Angus MacDonald MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2025 · Driven Grouse Shooting · Hansard source

  More

  Rural Britain, and particularly remote Scotland, is in crisis. The young are moving to the cities, the schools are closing, healthcare is being centralised and the cost of living is far higher than in the conurbations. Soon, our glens will be populated only by incoming retirees. I took my townie friend, a senior politician, along the beautiful 30-mile single-track road along the south side of Loch Ness. The road winds through a patchwork quilt of well-managed heather moorland. It is lined with well-kept cottages, pubs and village halls. As we drove, I pointed out where I had stayed as a teenager, grouse beating one glorious August. I explained to my companion the extraordinary social role that shooting plays there. There were 50 folk from three generations together, many the descendants of those who have gathered there for the same purpose for two centuries. Back then, as no doubt today, the chat was great. We set off in a convoy of locally bought Land Rovers, ready to walk a dozen miles across the hill, with the beaters’ spaniels dashing back and forth in front of us. Interspersed along the long line were the gamekeepers: men and women from various estates nearby. Fit and strong, they are the pillars of the local community. They serve in the volunteer fire service, they run the village hall, and their spouses and partners staff the medical centre and pub. Without their children, the local primary school would close. The keepers are not in well-paid jobs. They earn a tenth of the income of a certain celebrity TV presenter who spends his time vilifying them. They do it for the love of the countryside, the wildlife, and the traditions of the land from which they hail. They know where the curlews nest, can identify a golden plover from 500 yards, and know how to restore a collapsed wall or lay a hedge. They keep the mink, rats, crows and other vermin under control. If they did not, our precious wildlife population would collapse. The founder of Curlew Action says that conservationists must choose between gamekeepers with curlew, or no gamekeepers with no curlew. Yes, there are a few unscrupulous keepers who, egged on by grouse-greedy lairds, kill raptors, but raptor deaths are at an all-time low, and there are bad eggs in every profession, as we MPs know only too well. The owners of the moors could take their money elsewhere, and buy yachts, or chalets in the Alps. Instead, they choose to pour money into our area for the love of grouse. Their passion results in good jobs in remote areas, and lots of spin-off economic benefits for caterers, fencers, diggers, drivers, gamekeepers and so on. Grouse moor activities also play an important role in reducing loneliness and mental health in rural areas. In the last 15 years, the big buyers of moors have been those wanting to conduct carbon offsetting by rewilding the land: conservation charities, corporates and wealthy individuals, almost invariably receiving massive Government rewilding grants, paid for by the unknowing taxpayer. Invariably, this involves the issuing of P45s and the loss of housing for the gamekeepers, some of whose fathers and grandfathers lived and worked on that same property. If we love our moorland, if we want to see our wildlife thrive, and if we strive for the economic viability of remote areas and good local jobs, we must keep grouse shooting going. Do not let urban MPs once more hammer us rural people without knowing the awful consequences. I conclude with a little ditty: “No more the keeper tracks the hill, His shotgun cold, his bothy still. The ghillie’s rod, the shepherd’s dog, Lie idle in the creeping fog. The red deer fall in bloody ranks, Not for food, nor sport, nor thanks, But culled like vermin, cast away, So saplings might have room to sway. No flight of grouse along the scree, Just silence now, for every tree. There is no healing of the glen, When land forgets the touch of men. The crofter’s roof caves in with rain; The keeper’s track turns wild again. The pub is shut, the school is bare— What future grows when none live there? So mark this truth in storm and soil: This land must live by native toil. Let birch and beaver find their place— But not at the cost of the Highland race.”

• 24 Jun 2025 · VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for allowing me to speak, Mr Vickers, after I turned up late. Few people can speak about VAT with such excitement as I can. I was UK entrepreneur of the year, I have lectured on entrepreneurship for 20 years, and I have mentored many early-stage businesses. I have concluded that the one thing we can do that could transform the small business community is to increase the VAT registration threshold to allow microbusinesses to scale up. Has anyone tried to get hold of a tradesman recently—a plumber, a decorator or an electrician? I will use the collective word plumber, to make it easier for people of my mentality to understand. There is an army of plumbers —mostly men who work alone—who seem incredibly hard to get hold of. They tend to be older, they learned on the tools or at a technical college, and they are happy to limit their income to squeeze below the £90,000 VAT restriction. There are many who, looking for a bit of holiday money, might do a job on the side for cash. There is a real shortage of plumbers, joiners and electricians, in part due to the closing down of technical colleges, and the young pursuing non-vocational degrees while loading themselves with student debt. Historically and internationally, skilled tradespeople have been held in great esteem, although not so much in today’s Britain. We all know good tradespeople with a great client list and reputation, all of whom make excellent money and are their own boss. An early learn for all those people is that the VAT registration threshold is essential: they need to pay 20% beyond that £90,000. My key point is that these sole traders will not take on an apprentice or an assistant, because that would take them over the VAT starting point. Not being VAT-registered is a fantastic advantage for a person. He or she has a 20% advantage over competitors who have several staff. In addition, the sort of person who likes being on the tools is not the sort of person who would relish the additional paperwork of being VAT-registered. It is not only doing the VAT paperwork that puts sole traders off growing their business; it is the real burden of hiring people, the payroll, the contracts of employment and the HR responsibilities. We need to make it worth their while, so an increase of a few tens of thousands will not do the job. There are 4.4 million self-employed people in the UK; just think what a catapult forward for our economy we would see if only 10% of them were to hire a couple of people. I propose that the VAT starting level be increased from £90,000 to £250,000 for all businesses. If that happened, I predict that a massive number of microbusinesses would hire an apprentice or two, creating a pool of young plumbers getting trained. As the availability of plumbers increased, householders would get work done quicker, there would be more competition and therefore lower charges, and clients would be happier. Small businesses, having built up a bit of a scale with three employees, might then grow into a proper business with 100 or more employees, like Pimlico Plumbers. It is believed that my proposal would cost the Treasury perhaps £2 billion in lost VAT, but I am sure that HMRC would win out overall. It would get income tax and national insurance from the newly-hired and well-paid staff, and the bigger companies would start paying corporation tax. It would also reduce the tax-avoidance cash economy. In my opinion, the 20% difference in the change from £90,000 to £250,000 would be easily made up. Arguments are made that we should drop the threshold to zero and make all sales subject to VAT, but that would be a massive disincentive to people starting a business. The results of my proposed VAT change would be more people in well-paid employment, a gateway for the young into an excellent career, a solution to skilled trade shortages, a stimulant to the economy, and higher tax collected by the Exchequer—a win-win. Why would we want to incentivise millions of people not to hire youngsters, not to grow their businesses and not to pay more tax?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Businesses in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder whether I can make the case for real support from the Government for community benefit from renewable energy. It is being proposed at a fairly modest level by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, but it is one of the biggest opportunities for rural Britain to transform its economy.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s decision to introduce powers to create a bill discount scheme to help households closest to new electricity transmission infrastructure. However, to be clear, the scheme is nowhere near enough. It falls short as both a meaningful community benefit and a measure to address local opposition to new infrastructure projects. The proposed £250 annual discount for households within 500 metres of major transmission infrastructure equates to just 6.25% off bills in rural Britain each year. It does not even match the cancellation of the £300 winter fuel allowance. Even that modest £250 concession is limited to a decade. For families living beside towering pylons and substations, it is a poor trade-off for the lasting impact on their environment and quality of life. More fundamentally, why are rural communities, which already pay the highest energy prices in the country, expected to accept such a meagre offer? In our cities and major towns, such as Ashton-under-Lyne, households with access to mains gas pay around 6p per kWh for their energy. In contrast, those in rural areas, who are far more likely to be affected by these infrastructure developments, pay 24p per kWh for their electricity. How is it right that the very communities that live alongside renewable energy generation and face some of the highest rates of fuel poverty are expected to pay four times as much as those on mains gas? Renewable electricity is cheaper to produce, yet rural households are still being charged four times the price of largely imported carbon fuel mains gas. Where is the fairness in that? If the Government are serious about ensuring that communities benefit from new infrastructure, they must do better than the miserable £250 a year. Beyond energy costs, the Minister will know that transmission companies, such as Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks, anticipate being required to build temporary housing for their workers. They have offered to build legacy housing, which would remain for the rural communities, but the Bill does not cover that. Affordable housing is one of the greatest challenges facing rural Britain. Including legacy housing in the Bill could make a real difference to affordable housing in those areas. Will the Minister explain why such a provision has been omitted and commit to addressing the matter? If the Government want communities to accept new infrastructure, they must offer something meaningful in return: real, lasting benefits that acknowledge the burden placed on those who live alongside the developments. The energy bill discount scheme in its current form is a long way from that.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Rural Communities: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing the debate. My two main calls for Government support for rural communities are as follows. First, rural communities producing a substantial portion of our nation’s electricity should be paid 5% of revenue for all newly consented renewable energy generated onshore and offshore, as a community benefit. That would be transformational for the income of rural areas. Secondly, many homes in my constituency and throughout the country are forced to heat their homes with electricity, as they are not connected to mains gas. Electricity costs four times the price of mains gas per kilowatt. The reason is that environmental taxes, which make up a substantial part of electricity bills, are levied far more heavily on electricity than on gas. They should be equalised, because that is an unfair punishment for people whose homes are not connected to mains gas in Britain.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Renewables Obligation Certificate Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder if the Minister could put herself in the position of somebody from the island of Skye who wakes up in the morning, opens his windows, and sees beautiful mountains in the background —it is always sunny there and there are no midges. He sees the wind turbines, but then he goes and looks at his heating and realises he is paying four times as much to get energy from those turbines. Meanwhile, there is negligible community benefit coming to that area. Can she position herself in that person’s or that household’s shoes?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Affordable Rural Housing · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister say a few words about the massive change in our lifetimes? Doctors, policemen and teachers had houses owned by their local authority body, and they have now been sold. That pressure is continuing. Does he think we should go back to that to ensure that people can work in those sectors?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Maternity Services · Hansard source

  More

  I am proud to represent Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire. My colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), could not be here, but, on the subject of centralisation, our nearest maternity hospital is in Inverness, which is four hours each way from parts of Sutherland, Argyll, and the Isle of Eigg—around Muck, which I am sure the hon. Member is, or should be, familiar with. I wonder whether the hon. Member could support our case that centralisation is becoming a real problem for expectant mothers, who suffer enormous complications because of distance, given that smaller regional hospitals are no longer providing maternity care?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Cost of Energy · Hansard source

  More

  Would the Minister spare a minute to talk about community benefits?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Public Services: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister bear in mind the importance of community benefits from renewables? The whole of the highlands is covered in turbines, which are built overseas and often owned overseas. We have the highest level of fuel poverty in Britain, and renewables offer the only chance for rural Britain to level up financially that we will see in our lifetimes. I greatly fear that the opportunity will pass us by.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  May I come back to the community benefits, which the hon. Member brought up in her intervention on me? The community benefits will be hundreds of millions for 25 years or the life of the project. It will be absolutely transformational to the most rural parts of Britain; it is not just something that will come and go.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Funnily enough, as a Highland councillor, it is a subject that I have spent many years working on. Highland council—I know this does not relate to the Crown Estate in England and Wales—had £9.1 million of community benefits and Scotland as a whole had £23 million. This is an industry worth hundreds of billions of pounds across the whole of Britain, so we should have, say, 5% of that as community benefits, which would be transformational for Cornwall, Devon, Pembrokeshire and indeed Scotland. I encourage the House to consider how the Bill could establish a robust framework for community benefits that could serve as a model for renewable energy projects across the whole of the UK, working closely with the Scottish Crown Estate. The Bill represents a vital step forward in enabling the UK to meet its net zero targets and enhance energy security. However, it is equally vital that we legislate to include statutory powers for the Crown Estate in England and Wales, and indeed in Scotland, to ensure that these transformative projects see their fair share of community benefits for communities.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak about the Crown Estate’s borrowing powers and the broadening of its investment scope. These changes are intended to enhance the Crown Estate’s capacity to support our ambitious goals for renewable energy, nature recovery and economic growth. The Bill is undoubtedly a significant step forward in enabling the Crown Estate to play a greater role in the transition towards net zero. I fully support its efforts and ambitions. The partnership between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy to develop offshore wind projects is exciting. Many of us have been trying to get Great British Energy to include community benefits and community ownership within its reach, but we have failed to do so. [ Interruption. ] It does? Okay—we have tried hard. A measure is to be considered in the other House on 13 January to try to get it to do that, so perhaps Labour Members know something that I do not. Anyway, that is good news. I want to focus on a critical element that is close to my heart, and perhaps even more familiar to my colleagues, as I bang on about it. That subject is, of course, community benefits. Those of us in remote and rural Britain pay far more for energy than those who can access mains gas, and we also have a much higher level of poverty; especially fuel poverty. Communities hosting renewable energy projects, and particularly those overlooking offshore wind farms, deserve to see tangible benefits from those developments. The Bill presents an opportunity to ensure that offshore wind farm projects—indeed, all renewable energy projects—not only meet our national and global ambitions but provide meaningful real-world advantages to the people most impacted by them. There are numerous examples from overseas of where community benefits have become significant. One such example is from Germany, where in the North sea archipelago of Heligoland three offshore wind farms generated €22 million in 2016. These are massive amounts of money. While the Bill’s focus is on increasing borrowing powers and investment flexibility, there is no mention of how communities will benefit from these developments, although perhaps Labour Members know something that I do not.

• 6 Nov 2024 · Fuel Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister allow humble servants such as myself to get involved in that? I have spent several years working with the Highland council and others on community benefits, and I would appreciate a meeting.

• 6 Nov 2024 · Fuel Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  That is also Liberal Democrat policy, so I am pleased to support that. Interestingly—I know you will find this interesting, Sir Roger—France, Italy, Ireland and others have an equalisation of standing charges. Ofgem’s reluctance to reform standing charges has been raised many times in Westminster Hall and in the main Chamber, so we need to get proper answers. Town gas is by far the most affordable way of heating a house, but 60% of houses in the highlands do not have access to it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland says, kerosene, bottled gas, electricity, wood and coal are very much more expensive, but people in the highlands have no option but to use them. It is easy for us to have a go at the policy of stopping the winter fuel allowance. I do not understand why the figure was set at £13,000, rather than at the average household income of £34,000. That would have been a huge relief to many of the people who have been most affected, and it would probably have been much more popular for the Government. In the highlands, incomes are much lower than in the rest of Scotland and Britain as a whole, and we have a much older population. The cost of living is between 15% and 30% higher than in the rest of Scotland, according to the Scottish Affairs Committee in 2021. We have a substantial depopulation problem and the highest cost of living in the UK, to which fuel is a major contributor. I know the Energy Minister has heard this from me before, but community benefits from renewables are potentially the biggest saving grace from this. My No. 1 call is for fuel vouchers to be given to affected locals, and of course in the highlands we have lots of renewables. That would make a very big difference. The second thing the Minister could do is to get Ofgem to review standing charges. I estimate that if they were equalised, there would be a £75 a year saving at no cost to the Treasury. Thirdly, we should concentrate the winter fuel allowance on the most deserving people, who tend to be the older, the poorer and the more remote.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the SNP Government have left community benefit at the same £5,000 level it was in 2014, even though prices have gone through the roof? Their advisory information could have been changed. They have been pressed on the issue many times because it has severely damaged the income of rural communities.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I invite hon. Members to refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for her commitment to our essential amendments, both in Committee and here today. I also thank the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), who has been incredibly supportive of our ambition for communities to benefit from renewable energy. I have one little correction: Tom Johnston, who invented the hydro boards, and the Labour Government did not actually put in place a proper system whereby local communities could benefit. They supplied a lot of power to the south and the cities, but it was of very little benefit to those of us living in the highlands, even then. The Government have argued that nothing in this Bill limits community ownership. That is almost certainly true, but as my colleagues and I have emphasised, amendment 5 would not restrict GB Energy; it would simply clarify that community-led energy is a priority. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), recently experienced a powerful story of community-driven energy on his visit to the island of Eigg. Just 25 years ago, Eigg’s residents, frustrated by years of poor management and a lack of investment, took matters into their hands and purchased their island. The Eigg buy-out succeeded in 1997, sparking what is now a beacon of self-sustained energy. Since then, Eigg has moved away from fossil fuels, becoming the world’s first island to generate 24-hour electricity from a variety of different renewables. This small community of just 110 people demonstrates the innovation and resilience that flourish when communities are empowered. Eigg’s journey is a true example of prioritising community ownership and how that drives forward sustainability and local resilience. To paraphrase the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), community involvement is critical, not a mere “nice to have”. If we are to build the infrastructure of the future, we must ensure that communities benefit directly. Community-driven projects are key to making that a reality, so let us follow Eigg’s lead and put the Government’s own words into action. The current Government have an opportunity here to show their commitment to cross-party collaboration by embracing community energy. We are all aligned on the goals, so let us not get bogged down by technicalities or party politics. The Minister knows of the huge cross-party support for community energy ownership. If this goes to a vote, do this Government really want to vote against community energy ownership? Let us show the people of Britain that this Bill truly supports the right to own and benefit from our natural resources through Great British Energy.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Renewable Energy Projects: Community Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered community benefits from renewable energy projects. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. In all our careers, we have seen extraordinary changes, such as the advent of the internet, artificial intelligence and mobile phones. Going back 50 years, in the early stages of many of our lives, we had the North sea oil boom. The oil boom was extraordinary for many countries, not least Norway, which has saved US $1.7 trillion from it. Great Britain saved none of that money, however, and I am worried that we will save none of the money from the extraordinary renewables boom that is coming our way. One of the biggest systemic changes in our life is happening right now: the move from fossil fuels to renewables. Many billions of pounds are being made, a huge number of jobs are being created and cheap electricity is being generated, but it is overseas companies, with overseas ownership of renewables projects, that we are seeing all over the UK. Precious little of the money ends up in the hands of the people who are being impacted by those projects. The issue I have with these renewables projects, whether solar, wind, pumped storage or whatever, is that they are in rural areas. The locals suffer the visual impact, and we have all seen miles and miles of 200-metre-high wind turbines and field after field, sometimes of prime land, covered in solar panels. Villagers—people—have to face those industrial projects, and we really need to take them with us on this net zero journey.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Renewable Energy Projects: Community Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  I did forget to disclose that I may have a potential conflict of interest, the details of which are on the parliamentary website. I apologise for not saying so before, but I do not think anyone would find it a major such conflict. You did mention—

• 15 Oct 2024 · Renewable Energy Projects: Community Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  Somebody whose opinion I respect greatly told me that undergrounding cables was no more expensive. I was very surprised at that, because I had understood from the transmission line companies in Scotland that it was a great deal more expensive to underground them. I will definitely look into that, because I know that it is a requirement to underground them in Norway. We should explore that issue further. So we have boom time in renewables, generating trillions of pounds over many decades, and we have a rural population that really needs financial help and investment.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Renewable Energy Projects: Community Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  Sorry. The Minister mentioned community benefits, but in rather a weak way. The Members in this room—I think there have been 60-plus of us here—represent the majority of the land mass of Britain. I think the message we are sending loud and clear to the Minister is that we all feel very strongly about the community benefits, and we very much hope they will be significant. Thank you very much for allowing me to host this debate. Question put and agreed to . Resolved , That this House has considered community benefits from renewable energy projects.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Renewable Energy Projects: Community Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  Micro-renewables are the way ahead, and the more micro the better. Whether that is a solar thing on a roof or hydro for a farm, I could not support it more. In 2023, as part of research in a written submission to Parliament, Octopus Energy showed that 87% of people would support a turbine in their community if it decreased their bills. Now, I do not blame the landowner; these projects can allow farmers to retain the land in their family for generations to come. In some way, it is like discovering oil or gold on their land, and it is great that our bountiful wind and rain can be such an asset for us, especially in an era when coal is inaccessible and unacceptable, nuclear is being phased out, and gas is often imported from countries with an unacceptable moral standing, while also badly hitting our balance of payments and being environmentally unfriendly to transport to Britain. Renewables are absolutely the future. The 68 million people in the UK are enormous beneficiaries of our renewables sectors, but the cost is borne by a fraction of that number—by those living in the remotest areas. Those of us in the Chamber represent populations who pay a 50% premium on electricity connection fees compared with those living in cities. The same people are not connected to mains gas, and therefore pay a great deal to have tankers deliver heating oil to their houses.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Renewable Energy Projects: Community Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  The absolute sweet spot of this entire discussion would be communities’ ownership of their own renewables, which they could control and distribute as they wanted. Indeed, that is happening in some places. Of course access to funding is the big issue, but that is the perfect solution. Surely, one of our great injustices is that our poorer people, who provide half the energy to the UK, have the highest level of fuel poverty and the highest electricity bills, and suffer the industrialisation of their nearby countryside. Now is the time to resolve that injustice.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Renewable Energy Projects: Community Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  I think my hon. Friend will be thrilled with the next part of my speech, which will answer that question. We have a huge financial need, and we have the renewables revenue, which we will talk about in a second. Money and need—bingo, we have a match. Is that not exactly what we are here in Parliament to facilitate? I am pleased to hear that the Great British Energy Bill is largely here, as it holds the prosperity of much of rural Britain in its hands. It can insist that communities have a stake in local renewables projects and that we legislate to require all renewables projects to pay a significant sum to impacted areas. Amazingly, it made no mention of community ownership of renewables projects or of community benefits.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Renewable Energy Projects: Community Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  It is fair to say that building a visitor centre was not one of my list of key things to do with the money, but I shall add it to my list at around No. 97 —there is a space there. We will talk about this more in a minute, but fuel poverty, affordable housing and so on are probably the key uses for that money at the beginning. The Lib Dem energy spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), has submitted an amendment to the Great British Energy Bill that would allow it to consider community benefits, and I very much hope that her amendment is taken forward. I had a motion on community benefits passed in the Highland council. I have consulted the electricity generators and Ofgem. I have met Government Ministers here and in Scotland, discussed the issue with most knowledgeable people in all political parties and generally bored everyone I can find with it. There is consensus that it would be fair to require that the impacted rural people of the highlands and islands, of Scotland and of the UK as a whole benefit from bearing the costs of hosting our energy infrastructure. The Highland council has done the work. It has a social value charter, which it would be pleased to share. The council and I agree on almost all aspects, except that the amount paid to communities should be a percentage of gross income from the projects, rather than £12,500 per megawatt. A percentage would allow communities to benefit from a soaring electricity price, as happened after Russia invaded Ukraine, and protect the project owners and utilities if the electricity price slumped. Here is my financial proposal: 5% of revenue from all newly consented renewable energy, generated both onshore and offshore, should be paid to community energy funds. For onshore projects, two thirds of that should be paid to the affected council board, with one third paid to a council strategic fund. For offshore projects, all of that 5% of gross revenue should go to a council strategic fund. An existing renewables project should also pay money; I will explain that in a second.