Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 14 September 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Energy Bill (HL).


Energy Bill [Lords]

I love it when we get to technical and miscellaneous amendments. They sound innocuous, but as the Minister knows, there is a great deal of meat within the details—it is the sort of stuff that we love to agonise over. As we heard from both the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), there are substantive issues within these proposals. I shall turn my attention purely to one proposal—we support the Government's proposals—because I want to pay the Minister and his team some compliments. In respect of Government new clause 11, there was a great deal of debate in Committee on the necessary balance to be struck between certainty for the investor community, and—this is paramount—protection for the taxpayer against the foreseen and unforeseen costs of decommissioning. After a great deal of debate and encouragement from the Committee, the Minister, quite worthily, agreed to remove his measure from the Bill and went away to discuss the options that he could bring back to the House. I thank the Minister for the way in which he has engaged with both Committee members and others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead)—I must single him out. Some of his ideas, including on third-party engagement, have contributed significantly to the ideas behind, if not the drafting of, new clause 11. The new clause is not perfect, and it never will be, but it makes a very good fist of striking the right balance between looking after the needs of different stakeholders, and—I say this categorically—ensuring that we protect taxpayers. I look forward to the Minister's response to the remarks of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, because she made some interesting points. I think the Minister has explained very well the use of the word ““prudent””, but I am sure that he will address that and other issues that have been raised. I thank the Minister, because this is how a Bill should evolve—through constructive engagement. Ministers should take measures away, think about them and listen to all the ideas on the table. He has come back with something that might not be perfect, but it is a massive improvement, on which he and his team are to be congratulated.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
532 c1080-1 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Consumers Decommissioning Conservation Climate change Apprentices Billing Finance Environment protection Energy Fuel poverty Housing improvement Insulation Interest rates Landlord and tenant Local government Low incomes Protection Ministerial responsibility Payments Nuclear power stations Ministers Prices Private rented housing Subsidies Green Investment Bank Green deal scheme Energy company obligation Social tariffs
Legislation
Energy Bill (HL) 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk