| Energy Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Challen: I rise to seek further clarification on the first two sentences of clause 6, (1)(a) and (1)(b). First of all, I recollect that, on Thursday, my hon. Friend the Minister said that:
Mr. Weir: I appreciate what the last speaker said. Later amendments will seek to achieve the same thing by a different route, because of the serious concerns that the NDA will, in effect, become a nuclear generator. Clause 6(1) says
. . . the operation, pending the commencement of their decommissioning, of designated nuclear installations''.
I made that point in the Committee's first sitting, and the Minister was quite dismissive. When I raised it in an intervention, he said,
My one concern about the amendments, which I would be inclined to support, is the 12-month period. One of the problems of nuclear decommissioning is that it can take a long time. We have to be alive to that. Column Number: 117 My own amendments try to place an obligation on the NDA when taking over a station to set a strategy for decommissioning that station. I have deliberately not set a time limit because every situation may be slightly different. If we set a statutory time limit of 12 months we could conceivably lead into problems if we are not able to begin the decommissioning within that period.It is necessary to state clearly in the Bill that the role of the NDA is not about running nuclear power stations and that it will not be allowed to run nuclear power stations. I suggest that decommissioning should commence as soon as the NDA takes control of the nuclear power station and that a clear strategy and time scale are set at that point to avoid the confusion of continuing generation of waste by the NDA, which, supposedly, is to dispose of the historical waste. Mr. Timms: The NDA is focused on decommissioning and clean up. Hon. Members who have spoken in this debate probably will have read the debates in the other place, where the Government consistently and firmly defended the position that the NDA is a decommissioning authority, not a commissioning or operations authority. There were moves elsewhere—we may come to them in this Committee, too—to change that. We firmly resisted them because it is our view that the NDA needs to have a clear brief about decommissioning. All the operational responsibilities for the NDA are linked to that primary responsibility, either because they contribute to clean-up or because it is impossible to separate the operational elements from clean-up. As it is drafted, clause 6(1)(a) already restricts the NDA's powers to operate a nuclear power station pending decommissioning. The reason for that is to capture the Magnox stations—as hon. Members have rightly said referring to my remarks last week—which will be among the first sites to be designated to the authority. They are all due to be closed within five years of the NDA being established. The hon. Member for Lewes said that there was not a time scale for that, but there is. The last, at Wylfa, will cease operations in 2010.As drafted, the Bill allows the NDA to operate the Magnox stations during that period in order to maximise the benefits to the public. Mr. Weir: I still have a concern. I understand what the Minister is saying, but the Bill says
Mr. Timms: The problem is that, by forcing closure within a year of designation, the amendment would mean quite significant revenue from a station's operation being foregone, with no benefit to clean-up. That may be the key point. The existing phased-closure programme for Magnox stations, which has been agreed with the regulators, is already optimised for managing the clean-up process. We cannot speed Column Number: 118 it up by closing the stations early, because of capacity constraints at Sellafield. The Bill allows us to take forward the decommissioning of Magnox stations as quickly as possible given those constraints, while allowing some revenue to be earned in the meantime.Norman Baker: I understand the Minister's point about Sellafield. In tabling my amendment, I was not questioning the time scale for decommissioning Magnox stations; the date when they should finally shut. That is not the issue; the issue is the point at which they become the responsibility of the NDA and what the NDA does with them. I would argue that, if Magnox stations will be operational for another five years, the NDA should not be involved until later in the process. Mr. Timms: No, I would resist such a constraint. It may well be appropriate for the NDA to take responsibility for those sites earlier so that, with regard to their management, the overriding concern of decommissioning can be in place as early as possible. I have another point about the use of the word ''pending'', whose meaning has been queried. It could not extend to operating a power station, either new or old, if the clear aim of decommissioning was not in sight, even if an intended closure date had been established. That may help my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen), given the question that he asked me. The Government have no proposals for new nuclear capacity at the moment. The economics are wrong, and big questions about nuclear waste have not yet been answered. If there were a move towards new nuclear capacity in future, there would need to be consideration of the decommissioning arrangements. Nothing in the measure would exclude the NDA's having such a role, but that is certainly not envisaged in what we are discussing today. With regard to the point made a moment ago by the hon. Member for Lewes, involving the NDA early—rather than leaving its participation to the later stages, as he suggested—will be helpful in making decommissioning as effective as possible. Norman Baker: Does the Minister accept that, under clause 6(1)(d), the NDA could be given responsibility for the two reprocessing plants at Sellafield as well as the Sellafield MOX plant? Mr. Timms: The intention is certainly that the NDA should be able to take on responsibility for decommissioning the full range of civil nuclear sites in the UK. I think that that addresses the hon. Gentleman's question. With regard to the time scale to which the amendment refers, it would not be right to be more specific than we have been. The amendment would impose similar constraints on any other nuclear generating stations designated to the NDA in future. Lead-in times for decommissioning may change in future and we are talking about a period of up to 100 years. It may make sense for the NDA to take responsibility for a nuclear station at an earlier or later point in the preparatory stages of decommissioning to ensure the maximum effectiveness of the Column Number: 119 decommissioning work. We need some flexibility in legislating on a process that will take many decades. In practice, it is hard to envisage the NDA being responsible for operating a station for much longer than the time that I have indicated would be associated with the closure of the Magnox stations.The crucial point is that the NDA will only take responsibility for operating a station if the primary objective is to achieve successful and efficient decommissioning rather than to maximise operational revenues.
11.15 amMr. Weir: Is not the Minister muddying the waters? If the NDA's primary function is to decommission, why give them a function of operating stations at all? If there is planned closure of stations, the existing operators will plan to operate them until the closure date. Surely it makes more sense for the NDA and the existing operator to work hand in glove and for the NDA to carry out its primary function of decommissioning along with the operator. I do not understand why the NDA is being given the power to continue operating. That seems slightly bizarre. It muddies the waters and gives rise to the danger that the NDA will in fact become an operator of nuclear power stations rather than a decommissioning authority.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 25 May 2004 |
