---

Energy Bill [Lords]

The hon. Lady raises an entirely separate issue. A funded decommissioning programme is constantly reviewed. If there is evidence that not enough money has been put aside for decommissioning issues, that money will require to be increased. The operators entirely accept that if the costs rise, they will have to contribute more towards the decommissioning pot. The new clause is about whether the Secretary of State should be able to say, ““You know, I've decided that rather than you putting that money into a pot over 20 years, I'd like it in 12 months.”” That would be a fundamental change which, under the existing legislation, the companies would not have been able to challenge. There will be no change in the measures ensuring that enough money is put into the decommissioning pot. If that goes up or down, the amount put in will have to reflect that. That is not touched in any way by the changes that we are making through the Bill. On the hon. Lady's new clause 17, at present anybody who wants to can suggest changes. They can write to me as a Minister and say, ““We don't think this is adequate,”” and we will consider that. That, as she says, would not be a legal power, but an advisory power. It would still be for the Secretary of State to decide whether to take it forward. The Secretary of State has a number of choices. He can choose to modify, to modify in part or to take no action, so considerable power rests with him. That comes to the heart of the questions that we were asked by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. There is something vaguely Rumsfeldian about the concept of unforeseen. What are foreseen unforeseen circumstances and what are unforeseen unforeseen circumstances? I think we have been wise to move away from that. A prudence test is a better one, which both Government and industry are more comfortable with. The Secretary of State will have the power to make those decisions, but we will also make clear in those programmes the role of the third parties. We have had a considerable amount of discussion with the hon. Gentleman about the nature of those third parties. It would clearly have to be somebody who was acceptable both to the Government and to the operators and who was not prejudiced towards one side or the other. That is a role that the Government are used to developing. The Secretary of State would have significant powers but there would also be a role for third parties. Critically, the Government and the operator would be bound by the decision of the third party. This gives the extra degree of certainty and comfort that the hon. Gentleman sought. I hope we have been able to reassure him. We have had a useful exchange. I thank the official Opposition for the constructive way in which they have engaged with the issue, so that the nuclear aspects of the Bill are stronger and more effective than they were before. Question put and agreed to. New clause 11 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.