Clause 17
Energy Bill
10:30 am
Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet, Labour)
Good morning, Mr. Amess. I want to make a general point about the whole chapter, and our discussions on the clause is probably the most appropriate place to do so. I refer my hon. Friend the Minister to our final evidence session and question 196, which was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland. It received an answer from Mr. Chris Mansfield, who said:
“In principle, if you look at the provisions in the Bill and the proposals put forward by the European Commission in a draft CCS directive in January, the intent, which is very much supported by industry, is that that is a liability that should be taken on—at an appropriate point in time—by the state.”—[Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 19 February 2008; c. 102, Q196.]
He goes on to say that he does not think that it is reasonable for businesses to have to assume the liability for ever, that businesses do not last for ever, but that the state goes on, so the liabilities must fall eventually on the state.
As a consequence of that intent, the clause and the related clauses in the chapter have been drafted in benignly. The business is regarded as benign and one that we wish to encourage. We do not wish to put barriers in its way, as we do not want to scare people away from it. I contrast that point with the later chapter that deals with nuclear energy and the liability that comes from the necessity to store nuclear waste and to have a decommissioning proposal. That chapter is written with an entirely different tone, along the lines of, “This is a very dangerous business. You’re in it to make money, and we’re going to lock you down and make sure that you pay every penny.” It includes clause 60, which I call the “We’re going to hunt you down to the ends of the Earth to make sure that you pay up” clause. It also includes clause 62, which I call the “Don’t you think you’re going to get tricky with us, because we’ll come after your neighbours and your friends as well” clause. Effectively, it is written in a completely different tone to this package of clauses, including clause 17, which is written from the point of view that the matter is benign.
Yes, this is a benign business, but people will be in it to make money. It involves the capture of a dangerous material that will have to be stored for a very long time, for which people will have to be responsible for a long time. Although I entirely accept the benign tone of the chapter, I raise the point now because when we consider the chapter on nuclear energy, the decommissioning of nuclear energy resources and long-term storage, I will wish to talk to my hon. Friend the Minister about the difference in tone in that chapter and ask whether we have got it right, or whether it would be better to make amendments to encourage investment in nuclear energy, in the same way as this chapter is phrased to encourage investment in carbon capture and storage.