|
Clause 5
Constitution of NDA
Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in
clause 5, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
'(1A) Persons who have held office or been employed by nuclear generators or processors within a six-month period prior to appointment shall be ineligible for membership.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 42, in
No. 43, in
No. 44, in
Norman Baker: It is germane to this clause to welcome the vision that the Minister set out in his previous contribution, particularly his recognition that the industry and the NDA must be seen to be separate, and that the NDA must be independent—that is exactly right. The amendment suggests a way of demonstrating to the public that the NDA is separate
Column Number: 102
from the industry, as well as giving the assurance that its primary duty—to deal with the decommissioning of facilities and its consequences—is separate from the interests of nuclear generators.
It is unclear exactly what the NDA's first year programme will be, because we have not discussed that yet. A figure of £2 billion has been bandied about as the money that it will have for the first year. Will the Minister confirm or deny that? In any case, who will determine the spending priorities? It is important that those who are appointed to leading positions on the NDA are separate from the industry so that they can focus clearly and independently on the role that the Minister expects them to fulfil. If people in Cumbria cross the road to join the NDA immediately, there will not be the traditional break that applies to civil servants or Ministers when they take up positions after having been in office.
There is a good reason for that break period; it is an essential safeguard. It is a well established Government practice, and the amendment would install it in this context. Without that break, the independence of the NDA could be compromised. More importantly, key personnel appointed to the NDA could come straight from the industry and determine the first year's spending programme. If the spending programme is drawn up by DTI officials, there will be a degree of independence. However, if it is drawn up based on submissions from British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., British Energy or others, we will have to question whether the priorities are right. How the money is spent is important.
In the first year, the NDA will enter into contracts—often long-term contracts—with individuals and companies pursuant to its powers and duties under the Bill. If mistakes are made in the first six months or year, they will be difficult to rectify subsequently. One might say—the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) alleges that this is my conspiracy theory—that those with an interest in the preservation and enhancement of nuclear power would be interested in how the programme is constructed by the NDA. To avoid any suggestion of that, the NDA should be entirely independent. That is what the amendment would secure. I hope that the Minister will support it.
The industry recognises that opportunities will arise from the NDA's first year of operation. Only last week, an advert from BNFL appeared in The Parliamentary Monitor that stated:
''The onset of new legislation presents a whole new world for BNFL. This legislation will manifest itself as the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.''
It continued that freedom from restraints, such as historic waste,
''will allow us to develop commercially and internationally in both government and utility sectors. In short, it's the dawning of a new era for BNFL.''
So, it clearly sees an opportunity from the establishment of the NDA. It is matter of Government policy as to whether it is a new dawning for BNFL, but that is separate from the establishment of the NDA. We must ensure that the personnel involved are clearly separate and not helping BNFL with its objective.
Column Number: 103
Mr. Robertson: The amendments that we have tabled come from the opposite point of view to that expressed by the hon. Member for Lewes. I propose that, before the chairman, non-executive directors and chief executive are appointed, there should be discussions with the industry, and I have specified BNFL, British Energy, Nirex and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. The NDA will deal with work of the highest importance. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine anything more important in terms of the environment and public safety. The work will be extremely complicated as well as important. In fact, not much is more complicated than the nuclear industry. I am not talking about seeking the industry's permission before making the appointments—that would be wrong—but it would be sensible to seek the advice and opinions of people in the industry beforehand.
We are involved in setting up yet another body. I do not know whether it officially qualifies as a quango, but we have thousands of quangos. Some are useful and some are not, but it is very important that this body be useful and effective. It would therefore be rather foolish to disregard or reject the advice that may be given by the UKAEA, which has been operating since 1954, and by BNFL, which I understand has been operating for 30 years, if not more. That is the basis of the amendments. They do not suggest that those bodies should have to grant permission, but merely that their opinions should be sought. Given the importance of the work that will be carried out, that is the least that we should expect.
Mr. Page: Unsurprisingly, I support my hon. Friend and, regretfully, I disagree with the hon. Member for Lewes. Along with everyone else, I welcome the setting up of this agency. As my hon. Friend said, that is long overdue. It was unfortunate that, in 1997, a geological survey in Cumbria brought a halt to the idea of having a high-level waste disposal facility.
I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but he advances an argument that is contrary to the reality of what happens when civil servants leave to go to industry. They take with them knowledge of, and expertise on, Government programmes and policies and what could be happening, and that might give a financial advantage to one company. They have a six-month cooling-off period in which, in theory, the Government move on at such a rate that the expertise and knowledge of those civil servants is completely lost, and then they are supposed to go into a company without giving it the commercial advantage that it would have had had they joined it immediately. I have not yet fathomed how that prevents a civil servant from talking to the company that they are to join in six months' time, but illumination will, no doubt, come at some point.
I say to the hon. Member for Lewes that the situation is not as he suggested. It is not about a gamekeeper becoming a poacher—I exaggerate to make the point—but about a poacher becoming a gamekeeper. Is he seriously saying that someone with knowledge of the industry should not be able to join a decommissioning agency immediately so that he can
Column Number: 104
give advice and help to ensure that the work is done as quickly and effectively as possible, but that, unfortunately, the agency should have to hold off for six months before it can benefit from that person's knowledge? That would be completely against the national interest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) made his points with his customary clarity. I am sure that, in an industry as tight-knit as the nuclear industry in this country, the Government and the officials will, in some shape or form, have discussions with people from Nirex, BNFL and so on, because they will be the necessary runners and riders for the posts that are coming along. My hon. Friend wishes to see that point covered in the Bill, so that there will be transparency in the process. I hate to tell the Government that they sometimes operate behind closed doors, but we should like to see the selection process more open and described in the Bill, so that industry knows about the type of people who will become part of the system. Let us have some political honesty and transparency; that is the reason behind my hon. Friend's amendment, which I enthusiastically support.
10.15 am
Mr. Weir: I shall be relatively brief. As has been said, the amendments come from two different extremes. I support the view of the hon. Member for Lewes, who said that it is important that the public are confident that the NDA is transparent. If the Conservatives' amendments were accepted, that transparency would be lost. This is a case not of poacher turned gamekeeper, but of showing that we have reached a new stage in dealing with the legacy of nuclear waste.
To put it bluntly, the nuclear industry has not always been transparent. There has been a culture of secrecy in many areas of it and record keeping in many nuclear dumps has been less than transparent. There is even a degree of doubt about what is in those dumps. Those who set up the dumps are not the same people who work for those organisations now.
There is a long history of secrecy in the nuclear industry, and in setting up a transparent and independent agency to deal with that legacy we must ensure that the same people cannot simply cross over to it from the nuclear industry. That is not to say that the NDA will not need technical advice. Clearly it will, and some of those giving advice may come from the nuclear industry. We are talking here about the non-executive directors and chairman of the NDA, and we must ensure that they are not those who ran the nuclear industry in the past.
|
