Energy Bill [Lords]

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Robertson: In a sense, Mr. O'Brien, we have already discussed amendments Nos. 53 and 54. Amendment No. 54 refers to the revocation of a direction, but as I could not persuade the Committee to put directions before Parliament, I do not suppose that I am likely to gain support for putting the revocation of a direction before Parliament. Therefore, I do not wish to move amendment No. 53.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Miss McIntosh: The Minister will be aware that the tone of responses to the Government's consultation was overwhelmingly welcoming on the issue of funding arrangements for the NDA. However, two responses expressed concern about whether British Energy could afford to make its increased payments to the nuclear liabilities fund. How have the Government satisfied themselves that British Energy will be able to do so? The matter was alluded to when the hon. Member for Lewes commented on a company going bankrupt. Obviously, the company would have a serious concern.

To be frank, the clause, not having been amended, is not the most elegant or tidy. Will the Minister explain how it will work? Will it mean that work will be commenced only so far as funds are available to pay for it? Will it mean that an up-front payment will have to be made before the work starts or merely that a direction will require appropriate ongoing charges to be imposed by the NDA? Some guidance would be helpful. If authorisation is given for the work to start, would it proceed only to a predetermined interim stage

Column Number: 147

or could it all be concluded? I have read the responses to the Government consultation, and some real concerns were expressed.

The clause will empower the Secretary of State to make a number of directions. Every time we call for such directions to be scrutinised, we are accused of imposing a tier of regulation, but the fact that we privatised the energy sector and utilities should speak for itself. Will the Minister satisfy the Committee as to why, if the directions are in order, the Government are so afraid of parliamentary scrutiny? Is it not a concept to which the Government are wedded?

Nigel Griffiths: I want to make a couple of points in response to the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Lewes. We are faced with a choice: no state aid or Government intervention and funding in the public interest when they are needed. If that is the defining issue, we stand by the latter.

Much mention has been made of bankruptcy, and if the Government need to step in, doing so early to prevent a bankruptcy, as has been the case with British Energy, may be more cost-effective than picking up the pieces afterwards. This is not a case of, ''Where there is blame, there is a claim.'' A claim against a bankrupt company would be of little comfort to the public, the work force and all others who are concerned with public safety.

Norman Baker: The Minister talks about the downsides of bankruptcy, but, as we have discussed, does he not accept that the Bill gives the NDA the power to operate nuclear stations? Therefore, there need be no effect on the work force, safety or security? Matters could carry on as normal; the only difference would be that we would not be paying out to shareholders.

Nigel Griffiths: The question is, which is the best authority to maintain and run the specific site? I put it to the hon. Gentleman that there may have been a recent change of management, those responsible for the mistakes may have gone and the new team would be the best people to manage the facility, although, after NDA vetting, they may require financial support to do it. His amendments and his rejection of the clause would close the door on that, which is an important difference between us.

The hon. Gentleman is right, through the amendments he has tabled, to probe the Government on the exact meaning of the Bill, but he has clearly stated that he does not want any state aid to be allocated to the maintenance of such facilities. I do not know whether he has a response to my point: a new and highly experienced management, who have perhaps run another nuclear facility well, might be brought in by the company.

If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that in such a situation there is a clear choice between the NDA—a public body—running the organisation or public money going to a private sector organisation, even if that organisation has a good, proven track record, that exposes weaknesses in the amendments he tabled, albeit in good faith.

Column Number: 148

Norman Baker: The Minister mentions a track record, which reminds me of Railtrack. Railtrack was a private sector company that the Government could not afford to allow to go bankrupt because it was delivering an essential public service—railways—so Railtrack repeatedly came back to ask for more public money.

Railtrack said that it had got everything sorted out and that the management had improved, which is what the Minister says, but in the end the Government had to pull the plug and say, ''No more.'' I suggest that as long as he allows that argument to be made by the nuclear industry—by private companies such as British Energy—those companies will keep coming back for more money. At some point, however, the Government will again have to say, ''No more,'' and hand the industry over to the NDA, as Railtrack went to Network Rail.

Nigel Griffiths: There is an implication in what the hon. Gentleman says that there is some wonderful pool of experts available on tap who can come in and sort out the problems of the industry. In fact, although such expertise resides in the UK as much as anywhere else in the world, it resides in a core of key people. One cannot just advertise in the local jobcentre for people to come and take over such facilities.

It is therefore important that the clause stand part of the Bill, on the basis of the arguments that we have advanced. I recognise the sincerity with which the amendments were introduced, especially amendment No. 99, which I will briefly discuss.

That amendment would leave it to the NDA to determine how the costs of decommissioning and clean-up work should be covered, but I cannot support the removal of that responsibility from the Secretary of State. I do not think that a convincing case has been made for transferring those responsibilities to the NDA. Those functions should be kept clear and separate.

Mr. Robertson: The Minister refers to the amendment rather selectively. It states that the NDA shall

''present . . . an analysis to the Secretary of State, and the NDA, following consultation with the Secretary of State, shall . . . determine how the costs of the decommissioning and clean-up work shall be covered.''

Without that amendment, and the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes, the NDA—in other words, the taxpayer—could pick up the entire bill. I do not understand the Minister's objection to amendment No. 99.

Nigel Griffiths: I do not wish to misrepresent the purpose of the amendment—members of the Committee have a copy of it—nor will I pick through it from a legal point of view. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the wording, but I was trying to focus on the outcome. The difference between us is that we believe that the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament, should take the ultimate decision, rather than the NDA, no matter how valid the consultation with the Secretary of State may be.

<<149>>4.30 pm

Mr. Robertson: The Under-Secretary is extremely courteous in giving way. He is expressing great sympathy for amendment No. 99, although he cannot agree with all of it. Will he therefore reconsider it with a view to accepting a slightly amended version on Report?

Nigel Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman wishes the amendment to retain the last three sentences, which transfer the responsibility from the Secretary of State to the NDA, I will not be able to reconsider it. However, when we agree with them, my hon. Friend and I will look closely and sympathetically at all the amendments on Report.

Mr. Robertson: My point was not about leaving in those three sentences. It may be that we agree that the Secretary of State should have the ultimate responsibility, but the more important part of the amendment states that the NDA shall carry out an

''assessment of the ability of the person in control''

to pay for it. That is what I am getting at. Would the Under-Secretary consider accepting that point on Report?

Nigel Griffiths: We will accept any amendment that significantly improves the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Designations relating to scotland

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in

clause 9, page 7, line 17, at end insert

'provided that this shall not be classified as intermediate-level-level waste or high-level waste'.

In the light of the Under-Secretary's last remark, I look forward to a positive response to my amendment. First, I can tell the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, who is keen on this provision, that this is a probing amendment. It is an excuse to discuss a wider issue, but I hope that it is in order, Mr. O'Brien.

The hon. Member for Angus may be disappointed to know that my special interest is not in ensuring that radioactive waste is not disposed of in Scotland, although with my Aberdonian birthright I have a passing interest in that. I have tabled the amendment so that I can concentrate on intermediate-level and higher-level waste, and tease out from the Under-Secretary what is the delineation between the NDA and Nirex. I mentioned that point to the Energy Minister, but little clarity was forthcoming.

I want to clarify the matter because there is uncertainty about state aid, and about where Nirex fits in. We know from ministerial comments that have been reported in the press, which is always entirely accurate—The Observer, anyway—that there have been big clashes between the Secretary of State for

Column Number: 150

Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs over the future and the role of Nirex.

The amendment would provide that disposal would not take place if it involved intermediate-level or higher-level waste. The point is whether the NDA will have the ability, or the authority if the Government have their way, to deal with the disposal of intermediate-level or higher-level waste. Nirex is charged with dealing with intermediate-level waste; that is its job. It is therefore developing a long-term strategy for the Government. Is that strategy to be undermined or overruled by the Bill?

This morning, the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services said that there would be some responsibility for the NDA in respect of intermediate-level and higher-level waste, but at what point does that responsibility stop and Nirex's responsibility begin?

Under clause 6(1)(d), the NDA will have responsibility for disposing of hazardous material. Many of us thought that that was Nirex's responsibility. The amendment would confirm the situation that I understand to be the case—that Nirex will deal with the disposal of intermediate-level and higher-level waste, and that the NDA can dispose of low and very low-level waste. If that is different from what the Government anticipate, I should be grateful to hear it. However, we certainly need clarification of the relative roles of the NDA and Nirex.

It would be helpful if the Under-Secretary could tell us what has happened to Nirex. We had a statement from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last July. Since then, there has been a battle royal between the DTI and DEFRA. We have not yet had a statement on where that is going. Will the Under-Secretary clarify that while dealing with the other issues?

 

---

Prepared 25 May 2004