Bill Esterson
MP for Sefton Central · Labour · United Kingdom
“As the Prime Minister said on Tuesday, our energy supply and our energy security are not a question of having either oil and gas, or renewables; they are about both. It is a great pity that proper process was not followed in 2022 or 2023. [ Interruption.”
“I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to continuing Britain’s global leadership on climate action, including by going to COP31. I also welcome his focus on breathing space for people and businesses, but, as he said, it will take a lot more than that to deliver the growth and reindustrialisation that he is so committed to.”
“Last week the Committee heard from Claire Dykta, the director of strategy and policy at NESO, who told us: “Operational decisions are taken by authorised, trained personnel only.” Her comments were confirmed by Alastair Martin, the chief strategy officer at Flexitricity, who, in the same session, said: “I do not think the idea that the he…”
“As the Minister has just said, new nuclear is essential for energy security. It is also essential as an alternative career for workers in oil and gas.”
“Paul and Susan Robinson each worked for the Health and Safety Executive for more than 40 years. They have not been able to plan for their retirement since finishing work last year; they have been living off their savings and the small loan that they have had. They are typical of the dozens of constituents who have contacted me.”
“Hudson primary school in my constituency does a brilliant job. It is a family hub, it specialises in support for children with SEND and autism, and it has a nursery, but its building, which is 80 years old, suffers from a high water table that brings damp, mould and structural problems for the building—as does occasional flooding.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,882 lines we hold for Bill Esterson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 98.
“Does the Minister agree that it is vital we support them while we gear up on renewables, so that they are available to contribute and can make that transition happen as fast and effectively as possible?”
“As the Prime Minister said on Tuesday, our energy supply and our energy security are not a question of having either oil and gas, or renewables; they are about both. It is a great pity that proper process was not followed in 2022 or 2023. [ Interruption. ] The shadow Secretary of State says that it was; if that is true, why was it possible to challenge that in the courts? That is why it is really important that the Government get it right this time around. On North sea oil and gas, it is really important that we recognise the importance of the supply chain, the workers, their companies and their communities, because we need those people if we are to make the energy transition that is so critical to our future.”
“I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to continuing Britain’s global leadership on climate action, including by going to COP31. I also welcome his focus on breathing space for people and businesses, but, as he said, it will take a lot more than that to deliver the growth and reindustrialisation that he is so committed to. I encourage him to read the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee’s report on the cost of energy, which includes our recommendations on how to bring down the disastrously high costs that are crippling the competitiveness of so much of British industry.”
“Last week the Committee heard from Claire Dykta, the director of strategy and policy at NESO, who told us: “Operational decisions are taken by authorised, trained personnel only.” Her comments were confirmed by Alastair Martin, the chief strategy officer at Flexitricity, who, in the same session, said: “I do not think the idea that the head office at NESO told the control room what to do is plausible.” Does the Minister agree that it is important for public reassurance, especially at a time of threats to energy security, that the line is not crossed in any way between properly evidenced scrutiny on one hand and conjecture on the basis of rumour, which is verging on scaremongering, on the other?”
“As the Minister has just said, new nuclear is essential for energy security. It is also essential as an alternative career for workers in oil and gas. Does the Minister agree that by blocking new nuclear in Scotland—in contrast to what is happening in England and Wales—the Scottish Government are undermining not just the energy transition and our energy security, but alternative jobs for the very people whom they claim to represent?”
“Paul and Susan Robinson each worked for the Health and Safety Executive for more than 40 years. They have not been able to plan for their retirement since finishing work last year; they have been living off their savings and the small loan that they have had. They are typical of the dozens of constituents who have contacted me. The Minister has talked quite rightly of his anger at the missed deadlines. How can he give us confidence that we will not be back here again in a few months’ time with another deadline having been missed?”
“Hudson primary school in my constituency does a brilliant job. It is a family hub, it specialises in support for children with SEND and autism, and it has a nursery, but its building, which is 80 years old, suffers from a high water table that brings damp, mould and structural problems for the building—as does occasional flooding. Will the Minister give Niki Craddock, the excellent headteacher at Hudson primary school, her team and all the children they serve the news that he will look favourably on—”
“The Select Committee has taken evidence on much of what is in the Gracious Speech, and a big part of this debate has been about the threats that we face as a result of the second fossil fuel crisis in five years. I remember the first in 1973: as a six-year-old, candles on the table were fun, but it was not much fun for most of the country. We have repeated that experience multiple times since. We have heard one piece of evidence again and again in the Committee: to address the challenge of the current fossil fuel crisis, the Government must bring down the cost of electricity, to enable the transition away from our dependence on oil and gas.”
“We were in a hurry to extract from the North sea. Peak North sea extraction was 1999, with 4.5 million barrels of oil a day. By 2023, after 13 of the Conservatives’ 14 years in office, that had fallen to 1.23 million barrels a day. That is a quarter of its peak production, and it will halve again by 2030. As NESO says, new licences will not make a material difference to capacity or production. Jackdaw, if it is given consent, would provide only 2% of UK demand. Rosebank would account for only 7% of production by 2030 levels. Those fields would not stop the decline, but only slow it.”
“The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), was talking about growth earlier; I ask her just to look at what the Office for Budget Responsibility is saying. The OBR makes the point that the costs of not addressing climate change are significantly more than the costs of making the transition. The Climate Change Committee predicts that, if we do not act, we will see a 7% fall in GDP by 2050. If we really want to be scared, we should listen to the actuaries: they know a thing or two about this, and they predict that global GDP will fall by 50% between 2070 and 2090, with catastrophic consequences across the world, unless we take the action that we need to take. We have to act. The North sea is a super-mature basin, with a fraction left of what was there to start with.”
“The Government were supportive of heating oil in the recently announced measures precisely for some of the reasons that the hon. Member sets out. We have to address this threat, and we have to transition for reasons of energy security, cost and bringing bills down. Anybody going to the pump now or looking at what their bills are likely to be—I think Martin Lewis was today predicting the latest increase in the price cap—can see what is coming for domestic and business consumers. Ukraine has learned about energy security the hard way, from the Russian attacks on its oil and gas installations, and it has shown us all. We have seen the same in the middle east with the war with Iran. Decentralising and moving away from dependence on oil and gas is key to protecting our energy generation. The economic arguments are strong.”
“They have to make the case to people that they will benefit from investment in their homes, their transport and more widely. I very much support and look forward to debating in detail the energy independence Bill.”
“The warm homes plan, which will be supported by the warm homes agency, will deliver healthier homes to live in and better air quality. It is critical, as I said at the start, that we reduce the price of electricity so that people can take advantage of the technology in the warm homes plan. It is already cheaper, according to Autotrader, to buy a new electric vehicle, and the second-hand market has been cheaper for some time. Enabling more people to drive electric can only help in that transition and in the reduction in our reliance on oil and gas. The Government have to have the confidence to deliver this agenda. They have to have the confidence that they are right that energy independence will come from a move away from oil and gas and towards renewables.”
“I have talked about the opportunities for security. Increased generation and electrification will reduce the reliance on imports of oil and gas. The Secretary of State referred to what will hopefully be in the Bill about optimising the grid, and that will only help with that process, too. Through NESO, the Government have already addressed the issues with the connection queue, which is being cleared. Giving people access to excess renewables, being able to sell back to the grid and encouraging businesses to make greater use of flexibility will only help people to access cheaper energy. The economics add up. The clean energy economy is growing three times faster than the rest of the economy. It is delivering the jobs that the Secretary of State referred to.”
“As I have said, the amount we are talking about is very small, compared to the needs of the UK. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member might not be so disappointed by what I say next. There is an argument—the Government have done some of this with tiebacks—for continuing to support production in the North sea, because the supply chains in our oil and gas industry will be critical for the development of renewable generation in the North sea and more widely. Some of the workers involved have already moved into sectors such as nuclear. It is important that an agreement with the TUC on the clean jobs plan is pursued. I welcome what the Secretary of State announced about rights in the North sea for renewables. It is key that we enable that transition and give a well-paid future to people working in oil and gas now.”
“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.”
“The fuel duty freeze is of course very welcome for drivers of petrol and diesel vehicles, but this is the second time in just over four years that petrol and diesel prices have gone through the roof as a result of international oil and gas uncertainty. Is it not time that we gave as much support as possible to those who want to make the transition to electric vehicles? According to Autotrader, the average price of electric vehicles is already lower than that of petrol and diesel vehicles. Will the Government confirm that they are bringing forward plans for greater ability to charge at home and bringing down the cost of electricity as far and as fast as possible, so that more drivers can benefit from long-term lower driving costs?”
“The conflict in Iran is also a matter of energy security and the cost of energy. It is a reminder for the second time in four years of the dangers of being dependent on international fossil fuel markets and of the need to reduce our dependence. The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee has heard a lot of evidence about the importance of decoupling the price of electricity from the price of gas, so may I encourage the Chancellor to bring forward measures that will reduce the amount of time that gas can continue to set the price of electricity? It is a pity that the Conservative party did not take that approach following the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 when it had the chance.”
“There are people who are saying that the way to bring down bills is to reach agreement with the oil and gas companies to charge less for gas in the North sea. Is not the problem with that argument that there is absolutely no way that those privately owned companies will agree—or that their shareholders will allow them to agree, to be more accurate—to a lower price than they can get elsewhere in the world?”
“It really is in the national interest to secure the future of the steel industry in this country. It is extraordinary to hear the opposition to the plan from the Opposition Benches, but perhaps not surprising, given that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), was the adviser to the previous Government when they sold the British steelworks at Scunthorpe to Jingye, with all the disastrous consequences. On the subject of energy for Scunthorpe, can the Secretary of State say what is being done to bring forward the date for the electricity connection to the site, which I know has been a significant challenge over many years?”
“The latest science suggests that unless we take action right now, parts of southern Europe—let alone the rest of the world—will be uninhabitable in as little as 15 to 20 years’ time, and by the end of the century billions of people will not be able to live where they are. That means they will not have anywhere to live. If we think we have a migration crisis now, we have seen nothing yet. Let us deal with the myths. First, there is the idea that because we are responsible for only 1% of global emissions, we should not take action. Well, 30% of emissions come from countries that are responsible for less than 1% of emissions. If none of them take action, where is the motivation for China, India and other large countries—the United States is a bit of a lost cause at the moment—which have a far greater impact?”
“There are 2,000 excess deaths a year in the UK alone as a result of excess heat, and 90% of our healthcare facilities are vulnerable to overheating. We face flooding and its consequences for food insecurity and the difficulty of growing crops—and that is just in this country, let alone around the world. Equally, we see heat and drought affecting our food production, and that threat to food production means rising prices and shortages. There are impacts on biodiversity and on national security, with consequences such as conflict over scarce resources and migration because people are not able to live in certain places.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) on securing the debate. As far as I am concerned, we should debate this all day, every day, because the message needs to be heard loud and clear out there. Those who want to delay climate action are denying our children and grandchildren a future. They should be honest about their intentions and reasons for saying what they do. I will speak about three broad areas: science and the very real threat now and in the future; the myths and misinformation peddled by opponents of action; and the benefits of taking climate action, which my hon. Friend set out very well indeed. I turn to the science on climate breakdown. We see the impact now, with heatwave days in the UK over the last few years, 88% of which would not have happened without the impact of climate change.”
“My hon. Friend is right. Actually, our global leadership through COP, which my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke mentioned, and the fact we have set our nationally determined contribution—unlike some countries—is hugely important. We were ahead of the game with the Climate Change Act 2008 and the 2050 net zero target set by Theresa May. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke also mentioned Margaret Thatcher —when I came here, I never dreamed that I would be quoting her, but I have become more inclined to do so on this issue, if on no other. That fracturing of the consensus in the House is deeply worrying.”
“With allocation round 7, this country is demonstrating again that we are the place to invest in the low-carbon economy. In the actions of Great British Energy through Sizewell C and the small modular reactors programme we see examples of the Government leading the way again. We have to continue taking that lead, we have to continue busting those myths, and we have to keep reminding people that this is not a choice that our children and grandchildren want to have to face. Let us take that action now, let us keep making the case, and let us ensure that we prevail in the debate on the climate over those who would undermine, who would damage and who would destroy.”
“It is true that we can improve our energy security, reduce prices and take the action we need to on climate as they are inextricably linked; we have to make that case. We also have to give confidence on the jobs mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), to support the supply chain and to make the case for the co-benefits to be had in health from taking action, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). On the economy, the clean economy is growing three times as fast as the rest of the economy. The Government have taken action, including with the clean energy jobs plan and apprenticeships. Apprentices like those I saw at Cavendish Nuclear in Warrington just a few weeks ago are starting to make the difference in good, well paid, high-skilled jobs.”
“In Norway, the Government did not sell off the production company—it is state owned, and they have control over it. Norway also did not have the same rush to extract oil and gas from the North sea that we had in this country. By the way, Norway was clever, because it set the boundaries between the UK and Norway sectors for the extraction of oil and gas. As a result, it has far more reserves than we do, and it has control, unlike us. As has been said, whatever we do, and however much we change the production capacity, we cannot set the price—not that we could do it soon anyway, so it would not affect the current concerning situation with the conflict in Iran. We have to be honest about what is going on here, and we have to give confidence to people that ours is the right approach.”
“That means leadership by this country of the sort we have been discussing. The public are being led to believe by the siren voices on the right in politics—let us be clear, they come from both main right-wing parties—that costs will go up. Well, I have news for them: the costs of investing in our networks and in our infrastructure to generate electricity will be there whether we do that with renewables and low-carbon generation or with fossil fuels. The cost is there whatever we do, but it is better to do that through low-carbon sources for all the reasons that my hon. Friend gave earlier. Let us deal with the claims about the North sea. Yesterday, the leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), made a comparison with Norway.”
“My hon. Friend is right. I hope that her constituents and the businesses in her constituency can take full advantage in spite of the damage that the appalling party she mentioned is trying to do not just to the climate to our economic prospects. Let us look at the cost of a failure to take action. Last July, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that failure to act on climate has an economic cost. The Climate Change Committee put a figure on it: 7% of GDP will be lost by 2050 unless we take climate action. If we do not want to believe the Climate Change Committee or the OBR, let us try the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries—a pretty reputable bunch that anybody on the right of politics ought to listen to. Its prediction is that the global economy will be cut by 50% between 2070 and 2090 unless we take action internationally right now.”
“The hon. Lady is four minutes into her speech and she has talked about the reduction in emissions, which is largely the result of the dash for gas, which predated the last Conservative Government—actually, it happened under the previous Conservative Government. So far, she has talked about her opposition to what this Government are doing. She has not yet told us anything about what she thinks the next steps in taking climate action should be. Is she going to do that?”
“I know that we are talking about the climate, but the events in Iran are a salutary reminder of the need to take action because of the reliance on global fossil-fuel prices. A new report from Reuters suggests that 17% of Qatar’s next five years of LNG supply has been destroyed by the overnight attacks. Does that not remind us how critical it is, for the energy security reasons that my hon. Friend set out, as well as for the climate reasons, that we get off the roller coaster of fossil fuels as fast as possible?”
“Evidence presented to the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee shows that if the war in Europe is expanded, Russian submarines pose a significant threat to oil and gas tankers, pipelines and installations in the North sea. What is the Government’s plan to address this significant threat to our oil and gas supplies?”
“Given that people on heating oil are at the sharp end of the impact of the spike in oil and gas prices, will he consider giving them preferential treatment when it comes to the warm homes plan so they can benefit from the range of measures, including on energy efficiency, and the reduced costs that it can deliver for them?”
“Unlike the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), I give an unqualified welcome to today’s announcement, which will support some of the most vulnerable people in the United Kingdom—some of those in greatest fuel poverty. I have to say to the Minister, though, that we invited him to join us at our Committee session tomorrow afternoon to discuss the warm homes plan, following last week’s excellent evidence session. So far he has not been available. It is not too late for him to change his mind if he wants to, but for now I will ask him one question.”
“The Royal Mail excuses are wearing very thin, are they not? I have constituents who are going to the sorting office and being presented with piles—weeks’ worth—of letters, and others who are getting those same piles delivered in one go. The Minister said he is meeting Ofcom today. Does he think that the regulator needs additional powers? It is clear from his answers so far, and from the fact that we are still discussing something that has been going on for months, that something is not working. I encourage him to consider whether the regulator needs more, and what he can do.”
“I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to giving us energy security by reducing our dependence on international fossil fuel markets and moving to clean energy instead. I also welcome what she said about her support for jobs and investment in the North sea, her commitment to protecting consumers through the warm home discount and the warm homes plan, and indeed the commitment she made in the Budget to take £117 off consumer bills. My right hon. Friend rightly pointed out the dire record of Opposition parties on new nuclear—14 years in which they failed. Will she give a commitment that this Government will add to their already announced successes on Sizewell C and on small modular reactors, and give policy certainty to the industry through a fleet approach to both large-scale and small modular reactors?”
“May I encourage him to bring that forward, so that bill payers can benefit from the availability of low-demand cheap electricity as soon as possible, as an immediate response to this crisis?”
“Yesterday, the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee looked at the facts and the evidence: Ofgem and NESO told us that the price cap will be in place until June as a short-term protection; that clean power 2030 is indeed the best way to avoid future exposure to the sorts of risks that we are now experiencing; that energy costs as a share of GDP will fall from their current 10% to between 5% and 6% by 2050, according to Government plans; and that there is no prospect of bringing down prices by undertaking activity in the North sea. What plans does the Secretary of State have for short-term support for bill payers? We heard evidence about the reformed national pricing consultation that is under way.”
“The Foreign Secretary mentioned the importance of Russian oil and gas and the need to disrupt the activities of the shadow fleet. Will she confirm that she is working with allies to ensure that as much as possible is being done to stop people using Russian oil and gas, because of how important it is to reduce the cash flows that are behind Russia’s war effort?”
“The conflict in the middle east is a reminder of the need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, which set the price of our energy bills for consumers and businesses; 80% of the time, gas sets the price of electricity. The £117 reduction in bills that the Chancellor announced in the Budget is welcome, but will she recommit to giving long-term stability to our energy prices, and to bringing bills down in the long term, by supporting investment in the generation of renewables and nuclear, in the expansion of the grid, and in battery storage, which will help domestic and industrial consumers at the same time?”
“The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee has heard multiple sets of evidence about the risk in our dependence on fossil fuels, given the volatility of prices. The way that oil and gas prices have gone up has been a salutary reminder of that evidence. Remember that gas sets the price for our electricity most of the time. Is not the energy transition not a matter of ideology, but a matter of national security importance, and economic importance?”
“The costs of new infrastructure are a pressure on bills, as the Secretary of State knows. He deserves enormous credit for the results of the allocation round 7 auction today, in which the strike price of renewables was less than half what it would have been with new gas. What is the approach to rolling out extra grid—and, indeed, maintaining the existing grid—which is so crucial to the plans, given that there is so much to make up for following the failure to invest over the many years since privatisation?”
“Will the Secretary of State say how he intends to ensure as many people as possible in rural areas understand the benefits of community energy and solar more widely? Will he ensure that those myths are finally busted?”
“Select Committees look at the evidence. The evidence we have heard is that community energy is a great way of bringing down bills and giving people the confidence to take part in the energy transition. The Secretary of State talked about solar in his statement. We heard that golf courses use 10 times as much land as solar farms. Even if the Committee on Climate Change recommendations are adopted, twice as much land will still be used for golf courses. The Country Land and Business Association told us that concerns about land use are a myth: that the planning system protects the best and most versatile land for crop production, and that the roll-out of solar should be encouraged as a way of diversifying for farmers, delivering cheap electricity for both neighbouring businesses and domestic use.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for her commitment. Sefton Women’s and Children’s Aid does a brilliant job advocating for victims of domestic abuse, but it has seen a worrying increase in the level of psychological abuse, alongside historical challenges with violence. Can the Minister confirm that Sefton Women’s and Children’s Aid, along with other organisations doing such good work, will get the support that she has just outlined to enable them to look after the victims for whom they advocate so brilliantly?”
“My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) asked about the two-year parole cycle when she raised the appalling case of James Bulger. James’s dad, Ralph, is now a constituent of mine, which is why I am following up. Will the Secretary of State consider changing the rules around the two-year system, given the family’s re-traumatisation when reliving what happened to James every two years?”
“Mersey Care NHS foundation trust has plans for a world-leading mental health research and development facility at Maghull health park in my constituency. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how the Treasury might support investing in such an important research and development project, not least as it is fundamental to the Government’s plans for improving healthcare?”
“My Committee colleagues are under no illusions about the scale of the challenge that we face with energy bills. The Secretary of State spoke yesterday about the potential to use tariffs to cut bills. We identified other opportunities to cut bills. Over time, we will recommend more. I would just make a plea: that the Government take a look at the evidence behind the recommendations in our report and consider whether they might want to adopt more of what we suggested. It would not be the first time that a Government had rejected Select Committee recommendations only to adopt them quietly later.”
“It was clear to us, from the evidence we heard, that a complaint before the ombudsman is sufficient to suggest that the retailer is not currently being proportionate in its actions. Our main recommendation for businesses and industry follows a suggestion from Make UK to provide an opt-in scheme that would provide businesses with certainty about costs, as uncertainty is almost as damaging as the high prices themselves. I hope that the Government will act on these recommendations, which they say that they will keep under consideration. We also heard about businesses being put on to contracts where the costs might not be as transparent as they should be. We also think that businesses should be allowed to exit energy contracts up to 14 days after their first bill.”
“I am pleased to say that we had agreement from the Government about the importance of a better, more ambitious smart meter roll-out. We recommended that the ombudsman’s job would be more effective if it was placed on a statutory footing and better enabled to enforce its decisions. The Government agreed with us. We also recommended that the ombudsman should cover small and micro-sized businesses, with the ability to make awards up to £50,000. We thought that energy companies should not be able to pursue customer debts that were currently being considered by the ombudsman. The Government told us that they were content to rely on Ofgem rules that companies should only pursue debt in a proportionate manner.”