Bill Esterson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Sept 2025 · Jaguar Land Rover Cyber-attack · Hansard source

  More

  We have heard from my hon. Friends and the Minister how wide the impact of the cyber-attack has been, across the economy. Hon. Members have mentioned the national security threat. The Minister gave evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy in his previous role, and spoke about his confidence in the “robust” contingency plans in place for critical national infrastructure, to quote a phrase he used. To what extent does he have the same confidence when it comes to cyber-attacks?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Government Debt Interest Payments · Hansard source

  More

  Both the Conservatives and Reform want to repeat the medicine that Liz Truss inflicted on this country, pushing interest rates and mortgages through the roof. Is not the contrast that this Government have provided stability and confidence; that, as a result, we have record levels of private investment in this country; and that we are on the right track to rebuilding this country as a success story, which can be seen in the fact that we have the fastest growth in the G7 as well?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is absolutely right—so was the shadow Minister—to focus on the jobs and the communities affected by the worrying news coming from Lindsey. He was also right to say that the problems are the result of shockingly bad management. My Select Committee will look at the future of refining in this country in a one-off session in the autumn, and we will be able to take further evidence at that point. In response to what the shadow Minister said about energy prices, will the Minister confirm that the way to get industrial energy prices down—just as with domestic energy prices—is to reduce our reliance on the volatility, uncertainty and high prices that are determined by Vladimir Putin and the petrostates, and that we have to manage the transition, not shut our eyes to it or somehow play into culture wars as Reform wants us to do?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Independent Water Commission · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents will be very pleased with what the Government have announced today, following 14 years of seeing increases in the dumping of sewage on the beaches, and in the rivers, in my constituency. I could not help but notice that yesterday the leader of Reform, in his answer to every question, said either “I don’t know” or “I’ve no idea.” Of course, he is not here either, but he did say that his answer to this problem is to increase payments to the shareholders and to do absolutely nothing to deal with the problems in our water industry. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, during his time as Secretary of State, he will make it his priority to ensure that we reduce the sewage being dumped in our rivers, on our beaches and in our lakes?

• 17 Jul 2025 · SME Operating Costs · Hansard source

  More

  SME manufacturers are a key part of the planned renaissance in manufacturing in this country. Some of them are raising concerns about a lack of involvement in the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council. Will the Minister confirm that they are very much involved and have an important role to play in developing the SME strategy that he referred to?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Electricity Grid Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  The challenges of increasing electricity grid capacity include the ability to get planning consent and to achieve grid connections, as the Minister knows. In the report that the Select Committee published last week, we referred to the problem of inconsistency in some of the guidance and energy plans over which comes first—the grid connection or the planning consent. Will the Minister please address that and ensure that the Government clear up that inconsistency, so that we can move forward with increasing electricity generation and grid capacity?

• 14 Jul 2025 · State of Climate and Nature · Hansard source

  More

  Select Committees look at the evidence, follow the evidence and make recommendations on the basis of the evidence. Today, we have heard from the Secretary of State the evidence from the Met Office about the seriousness of the threat, the reality of the nature of the crisis and the fact that that will only grow. The shadow Minister missed something because he needs to acknowledge not just the costs of taking action but the costs of not doing so. The Secretary of State read out those costs: £200 billion or 8% of GDP if we get 3° of warming, according to the OBR. Those opposing climate action in this place can also see the evidence that cheaper driving and home heating are already available to many people, and we should be making them available to as many people as possible. They also know that switching to low-carbon electricity as much and as fast as we can will make this country safer by getting control of our energy generation and supply. Does the Secretary of State agree that the patriotic approach is to work together to cut emissions for financial, security, nature and climate reasons?

• 10 Jul 2025 · Electricity Market Review · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the Secretary of State will not be surprised to hear me say that I very much welcome what he has announced. He set out three priorities: fairness, lower bills—including and especially in industry and business, where my Committee heard as recently as yesterday that energy bills are causing real concerns and something of a crisis in certain industries—and attracting investment, not least ahead of auction round 7. I was saddened that the shadow Secretary of State was so critical of wind generation. I have her letter of 12 March 2024 to my predecessor as the Chair of the Select Committee setting out her terms of reference for the consultation that the Secretary of State has responded to. She placed great emphasis on the importance of investing in renewables, so it is a great shame to see her change of heart. Under the reformed national system, does the Secretary of State envisage increasing opportunities to use demand flexibility, and to use it as fast as possible, as a key way of bringing down energy costs for domestic and industrial consumers?

• 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?