Michael Shanks
MP for Rutherglen · Labour · United Kingdom
“In the past two years, during which I have had the privilege of doing this job, my hon. Friend has frequently shared her experiences as an electrical engineer, and she is right. I, too, am in awe of the grid and of the work that its operators do day in, day out as part of the extremely complex job of balancing supply and demand 24/7.”
“First, on the point about this somehow being a Government project, it is absolutely not. That is why my answers to the right hon. Member for Tatton reflected the fact that, right now, private developers across the country in a whole range of sectors are developing private propositions for all sorts of things.”
“As I have said to the shadow Secretary of State before, though, she is conflating two things, I think wilfully. There are questions to be asked about things that have been raised with her by whistleblowers, which we will now investigate.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that was the point I was going to come on to. Community engagement is absolutely critical. It is an absolutely firm expectation from Ministers that any of these large-scale infrastructure projects should have meaningful engagement with communities.”
“There was a lot there, but I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not happy to see me at the Dispatch Box. I am very happy to see him in his place, and to be here to answer this important urgent question. On security of supply, let me say that, yes, renewables are not going to be the entirety of our mix at all times.”
“I am aware of that. Councils can take a view on a whole range of things; I do not think there is anything controversial about a council making its views known on a particular project. It is very welcome to do that, and that is why we have democratically elected councillors in this country. On a final point by the right hon.”
The complete record
Every one of 602 lines we hold for Michael Shanks, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 13.
“My hon. Friend is right that strategic infrastructure planning is crucial, which is why we are engaging in the first ever national strategic spatial energy plan, which will lead to a centralised strategic plan for the future of the network. We are also looking at how we manage demand projects such as data centres across the country in order to get the greatest advantage. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the local benefits that can come from heat networks. We will be carrying out heat network zoning to identify where waste heat can be reused, which will bring huge benefit for communities. We are also delivering the jobs that go with the building of the network, ensuring the manufacturing and infrastructure jobs that the UK has missed for many years.”
“The hon. Gentleman has framed that perfectly. The challenge is not just about being able to get clean power into homes and businesses; on the demand side, it is also about how we can connect these critical economic growth opportunities. That is partly why we have cleared out the connections queue, so that more projects can connect. We have also launched a consultation to look at how we reform the demand side of the queue. Fundamentally, though, we have to build more grid—we have not built the grid that is needed since the 1960s. We are now embarking on the biggest grid upgrade in a generation, which is how we unlock the potential in communities like the hon. Gentleman’s and right across the country.”
“Methane harvested from landfill sites enables the generation of around 2.5 TWh a year, which is around 1% of the UK’s electricity. Many of those assets receive a subsidy through the renewables obligation, which expires in 2027. That generation has a supportive, but limited, effect on energy security. Given the high impact of methane, my Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are considering long-term solutions to landfill gas methane capture and appropriate transitional arrangements.”
“I reiterate that although methane harvested from such sites and used to generate electricity plays a role in electricity generation, it is less than 1% overall, so it is not an issue for our energy security. As the sites age, the amount of methane they omit reduces, and that reduction has been factored into our plans. We are looking at what transitional arrangements are needed to deal with both the methane issue and the electricity that is generated from it, and we will consult in due course.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. My visits to Northern Ireland are important to me, and at the very first meeting of the reconstituted inter-ministerial working group we had a conversation on that exact question: how can we support the reduction of methane across the UK, and how can we support that through the electricity system? Clearly, that is a transferred matter in Northern Ireland, but I continue to have those conversations with colleagues in the Executive.”
“The nationally significant infrastructure project regime provides a clear consenting route for nationally significant electricity lines, but processes have been too slow and we are determined to change that. Our reforms support the faster delivery of infrastructure, essential for strengthening our energy security in periods of global instability, while maintaining a robust and proportionate consenting process.”
“First, obviously I cannot comment from the Dispatch Box on a live application process. I have met a number of MPs to talk about this issue, and we are looking at all the available information. Ofgem has a role in regulating the individual energy companies that are part of this mix. I am not sure what the hon. Lady’s final point has to do with this particular planning application, but I am happy to write to her on that.”
“We are taking a strategic approach to planning grid capacity and halving transmission build times through reforms to consenting, regulation and supply chains. We are working with the National Energy System Operator and Ofgem to deliver on radical connections reform, prioritising those projects that are ready to connect and strategically aligned, and to speed up access to the grid nationwide.”
“The hon. Lady asks an incredibly important question, and I share her frustration. I have reflected that frustration to all those involved in this process. It is worth remembering that we had more than 600 GW in a queue, and that this process has cleared out 300 GW. That was incredibly complex, and it is the first time that any country in the world has sought to do it. It is the first time that we have done it. Clearly we have learned a lot of lessons, but the process needs to proceed much faster than it has to date. There is a clear timeline to that happening, and the first gate 2 offers are going out now. I will continue to be closely involved in ensuring that happens. It is now a partnership between NESO and the transmission owners to get those offers out the door, and I will be doing everything I can to ensure that happens.”
“I congratulate all those in my hon. Friend’s constituency on what sounds like a fantastic project, and it is an example of what we want to see all across the country. The local power plan unlocks £1 billion of investment, with the ambition that communities right across the UK should be able to own and operate their own energy infrastructure, and the profits from that should flow into local communities.”
“We do work very well together, actually, contrary to what it might appear from the hon. Member’s contribution. He suggests, quite wrongly—twice now—that Scotland is generating all this electricity by itself. Of course, those projects are funded by bill payers across the UK investing in that infrastructure. His plan seems to be to take a third off energy bills with independence, with absolutely no credibility whatsoever.”
“I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend, so I will do that. She is right: we want to cover as many rooftops in the country as we can with solar panels. Just today we have announced that plug-in solar will be available in the UK in the summer, allowing renters and others across the world to go into a supermarket, buy some solar panels, plug them in and save money. That is part of what we want to do to bring down bills across the country.”
“Those projects are continuing at the moment at the developers’ own risk. They are subject to a process, which the Conservative party will understand because this matter ended up in the courts under the previous Government. We are dealing with that process. Ultimately, none of those projects would take a penny off bills—that is the argument we are making. The Conservatives have no plan for bringing down bills; we have.”
“Doubling down on fossil fuels does not give us energy security; it makes us depend even more on the very volatility that has driven us into economic problems time after time. More than half the economic shocks that have faced this country have been caused by fossil fuels, and the Conservative party’s answer is to double down and have even more of it. That is not a plan for the future of this country.”
“The Conservatives should accept that over 14 years, as they saw thousands of jobs disappear from the industry, they should have been doing everything in their power to build up what came next. They failed to do that. We have heard a number of straw man arguments put forward today about the North sea being closed. The North sea, right now, continues to send gas into our gas network and it will continue to do so for decades to come. However, the transition is hugely important. It has been under way for decades and we have to acknowledge how important it is to invest in what comes next. The events of recent weeks should concentrate minds. We should have learned the right lessons coming out of the invasion of Ukraine but we did not, and we must now learn the right lessons coming out of this present crisis.”
“Slogans will not build the jobs of the future. The shadow Minister talked about a lack of turbines in Aberdeen harbour, yet his party would rip up the auction that delivers the contracts that will create those jobs—and he has the brass neck to say that that is a problem with our Government’s policy. It is his policy that caused the problem. The shadow Minister talked about numbers on a spreadsheet, as if we do not care about the workers caught up in this. That is why we are building the transition and investing in the future, while they ignored it. When we started becoming a net importer—not in July 2024, as some Opposition Members would like to pretend, but in 2003—we should have been looking at the transition. I am willing to accept that the previous Labour Government should have done more on this.”
“They have risked their lives—indeed, many have lost their lives—in the pursuit of the energy that we have used for six decades. I will never diminish the role that the North sea has played for six decades in powering the country. It has been a source of energy, a source of revenue and a source of good jobs not just in the north-east of Scotland but beyond that in the east and north-east of England and right across the country. Its workers are sought after around the world for their skills and experiences. My right hon. Friend rightly challenged what we have heard from the Opposition in the debate. Slogans do not protect those jobs. Standing up with nothing but rhetoric and pretending that the 70,000 jobs lost on their watch were somehow irrelevant will not help, and it diminishes the scale of the challenge we face.”
“This has been an interesting debate at times—at other times, perhaps it has not been—but it is a timely and important debate, as many people sitting at home will be watching the situation in the middle east concerned about the cost of living, our energy security and the impact that our energy policies have on their lives. Let me start, as the shadow Minister rightly did, with what I thought was an outstanding contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). She rightly centred the debate, as others should have done, on the workers who have powered the country for decades. I have had the great pleasure of meeting many of them in the 20 months I have had this job—not on one visit to Aberdeen, but on many. They have done the job that we have asked of them in extraordinarily difficult circumstances.”
“It ultimately comes down to a choice: do we want to continue on the rollercoaster of fossil fuels, or do we want to take control of our energy future with secure, home-grown energy, creating jobs, cutting bills and strengthening our national resilience? At a moment like this, this Government are clear what path we are on. It is the right choice for the British public. I commend to the House the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.”
“That is why we have attracted £90 billion of investment since we began this challenge. It is why we are tackling the gridlock in the national grid that has held back projects for so long. It is why we are creating thousands of jobs across the country. Every wind turbine that we switch on, every solar panel that we install and every bit of grid that we build that was neglected by the Conservatives for far too long helps us to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and helps us to protect bills. There is an important debate at the heart of this issue, and I regret that the motion tabled by the Opposition does not help us to have it.”
“As long as we are dependent on the volatile global fossil fuel market, we will always be vulnerable to the kind of price shocks that we are seeing today. When faced with events like that, the public rightly expect us to work out the pathway that reduces that exposure and protects their household bills long into the future. Today, we have heard no plan whatsoever for doing that from the Conservatives; indeed, we have just heard a plan to double down on the very exposure that households are paying the price for. The alternative path is to invest in the clean energy transition and recognise that oil and gas will play an important part in that, but also to invest as quickly as we can in renewables, carbon capture and hydrogen, and in decommissioning our offshore assets, which will produce many, many jobs for a long time to come.”
“That means having a mix of energy and it means moving faster to deliver the clean, home-grown power that is the very thing that can protect households right now and allow us to take responsibility for our environmental impact. Conservative Members used to be great champions of the need to tackle the existential challenge to this planet that is the climate crisis, and there was great consensus in this place and across our politics on that. They have rowed back from that in a desperate attempt to chase Reform down the cul-de-sac of being anti-net zero, but in doing so they are turning their backs on the tens of thousands of jobs that will be created in the future. I spoke earlier about the importance of learning the right lessons from this crisis.”
“I am not saying that we should not be hugely grateful to have that gas in the seas around our country, but it is a minuscule amount compared with the global gas take. Therefore, we will always be a price taker, not a price maker. There were a number of contributions that I will not have time to come to, but I want to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). I think he quoted me to myself in saying that energy policy is not a theoretical exercise. I agree with him, and today’s motion states that we need to look at the reality of where we are as a country and how we deliver our energy security in an uncertain world.”
“I was going to come to the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution later. He is also very likeable—he kindly said that of me and I appreciated it. He talked about “lunacy made flesh”; in the past, he has remarked that his own party’s policy of cancelling auctions for renewables has been lunacy. The truth is that we need both: we need oil and gas for many years to come, but we also need to build what comes next. I am afraid that point is entirely lost on those on his party’s Front Bench. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the US earlier and said that the UK was a price taker, not a price maker. The difference is that the US is responsible for a quarter of the world’s gas; we are not. By all standards, we have a minuscule amount of gas in the international markets.”
“Taken together, the measures support the Government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower, to lead in producing affordable clean energy and to support the creation of good jobs right across the country. I commend the regulations to the Committee.”
“Once that skills and investment fund is up and running, developers may be asked to contribute to it as a condition for taking part in the CIB and CfD schemes. That way, the bonus can drive improvements in how the offshore wind sector addresses fair work and skills, while continuing to fund UK industrial heartlands. As I have set out, the regulations build on the strong foundations achieved in allocation round 7. They ensure that the clean industry bonus continues to drive supply chain growth in support of clean home-grown power. They make targeted improvements to the operation of the scheme and, crucially, ask that public funding supports public goods such as fair work and investment in skills.”
“It also includes a commitment to strive for best practice health and safety standards that go beyond the legal minimum. Our commitment to good jobs through the clean industry bonus does not stop at the fair work charter. We are pressing ahead with a skills investment fund that will help develop the skills needed for the clean energy transition. The idea is that offshore wind developers pool together skills funding and initiatives, rather than relying on individual projects trying to address particular short-term needs. The Government and the offshore wind industry have agreed that they will work together to set that up by 2027; that will be funded by existing developer contributions to the supply chain, not by any new money.”
“This was designed by industry and trade union representatives, and it reflects their constructive engagement. I thank the representatives from both the industry and the trade unions, who engaged constructively in pulling this together. The purpose is very simple: if we are going to give public money, it should help to improve the quality and security of jobs in the offshore wind industry. It will mean that workers and communities across the country reap the rewards of offshore wind and that the sector becomes an even more attractive place to work amid fierce competition for skills. The charter builds on forthcoming commitments in the Employment Rights Act 2025, in particular by asking that the offshore wind sector proactively implement voluntary access agreements for trade unions.”
“In the coming allocation round, we are also thinking beyond just offshore wind; the scheme will be extended to onshore wind projects in allocation round 9, and the regulations have been amended to make that possible. The period before introduction will give industry a small amount of lead-in time to get ready. Taken together, these changes improve and widen the scheme, as we speed up the delivery of renewables. Thirdly, on fair work and skills, the most significant change in allocation round 8 is that clean industry bonus applicants will need to sign up to the offshore wind fair work charter, which is a series of commitments to improve worker voice and representation and health and safety in the offshore wind industry. If an applicant wants to apply for the subsidy, they will have to sign the charter.”
“The aim is to make targeted, practical improvements to the operation of the scheme for allocation round 8, such as simplifying the application process and clarifying how budgets and delivery rules operate. The draft regulations also provide a legislative basis for making the subsidy conditional on fair work, ensuring that investments come with a commitment to good-quality jobs. The aim of the scheme’s operational improvements is to speed up the process and reduce the administrative burden by diminishing the volume of paperwork required, as well as clarifying budgets and rules, such as if events outside an applicant’s control derail their project. The draft regulations also set a sunset clause on the scheme, meaning that no CIB can run after 31 December 2028 without further parliamentary scrutiny.”
“Funding under the clean industry bonus is allocated through a competitive process that is run ahead of the main CfD round, with awards given out for the best value investments in the UK or for cleaner supply chains. Payments are released only on delivery of those commitments. In the most recent allocation round 7, £204 million was allocated through the clean industry bonus, which crowded in £3.4 billion of private investment—that is £204 million for £3.4 billion of private investment into supply chains and ports in the UK, delivering a strong return on public investment. The scale of private investment leveraged by the clean industry bonus represents an unprecedented vote of confidence in the UK’s supply chains, compared with previous allocation rounds. Let me set out the direction of travel in the draft regulations.”
“First, the purpose of the statutory instrument is to amend regulations governing the clean industry bonus ahead of allocation round 8. As I am sure Members are aware, the contracts for difference scheme is our main renewable energy support mechanism. The clean industry bonus offers additional CfD revenue to offshore wind developers who invest in UK factories and ports needed to deliver offshore wind, driving investment in our industrial heartlands. Offshore wind developers have rightly prioritised reducing costs, but the CfD scheme was missing a mechanism to ensure that investments went back into the UK, and to cleaner factories, so that consumers got both clean power and local jobs. That goes to the heart of this Government’s mission to deliver not only clean power but our industrial strategy.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, and it is wonderful to see so many Scots reunited for this debate. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 5 February; I should say from the outset that they still carry the legacy name of this policy, although it is now known as the clean industry bonus. I will briefly set out three things: first, the purpose and direction of the clean industry bonus; secondly, how the draft regulations help us to evolve the contracts for difference scheme; and thirdly, why funding under the scheme is now conditional on applicants adhering to the fair work charter, which I will come to in a moment.”
“I will address a few things. There were some contradictory comments from different Members of the same party: on the one hand, we should support the supply chains, but on the other, the Government should do nothing to actually build them up. I will come to that point, because—”
“I am surprised, frankly, that in 2026 anyone would think that fair work is something that we should not support by any means necessary.”
“There is no option to build nothing. There is a cost for consumers, regardless of what we choose to do. There is also a huge cost for consumers of building the grid that the previous Government failed to build for 14 years, which we are now determined to do. On the fair work charter, there is no compulsion on any developers to bid into the clean industry bonus. If they want to participate in the contracts for difference auction, they are very welcome to do that. If they want to participate in the clean industry bonus and have public support for supply chains here in the UK, then they should conform to the requirements of that scheme. We think it is absolutely fair to say that if the hard-working people of this country are putting money into building those factories, fair work should be at the heart of it.”
“On the projected budget for AR8, I cannot get into projected budgets because they are driven by the initial allocation that is set, and then by the bids that come in. In AR7, we reformed the process so that we could see the bid stack in order to see what projects were in that option round, although they were anonymised. That resulted in the budget getting us the output of offshore wind that we did, at a price that was 40% cheaper than new-build gas. That is what we should hold on to: the AR7 option round was cheaper for consumers than the equivalent would be. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that there is no option to not build new energy infrastructure in this country. We have two choices: we either double down on gas, and the world as it stands right now is a reminder of why that would be a mistake; or we build renewables.”
“We have a real opportunity to do something differently on deep-sea wind, which we were not able to do on fixed-bottom wind, to have the supply chain here in the UK. We have the biggest pipeline anywhere in the world; we have one of the biggest projects in the world. That is an opportunity for us to deliver on that innovative supply chain, but it takes investment for that to happen. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire asked a number of genuine questions, which I appreciated. First, the regulations themselves very clearly set out the sunset clause as 31 December 2028. This will be eligible for the allocation rounds before that date; if we wanted to continue the scheme beyond that, we would have to come and update these regulations again, but it is not an unlimited fund.”
“The small modular reactor fleet that the Government not only consulted on but have actually delivered—and are delivering—will result in even more supply-chain jobs across the country as well. The shadow Minister and I also agree that we would like to see some of those SMR projects being built in Scotland, with even closer supply chains in Scotland as well, but we first need to change the Scottish Government in May; I am glad that he will be supporting a vote for Scottish Labour on 7 May to do that. The shadow Minister also raised a number of other points about the supply chain that I think are right. It is absolutely right to say that floating offshore wind is an expensive technology, but we are at the cutting edge of its development.”
“We are determined to try to fix that, because there are significant supply-chain opportunities, but we need to make it easier for companies to take those up. The shadow Minister and I always agree on new nuclear, although we slightly disagree on how much he achieved when he was the Nuclear Minister—but I will not mention that, because I want us to work co-operatively on nuclear. New nuclear is incredibly important. As he is right to say, the supply-chain benefits in the UK from nuclear are substantial: thousands and thousands of jobs in communities right across the country, not just in proximity to Sizewell or Hinkley, are contributing in different ways to building what are phenomenal engineering projects here in the UK.”
“That is how we end up with absolutely no industry left in the country. That is what we are trying to rebuild after 14 years of it falling apart. I will turn to the specific points. First of all, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, made a good point about the strength of supply chains in the north-east of Scotland; I will be in Aberdeen again on Thursday. One of the key things that the North Sea Future Board has taken as a real priority is how we map those supply chains, not just over oil and gas but over what could come in terms of offshore wind, decommissioning, hydrogen and carbon capture. For too long, the pipeline of future projects that that supply chain could be redeployed on has not been clear enough. As a result, we have been losing out on contracts that could be dealt with here in the UK.”
“If we want to have supply chains in the UK, we have to support and invest in them. That is not just a cost. It also delivers good jobs across the country, and our energy security. On the question about raising bills, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire is quite wrong. The outcome of building the clean power system is that we will bring down bills, but we have to be able to build it and that means supply chains here in the UK as well, because the rest of the world is also in a race to build clean energy infrastructure.”
“I understand the point. First of all, I have been really clear. This regulation, as it clearly sets out, comes to an end on 31 December 2028. We will come back to the Committee to update the regulations should we wish to continue the scheme. We have run AR7—it was a successful scheme. Obviously, we want to monitor what happens in AR8 and AR9. We may be able to devise other schemes. It may be that by then that our industrial strategy has delivered the supply-chain benefits across the UK and that that is not necessary, but supply chains do not come out of nowhere. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, made one other point that I wanted to come back to. When we left Government, two supply chain companies were building solar in this country. When we took back Government in 2024, there were none.”
“If we want our constituents to have good, well paid jobs across the country, helping build the energy system, we have to do something about it. This Government are doing that, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.”
“It is a no, because the counterfactual, of relying on gas, as his party is so determined to do, would put up everyone’s bills significantly. We are the ones bringing down bills, and on 1 April all our constituents will see that the decisions this Government have made will reduce their bills by 7%. There are a number of points in this statutory instrument that I could go over again; in the interests of everyone’s time, I will not. I reinforce the point that we believe that if we are building an energy system for the future here, we should deliver the good jobs and industrial benefits that come with that. That should not be a controversial argument, but it seems that it still is. If we want to have an industrial strategy, we cannot be agnostic, sit on the sidelines and hope that someone else will do it—we have to drive it forward.”
“That means not only deploying new renewable capacity, but ensuring that every part of the existing system is as fair, efficient and affordable as possible. The order before us is a small but extremely important step in that direction. It reflects a pragmatic, consumer-focused approach that underpins our energy strategy: looking for opportunities to make the system better for British people, while maintaining the confidence of the investors who are so important for building the infrastructure of the future. Subject to the will of Parliament, the arrangements will come into force the day after the regulations are made. I commend the draft order to the Committee.”
“By implementing the change in time for the new compliance year in April, we can secure estimated savings of £1.9 billion over the remaining lifetime of the scheme, which works out at around £180 million a year for the next 11 years. These are meaningful savings for consumers, delivered through a sensible and reasonable change to the electricity generation scheme. Our approach is one of balance: it reduces the cost pressures on households and businesses, but continues to provide the stable environment for long-term investment in the renewable sector. As we all know, the world around us is becoming increasingly unstable. The only sustainable way to shield hard-working people around the UK from global energy shocks is to accelerate our transition to clean, home-grown energy.”
“We recognise that the proposed options generated significant concern and much disagreement from renewables obligation stakeholders. We understand the points raised about the need for policy stability and to ensure that we have strong investor confidence in the UK. But it is precisely because the renewables obligation scheme has been such a success—it now supports over 30% of the UK’s energy generation—that we must ensure its costs remain proportionate and sustainable as it continues to operate. The scheme has been instrumental in building the renewable capacity that we rely on, and we want it to keep doing that, but without placing unnecessary burdens on bill payers.”
“CPI offers a more accurate reflection of real-world price changes than RPI, which tends to overstate the rate of inflation. In simple terms, that means that the costs of operating the scheme will grow more slowly in the years ahead, easing pressure on the consumers who pay for it through their energy bills. The change forms part of wider efforts to generate efficiencies across the energy system, reduce costs for businesses and ease the pressure on domestic bills. This change follows a joint public consultation undertaken by the UK Government with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, who operate their own renewables obligation schemes. The consultation closed in December and a response was published in January.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. The draft order was laid before the House on 2 February, under the affirmative procedure. We are all acutely aware, particularly at this moment in time, that households and businesses across the country are feeling the effects of global energy volatility. That is why the Government remain absolutely focused on finding sensible and targeted efficiencies to reduce the costs of the UK energy system, while ensuring that we maintain the investor confidence that is critical to building the system we need for the future. The order changes how we uprate the cost of the renewables obligation scheme, switching from the retail price index to the consumer price index from 1 April.”