Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Jenkin of Roding (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 8 February 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Energy Bill [HL].


Energy Bill [HL]

I have words of comfort for the noble Baroness. I have on previous occasions said that I totally share her dismay at the complexity of the legislation, and I have arranged a meeting next week with the chairman and the chief parliamentary counsel of the Law Commission to discuss the whole process of consolidation, how the Law Commission approaches it, where the initiative lies and whether it considers that the Electricity Act and the Gas Act would be a case for consolidation. I am not just talking the talk; I am, I hope, walking the walk. I hope that Ministers and officials in the department will recognise that some of us are not going to let that matter rest. I am very glad that the noble Baroness said that this is a probing amendment because the issue is extremely simple. Section 48 of the 2008 Act gives the Government power to impose changes on a funded decommissioning programme after it has been done. It has, no doubt, been represented by the nuclear industry that it contains a considerable element of uncertainty about additional charges possibly being made after the original programme had been agreed or about changes being made to the timing of the payments. At the moment, the payments are intended to be spread over the life of a plant so that by the end of that time there will be a sufficient fund available to cover the decommissioning and waste treatment. It is absolutely right that that should not now fall on the taxpayer but is part of the cost of producing the electricity. Under that section, the Government have the power to impose a change. All this clause is doing, as I understand it, is requiring the Government to agree a change with the developer. It may well be possible for the Government to suggest there should be changes, but the developer has to agree. Given what we have been saying in earlier debates about the need to try to create certainty, I think this clause is entirely right. I am glad the noble Baroness decided to table merely a probing amendment because I think the clause should be allowed to stand in the interests of certainty for the nuclear industry.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
725 c54GC 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Conservation Housing Licensing Energy Heating Exploration Prices Offshore industry National park authorities Renewable energy Taxation Wind power Broads Authority Coal Authority Geothermal power
Legislation
Energy Bill (HL) 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk