I come back to the Minister’s response to my original contribution to the debate. I was trying to establish, first, to what extent the allowances were assets to the business and would be transferred to any successor business and what would happen in the case of liquidation, mergers, takeovers, and so on. I was not sure that the Minister had given me a reply on that point. It would be useful to know how that might work.
Secondly, I listened to the Minister’s reply on the force majeure element. In truth, at any level, fires and so on can be catastrophic. My illustrations were dramatic, because they involved a lot of atmospheric pollution. As far as training schemes and allowances are concerned, an unintended loss through fire is a problem at any level of business. One can envisage situations where these catastrophes might have to be allowed for in any scheme if they were not to distort an individual company’s chances of recovering from such a catastrophe. Is that the way the Minister would see it happening?
Climate Change Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 23 January 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Climate Change Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c246 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-11 17:47:29 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_438266
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_438266
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_438266