Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Carnegy of Lour (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 24 June 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Energy Bill.


Energy Bill

As we come to Chapter 1 in Part 3, I hope that it is in order if I ask the Minister a question which I asked at Second Reading, but to which I have not heard an answer from the Government. I would like to pursue it. Clause 101, the extent clause, states that this is the only part of the Bill that does not apply to Scotland. I understand that the reason is that the present Scottish Executive say they do not intend to allow any new nuclear power stations to be built in Scotland. They intend simply to refuse planning permission. Energy provision is, rightly, a Westminster matter, but under the Scotland Act, again rightly, planning is devolved to Holyrood. The present Scottish Administration’s anti-nuclear stance is political, but it will not necessarily last for ever. A new Scottish Executive may want—indeed, they may find themselves impelled—to bring new nuclear power stations to Scotland. Even the present Executive may find that unavoidable. It seems not only sensible but properly responsible to include in the Bill now this provision for decommissioning and clean-up for the building of new nuclear power stations in Scotland. Otherwise, if and when new nuclear build is back on the agenda in Scotland, new legislation will be required and vital time will be lost, when it is obvious that the situation is likely to be increasingly urgent. I am not clear whether we at Westminster are free to make this change, or whether the Scottish Parliament would have to agree to it first. Under the Scotland Act, energy generation and health and safety are reserved to Westminster and environmental matters are devolved. Can the Minister tell the Committee where responsibility for this part of the Bill lies, as far as Scotland is concerned? I suspect it is, as it were, a hybrid part of the Bill—there are elements of both. It is important that we know that. If responsibility is with Holyrood, that Parliament would have to pass a so-called Sewel motion to agree that we at Westminster should change the Bill now. It might well be that it would want to do that, given that there is a minority Administration who can be defeated on a vote. I note that the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, is with us and he may have something to say about this which would be very interesting. I would be grateful if the Minister could cast light on the position. It is a pretty important matter which could become very urgent, and if we cannot change the Bill now, it would seem highly irresponsible of all concerned. I look forward to the Minister’s response.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
702 c569-70GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Disclosure of information Devolved matters Decommissioning Assets Costs Climate change Devolution Carbon dioxide Environment protection Energy Electricity generation Fines Insolvency Insurance Hazardous substances EU emissions trading scheme France Local government Planning Radioactive waste Nuclear power Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Power stations Scotland Security Safety Waste management Renewable energy Waste disposal Nuclear Installations Inspectorate Methane Committee on Radioactive Waste Management Greenhouse gas emissions
Legislation
Energy Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk