Renewable Energy Projects: Community Benefits

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) on bringing forward this important debate. He raised this subject in his maiden speech, so he is clearly passionate about it. As someone who has been here for 14 years, it is a great pleasure to hear so many newly elected MPs bringing fresh perspectives to the House. Parliament is a better place for new MPs coming in and sharing their experiences; two minutes is not enough for some of these speeches.

In his maiden speech, the hon. Member raised valid concerns about the industrialisation of the countryside, which is an issue that all of us, certainly on the Conservative Benches, have consistently guarded against. Our belief is that the need for renewable energy must be balanced with the preservation of rural landscapes, ensuring that development is sustainable and respectful of local communities. Aside from his desire to see money flow back into communities, that is the only way we will get the public to support any plans for net zero and a decarbonised energy grid, as we heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage).

Unfortunately, the new Government immediately began to torment rural communities in their crusade for carbon neutrality by 2030 by removing key protections from the national planning policy framework just days after the election. Those provisions required developers to demonstrate that onshore wind projects had community support and that local planning impacts were properly addressed. In the new Secretary of State’s first week, he disregarded the previous Secretary of State’s legal planning guidance, which stated that the best and most versatile agricultural land must be avoided for new solar farm applications and that the cumulative impact of many solar farm applications must be considered together. Those decisions by the new Labour Government undermine the very communities that bear the burden of hosting new energy infrastructure while ensuring minimal benefit.

Even more concerningly, we understand that the Government intend to consult on bringing large onshore wind proposals into the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, which would further centralise decision making and diminish local input. It is vital that the Government listen to the views and concerns of local communities about onshore wind. Residents should have a say in projects that directly affect their environment and not be sidelined by top-down diktats from Westminster. We must ensure that local voices are heard and that community consent remains central to the planning process for renewable energy projects.

I also note the previous Government’s approach to community benefits and our commitment to ensuring that communities hosting vital energy projects were directly rewarded. We announced plans that people living near transmission infrastructure could receive up to £1,000 per year in electricity bill discounts—I am not sure it was per year, actually—providing meaningful financial relief to local households. In addition to those savings, we announced that funds would be available for local projects, empowering communities to invest in the initiatives that matter most to them, whether that is improving local parks, enhancing energy efficiency or supporting education programmes for young people. We had intended to publish guidance this year on making that a reality, so this debate is timely in allowing the Minister to give an update on all those plans.

When it comes to the impact of new grid infrastructure, pylons across much of our countryside will concern our residents most, and Labour’s accelerated push for pylons across rural landscapes threatens to blight our countryside. The rush to meet unrealistic targets will impose unnecessary visual and environmental costs on rural Britain, with little regard for the long-term impact on our natural beauty. The National Energy System Operator, formerly known as the National Grid, recently published a report that says that while grid enlargement by 2030 means pylons, grid enlargement by 2034 allows enough time to underground those connections and, at the same time, provide £600 million of savings in grid delivery.

The shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), highlighted during the election campaign that our party remains committed to protecting our landscapes. We propose learning from Germany where underground power lines have become the default presumption in designated areas such as national parks. That approach not only preserves the character of those unique places, but respects the wishes of local communities. Crucially, it could save bill payers money in the long term.

Over the last decade, technological advances have made it increasingly feasible to bury power lines, especially in sensitive areas. Unlike the new Government, we would have undertaken a rapid review to assess the advantages of alternative network technologies compared with overhead pylons. By exploring options such as underground cables and other innovative technologies, we can achieve energy grid decarbonisation without the impact on our countryside that Labour is apparently prepared to accept.

It is vital that we approach the energy transition with a clear vision that balances that transition with the need to protect our countryside and safeguard community interests. Labour’s plans seem short-sighted and fail to strike that balance.

Although we have real concerns regarding the Government’s plans for the countryside, I am extremely supportive of technologies that could have real community benefits—those that are innovative and easy to deliver, and that produce cheaper clean energy. I recently met experts from the University of Oxford and Oxford Photovoltaics, or Oxford PV, to discuss breakthroughs in solar power generation. They are working incredibly hard to produce lightweight solar panels so that the roofs of factories and warehouses can be used for solar panels without having to reinforce the building underneath.

[Seamus Logan]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the National Farmers Union of Scotland accepts the arguments and the case for pylons as opposed to underground cabling?

[Mark Garnier]

That is great. If people accept pylons, that is absolutely fine, but there are an awful lot of people who do not and we can look at where the alternatives could be cheaper.

[Jamie Stone]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mark Garnier]

I am mindful of time, but I will take one more intervention.

[Jamie Stone]

Does it not strike the hon. Member as strange that SSE proposed to underground the cable in the highlands from Dundonald to Beauly, yet says that it is impossible to do so in other parts? That is a very mountainous part of the highlands, so I think there is something in what my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), my constituency neighbour, said about it being possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

I see; I might have misunderstood what the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire said. It is an engineering challenge, but we need to listen to the experts who know what they are talking about. I am not entirely certain that I understand the point that the hon. Gentlemen are trying to make, but if we can underground cables it would be better for communities, certainly if it is cheaper and better for the environment. If that means taking a bit of extra time, we need to get together to think carefully about that.

I will get back to my point about the University of Oxford and Oxford PV. Using that kind of technology, together with community-based power generation, has the potential to reduce strain on the national grid and limit the need for large-scale projects that can disrupt our landscape and our communities.

Through the Energy Act 2023, the previous Government committed to removing barriers to community energy projects by launching a call for evidence. I am interested to hear from the Minister whether the new Labour Government will honour that commitment—perhaps he will share that information with us in his remarks later.

The challenges that we face in transmitting renewable energy, particularly wind power, from areas of generation to areas of demand underscore the urgent need for grid upgrades. The current limitations in grid capacity, most notably the B6 boundary between Scotland and England, have become a major constraint on our energy system. The B6 boundary is the largest single network bottleneck, preventing vast amounts of wind power generated in Scotland from reaching higher-demand areas in England. As a result, we are facing enormous constraint payments, whereby wind turbines are shut down despite being able to generate clean and affordable energy.

That must be the greatest source of frustration for people living in areas of natural beauty such as the highlands and the Shetland Islands. Not only have those people had their landscape blighted but, if the equipment is not working at full capacity, bill payers will be paying for constraint payments in order for the equipment not to generate electricity. For instance, Orkney has some of the most powerful wind turbines in the UK, yet they often have to be turned off simply because the grid cannot handle the energy they produce. That is a glaring example of how our infrastructure is failing to keep up with the energy transition. The highlands and islands are energy-rich regions, but their potential is being stifled by inadequate transmission networks.

I turn to the biggest concern for many residents, which is how the Government will deliver the infrastructure required for a decarbonised energy grid by 2030. I must say to new Labour MPs that at the next general election in just four or five years’ time, all constituents—Labour MPs’ constituents in particular—will ask, “Did you meet your 2030 target?”, “What did you do to my energy bills?”, and “What did you do to the countryside?” Labour Members claim that their plans will save households £300 a year on energy bills, but it seems incredible that that saving will ever be achieved.

I asked in the House when we might receive a full systems cost analysis of Labour’s net zero plans by 2030, but we still have not had a proper answer—the answer given was, “In due course.” We need an answer to the question of how much this will all cost.

Although the Government’s pledge to cut everyone’s energy bills by £300 remains on their website, curiously no Ministers can bring themselves to repeat it. I have no doubt that the Minister would be delighted to do so if he gets the chance—he will have many chances, because I will wind up in a minute. Despite that promise, the actual price of the proposal will put a huge strain on taxpayers.

I have a number of questions for the Government, which I will put to the Minister. What are the full system costs associated with a net zero power grid by 2030? Will the Government confirm that they still plan to save households £300 a year on their energy bills? What baseline are they using—is it from the election? How do they plan to balance the urgent need for rapid decarbonisation with the development of emerging energy technologies? Will they support some of the innovative technologies that I mentioned or ones with longer lead times, such as nuclear? Will they explore alternatives to large-scale pylon construction, such as under- grounding and undersea cables, to protect communities and landscapes? Will they commit at the very least to match the community benefit regime set out by the previous Conservative Government of up to £10,000 off energy bills over 10 years for families in areas that have new energy infrastructure?

How we achieve this transition matters to all our constituents as it affects our natural world, our energy security and everybody’s energy bills. It is essential that it delivers real benefits to the communities most affected by renewable energy projects. We need to ensure that those communities are not just sites for energy generation but true beneficiaries, most importantly through lower energy bills. The Government’s rushed approach risks sacrificing long-term gains for short-term targets, leaving rural communities to bear the brunt of the costs without the promised savings.

The Opposition believe in a balanced approach in which the latest technologies are harnessed, communities are listened to and grid capacity is strengthened without degrading our natural landscape. We should support innovative solutions and new technology while focusing on lower energy bills and decarbonising the energy grid. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, who campaigned like a stalwart in opposition but now finds himself on the Front Bench in government—I congratulate him on his post, by the way.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

For the second time in the same day, I call the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Not only is the Secretary of State a very good looking fellow, but we in this House all know that he is an incredibly hard-working and very open Minister, as indeed are his whole team. So I know that the reason he has not replied to my letter of 11 September is that he and his team will be working their socks off to get a full and open answer to all my questions. He has already made reference to one of my colleagues and said that he will produce “in due course” a full systems cost analysis. May I stress that it is incredibly important that we in this House have that systems cost analysis as soon as possible, so that not only can we analyse his ambitious plans for carbon-neutral targets, but we can also explain to our constituents exactly how much it will cost them in their bills to deliver his target?

[Ed Miliband]

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman a little about the situation that we inherited from the last Government, because it is very relevant—obviously, he was not a Minister in that last Government. We inherited a situation where there was no plan: no plan for their target of 95% clean power by 2030, no plan for their target of clean power by 2035, and no plan to avoid a repeat of the worst cost of living crisis in generations. This Government are developing a plan and will publish it in due course.

COP29: UK Priorities

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership, Dr Huq, and to respond to the hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), who gave a passionate speech. I have been a Member of Parliament for 14 years, and it is a great joy to see so many new Members present for the debate and contributing to it. All the speeches so far have been by new Members, with the exception of that by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—a regular feature that new Members will get to know well. Parliaments need to refresh, and we have seen a great refreshment over the last election. It is a delight to respond to some very passionate and thoughtful speeches.

The hon. Member for Ealing Southall raised a point that we all agree on, and which is the most important thing to remember: all of us in every part of this House want to achieve net zero, become carbon-neutral and get to a point where we are not relying on fossil fuels; but at the end of the day, we have to look at how we achieve that. It is the detail that I suspect we will find ourselves disagreeing on.

As we discuss the future of our climate commitments, it is essential that we recognise the substantial progress that the Conservative Government made over the last few years. There have been a lot of speeches about how we have not done well, but I remind the House that we had some successes. From 2010, the Conservative Government led the way on climate change by making the UK the first major economy to legislate a 2050 net zero emissions target. We achieved a remarkable feat: the UK cut its emissions by 50% between 1990 and 2022, while growing the economy by 79%. That is a clear demonstration that we can achieve economic growth while reducing our carbon footprint—a very important point. It is worth putting that in perspective. During the same period, France reduced its emissions by only 23%, and the USA saw no change in its emissions between 1990 and 2021. The independent Committee on Climate Change affirmed that our net zero target was feasible, deliverable and could be met at the same cost that was estimated for our previous target of an 80% reduction.

Since the election, there has been much discussion on the plans to make the grid carbon-neutral by 2030, yet since coming to power the new Labour Government have been relatively quiet on their plans for net zero targets—something that I hope the Minister will change today. We are looking at net zero, not making the grid carbon-neutral, but if the Government’s plans to decarbonise the energy grid are anything to go by, we could face the risk of being over-ambitious. That means they may leave working families faced with the prospects of picking up the bill, and I hope the Minister today will be honest with the public about the costs and the trade-offs that will be involved.

The Opposition believe it is vital that the Government take a more pragmatic, proportionate and realistic approach, to ensure sustained public support for our goals. That is an important point—we have to win the support of the public in doing this. Otherwise, the current Government may find—as we did—that if they get things wrong, there may be a change in Government and a different approach could be brought in by an electorate who do not necessarily understand the technicalities of achieving net zero.

Before I go into the latest rounds of negotiations in Baku in November, I want to reflect quickly on our global leadership, as well as the success we had at COP26 in Glasgow. It is worth mentioning that Alok Sharma, who was the president, took his seat in the House of Lords yesterday. He attended Cabinet in the last Government and acted as a quasi climate envoy—a point that a number of people have raised. So we did have somebody championing the climate in Cabinet, and he is now in the House of Lords and will continue doing so.

The historic Glasgow climate pact ensured that we kept alive the 1.5 degree commitment. Since the UK took over the COP presidency, over 90% of the world’s GDP is now covered by net zero commitments, and that is up from 30%. More than 153 countries have put forward new 2030 nationally determined contributions, which effectively amount to climate plans. Record levels of finance have been pledged to help countries adapt to the effects of climate change through the adaptation fund and the least-developed country fund, both of which were established under the UK presidency. Finally, after six years of negotiations, we confirmed the Paris rulebook, which sets out the instructions and products needed to fully implement the Paris agreement on climate change.

Looking ahead to COP29, we need to focus on balancing our ambitious climate goals with the realities faced by British families and businesses. As a Conservative Government, that meant that we were committed to practical adjustments where necessary, but British families still want to know where a Labour Government stand with the net zero plans. Will they stand by their manifesto commitment to reverse the extension on the ban of petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035? Will they commit to moving homes from gas boilers to heat pumps? How will they help landlords in getting homes ready for their new minimum energy performance certificate requirements? How will they manage to maintain energy security and independence for the UK while banning the extraction of oil and gas in the North sea? I know that point has been raised on many occasions, and the co-leader of the Green party, the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), raised a very important point about Rosebank and what is going on in the North sea.

While the hon. Lady was making her speech, I checked how the grid was using energy. At 9.45 am we were using about 30 GW of power. Wind accounted for 37.5% of that, which is fantastic, but gas was 17%, nuclear was 16% and solar was 7.5%. We were importing 16.3% from Denmark—where the state of green energy is fantastic—Norway, France, Holland and Belgium. The bottom line is that we all want to get rid of fossil fuels, but we do not want to be reliant on foreign fossil fuels. That is a vulnerability, and that is why we have to be pragmatic. I absolutely take the hon. Lady’s point about getting away from Rosebank, but we do not want to be importing from Russia. We want to have security as we transition to net zero. That is a really important point.

In his speech on nuclear, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) raised the most important point about this: what we need is dispatchable baseload power. We must have dispatchable baseload power, and wind and solar do not provide that.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The hon. Gentleman just said “dispatchable” baseload power, and that is exactly what nuclear is not. If we just have a baseload that trundles along, renewables will be the ones we turn off and the nuclear will keep going; that is a waste of a lot of renewable energy, and it already happens. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to rethink our idea about baseload as we move into a more flexible, renewable world?

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right.

[Josh MacAlister]

rose—

[Mark Garnier]

Let me quickly respond to that point, but it is great to get a debate going. Dispatchability and baseload are crucial, and the hon. Lady is absolutely right: nuclear is baseload, but gas is dispatchable. It is important to be able to switch on and off, because one has to be able to take the wind when it is blowing.

[Josh MacAlister]

There is a reason why the last COP recognised the importance of nuclear—it was because of such debates among experts. It is not enough to will the ends of net zero goals without willing also the means and being prepared to deal with our reality. Look at the debate in Germany: ideological positions have been taken against nuclear, and some of the industrial processes and hard-to-decarbonise parts of the economy are exposed to that recklessness. I encourage those in the debate to keep that in mind when they make their points.

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Gentleman is a fantastic chap, and we are absolutely agreed on this. I urge him and other Members to join my all-party parliamentary group for energy studies, where we are looking at exactly this stuff, which is incredibly important. This brief discussion illustrates that it is difficult to ensure that energy can be delivered in the way that it is wanted and when it is in demand. That is the problem with energy, and that is what we have to get right.

[Ellie Chowns]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mark Garnier]

I will make progress, because I do not want to go round in circles.

Although is right that we continue to lead on climate action, it is also crucial to consider how the cost of these measures is distributed over the long term. We face significant indirect impacts, such as disruptions to global supply chains affecting trade, the rising cost of imported goods, and changes in migration from regions heavily affected by climate change, as we have heard from other Members. How will the Government weigh those challenges against the need to grow the British economy?

I also want to draw Members’ attention to the briefing published by the Local Government Association ahead of this debate. Local councils are directly responsible for 2% to 5% of local emissions, and they can influence up to 80% of emissions through their roles in housing, transport and energy. Their leadership in place-shaping community engagement is vital. From retrofitting homes and implementing active travel programmes to investing in flood prevention and creating green jobs, councils are actively working to address climate risks and promote sustainability. To empower local government further, the LGA has proposed a number of core initiatives for the new Government. Key to these are a renewed local climate action delivery programme to provide a clear framework for local and national collaboration on climate action. I hope the Minister will update Members on how the Government can work with councils and communities to deliver a grassroots net zero plan, not just one that is internationally driven.

We know that Baku and COP29 will be focused on climate finance and a vital new deal on the global response. I think all Members appreciate that developing countries are often the most vulnerable to climate impacts. They require significant support to transition to clean energy, build resilient infrastructure and protect their communities from the effects of climate change.

The new collective quantified goals on climate finance are set to replace the previous target of $100 billion per year. They rightly aim to provide a more ambitious and equitable finance network framework for developing countries. However, success will depend on clear guidelines, transparent reporting and inclusive negotiations that consider the needs of all countries, including those with emerging economies.

With that in mind, there are several key questions that I am sure Members would appreciate answers on ahead of the negotiations in Baku in November. The new collective quantified goal aims to provide a more ambitious financial framework for developing countries, but the UK Government need to clarify their specific financial commitment. How much will the UK pledge, and over what timeframe? How will that align with the financial needs identified by developing countries? Public finance alone will not be sufficient to meet the vast financial needs of developing countries for climate action, so what role do the Government see private finance playing in meeting our climate targets? Do they see an opportunity for the City of London to develop itself as a world leader in private finance for green initiatives?

Outside COP29, how will the UK advocate for reforms within international financial institutions such as the World Bank and development banks to channel more finance towards low carbon, climate resilient development in developing countries? With new nationally determined contributions due shortly after COP29, which diplomatic and strategic measures will the UK employ to encourage other nations—particularly major emitters—to set more ambitious and actionable targets for reducing emissions in line with limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C?

I am sure that the new Government will continue the previous Government’s efforts to ensure that the UK plays a leading role in delivering net zero across the globe. The Minister will agree that it remains vital for the UK to meet the commitments set out in the Paris agreement. We must remain committed to reducing carbon emissions and combating climate change, yet we must also be honest about the cost and practicalities of achieving these goals. In the previous Government, we were honest about the need for a pragmatic and proportionate net zero strategy that put British families first while maintaining our global leadership on climate action. Opposition Members will of course continue to hold the Government to account on these issues, and urge Ministers to ensure that climate policies are ambitious but achievable, balancing environmental, economic and social needs.

Contracts for Difference

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the timely advance sight of his statement. I would like to put on record that Members on the Opposition Benches welcome the success of the contracts for difference allocation round 6. The Secretary of State is right to be proud of that achievement by the Government. It is to be celebrated that we, as a country, are creating an extra 131 clean energy projects that include 5 GW of offshore wind farms and 3 MW of floating wind.

The Secretary of State will be grateful to the previous Government for setting up the details of auction round 6 last November. The previous Secretary of State recognised the problems of AR5 and the price set for offshore wind—a price that was set before a round of inflation that made the CFD strike price cap too low for the producers. By the way, this was not just a UK problem; it affected other projects for offshore wind around the world. Increasing the strike price by around 60% to the current AR6 price of £73 has been crucial to securing the current success. Of course, in addition, the previous Government had many other successes. In 2010, just 7% of our energy needs were supplied by renewables. Today it is nearly 50%. This has come from many initiatives, not least bringing in the contracts for difference auctions in 2014 and making the auction process an annual event—an initiative that was learnt from AR5 problems.

It would not be fair to ignore the contribution by the new Secretary of State. As he said, he has increased the pot for this year’s auction by 50%. While that is welcome—frankly, who would not welcome more renewable energy—that does not tackle our energy issues. At the same time as increasing renewable energy production, the Government are decreasing UK gas production. The UK needs reliability of supply of energy, but we all know we cannot predict with any certainty when the wind will blow and the sun will shine. That is why we need baseload, dispatchable energy that can supply the energy needs of our homes and economy.

We recognise the importance of investing in renewables to deliver clean energy, and the 9.6 GW announced today is a brilliant step in the right direction, but given these successes, and his self-declared success today, why does the Secretary of State plan to saddle the country with billions in debt to fund Great British Energy? In previous months, he may have answered that question by saying that the purpose of GB Energy was to cut energy bills by £300. However, we note that his promise to cut energy bills seems to have gone missing, much like the winter fuel payments of 10 million pensioners.

Despite the Secretary of State’s pledge, and that of many hon. Members on the Government Benches, he will be aware that energy bills are in fact going up. Can he confirm when bills will fall, and by how much? Pensioners are not the only ones being impacted by this Government’s ideological energy targets. As I have already mentioned, the Secretary of State banned new oil and gas, which will cost 200,000 oil and gas workers their jobs. Research conducted by the industry predicts that that move will see tax revenues from that industry fall by £13 billion by 2030.

The Opposition welcome the Secretary of State’s ambition to make sure that the jobs created by the transition are located in Britain, but, at this stage, the majority of jobs in the solar and wind sectors are located in China. What steps is he, as the current Secretary of State, taking to ensure all the jobs created through AR6 are located in Britain? He has already made a bit of a habit of riding roughshod over the concerns of local communities, approving developments without regard to the concerns of local communities. These decisions will see some of Britain’s green belt and best agricultural land developed. Will the Secretary of State confirm what share of today’s investment will take place on the green belt? What protections is he putting in to protect the green belt?

The Secretary of State has spoken at length about the need to overcome challenges facing the grid. In Government, we delivered a 500% increase in the amount of renewable energy connected to the grid, but we recognised that so much more needed to be done. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to support this further increase? Has he investigated undergrounding? What plans does he have to protect the countryside from more pylons?

I note that the Secretary of State today recommitted to decarbonising the grid by 2030. We have previously warned him of the risks of being over-ambitious, which include leaving families facing the cost. It is not only the Opposition who have warned him of that—Chris Stark, his newly appointed head of mission control, once described the 2030 target as “over-ambitious”. Will the Secretary of State please share exactly what his head of mission control believed to be over-ambitious about a 2030 decarbonisation target? His head of mission control also warned that it was entirely fair that people are concerned about the cost of decarbonising by 2030. Will the Secretary of State confirm that neither taxpayers nor bill payers will be left with the cost of the 2030 target? Will he tell the House when we will see a proper, comprehensive estimate for the full systems costs of his decarbonisation plans for 2030?

In conclusion, the Opposition welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has built on our successes in boosting renewable energy. However, we hold serious concerns about what this round will mean for Britain’s green spaces and whether, given the increased cost of AR6, his commitment remains to cut bills by £300.

[Ed Miliband]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation since the election. I look forward to our exchanges in this House. I say him to gently that the crucial first phase of Opposition, in my experience, is having a bit of humility to admit where they have got things wrong. I do not deny that some of the things that the previous Government did were right, but quite a lot of what they did was wrong—for example, the nine-year ban on the cheapest, cleanest form of power, the blocking of solar projects across the country and the crashing of the offshore wind market, which led to the worst energy bills crisis in generations. That is their legacy, and at some point some of the leadership candidates will have to face up to that.

Let me deal with the hon. Member’s specific points. If I may say so respectfully, I feel like he answered some of his own questions. He draws attention to the fact that energy bills are rising from 1 October. He is right about that, and that is deeply regrettable. Why is that happening? Because we are exposed to international gas markets. This is about power that we do not control. Every solar panel that we do not put up, every onshore wind turbine that we do not erect, and every piece of grid that we do not build leaves us more exposed. The Conservative party is in a dilemma on this, because it is facing both ways, but it has to face up to that fact. Of course we will have a proper and orderly transition in the North sea, keeping existing fields open for their lifetime and having a just transition for the workforce, but the idea that the Conservative party and some of its erstwhile friends are clinging to—that fossil fuels will get us out of this—is completely belied by all the facts and the crisis that we went through.

The shadow Minister says—and I agree with him—that we need to have jobs in this country. He says it as if he finds it hard to remember who has been in power for the past 14 years. It is terrible, he says, that everything is being produced elsewhere. He is right. Germany has almost twice as many renewable energy jobs per capita as the UK. Sweden has almost three times as many, but, most interestingly, Denmark, with its publicly owned energy company, Ørsted, has almost four times as many.

The hon. Gentleman asks about Great British Energy. We will debate that matter on Thursday, but one reason why we went to the electorate on this point and were endorsed on it is that, unless we have a publicly owned national champion, all the evidence is that the jobs will go elsewhere. That is part of having a basic industrial policy.

The hon. Member talks about solar energy, but, again, he has to make up his mind about where he is on this. He says that he agrees that we need clean energy in this country, and that we have to get off the international gas markets, but the problem is that the Conservatives duck every difficult decision. Then he asks about undergrounding. The Conservatives were in power for 14 years, so they had plenty of time to do the undergrounding of all the cabling. Why did they not do that? It is because they know that it is multiple times more expensive. Now they come along, less than two months after the general election, and say that it is time for some undergrounding of the grid. For goodness’ sake! I have experience of being Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps it is time for the Conservatives to have some private tutorials on how to be in opposition.