| Energy Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Timms: Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 confuse me because they are contradictory. One proposes that there be a paramount duty to protect health and safety and the environment, and the other just mentions the environment. Which is the hon. Gentleman's favoured amendment? Norman Baker: The Minister makes a fair point. If I were confident that the Government would automatically accept the amendments that I table and incorporate them into legislation without further delay, I would be slightly more careful. I have given him a choice. I am so generous that I am offering him two ways out of the dilemma, not just one. Amendment No. 105 is my preferred option, but in case it is unacceptable for some reason, I have offered the Minister amendment No. 106 as an alternative. Either way, the amendments are an opportunity to raise the issue. He will doubtless not accept my amendments, no matter how wonderfully scripted and drafted they might be, but I hope that he will accept the force of the argument and return later with words of his own. Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Sayeed. This morning we are about to consider more than a dozen clauses on the financial framework of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. That will no doubt detain us for many Column Number: 169 hours. I notice that item number six on the Order Paper under ''Written Ministerial Statements to be made today'' is
The Chairman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advice, but I am not responsible for determining Government or other business. Norman Baker: I had just about finished, but that was an important point of order. It drew attention to a lack of joined-up presentation. That is a generous interpretation. The other interpretation is that we are being asked to agree legislation, and subsequently being given information that might be relevant. The other day, I pointed out that we have not been told yet what is happening with Nirex, although its future is crucial to the role of the NDA. It is unhelpful of the Government not to be clear on such matters, so that we can discuss them in the full knowledge of what is going on. The Chairman: As that was almost a continuation of the point of order, may I suggest to hon. Members that such points of order would be best made on the Floor of the House? Mr. Michael Weir (Angus) (SNP): I shall not detain the Committee long, but I want to speak to amendments Nos. 22 and 23, which I tabled. Like the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), their purpose is to insert into the Bill the requirement that it be a paramount duty of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to have concern for the environment. They are in essence trying to achieve the same thing as the amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman. However, as so often in the Bill, different parties are trying to achieve the same aims by slightly different means. Amendment No. 22 is rather longer than amendments Nos. 105 and 106 and attempts to get round the problems of those amendments by bringing both matters together in one provision and making it a paramount duty of the NDA to look after not only the environment, but health and safety. In using this route, I have deliberately tried not to deviate too far from the current wording of the Bill and have given the Government the opportunity to accept that the lack of any mention of the paramount duty of the NDA to have due regard to environmental issues is an error. At present, the clause merely states that the NDA must ''have particular regard'' to the need to safeguard the environment, health and safety and nuclear security. That is not a strong enough statement; hence I have changed the wording to ''paramount duty'', as has the hon. Member for Lewes. Column Number: 170 Mr. Key: I must rise to defend my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes. I wonder how the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) would react if were all to adopt the Latin pronunciation of his constituency when we referred to him. Mr. Weir: I would suggest that the Gaelic pronunciation is more appropriate. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) has referred to me as the hon. Member for Weir, so I think I can be given some latitude in this matter. I will refrain from referring to Lewes again as my pronunciation is obviously mangling south-eastern English. Throughout the debates on this matter, when we have raised real issues about the future of local industry, the Minister has stated time and again that the NDA and the whole Bill are about decommissioning and not nuclear generation. That being the case, one must assume that the NDA's whole purpose is the environment and the health and safety of the population and workers in the nuclear industry. The addition of amendment No. 22 would not in any way damage what the Government are trying to do; it would strengthen the role of the NDA and make it clear that it is an environmental and decommissioning concern. Amendment No. 23 clearly follows on from amendment No. 22 and does not stand alone, so it could not be agreed to without also agreeing to amendment No. 22. Mr. Timms: Let me start by responding to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). I will ensure that the information that he asked for will be before the Committee before we reach clause 24. I do not think that it affects the debate that we are likely to have today, but he raised a fair point. The contradiction between the two amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes highlights the practical difficulty of determining what is most important: the protection of the environment or public safety—indeed, we are all concerned about nuclear security as well. I agree with him about the importance of safeguarding the environment. In the end, nuclear decommissioning and clean-up are about protecting the environment over the long term for the benefit of future generations. By setting up the NDA, we are making it clear that we want nuclear clean-up to be driven forward as quickly and effectively as possible. Concerns about the environment as well as about public safety and security are at the heart of the NDA. The hon. Member for Lewes highlighted the environmental point, and that is reflected in subsection (1)(b). There are some difficulties with the amendments. There is a problem with cutting across the existing responsibilities of nuclear regulators, in particular. Nothing in the Bill alters the regulatory framework that the independent regulators enforce. The nuclear installations inspectorate will continue to enforce site licence conditions and health and safety regulations applicable to NDA sites, and the Environment Agency and Scottish Environment Protection Agency will continue to regulate discharges to air, land and water.
Column Number: 171 We are internationally recognised for having a very good regulatory regime that sets the highest standards of nuclear safety, security and environmental protection. The Committee will agree that we must not do anything to undermine the successful work that the regulators carry out or anything that would give the impression that they are ineffective or inadequate.The hon. Member for Lewes rightly paid tribute to the safety record of the nuclear industry, and we would not want to put at risk the arrangements that have ensured that record until now. It is important not to cut across a well established and reliable regulatory framework by giving the NDA a duty—above all other duties—or a principal objective to ensure the effective discharge of existing regulatory requirements. It is essential that responsibility rests with the person controlling a nuclear site—the site licensee. Anything that undermined that principle would give great cause for concern to the regulators whose task it is to protect public safety and the environment. The creation and operation of the NDA will establish a golden triangle, as it was colourfully referred to in another place, comprising the NDA, its site operators and the regulators. Those three parties will work together to maintain and develop regulatory standards, ensure compliance and drive forward clean-up to everyone's benefit.
9.15 amThe hierarchy in the NDA's duty that would be created by amendments Nos. 22, 23, 106 and 107 would be problematic in that it would place the protection of the environment and safety of the public, or perhaps just the environment, at the top of the hierarchy. I would suggest that nuclear security is also a high priority and, therefore, that the arrangement in the Bill is the most appropriate. Nuclear site operators need to comply with all the regulatory requirements, and it would not be sensible to separate Government policy from the group of considerations. I hope that on the basis of that explanation of how the regulatory requirements currently work, the hon. Member for Lewes will feel able to withdraw his amendment. Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining his view. He is right that the clause already refers to the environment and public safety, and we welcome that. I am slightly mystified by the suggestion that the considerations would cut across regulators. The Minister appears to be saying that because one regulator has a duty to ensure something, it cannot also be a principal duty for someone else. I would have thought that protecting the environment and ensuring public safety would be a principal duty for everyone involved in the nuclear industry. If someone else has that principal duty, that does not obviate the need for other bodies in the industry to have it as well. If nuclear security is forgotten about, the implications for the Column Number: 172 environment and public health and safety would be unfortunate. In that sense, the point is covered by the two areas that I have picked out.The Minister will not accept that point, but I understand where he is coming from, and in light of the discussion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 27 May 2004 |
