Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): From the Department, I welcome Sarah Brady, director of energy operations; Alan Smith, the project manager for the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme; and Catriona Harkin, the deputy director of energy operations. You are all very welcome. Happy new year. Thank you for coming to the Committee to brief us on the feedback on the Department's consultation on the closure regulations. I am happy to hand over to you to update the Committee on the process to date.

Ms Sarah Brady (Department for the Economy): Thank you, Chair. Happy new year. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee to discuss the closure proposals for the non-domestic RHI scheme. Our approach is guided by the principle of fairness to participants and by the need to protect public finances and to ensure value for money for taxpayers.

The RHI (Closure of the Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill is an enabling piece of legislation that would give the Department the powers that are required to make regulations to formally close the scheme and to put in place new closure arrangements, including closure payments for eligible participants.

As the Committee is aware, we recently concluded a public consultation on the proposed closure arrangements. I must emphasise, however, that all the changes arising from the consultation remain subject to Executive approval and that no final decisions have been taken. Everything that we will discuss today is provisional and is contingent on approval being secured. In that context, we have provided the Committee with the draft Government response to the consultation. In addition, we hope to share the draft closure regulations with the Committee as soon as possible — hopefully in the coming days.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Are you waiting for Executive approval, or will it be before that?

Ms Brady: We have a wee bit more work to do on the regulations; it is minimal. We will get them to you as soon as possible — within the coming days, we hope. If Executive approval is granted, eligible participants would, subject to their meeting the requirements, receive annual closure payments based on their historic heat generation, from 2017 to 2019. Those payments would continue until the end of each participant's original 20-year period, provided that their installation remains in use.

The Department received 216 responses to the consultation, providing valuable oversight of and insight into our proposals. As a result — again, subject to Executive approval — we propose changing several of the closure processes and controls to ensure that they are transparent.

First, we propose moving from three-band usage to four-band usage in order to improve fairness and accuracy. Secondly, we propose introducing the right to review for participants for their historic heat generation from 2017 to 2019, under certain circumstances. We also seek to strengthen our compliance regime by increasing the number of inspections and desk-based audits.

I reiterate that all those proposals and changes are dependent on Executive agreement and that they may be subject to amendment. We remain committed to ensuring that there is a fair and transparent closure process. I welcome the Committee's input and any questions that members may have on the Bill or the proposed regulations.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): This is not your fault, Sarah, but the Committee has been put in a difficult position today. We do not have draft regulations to look at, and, even if we did, they would not have been approved by the Executive. This is not a meaningless exercise, but we would have been in a much better position had we had the final proposals from the Department. That is not the officials' fault.

Will you give the Committee an outline of the changes that have been proposed to the regulations following the consultation, with the caveat that they are subject to approval by the Executive or to ministerial direction? Will you articulate why you intend to change the banding from three bands to four?

Ms Brady: The proposed closure arrangements are, essentially, that the participant will get the closure payments subject to their continuing to use the boiler. The participants want, within those arrangements, to be able to let us know if they will not continue to use their boiler to meet their heat needs for a period during the year. People want to be seen as honest and to be able to provide detail.

We propose to move from the three bands that we had proposed originally, which were 100%, 50% and de minimis, to four bands, which would be 100%, two thirds, one third and de minimis. That would make it a bit tighter and allow participants to provide a bit more detail.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Has any financial modelling been done of the changes in the bands to determine whether additional resource may be required?

Ms Brady: Our modelling and costing was done on the assumption that people may be up to 100%. We are assuming that there will be people who are up to full usage.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Will you talk more about the review of the 2017-19 usage?

Ms Brady: That is for very limited circumstances in which the detail will be worked out. The participant will be able to show that the 2017-19 usage is not proper representation. We will expand it to a slightly longer period and perhaps take into consideration the following year, which would allow the participant to say, "Well, that year is more representative of me".

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): So, the detail has not even been worked out yet?

Ms Brady: It has. Essentially, it is saying that if you can show that 2017-19 is not representative, you can take into consideration a longer period. That longer period will be defined in the regulations. It is likely to be a limited longer period that we look at.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): How many years is it likely to be?

Ms Brady: It is probably going to be the following year.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): From 2017 to 2020, or just 2020?

Ms Brady: It is 2019-2020.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): OK. What is the modelled financial impact of that proposed change?

Ms Brady: That proposed change is not expected to have a significant impact on the overall costs because usage in 2019-2020 was not that far outwith the 2017-19 usage. It is not modelled to have a significant impact on the costs that were previously provided to the Committee.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): This is not a personal attack on officials, but, given the history of the scheme, you will have to forgive my scepticism when I am told that it is not likely to have a significant impact. I am keen to get the detail of what it is likely to be.

Ms Brady: We have shown DOF that it is within the tolerance.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): What tolerance did DOF allow for?

Mr Alan Smith (Department for the Economy): In the business case, the tolerance is about 10%.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): The Department's model for the cost to the scheme was £141·5 million. Is that right?

Ms Brady: The cost of closure?

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Yes.

Ms Brady: The total cost of closure was —.

Mr Smith: It was £214 million.

Ms Brady: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): It was £141·5 million.

Ms Brady: The total annual cost of closure is £19·4 million, and the total is —. Alan, you have it there.

Mr Smith: The

cost of closure is £196 million.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Is the 10% DOF tolerance on that?

Ms Brady: When we calculated £196 million, we were extremely conservative. We assumed that all the eligible participants would use 100% of the 2017-19 amount, which is very conservative. We assumed that they would not be declaring down.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Yes.

Inspections was the other change. Is that right?

Ms Brady: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): We were told that the proposed inspection model was good and was nothing to worry about, but you are now proposing to change it. Is that right?

Ms Brady: We still think that what we are proposing is good. We are looking to be flexible and risk-based so that we can react to unforeseen circumstances and say, "We can do more inspections as a result of any concerns that people might have." We can do more frequent inspections or fewer. When it comes to being risk-based, we could say, "Well, if this risk comes up, we can do more". Based on the feedback that we received from you, we felt that looking at doing more was the right way to go — not that we are doing fewer.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): If you believe that to be the case, was any consideration given by the Minister to feedback from the Committee about metering?

Ms Brady: As I said, these are proposals for closure. You could have looked at doing a single one-off payment, which would have meant that the boilers could have been scrapped the next day. Alternatively, you could have looked at breaking up the closure payments and making them over the original period during which the boiler would have been used and making them subject to the boiler's continued use to meet the user's heat needs. However, this is closure, so it is based on historic heat, and it is continuing to use the installation to meet your historic heat needs.

Ms D Armstrong: Good morning. Welcome to the Committee, and thank you for coming in this morning. Sarah, you have emphasised public confidence and the need for transparency, and that it is still about being fair to participants. Why did the Department change its position for participants where the boilers changed ownership or location? Can you give us more detail on that? I then have a follow-up question.

Ms Brady: We engaged with participants. When I was last at the Committee, I said that it is a real consultation; we really are listening and will make changes. A high proportion of participants — 63% — were against disallowing relocation. The case was made through engagement that there will be circumstances under which it would be quite legitimate to move location and, therefore, that should be allowed. It is currently allowed, so we made the decision to allow relocation.

Ms D Armstrong: What kind of scrutiny is done in that case? How are you prepared to go in and inspect and ensure that it is compliant with the regulations?

Ms Brady: It will be built into the closure regulations that we can do physical inspections and visits. Upon relocation, we could send a technical expert to look at the boiler to ensure that it is being used appropriately to meet the heat needs of where it is installed.

Ms D Armstrong: A particular issue that I received from feedback is that if we are to exit the scheme, we want to see boilers repurposed. Boilers could be used in other instances, as that is a good example of following our energy credentials and trying to use affordable energy. That was what came across. Thank you. That concludes my questions.

Ms McLaughlin: Good morning, and thank you for coming in today. We are looking at the responses. What is your view of the response from some participants that the meter payments are unfair, given that meter payments could provide a more visible way forward for the taxpayer? Are participants really paying for the fact that Ofgem will not be providing the administrative support?

Ms Brady: What we have proposed here is fair to participants, and most participants see that. These are closure payments based on what participants have shown as their historic heat need, and it is subject to their continuing to use the boiler in line with their historic heat need.

Ms McLaughlin: Are you absolutely confident that the measures in the regulations will ensure that participants keep accurate records? I am still concerned about the notification of inspection etc, and I fear that accurate records may not be kept. Are you totally confident that the regulations, as they stand, will provide complete transparency and good governance?

Ms Brady: Yes.

Ms McLaughlin: OK.

Ms Brady: The participants that we have engaged with are very keen to show that they welcome inspections.

Ms McLaughlin: I have another quick question. When do you expect the easy-to-use DFE portal to be up and running?

Ms Brady: That is still being worked on. However, we expect it to be ready for when the regulations come in.

Ms McLaughlin: OK. There is no delay with that; you are working towards that?

Ms Brady: We are working towards that at pace.

Ms McLaughlin: OK. Thank you.

Mr Honeyford: My first question is this: is the portal not already in testing and ready to go?

Mr Smith: Internally, people are working on it. I have seen the portal, and it looks well. It is being tested internally, so I would say that it is nearly ready to go.

Mr Honeyford: Is it being developed by the Department, or is an outside body developing it?

Mr Smith: Is it Capital 1 that is the name of the company?

Mr Honeyford: There is a company developing it.

Mr Smith: No, the Department is working with people. Is it people from DOF, or are they independent? They are independent people, but they are developers who are —.

Ms Brady: They are expert developers.

Mr Smith: The portal is going through all the —.

Ms Brady: The company is called Version 1.

Mr Smith: It is Version 1, sorry.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): It is therefore not the Department but an outside body that is doing it, is that correct?

Ms Catriona Harkin (Department for the Economy): We are engaged with DOF, which is working with Version 1 to develop the portal. It is well through the development stage. If I remember the timeline correctly, I think that, in March, we will look at ramping up the testing for the minimum viable product. The minimum viable product will give participants or their representatives the portal to use to fill in their annual declarations and to submit any evidence requirements. Another stage of development is going on in the background to determine how we will issue the payment calculation through the portal. The front face of the portal will be ready for participants, in line with the regulations.

Mr Honeyford: It will therefore be tested and ready by 1 May, when the regulations come through. OK.

I welcome the fact that you have added the extra band, because I have been screaming about having two bands. If it is the portal doing it, and it is an IT solution, why not just enable a meter reading to be put into the portal?

Ms Brady: I keep saying that this is not a continuation of the previous scheme, through which participants got paid for the heat produced. This is about closure, and participants are receiving closure payments for their heat needs —

Mr Honeyford: I understand that.

Ms Brady: — so that they can operate the boiler for their heat needs. It is based on their historical heat need, and the downward banding is to allow participants to choose a lower band and say, "My boiler was not in use for a third of the year".

Mr Honeyford: I understand all of that, and I understand the banding. I said that I welcome the fact that you have listened to what we have said and added that extra band. You talk about the consultation, but the people in the scheme are asking for more evidence, so why do you not just enable that meter reading to be put in, even within the bands, in order to provide an extra bit of scrutiny of the overall picture to ensure that it is accurate, thus giving everybody confidence?

Ms Brady: There is nothing to stop the boiler owners from keeping their meter readings. When we go out, they can then show us them.

Mr Honeyford: Why does the portal not take that information?

Ms Brady: The reason is that we will not be basing our payments on meter readings.

Mr Honeyford: I understand that.

Ms Brady: That is not what we are there to do.

Mr Honeyford: Yes, but you are basing the meter readings on the purchasing of woodchips. That is the evidence that you are using to say —.

Ms Brady: We are using participants' declarations that they continue to use their installation to meet their heat needs as they always have done, and —

Mr Honeyford: You are checking that by —.

Ms Brady: — we are checking that.

Mr Honeyford: Why therefore would you not add another column to the portal to double-check the meter readings in order to give participants confidence? That is what they are asking for.

Ms Brady: I do not think that it would add enough, because, if we were going to get that information, that would presuppose that we are going to pay them based on the meter reading, but we are not.

Mr Honeyford: It is just an extra check.

Mr Smith: The requirement to have people keep records of their fuel purchases is not some way for the Department to analyse the amount of fuel that they have purchased and convert that into some sort of heat use. Rather, it is really to provide a level of assurance to us that the boiler is being used. For example, people would not buy fuel if they were not using the boiler.

Ms Brady: It indicates a pattern.

Mr Smith: It is not going to be used as a substitute for meter reading.

Ms Brady: It is about a pattern of behaviour. It is to determine whether the pattern of behaviour continues to be that individuals are using the boiler to meet their heating needs.

Mr Honeyford: Perhaps I have misunderstood the portal's purpose. The portal just shows that participants are there and are still alive. You are not actually going to check anything, however.

Ms Brady: We are. We are going to have desk-based audits and physical audits.

Mr Honeyford: What information —?

Mr Smith: The portal also contains the annual declaration that participants are utilising their appliance.

Mr Honeyford: What information goes into the portal every year?

Mr Smith: Participants have to confirm that the information that we hold is correct, and they have to make a declaration that they are complying with the scheme and using their boiler.

Ms Brady: People will be flagged, and that will be done on a random basis and a risk-based basis. People whose boiler was inactive for a long time before closure, for example, will be considered as being high-risk and will therefore be flagged. We will look a bit more at what they are doing.

Mr Honeyford: I just do not understand why you do not put more data into the portal.

Finally, the cost to the Department to run the scheme is two or three times the Ofgem figure. I do not have the figure in front of me. I do not understand why that cost is so high if the portal is collecting the data.

Ms Brady: The Ofgem cost of £0·9 million does not include, for example, physical audits and inspections. It does not include the Department's costs for machinery of government, departmental oversight and other things that the Department does. An extra £0·7 million for departmental compliance etc can therefore be added to the Ofgem figure of £0·9 million. That is under the current arrangements. Going forward, it is estimated at £1·1 million. We will be doing physical inspections. When you take into consideration the Department's ongoing costs, such as machinery of government, oversight and compliance, you will see that, in total, the closure arrangements are cheaper.

Mr Honeyford: They are cheaper.

Ms Brady: Yes. For admin, the costs are lower.

Mr Honeyford: Perhaps we can get those figures. Thank you.

Mr Delargy: Quite a few of the questions that I was going to ask have already been asked, particularly on the banding. I would like clarity on the inspections. That is one point about which I am not sure and on which I am open to being convinced, particularly about notification of inspections and their frequency. It would be great if you could give me some assurance, as well as some more detail.

Ms Brady: A procedure will be developed for how we do the physical inspections. We envisage that we will flag certain people as being high-risk. Their boiler will then receive a physical inspection. There could also be the ability to do random physical inspections just to make sure that people do not think, "I've been inspected once, so I'll never be inspected again". We will make sure that that cannot happen. Initially, there will be the annual declaration. If something is amiss or looks odd in the declaration, particularly in that from people whose boiler was previously inactive, and they had not been engaging when there was metering, they will initially be classed as being high-risk. The desk-based audit will add the ability to request to see photographs and inspect fuel records. If the declaration is still not satisfactory, an inspector will go out to visit the site, look at the fuel store and make sure that the boiler is in place and connected, that the heat is being used and that everything looks right. We will be looking to appoint technical experts, be they internal or external, to do the physical inspections for us. We will be looking to ensure that the people who are doing the inspections are technical experts in what they are doing.

Mr Delargy: That is reassuring to hear. I would like to better understand what specific metrics you are going to use to determine whether someone is high-risk. When they are in that category, how will that be measured? How soon after someone is identified as being high-risk will the procedures kick in?

Ms Brady: In the initial stages, we imagine that people who are considered high-risk will be those whose boiler has been inactive for a period. Going forward, somebody who has moved location, for example, may be considered high-risk.

Being considered high-risk may also apply where somebody's information is not complete or satisfactory, in that the information is there but something was amiss from the previous physical inspection. There will also be the ability to make a judgement call on information that comes in. There will also a random element involved, as sometimes you do not know what you do not know, so there could be a random element in order to catch things.

Mr Delargy: One of the things that has been mentioned today as a feature is that things can be updated or changed as you go along. If you find that there is perhaps a loophole or an issue that emerges further down the line that you were not anticipating and had not planned for, that can be adapted, and the processes can then be changed. It is imperative that there be no loopholes and that the process is watertight. Within that, what flexibility do you have to change the processes? My worry is that we may do something now and then have to review it substantially in a number of months or years. I therefore want to get a better understanding of what flexibility you have and what levers you have. Is there any planning being done for how you will try to change things as we move forward? We do not want to put in place something that immediately has to be changed or that is not fit for purpose.

Ms Brady: The Department itself can review and change processes and procedures and anything that we publish, such as guidance notes. Any regulations will come to the Committee for scrutiny. They will then go to the Assembly, where they will go through the normal process. If we feel that there is a need to introduce regulations, or if there is ever a need for primary legislation, that will be done through the usual process. It depends on what is being changing and what level it is at. Is it just a matter of our saying that we will increase the number of inspections? That would be process and procedure.

Mr Delargy: I appreciate that there has to be a level of flexibility, but my worry is that I feel that you are almost expecting that there will have to be reviews done, changes made and so on. Is that the case?

Ms Brady: No, that is absolutely not the case. We are expecting that the tariff that has been set will be the tariff that will be used to calculate the closure payments. Those will continue until the time that the participant would have left the original scheme, and the evidence-inspection regime will be that which we are designing now. Guidance notes sometimes change, with three people or two people reviewing the scheme. We can make small changes and improvements such as that, while any big changes that require regulations will come to the Committee. Any normal internal scrutiny will be covered in publications.

Ms Harkin: Pádraig, are you talking in the context of clause 1(6) and clause 1(7) of the Bill? Is that from where you are coming?

Mr Delargy: Yes.

Ms Harkin: When we were designing the Bill, we were very conscious of the inquiry's findings. They were very much in our thinking. Sarah, you said that we do not know what we do not know. We do not expect to have to go back and revise the closure payments. We do not expect to have to go back and revise the tariffs beyond the inflationary uplift that is planned for closure, but, in the absence of having those enabling powers being in the Bill, if something unexpected were to happen down the line, we really would find ourselves in significant difficulty collectively to try to resolve it. We therefore have no plans to use the powers in clause 1(6) and clause 1(7). There is no expectation that we will have to use them, but we were very conscious of the lessons learned.

Mr Delargy: It is important that they are in there. I got a sense that you were expecting that they would have be used rather than their being a last resort of change. I will probably have more points to make about that. Our role is to ensure that the legislation is watertight and that all those things have been thought through. I appreciate your providing that clarity. Thank you.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Sarah and the team. First, on Pádraig's point, I get the point that we need to prepare for an unknown, because history shows us that there was a huge unknown with the RHI scheme, which ultimately led to the situation that we are in today. It is therefore about balancing the risk. I appreciate the need for a form of flexibility in order to allow for that. On inspection, when we took evidence from participants in the scheme, they articulated that they did not fear inspection — in fact, they welcomed it — because they believe that they have been hard done by by a scheme that they legitimately entered into and that they continue to be honourable in all their dealings. You are saying that flexibility element is to allow for further, more rigorous inspection, rather than its being used at the minimal end. Is my interpretation right?

Ms Brady: As I say, there is the primary legislation, and there are no plans to change it. There will be regulations, and there are no plans to change them from the date on which they are made until the closure of scheme. There are guidance notes that we intend to make as clear as possible. We also intend to make our internal procedures as clear as possible. We intend for them to be living documents that people will adhere to, and if something unforeseen happens, we will refer to them.

Mr Buckley: On that point, the flexibility for inspection is at the upper end rather than at the minimal end, if required in particular circumstances. Is that a fair point?

Ms Brady: It will be risk-based.

Mr Buckley: OK. I will finish that point and then move on to my next one. There is a balance to be struck. Participants have talked about the fact that meter reading is appropriate, but the Department is not using that aspect in the portal. That goes to a point that David raised. On record-keeping of inspections and audits, is it fair for us to expect genuine participants to keep a record of their meter readings?

Ms Brady: The previous time that we were here, we discussed the fact that we had previously advised participants that they did not have to do a meter recalibration after 10 years, because it was an added expense, and that, given that the scheme will close, we did not expect them to recalibrate their meter. If participants were to keep meter readings and recalibrate their meter for their own safety and security in order to give themselves comfort, and they produced those readings as an extra line of evidence to somebody, that would not be an issue.

Mr Buckley: It is not, however, something that we will specifically —.

Ms Brady: It is not something that we are specifically asking for in the portal, no.

Mr Buckley: Which records do you expect a participant to keep for audit and inspection?

Ms Brady: We will mandate that they have to keep photographs and fuel purchase records.

Mr Buckley: On the other side of balancing the risk and preparing for that built-in flexibility is another concern. Participants are open to keeping meter readings, and they do not deny the need for rigorous inspection. Given the history of the scheme and the fact that participants feel hard done by, however, the ability to change the tariff concerns them. Ultimately, if we envisaged making that change as a result of something unforeseen, and you said that that would be the only basis for something like that ever happening, the protection that we talked about at the time is an accountability mechanism. If that were to happen, would there be a vote in the Assembly?

Ms Brady: Yes.

Mr Buckley: OK. That is fair enough. That is a form of accountability.

You undertook a wide and varied stakeholder engagement exercise through the consultation and before that. What is the total number of participants in the closure scheme?

Ms Brady: The number is just shy of 2,000. It is circa 1,900.

Mr Buckley: There were 216 responses to the consultation. What was the Department's view of that level of engagement? Is that a representative sample?

Ms Brady: That is a good level of engagement.

Mr Buckley: How does it compare with other consultations that the Department has done?

Mr Smith: There were 1,900 installations, so that is about 900 participants.

Mr Buckley: That cuts down the number even more, so it is a representative sample.

Ms Harkin: I took the participant response to be representative. I calculated at the time that we were at about 20%. We were relying on self-declaration by people as they were filling in the consultation form. We had 900 participants, so the response rate was about 20%. As for how that compares with previous consultations, I think that the 2021 consultation got closer to 500 responses. We got more responses to it, but the 2021 consultation inspired much stronger feeling from participants. In this consultation, there were consistencies in the responses to the issues raised, with each person giving their own view.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): You are also less likely to respond to a consultation if you agree with the proposals.

Ms Harkin: Yes. Even in the analysis of the responses, we found, not across the board but typically, that we may have had a case in which the quantification was positive but the quality was negative, because those who disagreed were more likely to leave comments.

Mr Buckley: You indicate that a majority of respondents were supportive of the closure scheme but that a small number were opposed to it. It may have been a small number, but what were the positions of opposition? On what issues was opposition based?

Ms Harkin: We left question 6, which was:

quite broad in order to allow people to feed back on various topics. I tried to articulate that as best I could in the Department's consultation response. There were calls for fair and final compensation by way of a one-off tax-free compensation payment. There was feedback on broken trust and contractual concerns and feedback on the financial and emotional impact. On the tariffs as they stand, we did not get an awful lot of feedback. I think that people were generally content with the new tariffs. What there were calls for, however, was retrospective compensation, which we had expected to receive, but we are not able to backdate to 2019.

Sorry, Jonathan, I will not read through the whole document.

Mr Buckley: No, I am just trying to see whether there is a broad, major point that was raised.

Ms Harkin: There really was not any one particular issue raised. What I did take from reviewing the consultation responses was that we in the Department, certainly in our future planning for delivery of the energy strategy and achieving net zero, have to look at how we build back trust with participants, and this process has begun that journey for us. The relationship is improving.

Mr Buckley: We can see that from participants' engagement to date. We are certainly in a better place than we were previously. One point that was made was that, in exceptional circumstances, RHI users will be permitted to appeal the use of the 2017-19 period where they felt that it may not have been representative of their heat use. How many participants do you anticipate that those exceptional circumstances could cover?

Ms Harkin: There were compelling examples in the responses of incidences of an installation being inoperable for a time over that 2017-19 period. A couple of meter readings of zero were submitted. The right to request a review will be in there. We are not expecting that to change.

Mr Buckley: What is the process followed when a request for review comes from an RHI boiler user? There is obviously a process to establish whether the request meets the criteria for change.

Ms Harkin: Again, it is all subject to Executive agreement. From our perspective, the onus will be on the participant to provide evidence that the 2017-19 period is not representative of their ongoing heat needs.

Mr Buckley: Finally, on the consultation and engagement exercise, what is the Department's best guess about whether participants will challenge the closure scheme in court? If that were to happen, what would the consequences be?

Ms Brady: I cannot give any guarantees about whether something might be challenged in court, but, based on our engagement to date, we think that the risk of that happening would be very low. If it were to happen, however, it would be up to the court to decide on the consequences.

Mr Buckley: What would the consequence be for the future?

Ms Brady: In previous court decisions that I have seen, judgements talked a lot about fairness. I think that we have tried to be fair here to the participant and to the taxpayer.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): There is still a lot of work to be done on the issue, but thank you very much for the work that you have done to date. It is a complex issue that attracts a great deal of public scrutiny.

We are keen to see the draft regulations as soon as they are completed. The Committee is keen to see them in whatever form they need to be shared. I wish you well in getting Executive approval. Thank you very much.

Ms Brady: Thank you.