Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord De Mauley (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

These amendments concern the definition of security. They are important and helpful as far as they go. We agree with the Minister that security must remain if a company becomes insolvent. Clause 53(4) states that, for the purposes of subsection (3), no regard is to be had to the Insolvency Act and the Northern Ireland equivalent to the extent that it would prevent or restrict the protected assets being applied as necessary to cover the cost of decommissioning. Is this the right way of doing that? Whether or not regard is so paid, if we get to a point at which the site operator becomes insolvent, it is too late—the horse has bolted. I would go further: this must not be dependent on whether the company goes bust. The security set-aside must remain set aside, completely independent of the solvency of the site operator. Perhaps the noble Lord can help me.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
702 c591-2GC 
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