I thank the noble Lord for reiterating his question. I think I understand it better now. We are dealing with the surplus in the NFFO. I should make it clear that this issue is not part of the changes that we are dealing with today. The change in arrangements from the old NFFO support system to the new RO system has led to a surplus. This is government money. It is not owed to the renewables industry. No one in the renewables industry has lost out as a result of these arrangements and the cost of the RO to consumers remains no higher than what we said it would be. I also reiterate that there has been significant support to the renewables industry through the RO and the £500 million made available up to 2008 in the form of money for R&D and capital grants.
This is a complex area and I should perhaps write in more detail to the noble Lord to plug the gap. This money is not dealt with in this order. It is not money owed to the renewables industry but is a part of government expenditure. I hope I shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord on that by way of letter. I think I have dealt with everything else.
Renewables Obligation Order 2006
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 22 March 2006.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Renewables Obligation Order 2006.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
680 c150-1GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:26:05 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_311533
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_311533
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_311533