Spending Review: solar feed-in tariffs safe – for now

Equaliser123

Sceptic001 wrote: »

Hmmm.... I am not a lawyer, but I wonder if the government/parliament does have the power to rip up contracts like that. After all, the courts do on occasion overrule government decisions. It is an interesting legal point.

Courts can only overrule government decisions where a superior law is contravened (e.g. a Regulation tries to overrule a statute), a department acts ultra vires (beyond its powers) or a rule of natural justice or other civil right has been infringed.

Generally, the government is free to change the law as it sees fit. However, retrospective application would be difficult.

chattychappy

Yep this is classic "legitimate expectation" territory and if people are interested they can google around it.

Equaliser123 wrote: »

legitimate expectation (a European concept) which, in my view, would make it difficult for any body to renege on something like this.

But it's really a Lord Denning creation out of English common law ( S c h midt v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs [1969] 2 Ch 149) and has been widely followed in Canada, Hong Kong, Australia and other common law jurisdictions. I read this case a while back, I don't remember if there was a particular European influence. Certainly since the Human Rights Act, it's become more common to bring judicial reviews whether on Human Rights grounds or not. (Legitimate Expectation is distinct from HR.)

Whilst parliament is sovereign, the (judicial) House of Lords has shown a greater willingness to throw it's weight around recently and I'm sure this will continue since it's transformation into the Supreme Court. The number of judicial reviews based on "legitimate expectation" has mushroomed in recent years (there were very few until the 1990s) and whilst there is no power to overturn legislation they are coming closer and closer. A particular case I was involved in was when people were offered 4 year work permits and told that if they took them up they'd be able to get UK residency. After they got here the government changed the regulations to 5 years. This was successfully challenged on the grounds of LE. http://www.hsmpforumltd.com/hsmpjr2pr.html http://www.globalvisas.com/blog/uk-immigration-highly-skilled-migrants-win-legal-battle.html. Classic LE stuff - government makes a quasi contractual promise and then reneges on it by making new rules with retrospective impact.

As I say, we are not at the point where a court can "overturn" a statute, but it is a developing area and courts are less shy to intervene than they used to be. Personally I wouldn't rely on being able to "sue the government" if I installed these things and then they changed the rules.

[In the case I mention above, ignore the spaces in "S c h midt". For some reason if I write the name as one word, it gets replaced by exclamation marks. Weird...]

chattychappy

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Courts can only overrule government decisions where a superior law is contravened (e.g. a Regulation tries to overrule a statute), a department acts ultra vires (beyond its powers) or a rule of natural justice or other civil right has been infringed.

Those are grounds available too (query "civil rights") and were pulled together in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 as was procedural impropriety. But legitimate expectation is distinct and has it's own line of authority going back to 1969.

CharlotteWeb

"Bizarrely, you get paid far more per unit for generating electricity than it would cost to buy electricity from your provider.

"Of course, the potential £12,000 saving over 25 years doesn't take into account that the panels could get damaged, you could earn more interest on the £12,000 elsewhere and, even though the Government says the tariff is fixed for now, it could change its mind."

1. The feed-in tariff is far from bizzare. It operates in over 50 countries and is a proven way to drive up take of clean technology on a local level. This increases manufacture, drives down costs, allowing solar to reach grid parity.
2. Accredied solar panels have a power warranty of at least 25 years (IEC 61215 / IEC 61730 International standards on performance and manufacturing standard recognised by MCS in the UK). You cannot get the FIT without these.
3. There is confusion on FIT 'alteration'. The Government can change introductory rates, but once you are signed up this is statutory law for 25 years. Even if in some strange change of direction the Government decided to get rid of FIT, those who were signed up would have to recieve the income for 25 years as its a legal contract with the Government.

Charlotte Webster, PR Manager, Solarcentury

chattychappy

CharlotteWeb wrote: »

1. The feed-in tariff is far from bizzare. It operates in over 50 countries and is a proven way to drive up take of clean technology on a local level.

I suppose it isn't bizzare if you accept we need to "drive up take of clean technology on a local level" and the associated "proof". Personally I don't want houses in my neighbourhood plastered with these things at taxpayers expense. I doubt whether this is the best use of tax payer's money when it comes to "green" energy. That's why I find it bizarre - and because I have to pay for this, annoying.

CharlotteWeb wrote: »

2. Accredied solar panels have a power warranty of at least 25 years (IEC 61215 / IEC 61730 International standards on performance and manufacturing standard recognised by MCS in the UK). You cannot get the FIT without these.

Good to know, until a storm rips your roof off. Covered for that? And exactly who backs this warranty anyway? Has your company been around 25 years?

CharlotteWeb wrote: »

but once you are signed up this is statutory law for 25 years. Even if in some strange change of direction the Government decided to get rid of FIT, those who were signed up would have to recieve the income for 25 years as its a legal contract with the Government.

I think you have ignored the legal analysis given above. Whilst there is some scope for legal challenge, it is limited. It's a principle that one parliament can't bind the next parliament (imagine if it could). It's unthinkable that a 25 year undertaking by a particular government couldn't be overturned by a subsequent government.

Gorgeous_George

How will people on low wages and benefits feel when they realise that they are subsidising the eco-bling of their wealthier neighhbours (through larger bills)?

The most likely change from HMG would be remove the tax free status of the profits (assuming that there are any).

GG

chattychappy

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

eco-bling

Like that one!

Equaliser123

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

How will people on low wages and benefits feel when they realise that they are subsidising the eco-bling of their wealthier neighhbours (through larger bills)?

The most likely change from HMG would be remove the tax free status of the profits (assuming that there are any).

GG

What does FIT have to do with people on "low wages and benefits"? They can have it too. Not sure what point you are trying to make? Sounds a bit like inverted snobbery to me but please feel free to correct.

Your suggestion about the "most likely change" is backed up by what? On a debate like this, it is useful if you can actually quote facts rather than speculation.

Gizmosmum_2

I think what sometimes gets lost in threads like this is that most investments have some sort of risk attached. I know few people who's house prices have increased in the last couple of years, some the reverse and in a similar vein pensions have been slashed in the last couple of years.

My point is whether you put your money in a bank in Iceland or into solar panels on the roof of your home you take some sort of risk. All you can do is gather as much info and then make your own mind up.

My 3.96kwp is currently being installed - I've taken the 15k installation costs out of my savings account that was generating 1.5%. Guys are doing a brill job installing and I feel as though I've done a small bit by cutting my co2 emissions to 2.5 tonnes. I've assessed the risk and I'm happy with it. My fit will be paid into an Isa each year.

Jon_Tiffany

Sceptic001 wrote: »

And the energy companies are funded by their customers...:rotfl:

My point is still correct - the money does not come from central government funds. Dont forget that the energy companies get some cheap electric as a result - 3p per kWh which they sell immediately to the house next door at 11p.

Using your logic Tescos make their profits from taypayers:rotfl: