house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

GC 285 Companies Act 2006 Regs 2009 [LORDS] Companies Act 2006 Regs 2009 GC 286 [LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN] Lyell, asked about the non-auditable parts of directors’ remuneration—the parts that the auditors cannot reach. No doubt, we will provide a Written Answer. I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and for their succinctness. The regulations make some modest changes to the law which are needed to complete our exercise of the member state option under the EU directive permitting publicly traded companies to prepare a separate corporate governance statement should they so wish. I hope that, on this basis, noble Lords will support the regulations. Motion agreed. The Deputy Chairman of Committees: That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. The Committee stands adjourned— remarkably early. Committee adjourned at 4.36 pm.
WS 69 Written Statements [17 JUNE 2009] Written Statements WS 70 Written Statements Wednesday 17 June 2009 Coal and Carbon Capture and Storage Statement The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Ed Miliband) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. I am today publishing a consultation on coal and carbon capture and storage entitled A Framework for the Development of Clean Coal. In April, the Budget announced financing for up to four CCS demonstration projects in the UK and, the following day, I outlined proposals for a new regulatory regime for new coal-fired power stations. Following the statutory strategic environmental assessment, this consultation document sets out the Government’s proposals in more detail. The aims of our proposals are to drive the decarbonisation of our energy supply, to safeguard our energy security and to get the best deal for consumers and businesses. The conditions on new coal proposed in this document are the most environmentally ambitious of any country in the world, requiring the demonstration of CCS on a substantial proportion of any new power station and the 100 per cent retrofit of CCS when it is proven. The document also sets out for consultation the process for funding and taking forward the demonstration projects which will enable us to maintain coal as part of our energy mix, supporting diversity and therefore security of supply. By acting early, we will ensure that jobs will also be created as Britain develops the expertise in what could be a major new industry, with CCS projects offering the potential to form the hubs for clusters of low-carbon industries. By driving the development of CCS in this country, we are also, as a country, playing an essential role in tackling climate change. Coal is already widely used in developed and developing countries and its use is expected to grow further: 70 to 80 per cent of the predicted growth in emissions in the coming decades will come from developing countries unless we find a route to low-carbon growth Copies of the consultation have been placed in the Library and it is available from www.decc.gov.uk. EU: Telecoms Council Statement The Minister for Communications, Technology and Broadcasting (Lord Carter of Barnes): Further to the Written Statement concerning the positions that HMG intended to take at the Telecommunications Council, held on 11 June 2009, I am pleased to be able to report back on the main conclusions and topics of discussion. The Telecommunications Council took place on 11 June 2009 under the chair of the Czech presidency. Andy Lebrecht, the deputy permanent representative in Brussels, represented the United Kingdom. Much of the discussion was taken up by two main items, an informal and off-the-agenda discourse on the review of the EU regulatory framework from electronic communications networks and services and a formal table-round on European network and information security policy. On the review after an introduction by the presidency (in which it regretted that it had been unable to preside over a final agreement), Commissioner Reding suggested that, while she understood the concerns of member states over the introduction of Amendment 138 (the clause that would make any internet disconnection subject to judicial review), she was more worried about a delay in the adoption of the framework that would occur if the council decided on a conciliation process. In response, the vast majority of member states said that they could not accept the EP amendment, some noting that it potentially interfered with national competencies. The UK noted that the amendment was unacceptable both in legal and policy terms, noting how it could constrain future decisions of the Government. In terms of a future conciliation process, the vast majority of member states (including the UK) indicated their wish to see discussion limited to Amendment 138 with other (agreed) issues not being reopened. Most member states were also happy to leave the question as to whether council should reject the whole package or just the better regulation directive, which contains Amendment 138, to the presidency. The presidency concluded that, while a majority of member states wanted the framework adopted quickly, there was a strong majority that rejected Amendment 138 and so the next step would be conciliation. On the formal discussion on European network and information security policy, Commissioner Reding introduced the Commission’s communication by noting that a breakdown in the critical telecoms infrastructure in the next five years was more likely now as a result of security flaws. She asked member states to take the threat seriously and to reflect on the role that the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) may need to take. She noted the Commission’s intention to publish proposals concerning the reform of the ENISA mandate by April 2010. Following this, during a wide-ranging exchange of views, the majority of member states endorsed the need for a pan-EU (or even global) approach to information security and for enhanced co-operation between member states. All that spoke, with the exception of the UK and Hungary, also called for ENISA’s term and remit to be automatically extended. The UK, while also welcoming the Commission’s approach, noted that a future role for ENISA should be discussed within the context of an overall policy discussion on information and security and critical infrastructure protection. The council then moved on to three items under any other business, the first of which was on “Internet of Things—An Action Plan for Europe—Information from the Commission”, where the Commission noted
Page 1 and 2:
Vol. 711 No. 91 Wednesday 17 June 2
Page 3 and 4:
1057 Police: Funding [17 JUNE 2009]
Page 5 and 6:
1061 Sri Lanka [17 JUNE 2009] Banks
Page 7 and 8:
1065 Banks: Lending [17 JUNE 2009]
Page 9 and 10:
1069 Political Parties and Election
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18: 1085 Political Parties and Election
Page 39 and 40: 1129 Organophosphates [17 JUNE 2009
Page 61 and 62: GC 271 Arrangement of Business [17
Page 63 and 64: GC 275 Companies Act 2006 Order 200
Page 65 and 66: GC 279 Overseas Companies Regulatio
Page 67: GC 283 Companies Act 2006 Regs 2009
Page 71 and 72: WA 207 Written Answers [17 JUNE 200
Page 77 and 78: Wednesday 17 June 2009 ALPHABETICAL
Page 79: Volume 711 Wednesday No. 91 17 June
show all

house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?