Clause 7 - Additional responsibilities under designating directions
Energy Bill [Lords]
3:45 pm
Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment & Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)
I will be brief. I am very disappointed with the Under-Secretary's response and, particularly, the news that I will not be on his Christmas card list. I thought recognition of the fact that he was the Member for Morningside would have deserved that.
Conservative Members recognise the huge importance of scrutinising legislation. When a Bill calls for regulations to be laid before the House, it merely is an opportunity to inform the House and, possibly, to gain support for what the Government are doing.
The clause relates to additional responsibilities under designating directions. Subsection (2)(a) refers to ''research facilities'' and paragraph (2)(d) refers to
''facilities of any description situated in or on such other land.''
I understood that the Bill applies only to Crown land. Can the Under-Secretary confirm that all the land to which the clause applies is also Crown land or will there be circumstances in which land owned by other landowners may come into the equation?
The Under-Secretary mentioned the transporting of waste from Torness to Sellafield and through his constituency. Will the additional responsibilities under the clause cover such transport? In the responses to the consultation documents, concern was expressed about transport and the difficulties that operators experienced because of the absence of a management policy, particularly for intermediate level waste. Other concerns were expressed about the need for solid waste to be stored on site.
Could the Under-Secretary confirm that the additional responsibilities of the NDA will include the storage and transport of waste? One respondent to the Government's consultation exercise proposed that the Scottish Parliament should approve decommissioning policy in Scotland and said that there should be no movement of radioactive waste across the England-Scotland border. Does the Under-Secretary agree with those views or does he think that there should be free movement?