---

Energy Bill

moved Amendment No. 9: 9: Clause 20, page 11, line 23, at end insert— ““( ) provision about obligations of a licence holder to advise the Secretary of State of any accidents, near accidents or leakages relating to the facility.”” The noble Lord said: Apart from our concerns about consultation, to which my noble friend referred earlier and which the Minister said he would take up, Clause 20 seems to be perfectly sensible, so far as it goes. Yet, as with the Bill as a whole, it is missing some important components. Remarkably, I can find nothing in the licence rules that deals with events such as accidents or leakages, and I do not think that I heard anything about that in the list of matters which the Minister read out while responding to my noble friend's Amendment No. 8. We appreciate that there will be an inspection system, and we share the Government's view that inspections should be thorough and robust, but Amendment No. 9 would place the onus clearly on the operator of a facility to report accidents and near accidents. The amendment stems from the firm belief that safety is paramount and that the risks to both the public and the environment must be minimised. The second strand of thinking that generated Amendment No. 9 is that experience makes a vital contribution to safety. Mistakes, gaps in protocol and close calls are all revealed in the operation of these facilities. It is essential to ensure that all accidents can be lessons to make certain that future precautions are adequate. I think that we would all agree that it is impossible to foresee every problem before it rears its head. The most robust system of safety precautions will never be perfect, so a precautionary approach is favoured. It is therefore essential that the onus is placed on the operator to advise of accidents and near accidents. The technologies that we are talking about are, in some cases, in their infancy, especially those that detect leakages. We appreciate that operators will take safety extremely seriously, but they also have a duty to their shareholders to reduce, or to maintain, costs. We must be sure that cost reductions do not come at the expense of precautions. When the amendment was debated in another place, a somewhat strange position emerged from the Government Benches. We quite understand that the specific provisions outlined in this clause as to the responsibilities of licence holders are not intended to be exhaustive but, during the debate in the other place, the Minister for Business said that operators would be obliged to report these things as a matter of course. He claimed that reporting leaks and accidents was, "““so blindingly obvious … that reference need not be made to them””.—[Official Report, Commons, Energy Bill Committee, 26/2/08; col. 226.]" Let us look at something that is specifically referred to: granting the Secretary of State explicit power to review the licence in subsection (3)(c). That seems to me equally, if not more, obvious, yet it is included. The Minister in another place gave assurances that provisions about accidents will be, "““a very significant part of the Bill””.—[Official Report, Commons, Energy Bill Committee, 26/2/08; col. 227.]" Why do the Government not think that this is the appropriate place in which to make such a provision? There is a dangerous tendency toward the suppression of important elements of legislation into delegated powers and guidance notes. With an issue as important as accidents and leakages, even if it is obvious, it is important to try to defy that gradual shift and have it planted firmly and clearly in the Bill. I beg to move.