN Climate Change Conference 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  The overwhelming majority of those at the international energy summit last week said that the transition to low-carbon energy is crucial to energy security. Does my hon. Friend agree that those in this Chamber and beyond who do not support the transition to low-carbon energy are playing fast and loose with this country’s energy security?

• 22 Apr 2025 · British Steel · Hansard source

  More

  We need steel for wind turbines, for the equipment for carbon capture and for the expansion of grid infrastructure. In short, it is an essential part of how we expand our energy security in this country. The Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee that the grid connection date for Scunthorpe was 2034. Can my hon. Friend confirm that, as a crucial element of the modernisation agenda and securing the long-term future of Scunthorpe and steelmaking, which is so important to energy and every other part of our economy, she and her colleagues are looking at how that grid connection can be brought forward?

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes extremely well the point that our economic security and our national security are two sides of the same coin. I am pleased to hear about the work being done by the Business and Trade Committee; in his excellent speech, the Committee’s Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), mentioned the Sub-Committee that has been set up. I want to talk about Port Talbot, because the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee visited it two weeks ago. There will be a delay of several years between the closure last year of the blast furnaces there, and the opening of the new electric arc furnace, which is a massive cause for concern in south Wales and beyond. The excellent financial support provided by this Government, and Tata’s willingness to engage, are a good example of industry and Government being partners, and an indication that the industrial strategy that the Government plan to bring forward is already being effective. The Bill gives the Government the opportunity to secure steelmaking in this country. I congratulate the Secretary of State and his colleagues on their decisive action. Workers and the nation as a whole are grateful for the work of this Government, who are doing absolutely the right thing.

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is a relevant question, given that the hon. Gentleman was Boris Johnson’s business adviser when the Jingye deal was being negotiated. What advice did he give Boris Johnson about whether to accept that deal?

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Well, thank you, Mr Speaker—no pressure. [ Interruption. ] I will put some of my papers down. May I start by praising the Business Secretary and his team for the way in which they have introduced the legislation? I add to that my praise for trade unions, local management and Members of Parliament of both main parties—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), who, being a Minister, is not speaking in the debate. I joined him on a 2023 visit to Scunthorpe, where the very concerns about Jingye that we have heard today were shared with us by local management and trade unions alike. It is no surprise that those concerns have come to pass. The last Government were warned, and they chose not to take the action needed. Ministers in the last Government told me that steel needed by the Navy and by those across our economy could not be made at Scunthorpe, or at other steel plants. Interestingly, the local management and the trade unions told me that they could make whatever their customers asked them to make by adjusting production. Again, it is a pity that the last Government did not listen, or we might be in a rather different place now. During the last Parliament, we were the only country in the G20 where production of primary steel, and steel overall, was falling. If the blast furnaces were allowed to close, we would be the only country in the G20 without any primary steelmaking capacity, which underlines why today’s legislation is so important. The steel at Scunthorpe is of strategic national importance. Some 95% of our rail tracks are made at Scunthorpe, and the steelworks there carry out automotive, construction and defence production, all of which are critically important to this country. In addition to what is made now, there are opportunities in energy transition and defence. Some 25 million tonnes of steel will be required over the next 25 years in the offshore wind sector alone, so there are great opportunities if we can secure the future of Scunthorpe. At the Liaison Committee last Tuesday, the Prime Minister mentioned that the grid connection plan for the Scunthorpe site is only due in 2034. Our electricity prices are 46% above the average for International Energy Agency states. The Government have to address the challenges of slow grid connections and uncompetitive industrial energy prices if they are to enable the modernisation of industry as a whole, and steel in particular.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to investing in life sciences in this country. May I encourage her to support the bid for a national mental health diagnostics and research centre in my constituency, not least because poor mental health is estimated to cost this country up to £300 billion a year in lost economic production?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of those of my constituents who work at JLR Halewood, I thank my right hon. Friend for the stability and confidence that she has given to our automotive industry; it will be enormously reassuring to them. The last Government confirmed through Mark Harper, the then Secretary of State, that it was already cheaper for drivers to switch to electric vehicles—he did so from the Dispatch Box this time last year. For those of us who are able to plug in at home, it is cheaper by up to £1,000 per family, as she said in her statement. May I encourage her to work with the Energy Secretary on reducing the cost of electricity more widely to benefit those of us who cannot plug in at home, and to improve consumer demand, which is so crucial to supporting our manufacturers?