|
Norman Baker: Let me say at the outset that I will withdraw the amendment, not least because of time constraints. However, I am not entirely content with the Minister's response. To come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, I am not accusing the Government of a policy of deception. I do not believe that they are presenting a Bill that deliberately obfuscates the truth or pushes through a hidden Government agenda. My concern is that the Government's energy policy, which I largely agree with, is not mirrored by the terminology of the Bill. It is my genuine intention to be a critical friend of the Government.
Clause 13(2)(d) refers to ''grants or loans''. The Minister and I do not have a problem with the contractual relationship between the NDA and other elements of the nuclear industry to fund research, particular if that research is into decommissioning and clean-up operations; that is not only desirable, but inevitable.
11 am
I would suggest to the Minister that his intentions and my acceptance of those intentions could be interpreted differently because of the word ''grant''. He may think that the word can be used solely in the sense of university grants. However, I would suggest that the word has a wider meaning, and that it must be tightened up if the Minister wants to limit the NDA's ability to enter into contractual arrangements with, and provide support to, universities and external bodies. ''Grant'' has a much wider meaning, which may not reflect the Government's intention, but which could subsequently be used by those with a different policy from the one that the Minister is espousing.
That is the issue that I am trying to draw to the Minister's attention. I do not think that we disagree about the principles behind the clause or, indeed, much of the Bill; I do, however, disagree with the wording.
Mr. Timms: I accept that this is largely a matter of wording, and if the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is appropriate for the NDA to commission research from British Energy or BNFL, there is no distinction between us. However, the amendment would prevent the NDA from doing so.
Norman Baker rose—
The Chairman: Order. We have until the close of play this afternoon to reach the end of clause 83? I would therefore be grateful if hon. Members kept their remarks strictly to the point.
Norman Baker: I hope that I am doing that, Mr. Sayeed. I am conscious of the time scale.
I do not disagree with the Minister's intentions. Technically, he may be right that the amendments—this is one reason why I shall not press them—would have an unwanted effect. He does not want that, and nor do I. However, the wording that I seek to amend
Column Number: 199
may also have an undesirable and unwanted effect, which he has not anticipated, and he may live to regret that if the provisions are used in an unhelpful way. I ask to him to reconsider the word ''grant'' to ascertain whether it is open to a wider interpretation than the one that he intends.
It is important that the NDA commissions research that is commensurate with its decommissioning and cleaning-up functions. I would be slightly alarmed by the Minister's comment that it will be doing research into the nuclear future if that future revolved round research into new generation rather than decommissioning and clean- up.
Mr. Timms: Clause 13(2)(d) makes it clear that we are talking exclusively about decommissioning and clean-up, not the other issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Norman Baker: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: No. 16, in
clause 13, page 11, line 44, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Timms.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 3.
Division No. 8]
AYES
Atkins, Charlotte
Baker, Norman
Challen, Mr. Colin
Griffiths, Nigel
MacDonald, Mr. Calum
Stewart, Ian
Timms, Mr. Stephen
Turner, Dr. Desmond
Walley, Joan
Weir, Mr. Michael
White, Brian
Whitehead, Dr. Alan
NOES
Key, Mr. Robert
McIntosh, Miss Anne
Robertson, Mr. Laurence
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Strategy for carrying out functions
Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 150, in
clause 14, page 12, line 7, leave out 'from time to time' and insert
'at least every five years'.
Norman Baker: I can be brief on this amendment, which deals with the NDA's duty to prepare a strategy and with the time scale within which it should revise that strategy. The Bill says that it would be appropriate for the NDA to revise the strategy ''from time to time'', but I suggest that that would allow it to do so not very often or, indeed, not at all. Adding the words
''at least every five years''
Column Number: 200
would require the NDA to reconsider its work, and even if it did not want to revise its strategy, it would be required to do so. That is good for the management of the NDA.
Mr. Timms: I can be equally brief. Schedule 2 states in paragraph 3(1):
''The NDA must carry out and complete a review of its strategy before the end of each review period.''
In paragraph 3(9), it is specified that the review period is five years. The hon. Gentleman's point is fully met in schedule 2.
Norman Baker: I am delighted to have that reassurance, which meets my point entirely, and to notice that once again I am at one with the Government. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Procedural requirements applicable to NDA's Strategy
Mr. Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in
schedule 2, page 158, line 6, after 'State', insert
'and such strategy has been laid before each House of Parliament'.
In earlier sittings, we have discussed the principle of laying certain matters before Parliament. That is what the amendment would require the Secretary of State to do. The schedule refers to the NDA's strategy for carrying out its functions. The strategy already has to go to the Secretary of State, so it is obviously recognised as a serious matter.
The strategy is an important part of the Bill and will be an important part of the NDA. The schedule is quite long; I will not go through it all but it covers issues such as the skilled work force, effective competition for contracts, good practice and activities that benefit the social or economic life of communities. It goes on to talk about the NDA's objectives for decommissioning and cleaning up and the means by which it intends to achieve those objectives. It also states that the NDA needs to make a statement of the condition to which the site needs to be restored.
The strategy contains a good deal, and it seemed sensible to lay it before each House of Parliament as well as producing it to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman has made a persuasive case for his amendment. From the Government's point of view, it is certainly important that Parliament is kept fully informed on such matters. I ask him to withdraw his amendment, if he will, and to allow me to reflect on whether there might be any difficulties with unwanted delays. As long as I can satisfy myself on that point, I would be happy to bring forward a Government amendment on Report to do exactly what he has called for.
Mr. Robertson: Given the Minister's sympathetic and welcome response, I am willing to do that. He raised the point of delay. In earlier amendments, I
Column Number: 201
added a get-out from the particular way of doing things in cases when a matter might be considered urgent. We are dealing with matters that could be extremely urgent and are serious. On the basis of the Minister's assurance that he will consider the matter further, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in
schedule 2, page 159, line 19, at end insert—
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 66, in
schedule 2, page 159, line 36, at end insert—
'(i) Nirex.'.
Amendment No. 90, in
schedule 2, page 161, line 9, at end insert—
'(aa) Nirex;'.
Amendment No. 91, in
schedule 3, page 162, line 12, at end insert—
'(aa) Nirex;'.
Amendment No. 92, in
schedule 3, page 163, line 40, at end insert—
'(aa) Nirex;'.
Norman Baker: We return to the subject of Nirex. I regret that we must do so. This would have been a short item if we had been given full answers when I raised the issue previously. Unfortunately we were not given them, so I am drawn to revisit the matter.
It is extraordinary that Nirex is not included in the list of consultees. I notice that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury has picked up the same point in his amendment. We need the Minister to clarify what is happening about Nirex and its relationship with the NDA. We need that clarification while the Bill is progressing through Parliament; we need it in Committee today. We cannot put up any longer with the formula statement that it is under discussion between Ministers. We certainly cannot be expected to pass the Bill in its present form, without knowing what is happening to Nirex. I think that the Conservatives share that view—and that Labour Members do too. The matter has been raised at Environment questions and on other occasions by Labour Members. When I raised it yesterday I received a one-line answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), which told us nothing we did not already know.
Last summer the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced that Nirex would be made independent of its industry shareholders, so that it would be impartial and in a strong position to advise the Government. That is the right policy, and I endorse what the Secretary of State said. The press then reported a clash between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry. It was reported that the DTI wanted to split Nirex between
Column Number: 202
the Environment Agency and the NDA, which would give the industry more say, and DEFRA appeared to be resisting that.
I have tried to find out what is happening, through subsequent parliamentary questions, as have other hon. Members. I think that it is the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) who has raised it on behalf of Labour Members. We are presented with the same formula on each occasion. For example, the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services answered a written question of mine:
''The Department is continuing to work with Defra and other departments to determine the future of Nirex.''—[Official Report, 8 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1283W.]
What is so difficult about determining the future of Nirex and its relationship with the NDA? It is almost a year since the Secretary of State made the announcement and effectively appointed, or at least indicated a wish to appoint, someone to the relevant post. Yet I am not sure that Nirex appears at all in a Bill that is crucial to the role of Nirex and the future of decommissioned waste. Perhaps it appears somewhere, but I have not found it yet. It does not even appear in the list of consultees that the NDA must deal with.
What is happening? Will the Minister make a definitive statement about what the role of Nirex will be? What will its relationship be with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority? When will it take responsibility for particular waste streams, and why has there been no clear statement from the Government for 12 months? Will the Minister tell us what the body's future is, or, if he cannot, will he explain the delay and tell us what matters are under consideration and when they will be resolved?
|
