Proceeding contribution from Rob Marris (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 5 July 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Finance (No 2) Bill.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
I wanted another run around the block on the UK nuclear industry from a financial point of view. Clauses 99 and 100 go hand in hand in amending the Energy Act 2004. Clause 99 deals with British Nuclear Fuels Ltd and clause 100 covers the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. British Nuclear Fuels Ltd is a Government company, which has a turnover of approximately £3.5 billion. It appears to me, prima facie, that clause 99 is part of a device to fatten up BNFL from a tax point of view because of the sell-offs that it proposes to make. It will sell British Nuclear Group, and the rumours are that that is expected to raise between £500 million and £1 billion. It proposes to sell BNG America and is in advanced talks with Toshiba to sell Westinghouse this autumn for a reported £5.4 billion. It also owns a third of Uranco, a uranium reprocessing company, the other two thirds of which are owned in the Netherlands and Germany. British Nuclear Fuels Ltd is therefore a sprawling, large company, which deals with a large industry. Whatever happens in future, it will continue, for many years, to play a significant part in energy delivery and have a significant environmental impact in the United Kingdom. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear me referring to the explanatory notes. Paragraph 12 of the explanatory notes for clause 99 states:"““The amendments provided in this clause will preserve the intended effect of section 29””—" of the Energy Act 2004—"““and ensure that a BNFL site licensee company does not incur corporation tax charges or acquire taxable losses as a consequence of the NDA taking responsibility for decommissioning and cleaning-up liabilities.””" I wanted to probe the Government a little about the figures. British Nuclear Group is a site-management and clean-up company, a contractor for the Government’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and, as I said, a subsidiary of BNFL. It remains state owned, although BNFL may sell it off sometime in the next 12 months. British Nuclear Group has responsibility for Sellafield, formerly Windscale, for the older Members among us, and it operates 14 sites in the UK. There is also BNG America, which is a different operation, albeit owned by BNFL. The nuclear industry has a history of lying about figures. That is widely accepted, although whether it continues to do so is a matter for debate. However, proponents of nuclear power, and especially the nuclear industry in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, made statements that were clearly inaccurate on many counts. In some cases, they were outright lies rather than simply optimistic projections. The nuclear industry around the world is, in every case, heavily subsidised directly or indirectly by Governments, including in the UK. I am worried that clauses 99 and 100 would further the subsidies to a failing industry.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 448 c883-4
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Accountancy Companies Decommissioning British Nuclear Fuels Corporation tax Computers Climate change levy Fraud EU countries Income tax Film Exemptions Excise duties EU internal trade Income Equipment Investment trusts Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Nuclear power stations Property Registration Tax allowances Tax avoidance Taxation VAT Real estate investment trusts
- Legislation
- Finance (No. 2) Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 23:13:02 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335146
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335146
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335146