UK Parliament / Open data

Renewables Obligation Order 2006

Debates on delegated legislation on Wednesday, 22 March 2006, in the House of Lords, led by Lord McKenzie of Luton. The answering member was Lord De Mauley.
Draft SI on renewables obligation(SI 2006/1004). Lords debate on motion to consider. Agreed to on question. Grand Commitee off the floor of the House (Moses room)
Type
Parliamentary proceeding
Reference
680 c145-51GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Renewables Obligation Order 2006
Tuesday, 31 January 2006
Statutory instruments
House of Lords
House of Commons
Statutory Instruments Joint Select Committee. Seventeenth report together with memoranda on SI 2005/3361 and SI 2005/3373
Wednesday, 8 February 2006
Parliamentary committees
House of Lords
House of Commons
Proceeding contributions
Lord McKenzie of Luton | 680 c151GC (Link to this contribution) Yes. The Government remain committed to the approach set out in the energy White Paper that renewabl...
Lord Redesdale | 680 c149GC (Link to this contribution) We also support the order. However, any order that has as one of its subheadings ““Mutualisation”” i...

Show all contributions (8)
Lord De Mauley | 680 c150GC (Link to this contribution) In paragraph 7 of the committee’s report, there is a reference to the fact that Ofgem has made two p...
Lord McKenzie of Luton | 680 c149-50GC (Link to this contribution) I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the discussions on this order. I shall try to deal wi...
Lord Redesdale | 680 c151GC (Link to this contribution) Perhaps the Minister could discuss nuclear energy.
Lord De Mauley | 680 c148-9GC (Link to this contribution) I thank the Minister for explaining the order so clearly. As orders go, at first sight this one seem...
Lord McKenzie of Luton | 680 c145-8GC (Link to this contribution) rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Renewables ...
Lord McKenzie of Luton | 680 c150-1GC (Link to this contribution) I thank the noble Lord for reiterating his question. I think I understand it better now. We are deal...
Back to top