My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for being so brief and to the point and for allowing me the opportunity to explain the purpose of the other amendments in this group in my name, which are Amendments 73 to 76. Like the Minister, I look forward to hearing from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about grid capacity in his Amendment 79. I remind the Committee of my registered interest as chair of development forums in Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire.

My amendments relate to Clause 17, which contains a power to give Ministers the opportunity to designate strategic plans for the purposes of the connection reforms that are taking place in relation to the transmission and distribution networks. I suppose it would be helpful—not least because it will connect to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will raise—for me to remind the House that this process is under way. In effect, it was commenced by the Connections Action Plan under the previous Administration in November 2023. A simple way of expressing it is by saying that there was a lot of commitment to future substantial increases in generating capacity in a range of technologies, which were increasingly forming a queue to book their potential connection to the transmission or distribution networks. However, there was considerable risk related to whether those projects would be delivered on time or at all.

The volume of such commitments made it very clear that a significant proportion of them would not be viable, because there would be an excess of what was required. The numbers varied, but I think the latest figure was something like 714 gigawatts of grid capacity relative to about 500 gigawatts of demand. Instead of the old regime, which can be characterised as “first ready, first connected”—namely, those who were planning to provide capacity simply booked a place in the queue and then, when they were ready, they were given a right to be connected—the intention now is for there to be strategic planning behind the process leading to the net-zero objectives in 2030, which were published under the Government’s Clean Power 2030 Action Plan last December.

Since then, Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator have been working on this. For the avoidance of doubt, references in Clause 17 to the independent system operator and planner, ISOP, are actually to the National Energy System Operator, or NESO. Ofgem agreed on its methodologies, I think in April, and has now, after consultation, approved the processes. I think that we are in a position—but the Minister can correct me if there is more detail—where we are anticipating, potentially in a matter of weeks, the first allocation of commitments by Ofgem to what is known as Gate 2. As I understand it, Gate 2 means that Ofgem will say that it is committed to these projects and that they will be connected to the transmission or distribution networks when they are ready and because they are needed.

There are two differences with that approach. First, the queue will be straightforward; it will be not just “first ready, first connected” but “first ready, first needed, first connected”. Secondly, the two criteria that Ofgem will apply, in the first instance, will be that there is a clear timetable—with milestones, which, if they are not met, may cause such projects to lose their place in that queue—and that they will be connected when they are needed. There is therefore a direct relationship between the strategic planning for electricity capacity in a range of technologies and the projects that NESO agrees will be brought in to supply the grid at given times in the future.

If I understand it correctly, the present strategic objective is set out in the connections annexe to the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan. It sets out a range of technologies, and capacities that are required in those technologies, and then breaks them down by regions across the country. There is therefore a plan to which the alignment should relate. The Explanatory Notes state that the designated strategic plan according to which the National Energy System Operator should work may be, for example, the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, so we can see the relationship with that.

The Explanatory Notes do not say this, but the Delegated Powers Committee’s memorandum from the department did: in addition, the designated plans are intended to include the strategic spatial energy plan intended to be published in 2026. That is in addition to what is in the clean power plan, which has 2030 targets and ranges for its potential capacity requirements through to 2035, and will extend that to 2050 so that there is a longer strategic alignment between the people who are making substantial investments and the commitment on the part of the grid to take that supply into the grid.

All of that is just to explain where I think we are. The question, then, is: where does Parliament fit into all this? We are giving the Government, in Clause 17, the power to designate strategic plans. In so far as there is a clean power action plan and the Government designate it, there was no parliamentary process—none that I can find—associated with the clean power action plan. It was simply published by the Government. Unless I am wrong, the strategic spatial energy plan that is intended to be published next year will have no parliamentary process associated with it. So, in so far as the National Electricity System Operator and the distribution operators are required to align with a designated strategic plan, they are aligning with something in relation to which Parliament has no role.

The regulations saying that they are designated are intended to be achieved by a negative process. I think that all that Parliament will see in due course is an order made by Ministers saying that the clean power action plan and, in due course, the SSEP are designated strategic plans for the purposes of what will then be Section 17 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act. This will cut across the existing arrangements because Ofgem and ISOP or NESO, as it is variously described in legislation, must have regard to the strategy and priorities statements that are published by the Government. So the strategy and policy statement that the Government publish from time to time—the last time was in the earliest part of 2024—is a statutory basis for the priorities that are set for Ofgem and NESO.

The first question to the Minister—and the purpose of these amendments, which are to probe how this is going to work—is: what is the relationship between the present strategy and policy statement, as published by the previous Government, and the designated strategic plans? Clearly, it would be right—necessary, in my view—for the present Government to publish their own strategy and policy statement to give effect to their intentions under the 2030 action plan and, in due course, the spatial energy plan.

The second question is: is it the Government’s intention to publish next year, in line with the strategic spatial energy plan, a new strategy and policy statement?

The third question is: why is the strategy and policy statement not the right and sufficient means by which the Government set out the strategic priorities for Ofgem and NESO? I ask this because Section 165 of the Energy Act, which requires them to have regard to these statements, makes clear that the strategy and policy statement is the one that is published under Section 131(1) of the Energy Act 2013 and that it can be published only if the procedural and consultation requirements in Section 135 of the 2013 Act have been complied with. It will not surprise noble Lords to know that this means that it should be published in draft; that it should be the subject of consultation; and that it should then be laid before Parliament and subject to the approval of both Houses prior to its designation as a strategy and policy statement.

That being the case, the intention of my amendments is to substitute that statement and ask, “Why shouldn’t the Government use that?” The difference is that this would have to be consulted on and approved by both Houses of Parliament before it were the designated plan for the purposes of Ofgem and NESO. When the time comes, I would be grateful for the Minister’s answers to some of those questions; obviously, I reserve the right to come back to this on Report.