Renewables Obligation Order 2009

I do not know quite how I follow that. I do not think that I have ever been in the Moses Room when there has been such an expansive explanation of an order. The fact that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has not yet read the whole thing suggests that I should give it scant consideration during this debate. On these Benches, we welcome anything, such as this legislation and the banding, that helps to bring forward the renewable energy programme for the United Kingdom. We have to see it within that context, which we welcomed generally during the passage of the then Energy Bill. Now we are going through the administrative procedures to apply it. However, we must remember that we have a huge target. By 2020, we must meet a target of 15 per cent of all energy being generated by renewables. I should remind the Minister that that target does not refer to generating capacity, which is what we often talk about in terms of renewables, but to actual energy generated. We have a long way to go in the next 11 years. Certainly, this is a long order. I seem to remember reading that this was supposed to be rather simpler than the previous order, which I am delighted to say I did not have to deal with. The Explanatory Memorandum is quite strange in terms of plain speaking. It states: ""It is also worth noting that the Order distinguishes between renewables obligation certificates and ROCs"." I always thought a renewables obligation was a ROC. It continues: ""The former is a collective term used to describe any of the certificates issued under any of the UK renewables obligations and the latter is a certificate issued under the renewables obligation in England & Wales"." I do not know, but it does not seem to me to be a great day for plain speaking. I turn to some of the issues raised in the Minister’s helpful opening remarks. He mentioned the banding, which we welcome as we hope that it will bring forward new technologies in renewables. We on these Benches see that as very important, given the time it takes to bring forward these technologies. Do the Government have any technologies in mind? I believe the round 3 bids are in and I would be interested to know whether the Government feel that round 3 for offshore energy has been successful. It seemed to me that there was a good take-up of bids in that area, but does the Minister feel that we are on a trajectory to meet what we need in terms of capacity? During the passage of the then Energy Bill, we also debated where renewables obligation certificates finish and the feed-in tariff starts, which is very important. One of the issues was whether, until the Government decide where that boundary will be, there is a great risk, because of that uncertainty, that you will not get investment in that area. We did a sort of Dutch auction at Third Reading when the cap went up every time we spoke about it, but I think it perhaps landed up at 20 megawatts or around that figure. Clearly, organisations will not invest in that technology now if they think that they might be able to have feed-in tariffs in the future which give them a higher rate. I would also be interested to understand from the Minister whether—in terms of the carbon reduction commitment, which is one of the other strategies being put forward by the Government in terms of climate change—they will still reconsider treating renewable energy differently in terms of carbon reduction commitment costs and certificates. It still seems utterly counterintuitive to me that a business that comes under the CRC umbrella because of its size is given no credit for generating its own renewable energy in the form of electricity and is treated just as if it were coal-fired energy or fossil fuel. That is still, as I said, counterintuitive. Those are the areas that I would like to understand, but we on these Benches generally welcome the order and say, "Let’s get on with it. Let’s set out these rules". We will then, I hope, urgently push forward the renewables programme that we need to meet our targets for climate change.