| Energy Bill [Lords]
|
|
Norman Baker: That is exactly right. The Under-Secretary giveth and the Under-Secretary taketh away, but recently he has been doing more giving than taking away in the nuclear industry. An amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown dealt with segregated funds but it was not selected. I hope that we can return to that issue later because we want financial clarity; we do not want smudges and Column Number: 143 blurred lines involving billions of pounds of public money, which is the situation that the Under-Secretary is creating through this Bill.This is the ultimate blank-cheque clause. It tells a private sector operator, ''Don't worry about it. The Government are the body of last resort. If we get into trouble they will bail us out, as they have done in the past, and as they continue to do.'' The facilities that were made available to British Energy by the Department of Trade and Industry are still being made available. A huge amount has been made available in the past 12 months on that basis, and there is no guarantee in the clause that that situation will not arise again. Indeed, clause 8 explicitly allows that to happen. Far from drawing a line under the use of public money to bail out the nuclear industry, which has happened so often, and starting with a clean sheet of paper, which I thought was going to happen under the Bill, we are perpetuating that practice. An opportunity is being provided for the private sector to have the Government contribute to its costs. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury and his hon. Friends think that nuclear power has a future. If it does, I think that they are honest enough to say that it should wash its own face, and be clear on its financial contribution and accountability. That is not what the clause provides for. My amendments would prevent the taxpayer from effectively handing over more cash to British Energy. Mr. Laurence Robertson: I want to speak briefly in support of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes, and in support of my amendment No. 99. It relates to clause 24, which covers the financial responsibilities of the NDA. It is obvious to the Committee, although I will restate it, that I do not come from the same position as the hon. Member for Lewes with respect to the nuclear industry. It has made a valuable contribution and there remains one for it to make in the future. However, I agree with him that it needs to be economic. I agree, too, with what I think he is getting at in his amendments. Certainly, amendment No. 99 is intended to ensure that where there is a liability—let us say that British Energy has a liability for waste, clean-up and decommissioning—there should be an obligation, as far as possible, to deal with that liability. A conflict seemed to arise in discussion earlier. The Under-Secretary appeared, when I challenged him about the EU position, to be saying that the Government were prepared to bail out—in the words of the hon. Member for Lewes—the private sector in the nuclear industry. Otherwise, why were we discussing whether that would be unfair state aid? The Under-Secretary seemed to be willing that that should happen. Perhaps in some circumstances it might be necessary. However, it now seems that we are being told that it will not happen, but that it will be up to the licensee, the operator of the site, to pay. We need clarification. I thought so when I first read the Bill and, after the debate, I am even more convinced of it. Therefore I am happy to support the amendment. Column Number: 144 Nigel Griffiths: I am resisting the amendments—although I appreciate the clarity with which hon. Members have put very straightforward cases—because they would require private sector operators, as a matter of statute, in all cases to meet the costs of discharging their nuclear liabilities. We are clear about one thing: private sector operators must bear the costs of clean-up and should provide for them, for instance by using segregated funds. The question is what should happen if the operator fails—if the ''polluter pays'' principle fails, as it sometimes does in the real world. Circumstances can arise in which private sector operators are unable to meet their liabilities. British Energy provides a current example. The Government are faced in those circumstances with a choice between leaving such an undertaking to founder and possibly collapse, or coming to its assistance for the good of our communities and of society. When it comes to discharging nuclear liabilities, there is no real choice: a responsible Government bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring public safety. What we have here is a Government proposal embedded in the Bill that takes that responsibility in full, compared with amendments that I fear would lead us down the road of irresponsibility. The irony is not lost on me, as the Under-Secretary with responsibility for nuclear decommissioning elsewhere. We have set up a half a billion pound fund, which is currently helping to dismantle Russian nuclear submarine facilities. I was in Archangel earlier this year to see how that was proceeding. We have a fund that is helping another nation meet the responsibilities that we must all meet as a world community, yet we are being asked here to accept amendments that would close the door on that in this country. That is why I reject them. The clean-up of private sector nuclear sites is the responsibility of the operator concerned, so where the NDA is to be given responsibility for a private sector site, we would expect it to charge for that clean-up. Any decision to support a private sector operator in consideration of the Government's ultimate responsibility for the safe and secure clean-up of nuclear sites would be a matter for Government, not for the NDA. Such support, as in the case of BE, would, as I have said, be likely to be subject to state aid approval by the European Commission. I do not think that we can be clearer on the matter, and I hope that, having heard the consequences of the amendments, no responsible hon. Member or political party would want to walk away and leave clean-ups to the private sector in all circumstances. That is why I ask for the amendments to be withdrawn. Mr. Robertson: I largely agree with the Under-Secretary, who made his case reasonably and persuasively. However, I point out to him that my amendment No. 99 is a little more accommodating than those tabled by the Liberal Democrats—although I support those too. My amendment took a slightly different line, which is why it relates to a different clause.
Column Number: 145 Clause 24 appears to suggest that the NDA cannot charge the private sector. That was my reading of it, which is why I tabled amendment No. 99, which says that
Norman Baker: I follow the hon. Member for Tewkesbury and have equal sympathy with the point that he has just made and with amendment No. 99 in his name. The Under-Secretary's main argument against the amendments—that there is no provision for the Government to be the body of last resort—has some validity and I concede that he has a case. It is certainly the case that if a nuclear company went bankrupt and there were a problem, the state would have to intervene for environmental health reasons. That underlines the costs of the industry over generations to the public purse. However, the clause does not specify that the payment will not be required only under such circumstances. In fact, the clause is much looser than that and simply says that a direction
4.15 pmWe have heard the Minister's interpretation of that. Most people would agree that the state should intervene when an installation or a company goes bankrupt, but that is not what happened with British Energy in the last 12 months or so. He has referred to that case, in which the Government provided a substantial, fat lifeline to prevent the market from reaching the logical conclusion—British Energy should have gone bankrupt in the last 12 to 24 months. Had the NDA existed then, it could have stepped in and either run those stations, because the Government would have given it the power to be generator, or decommissioned them. Instead, the Minister's policy is to allow private sector companies with nuclear generation capacity to exist. The Government have endorsed that philosophical decision, which was originally a Conservative policy. If the private sector is involved in the nuclear industry, however, surely it should take the risks. It is difficult to justify allowing the industry to receive the benefits of privatisation—money for shareholders and so on—but letting the risk remain with the state. That is the position the Government have constructed. If the Minister proposes an amendment on Report that says that the requirement to pay on such directions will be made in all circumstances except Column Number: 146 when the nuclear company in question has gone bankrupt—at which point the state must intervene for public health and environmental reasons—I will be sympathetic. I am afraid, however, that the clause's wording is loose and can be interpreted much more generously. Such has been demonstrated by what the Government have been prepared to do in the last 24 months.Clause 8 is a blank-cheque clause. It is an opportunity for more state aid and for any nuclear company to hold a pistol to the Government's head and say, ''We are in financial trouble—we're going down the plughole unless you come up with some more money.'' Government Members ought to be aware that they will be voting for more state aid for British Energy or private sector nuclear companies. The Minister has said that there is a requirement for a last-gasp body of last resort—the Government—in the event of a company going bankrupt. For that reason alone, I will not press the amendment to a vote. However, I shall table an amendment on Report that frames the provisions in such terms as to allow only failure to pay in the event of a bankruptcy and no other circumstances. If the Minister is true to his word, he will support it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 25 May 2004 |
