---

Energy Bill

moved Amendment No. 7: 7: Clause 45, page 41, line 12, at end insert— ““( ) Modifications of a funded decommissioning programme may be made by a person mentioned in subsection (2) only— (a) if there are significant operational or technical changes which have a material impact on waste or decommissioning costs, and (b) after taking advice from the Nuclear Liabilities Financing Assurance Board.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now move to the opposite end of the scale. As noble Lords will have recognised, the amendment relates to the decommissioning of nuclear power stations. I shall pause for a moment, so that everyone can adjust to the fact that we are now talking about very large power stations indeed. In a couple of sentences, the Government are establishing in the Bill a process whereby we avoid what we have found with all the existing power stations; that where there was only relatively limited money set aside for decommissioning and waste, very large sums of money fall on the taxpayer. They are trying to avoid that by having funded decommissioning schemes for nuclear power stations whereby, hopefully, the whole cost will be borne over the lifetime of the power station, so that when it comes to be decommissioned and the waste has to be dealt with, funds are there to do that. A consultation on that was published in February last year, to which there were a large number of responses. It was followed last month by the Government’s response to the consultation on funded decommissioning programmes. The amendment is directed only to one aspect of that. Clause 45, which comes right in the middle of the part of the Bill that deals with this, is headed, ““Modification of approved programme””. The funding programme must be approved by the Secretary of State, and there is quite an elaborate process for that. Clause 45 gives the Secretary of State power to modify the funding programme in certain circumstances. It is left entirely to subordinate legislation as to how that will be handled. The Government have made clear in their response what they envisage. They are not looking to be able to modify a funded plan on relatively minor matters, but they said in their response that they are looking for where there have been, "““significant operational and technical changes which have a material impact on waste or decommissioning costs, and not minor changes””." It goes on: "““The Government will lay regulations on this material amount in 2009 and this will be preceded by a consultation on the draft regulations””." There is some anxiety that that will give the Government power to make what would be quite expensive changes imposed on those who have invested in nuclear power for what may be relatively minor changes. With very large infrastructure projects, there are bound to be changes from time to time, both during the construction period and the operational period. It seems to me that it would be desirable to have clearly in the statute, and not just in regulations, that there should be what the Government have said their intention is, for, "““significant operational and technical changes which have a material impact on waste or decommissioning costs””." Those are the words that I have put in Amendment No. 7. The Government said in paragraph 3.18 that they would take the advice of the Nuclear Liabilities Financing Assurance Board. That, too, is in my amendment. It translates into legislative power for the purposes of the Bill exactly what the Government have set out as their intention in paragraphs 3.17 and 3.18 of their response. I would rather see that in the Bill than have it left to consultation and regulations. It is what they have said they want, and it is what the industry would understand and welcome. Let us put it in the Bill. I beg to move.