Renewables Obligation Certificate Scheme

Leigh Ingham Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for securing this debate on a subject that is significantly important to him.

This discussion goes far beyond economic concerns; it is about the future of our energy security, our workforce and our commitment to achieving net zero emissions. The UK has been a pioneer in renewable energy and must continue to lead by example. That means ensuring that the transition to net zero is not just a slogan but a reality backed by practical policies that sustain and expand our low-carbon energy infrastructure.

Stafford is a critical hub for the production of clean energy technologies, supporting local and overseas energy needs. I am proud to have GE Vernova’s largest site based in Stafford, providing more than 1,700 jobs—an incredible investment in my constituency. Last Friday, I met representatives of GE Vernova, whose skilled engineers and craftsmen are dedicated to building the infrastructure needed for a cleaner, more sustainable future. Their work directly supports our crucial transition to net zero, and the decisions we make determine whether companies such as that continue to thrive.

That shift requires clear, stable policies from the Government to ensure that the technologies that companies develop—whether wind, biomass or carbon capture—have a long-term place in the UK energy mix. That is why today’s debate is so important. The renewables obligation has been crucial in expanding our clean energy sector but, as it winds down, we need to plan, to ensure that key renewable power sources, such as biomass, do not fall through the cracks.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, the previous Government never published the outcome of their call for evidence on the end of the renewables obligation contracts, leaving the industry high and dry. I urge this Government to provide certainty for the sector, to ensure that those facilities can continue to operate and contribute to our net zero ambitions. If we fail to support this transition effectively, we risk losing a secure energy source and thousands of jobs that depend on it. I look forward to the Minister’s response on how we can secure a stable and sustainable future for our energy industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy]

I would never suggest that the hon. Lady has tracked everything that I have written through my career, but I have been making these arguments for a number of years. The Leader of the Opposition has made the point that one of the things our party did not get right in government was setting ambitious goals on things such as energy policy without having a clear enough plan to deliver them. My concern, and the concern of the Conservative Front Benchers, is that this Government are making not only a similar mistake but a graver mistake because of the speed and unilateralism of their energy policies. [Interruption.] I can see the hon. Lady smiling, and I hope that is in approval of what I said.

[Leigh Ingham]

To clarify, is the Opposition’s position on the energy transition and energy security that the Government are moving too quickly for our country? Would they rather see a different approach? I am interested in what the suggested approach is, given that we face an imperative in the international context, as others rightly pointed out.

[Nick Timothy]

It is absolutely our position that the Energy Secretary is trying to move too quickly. The plan to decarbonise the grid by 2030 is deemed by many experts to be unrealistic. It is predicated on a report produced by NESO, which itself says that the plan will lead to higher bills, and on calculations based on the carbon price increasing to £147 per tonne. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether the Government’s policy is to ensure that Britain’s carbon price should remain lower than the European carbon price for the duration of this Parliament, because the Secretary of State has so far refused to say that.

On the question of security, the Government are in such a rush with offshore wind farms that they are sourcing the turbines from China, and there are big questions about whether the technology in the turbines will continue to be controlled by the Chinese. We are having a debate right now about security and the threats presented by Russia; we could equally be talking about the same kinds of threats from China, and how our dependence on technologies produced by China and energy that is generated using those technologies leaves us exposed to Chinese influence.

By NESO’s own admission,

“Unprecedented volumes of clean energy infrastructure projects are needed to meet the Government’s energy ambitions.”

As long as policy races ahead of technology, costs will inevitably increase for taxpayers and consumers, and that is before we even consider the consequences of the Climate Change Committee’s seventh carbon budget. The committee has recommended a limit on the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions of 535 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, which represents an 87% reduction by 2040 compared with 1990 levels. That is an ambitious goal, but it is one that the committee’s own data shows will come at a net cost of £319 billion over the next 15 years. If we are to debate this, the Government should be honest and open about that fact.

No Government have ever rejected a carbon budget, and the Energy Secretary has so far refused to come to the House to make a statement on the publication of that budget, so perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Government intend to accept the carbon budget in full. The Climate Change Committee believes that we will need a sixfold increase in offshore wind power, a doubling of onshore wind power and a fivefold increase in solar panels by 2040. To accelerate the growth of renewables at such a pace would require a huge increase in public subsidy.

How do the Government intend to address these climate and energy goals? Can the Government rule out increasing public subsidy under contracts for difference of any kind to reach these goals? By how much will public spending have to rise as a result? By how much will bills have to rise? Will the Minister guarantee that Britain will continue to have a lower carbon price than Europe, and can she still guarantee that energy bills will be £300 lower by the end of this Parliament, as her party promised in opposition?

There are so many questions left unanswered, and so far only silence from the Energy Secretary. That is not because the Government do not understand the scale of the challenge they have set themselves. The Energy Secretary understands it all too well, but he will not admit publicly what his ideological attachment to net zero and his net zero policies mean for us all: nothing less than a revolution in how we live our lives, and the massive expansion of public spending for a system of energy that is less reliable and more expensive in generating power. We need complete clarity, so that the mistakes of the renewables obligation are not repeated. Failure to do so will leave us poorer and exposed to risk and instability in the world.