Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.Donate to our crowdfunder
As I said earlier to others, including the Member's colleague, the ruling has just been made in the last hour. I have not seen it yet and will wish to study it carefully, as the Member would expect, before deciding what we do. I reiterate that I want to have the fullest possible transparency on the details of recipients of the non-domestic RHI scheme. It is with that in mind that I will look at the ruling and come forward with a decision as quickly as possible.
My question was about a contingency or plan B, as the challenge was entirely foreseeable. Has the Minister given any thought to publishing an anonymised list? Such a list could contain some geographical detail, the date, the output and the payment, so that we can get a sense of the levels of applicants that are credible and not credible.
I thank the Member for her question, which was asked in the appropriate spirit. The whole purpose of doing this was to seek to instil better public confidence. The Member said that it was foreseeable that it was going to be challenged, and I suppose it was. From what I have heard about the judgement, it states that it not permissible to publish the names of members of the Renewable Heat Association, which is slightly left field. However, I am happy to look at other options and will do so.
It is interesting that the Member said that something short of the full disclosure that the court is preventing may help to instil public confidence. That is what I want to do, that is what my objective is, and I will look at the option that the Member has proposed, along with others, in the hope of achieving maximum transparency whilst keeping to the aim of instilling public confidence in the scheme.