Our clean power mission will end our dependence on volatile fossil fuel markets, giving the British people the energy security they deserve and driving jobs and investment into our communities.

We are already seeing the impact of the clean energy transition, with thousands of jobs being created across the country in CCUS—carbon capture, usage and storage—hydrogen and offshore wind, and more nationally significant solar power being approved in eight months than the previous Government managed in 14 years.

The London power tunnels project has been a positive story locally in Bexley, as National Grid has worked with the community to minimise disruption with a plan to restore the site.

However, the Labour Government’s planning reforms have led developers to propose two extensive industrial battery storage facilities on a nature conservation area and farmland locally in Bexley that do not meet fire safety guidance.

While we need infrastructure, does the Minister agree that weakening green belt protections against residents’ wishes and damaging nature in the process to meet Labour’s unrealistic grid targets will result in bad developments in inappropriate places?

I am glad the hon. Gentleman draws attention to the London power tunnels. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have visited them recently and they are a fantastic example of engineering and of what we can achieve if we set ambitious targets in this area. I gently disagree with the hon.

Gentleman on the wider point, however, as we are going to have to build infrastructure across the country to get the benefits of the renewable energy that we are generating, and battery storage is important for that.

Of course communities have a voice through the planning system and it would be wrong for me to comment on individual applications, but the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues must remember that we cannot simply block every infrastructure project that needs to be built.

We need to build for the economic growth of the country and for our energy security.

Once again the Minister has failed to answer the question about the cost estimate, but we do know that the Government’s dogma-driven 2030 target will drive up costs and that we will see pylons and substations imposed in Walpole in my constituency and across the country against the wishes of local people.

That will damage our countryside and it relies on Chinese supply chains, which the Energy Secretary visited only over the weekend.

When will the Government realise that their approach of ruling out underground options and attempting to buy off local communities on the cheap, rather than listening to them, will only drive opposition to their plans?

I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Bill Esterson.

UK electricity bills are the highest in Europe compared to gas.

Evidence given to the Select Committee suggests that the Government are absolutely right to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and it is a shame that some Opposition Members have abandoned an evidence-informed approach to policymaking.

Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are considering rebalancing the infrastructure levies on our energy bills, as a way of reducing electricity bills in the immediate future and as a down payment towards 2030 and beyond?

The Select Committee Chair makes an important point. Along with the Minister for Energy Consumers, my hon.

Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), I am looking at all options, because it is important that we bring down bills and that we are building an energy system that protects us from the volatile fossil fuel markets in the future.

There are trade-offs to be made when rebalancing that we need to be aware of, in particular whether a diminishing number of gas customers can pay bills if we were to transfer levies, but we are looking at all options and are, of course, looking at how we review with Ofgem the wider question of standing charges to make sure we bring down bills.

My hon. Friend is right to say of the journey that we are on—and that the Conservative party used to be on, and on which there used to be consensus—that our transition to net zero is important for energy security and for the climate, but also for protecting bills in the long term.

The Minister is clearly aware of the foolhardy decision by the Opposition to abandon the political consensus on net zero, but has he made an assessment of the cost to the consumer of pursuing that disastrous path, which would lock us into our dependence on polluting fossil fuels, volatile oil and gas prices, and the whims of foreign dictators?

I call the shadow Minister.

The Government’s rush to decarbonise the grid means more hidden costs, more curtailment payments, more balancing payments, more subsidies and a higher carbon price. Will the Minister guarantee that our carbon price will remain lower than the European price for the remainder of this Parliament?

I think the hon. Gentleman knows more than anyone about the work that the previous Prime Minister Theresa May did in this area—work that his party is now moving away from rapidly.

The Conservatives were right then: the only way for us to bring down bills, deliver economic growth and tackle the economic opportunities is for us to be on this journey together. Conservative Members used to strongly believe in that.

We will continue on that path because it is the right thing for the country to do.

That was a long-winded answer, but the Minister did not actually address the question, and I think he just gave away that it is Labour’s secret plan to increase the price of carbon—a massive rise in the carbon price—adding hundreds of pounds to families’ bills and decimating British industry.

Given Labour’s election promise to cut bills, will he take this moment—he can look up into the camera if he likes—to promise the country that by the next election bills will be lower, as Labour promised? Yes or no?

Never mind long-winded answers—that was a very long-winded question. I have not revealed any secret plans, but the Conservatives have revealed their not so secret plan, and I can tell the county that it is just as disappointing as the one the country rejected seven months ago.

We have been very clear that it is our commitment to bring down bills, and we are determined to deliver on that. Unlike the Conservative party, which left consumers across the country exposed to volatile fossil fuel markets—the hon.

Gentleman is right to point out that bills went up and up and up when his party was in government—we will bring them down. His party wants to take us back to the fossil fuel casino but we will not do that.