Energy Bill

The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly fair point about the process by which we determine the suitability of individual applications, but an approach that is supportive in principle of renewables of all sorts does not dictate that any individual application should be guaranteed success—unless the hon. Gentleman's position is that those who support renewables should say yes to every application. That would be nonsense; each application should be judged on its merits. While I am on the subject of renewables, I am glad that the Secretary of State is still present, because it means that I can give him another chance to answer the question he declined to answer when I intervened on him. Why is the United Kingdom 22nd out of the EU countries on renewables? It is a simple question, but we have no answer. I would be happy to give way; I would be happy for the Secretary of State to interrupt my flow and tell the House why we are so poor. We have had 10 years of a Labour Government, who could have done something about this. What we hear from Ministers is the ““jam tomorrow”” renewables strategy: ““It's going to be great, and there'll be a bright new dawn.”” We should have seen the evidence of that by now, but we simply have not seen it. We only have to look to Germany. If we cite places such as Scandinavia people sometimes say, ““Well, that's very different,”” but Germany is comparable to us in many respects, yet it has achieved huge things. For example, it has achieved 200,000 green-collar jobs, as it calls them, in the renewable industry sector. That could have been a huge opportunity for this country. The Secretary of State said that great things can be done when a Government are consistent, give a lead over a long period, and are supportive of renewables—and he is right, so why have we not done that? As well as the 200,000 green-collar jobs that have been created, solar technology investment in Germany has increased from €450 million in 2000 to €4.9 billion in 2006. That is vision; that is achievement. We have not had that from this Government. We have heard the Government of Germany's interpretation of the reasons why that has happened. They are, to quote in translation,"““support programmes from national and state governments””" and"““a legally fixed payment for electricity fed into the public grid.””" That is what has driven what has happened in Germany, and that is what we have lacked. When we are particularly enthusiastic about renewables, people sometimes say, ““You'll never get anything on the scale that's needed.”” Yet Greenpeace has calculated that if the UK had done what Germany has done—if we had achieved its level of renewable development—18 per cent. of our energy would today be coming from renewables. That is being delivered in comparable countries; why can it not be done here? As the Secretary of State said, the delay in getting renewables moving is partly caused by the delay in getting grid connections. Interconnection with the grid is an important issue. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton said, quoting the Stern review, feed-in mechanisms are a good idea if we can get connection into the grid working. However, the Secretary of State sounded like a passive onlooker—““Oh, there's a bit of a problem with renewables, in getting connection to the grid.”” Well, who has been in charge for the past 10 years? Who could have done something about that, if there had been the political will and commitment to do it? Yet he stands up today, after 10 years in power, and says, ““Oh, we've got a bit of a problem getting connections into the grid.”” Whose fault is that? Is he not responsible?