Official Report 168KB pdf
Electricity (Application for Consent) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/18)
I welcome everybody to the 5th meeting in 2006 of the Enterprise and Culture Committee. We have received apologies from Susan Deacon. We had also received apologies from Jamie Stone, but I understand that he is now in the building and may join us later.
The regulations amend the fees paid by developers under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Specifically, the regulations introduce two new fees for the extension and construction of generating stations with a capacity of between 1MW and 10MW. The fee for both is £5,000, reduced from £15,000. Because of the section 36 thresholds, the fees will apply only to stations wholly or mainly driven by water—hydroelectric stations and marine stations.
I welcome the regulations. Members will recall that, back in June last year, we discussed the earlier set of regulations that increased the fees, and we made representations to the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning following comments that we received, such as those that a constituent made to me. The Executive has thought again and reduced the fees for hydroelectric schemes, so I welcome that.
We listened to what the committee said last year, and we have acted as quickly as possible to reduce the fee level. We have some sympathy with developers who applied during the period of the higher fee, and we understand that two or three have paid that fee, but there is nothing in the legislation that allows us to make refunds or to reimburse people retrospectively.
So is the answer no?
The answer is no.
Might the Executive reconsider that? It occurs to me that no more than a handful of people will have been affected. Given that the Executive now accepts, in effect, that it was an error to increase the charges in the first place, in the interests of natural justice, could it see its way to reimbursing the few individuals concerned?
Before I came to the committee, I checked how many people had paid the £15,000 fee—I think that three developers have done so. However, as I said, there is nothing in the legislation that allows us to reimburse those people. We would need to have financial memorandums and other regulations in place, but those are not present.
Might the Executive want to consider that situation?
That would mean re-examining and possibly even changing the regulations again, which we are not minded to do.
To pick up on Murdo Fraser's point, his constituent and the other two developers nevertheless have a case that we ought to communicate to the Executive. We should at least make representations, although it may be that nothing can be done under the regulations. I have considerable sympathy for the three developers. I welcome the regulations, because they will allow the small-scale renewable energy proposals that we want in more isolated communities to go ahead and to be viable. The regulations go a long way towards meeting the real concerns of developers of small-scale hydro schemes about disproportionate costs.
My comment is probably too late, but I have a concern about the huge difference in the fees for the 10MW and 100MW levels. How much discussion went on in making the decision on dividing up the fees? Is there any chance that the fee structure will be revisited?
There was a lot of internal discussion in the Executive on the level of fees. As members know, we have made the changes so that we and local authorities can be reimbursed properly for the costs that are incurred in processing section 36 applications. To re-examine the fees structure, we would need more amending regulations but, at present, we have no plans to lay such regulations.
Do members agree with Christine May's suggestion that we draw the Executive's attention to the three affected developers, mention our sympathy for them and ask the Executive to explore whether it can recompense them?
We are considering the regulations under the negative procedure. I should correct point 1 at the bottom of the cover note. We have to report by 6 March—which will be 40 days from 20 January—and not, as the cover note states, by 30 January. That is obviously not the case, as we would have missed the deadline. We are well within the 40-day timescale. As we are following the negative procedure, there is nothing else for me to say, other than to thank James Thomson for his third appearance before the committee.