Clause 7
Energy Bill
1:45 pm
Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
The intention behind this amendment seems, sensibly, to make decommissioning a de facto part of the licensing process. My only qualification would be that there might be neater ways to do it than are in the amendment—perhaps even slightly less aggressive ways. It could perhaps mirror what is present in other parts of the Bill where the decommissioning programme seems to be more closely tied in with the licence application process, rather than creating what seems to be a new offence in operating without a decommissioning programme. That seems to be a rather punitive approach from Conservative Members, but perhaps that simply represents a temperamental difference between Liberals and Conservatives.
There also does not seem to be much detail about what actually constitutes a decommissioning programme. In the nuclear part of the Bill, it is referred to as a “funded decommissioning programme”. Of course, this may reflect the general consensus that nuclear waste having to be disposed of is environmentally bad—and an environmental risk in a much more serious sense than the gas being stored on this occasion, which is at least economically, if not environmentally, good. Perhaps there is a rationale to having a different basis, but I wonder whether the hon. Members for Wealden and for Billericay, who are proposing the amendment, or the Minister have considered how a decommissioning programme for these installations would be funded, and how those funds might be protected.
In general, I am sympathetic to the intention of the amendment, which incorporates decommissioning into the licence regime. I would be interested to hear from the Minister why this part of the Bill differs in that respect from other parts of the Bill.