Official Report 136KB pdf
Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Order 2002 (Draft)
We have invited Neal Rafferty and Linda Sneddon today because last week's recess has meant that this is the committee's only opportunity to ask questions on this order. I thank the witnesses for coming.
If you went through the differences that you have identified, that might be more useful than my rambling on about them.
Article 2(1) of the English order has a definition of "particulars". Article 2(2) refers to the purposes of the definition of "hydro generating station". In relation to article 2(4), there appears to be a difference between the two orders. We were not sure whether article 4(13) represents a policy change. There also appears to be a difference in relation to article 5(1)(d).
I will go through some of the technical changes. When we considered the definition of "particulars" in article 2(1), we felt that it was defined in paragraph 2 of schedule 2, although not quite in a way that would fit our usual drafting practice. We could not see the purpose of having the definition. The definition in paragraph 2 is not actually a definition as such: it explains what the particulars are and what a renewables obligation certificate comprises.
Please bear with us. The issues are technical.
Absolutely.
I have not the faintest idea why you should have decided what you did.
The term "particulars" is not used much in the order, and the particulars are described. My understanding is that the order is likely to be amended, probably in the next six months to a year, to implement further policy. If the committee felt strongly about having the definition included, we could consider making an amendment at that time. The definition was felt to serve no purpose, which is why it was removed, but if the committee feels strongly, we can reconsider that in the next order.
That offer seems reasonable, and it gives us six months to recover from this order.
The second order will not be as substantial as the first.
That covers article 2(1).
Those words are in the equivalent English order and do not appear in the Scottish order.
We deleted those words because they added nothing. The definition of civil works is technical. The provisions on civil works relate only to hydro generating stations, so it was considered that the words that the convener mentioned added nothing, which is why they were deleted.
The committee is concerned that the phrase "generating station" is rather wide and that "hydro generating station" is a bit more specific.
What the order regards as civil works relates only to hydro generating stations and not to any other type of generating station. The order mentions man-made weirs and holding water. Only a hydro generating station deals with water.
I believe you.
The wording is specific. Hydro generating stations are mainly in Scotland; only a few are elsewhere.
You are saying that because only Scotland has hydro generation and the order is Scottish, the order does not need to say "hydro generation".
We felt that the words added nothing to the definition. We tried to be as precise as possible, so that people know what civil works are. People in the industry will know what civil works are.
I am minded to accept that explanation.
We omitted that paragraph to follow Scottish practice. Such a provision is not considered one that we should put in Scottish statutory instruments.
I am advised that, in this instance, the omission does not matter, but we are pernickety, and sometimes such an omission matters. That is why we drew it to your attention.
It is accepted that, sometimes, such a provision is important. However, it would have made no difference to the order, because it does not refer to schedules outwith itself. If we produce an amendment order, the situation may be different.
We were not sure whether article 4(13) in the English order was omitted from the Scottish order because of a policy change.
The Department of Trade and Industry added articles 4(13) and 5(1)(d) to the England and Wales order after we had laid our order. In England and Wales and in Scotland, we worked from a draft that we had identified as the final version. We proceeded to work with that; our colleagues in the DTI proceeded to amend it. Articles 4(13) and 5(1)(d) are examples of what they did.
I am also trying to juggle two orders. You have my sympathy for what has happened.
The DTI raised queries with us and we were suddenly left in a situation. The additions to the England and Wales order may add clarity for people who work in the system, because they provide separate definitions, but we think that article 4(12)(a) covers the intention, so there is no practical difference. We will consider that when the amendment order is produced, when we are likely to include those provisions.
We put on record our sympathy for you. The committee hopes that such a problem does not recur. If it does, you must tell somebody about it.
We have made our feelings clear to the DTI.
We have done that in the most diplomatic terms.
We have no time to go into the matter either. I accept what you say about the mop-up operation, but article 5(1)(d) of the England and Wales order seems to come perilously close to policy making. I thank you for your explanation, and we look forward to seeing whether there will be an amendment order.
Just for clarification, ROCs will not be issued until four months after the order comes into force as intended on 1 April, subject to parliamentary approval. As a result, we have plenty of time to make amendments. All the DTI has done—very helpfully—is to clarify the measures that our order will introduce; its revisions do not make any material change nor do they add anything that we did not already have. They simply bring matters out into the open and add a little clarity. Once we introduce amendments—which is likely to happen in the coming months—we will update our own order to ensure that it carries the same clarity.
I am sure that people in the industry will be glad about that. We certainly are. However, we have another wee question for you. Will you clarify the meaning of the words "aspects" and "respects" in paragraph 7 of schedule 2? It looks as though it is a wee typo.
It is a wee typo. As the committee has brought the matter to our attention, we seek its consent to deal with the matter when the draft order comes back to us, if passed by Parliament. If it is not possible to change the word "aspects" to "respects" through a manuscript amendment, we will seek to make that change through the amendment order.
So you are sticking with the word "respects".
As that is the word in the English order, we will stick with it here.
We have no further questions. Thank you very much; your responses have been most illuminating.
It is an easy order to shed light on.