Energy Planning

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

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.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

We have just heard how important it is that we get community support for infrastructure. The Committee supports the presumption of consent for low-carbon infrastructure with critical national priority status. However, the Committee sets out in the report serious concerns about the potential impact on biodiversity and the lack of delivery on promised ecological mitigations. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential for Parliament to hold the Government to account on ensuring that the energy transition is delivered in a genuinely nature-positive way?

[Bill Esterson]

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.