1 S.I.
2013/126: Reported for defective drafting
Nuclear Decommissioning and Waste Handling
(Finance and Fees) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/126)
1.1 The Committee draws the special attention
of both Houses to these Regulations on the ground that they are
defectively drafted in one respect.
1.2 The Regulations make provision about requirements
to be met in relation to programmes for future decommissioning
of a nuclear site which must be submitted in connection with an
application for a nuclear site licence.
1.3 Regulation 11 describes certain proposals
for modifications of a programme that can be made without the
approval of the Secretary of State. These are defined as "exempt
proposals". Paragraph (3) of regulation 11 provides that
one category of exempt proposal is a proposal that is not a proposal
for a "relevant modification" (as defined in paragraph
(5) of that regulation) where—
"(a) the proposal would
result in only a change in the estimate of costs described in
regulation 5(1)(a) or, as appropriate, (b); or
(b) the proposal relates to
the details of the steps to be taken under the programme in relation
to technical matters, and
(c) the conditions set out in
paragraph (4) are satisfied, and
(d) the requirements of regulation
14 are complied with in relation to the proposal."
1.4 The Committee was concerned by the use of
the conjunction "or" between sub-paragraphs (a) and
(b) alongside the use of the conjunction "and" between
sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) and between sub-paragraphs (c) and
(d). The Committee considered that in consequence, read literally,
regulation 11(3) could be construed in two different ways. Firstly,
sub-paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) might be read as being, in combination,
an alternative to sub-paragraph (a). Secondly, sub-paragraphs
(b), (c) and (d), in combination, might be read as an alternative
to sub-paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) in combination. The Committee
therefore asked the Department of Energy and Climate Change which
of those two interpretations is intended and how the intention
is achieved.
1.5 In a memorandum printed at Appendix 1, the
Department says that the second of the interpretations is the
intended one but accepts that, because of the way in which regulation
11(3) is drafted, it could be interpreted in the first way. The
Department apologises for that and says that it plans in due course
to redraft regulation 11(3) to make clearer its intended meaning.
The Committee is grateful for that response to the point which
it has raised.
1.6 The Committee accordingly reports regulation
11(3) for defective drafting, acknowledged by the Department.
| 
