| Energy Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. He makes a good point about the long-term nature of the work that the NDA will undertake and the consequent long-term nature of the NDA itself. I am happy to accept his advice on that matter. However, I am slightly concerned that he says he will follow the guidance on public appointments. I think he said that it is likely that there will be scope for only one reappointment and a maximum term of 10 years. Mr. Timms: Except in exceptional circumstances. That is the norm. Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. Paragraph 1(3) of the schedule states that
Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, which is now on the record. It might have been better to re-word paragraph 1(3) to reflect it and perhaps to say that an appointment would be for two terms, except in exceptional circumstances. That would have been clearer and more transparent. Column Number: 109 However, I do not wish to extend the debate and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 103, in
'Limit on employment costs
''such remuneration and allowances as the Secretary of State may determine.''
Amendment No. 49 is more important, as it would place a limit on the employment costs of executive and non-executive members of the NDA. The Bill is in danger of creating a body with a great many highly paid people. The amendment therefore provides that the total cost should not be more than £750,000. We could argue about that figure, but I believe it is reasonable, although the Minister will probably say that there should be no figure at all. What bothers me is what can be paid to executive and non-executive members. Apart from salaries, there are pensions, allowances and gratuities. I am concerned that the cost of running the organisation at senior level should not be allowed to run away. Briefly, I would welcome the Minister's explanation of how the cost of the NDA board will be financed. What percentage will it take of the running costs? Mr. Timms: I think the proportion will be small. We expect the NDA's long-term programme to cost about £50 billion. In that context, the amounts of money we are discussing are quite small. However, I share the hon. Gentleman's concern to ensure the efficient and effective use of public resources. Like other non-departmental Government bodies, the NDA will have to justify its administration expenses in its annual plan, which the Secretary of State has to approve each year. It does not make sense to impose a limit of £750,000 on the cost of the board. Even if that figure was right now, it is likely that it will Column Number: 110 not be right in future. As I said, the authority's remit will extend for many decades, so the Bill stating a figure would be unhelpful.As the hon. Gentleman said, it is odd to provide for a statutory consultation of the chairman for the chairman's own terms and conditions. Like the pay and allowances of other non-executive members, they should be a matter for negotiation between contracting parties rather than for statutory consultation, as amendment No. 46 provides. This is a matter of applying the normal arrangements that apply to public bodies. Amendment No. 103 would remove the option for compensation to be paid to non-executive members should the Government wish to remove them before the conclusion of their term. It would be very unusual to rule out in statute the normal operation of existing contractual and employment law, which governs relationships between employer and employee. On the hon. Gentleman's general point, I understand the anxieties often expressed about arrangements such as the seemingly over-generous golden parachutes, and I understand and share the concern about some practices that are applied elsewhere. We certainly do not want to enter into unnecessary obligations to pay compensation. The balance that we have struck in this part of the Bill reflects arrangements that apply elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman asked about the NDA's running costs: we estimate that they will be between £25 million and £30 million a year. The board's costs on commencement are likely to be between £750,000, which he proposes, and £1 million. Mr. Robertson: I thank the Minister for that response. His last sentence won me over, so to speak, because he concluded that the figure I proposed—about £750,000—is not too ridiculous. Given his sympathetic remarks on the need to control costs at the top of the organisation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 125, in
6A (1) The NDA shall make arrangements for a general meeting of the NDA to be held in public during the course of each calendar year.
I mentioned three tests that I am seeking to apply to the NDA: transparency, independence and the reduction of the waste problem. The Minister appeared to sign up to those objectives when he talked about clause 4, and I hope that I can offer him many opportunities to show that he intends to adhere to them. Here is another one involving transparency. Like the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, I am unsure whether the NDA is officially a quango, but it is quite normal for quangos to hold one meeting every year in Column Number: 111 public as a sign of public accountability. The Minister will be aware that the theoretical line of accountability through the Secretary of State may satisfy constitutional propriety, but it does not necessarily meet those tests in reality. If he wants the NDA to be transparent, the amendment is a clear way to achieve that objective.It is entirely uncontentious to ask the NDA to meet once a year, as such a meeting would offer an opportunity to present its programme, reflect on the work that it has done during the year, take questions and generally be accountable to the press, the public and Members of Parliament. Of course, we all accept that confidential matters, such as contractual arrangements, will occasionally arise, and it is normal in meetings for such items to be dealt with differently. There are no objections to that because confidentiality can be protected. It is sensible for the proposal to be taken further and I look forward to the Minister's positive response. Mr. Robertson: I rise briefly to support the hon. Gentleman's amendment. One problem that the nuclear industry has perhaps had in the past—reference was made to it this morning, although I cannot remember which Member used this word—was its mystique. As we move forward and clean up various operations, the NDA must be seen to be transparent and work with members of the public. I cannot think what objection there should be to the amendment, but I am sure I am about to hear it from the Minister. Mr. Timms: The White Paper made the point that the NDA should champion openness and transparency, and that it should help to dispel what I referred to earlier as the aura of mystery and mistrust, which has been so damaging to the nuclear industry's reputation. It will be important for the NDA to win public confidence through regular engagement with interested parties and communities, and we have made explicit provision to achieve that.
10.45 amClause 15(3), which we will come to later, requires the NDA to set out its objectives for stakeholder engagement in its strategy. That provision was added following comments on the draft legislation during a good process of consultation. When consulting on its strategies and annual plans, the NDA is also required to have regard to any representations made by the public, while its strategies, annual plans and annual reports will all be published, subject to appropriate exclusions. In the DTI, we have also been preparing a stakeholder engagement framework, which has been developed out of the two rounds of regional events that have taken place in the last year. The NDA will take on that framework, and develop and maintain it. I completely agree with the concern to see that the NDA conducts itself openly and transparently to secure the public's confidence. However, it is also important that it has the flexibility to decide how best to fulfil its remit and deliver on its objectives more widely. Paragraph 10 of schedule 1 explicitly provides for the NDA to have flexibility in deciding its own procedural arrangements. Nothing in it rules out the Column Number: 112 possibility of a public annual general meeting, but I believe that we can leave the NDA to make such decisions for itself. For example, the NDA may decide that it would be better to have several smaller, regional meetings rather than the one meeting that the amendment envisages.Those outside the House will see from the record of our deliberations our general agreement on the desirability of arrangements along the lines of those set out in the amendment, although the question whether the NDA chooses precisely that or something else can be safely left with it. It will be essential that the NDA promotes a strong sense of public interest in, awareness of and confidence in what it is doing. Meetings of various kinds will help to achieve that.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 25 May 2004 |
