|
Norman Baker: It is a rather false premise to say that the amendment cuts across the regulator. The regulator has duties that are set out in statute and those duties are not changed in any way by this amendment, nor were they in the earlier instance that the Minister referred to. The regulator will have a right to expect the NDA to ensure that there is a minimal adverse impact on the environment, and I am merely proposing to write into the Bill what the regulator would require of the NDA in any case. The amendment does not cut across the regulator's message to the NDA; it reinforces it. It would not be cutting across the regulator to write in good practice. We would expect the NDA to ensure that there is a minimal adverse impact on the environment. However, the Minister has given me his views and I have given the Committee mine.
The Minister mentioned a memorandum of understanding. I am glad that that is being constructed I hope that he recognises that it is an important document that should be available more widely. When it is ready, will he place a copy in the Library of the House?
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Designation as a related site for the purposes of s. 21
Mr. Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 97, in
clause 22, page 21, line 30, at end add—
'(g) any other event or process arising from nuclear activities leading to the occurrence of contamination.'.
The amendment is a genuine attempt to improve the Bill and help the Government. Subsection (4) relates to what constitutes contamination and the reasons why contamination takes place. My amendment simply adds a catch-all line that might encompass something that is not covered in the rest of the subsection.
Mr. Timms: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do and I accept that his intent is helpful. However, his amendment is not necessary because clause 22(4) already provides comprehensive coverage when it comes to defining what constitutes contamination by nuclear activities. That is the basis for the NDA being given designated responsibility. I agree with what he wants to achieve, but it is covered in the Bill.
Column Number: 216
On the point put to me earlier by the hon. Member for Lewes about the memorandum of understanding, a draft copy is on the Department of Trade and Industry website; it was published with the draft Bill. When it is finalised by the NDA and the regulators, it will be placed in the Library of the House.
Mr. Robertson: As the Minister is satisfied with the clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Duty to comply with directions under s. 21
Mr. Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 98, in
clause 23, page 22, line 5, leave out 'negative' and insert 'affirmative'.
Briefly, the clause relates to the duty to comply with a direction and gives the Secretary of State the power to make an order providing that a certain person in control of a site is exempt from certain directions. The order is subject to the negative procedure, but I seek to change that to the affirmative procedure. It is a matter of giving the House of Commons much more time to consider the exemption from a direction.
Mr. Timms: The reason for the provision is that it would not be reasonable in all circumstances for the NDA to have a direction-making power over, for example, a Ministry of Defence site for which the NDA has been given clean-up responsibilities but which is and will continue primarily to be the responsibility of the Government. Although, as my hon. Friend mentioned on Tuesday, it is unlikely that the NDA would be given responsibility for an NDA site when the MOD still had a defence-related interest in the site and the Crown or its appointee retained control, such circumstances cannot be ruled out. It is possible that parts of a site designated to the NDA for clean-up might be in use for other matters that have nothing to do with the clean-up process and in such circumstances it would not be appropriate for the NDA to be able to direct the person with control of the site on those non-clean-up matters. That is the reason for the exclusion.
The choice of the negative procedure is based on well-established precedents. The affirmative procedure is usually used in circumstances involving the exercise of powers that would substantially affect provisions in Acts of Parliament or powers to impose financial charges, other financial provisions, skeleton powers or when there is consideration of special importance. I do not think that any of those circumstances apply in this case. The sites, installations and facilities in question are those operated by or on behalf of the Crown. Either a Crown appointee or the NDA will be responsible for the activity and in determining the scope of the NDA's control in a particular set of circumstances. That does not give rise to considerations of such importance as to require debate in both Houses.
Column Number: 217
With that information, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Robertson: The Minister said that the clause is designed to suit a situation that is unlikely to come about. I do not have a lot of trust in the negative resolution procedure, which is why I proposed the affirmative procedure, but I accept the Minister's analysis and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Financial responsibilities of NDA
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury) (Con): I thank the Minister for making available to the Committee earlier this morning the written statement about which I made representations. It was very helpful to have that. It does nothing but seek to move swiftly to the purpose of the new NDA, so, in the interests of moving on swiftly, I shall sit down.
Mr. Timms: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his acuteness in spotting that reference on the Order Paper. I am glad that it was possible to provide the statement.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Expenditure and receipts of NDA
Mr. Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in
clause 25, page 23, line 33, at end insert
'by order approved by a resolution of the House of Commons'.
This is a serious amendment and refers to grants that the Secretary of State may make to the NDA. I also thank the Minister for the very helpful statement, which identifies that the total cost of the NDA's programme over the next century is £50 billion; perhaps more importantly, the initial figure is some £2 billion a year. It seems to me that the House of Commons should approve grants of that magnitude to the NDA, which is the purpose of my amendment.
Norman Baker: I support the amendment, which is apposite and important. We are talking about large sums of public money and about a situation in which there is some doubt, at least initially and until the matters have settled down, about how the NDA is using its money, how accountable that is and what procedures are in place. We discussed the matter earlier, so I will not repeat those points. As the hon.
Column Number: 218
Gentleman rightly said, it would be quite wrong to hand out billions of pounds of public money without some say-so from the House of Commons.
There is also the unsatisfactory situation in which there is a dispute—let us put it no stronger than that—about state aid. We have heard about a legal challenge in Europe to the Bill and on that basis it would be very important, especially at the present time, to subject such monies to proper discussion in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggested.
Mr. Timms: The amendment would require a grant to a non-departmental public body, which is part of a departmental budget presented to Parliament in the estimates, to be subject to a separate approval process. I accept that £2 billion is a substantial sum, but it is appropriate for its approval process to be the same as that which applies to much larger sums for spending on schools, hospitals and transport.
Approval and oversight of all Government expenditure is carried out through the estimates and supply procedure. That includes grants to non-departmental public bodies and it concludes with the Appropriations Act 1994. There is no case for taking that sum outside of the normal procedures, so I hope that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury accepts that the amendment is unnecessary.
Mr. Robertson: I recognise that Parliament initially authorises the payment of money. Quite often, payments that are made to the health service, for example, are itemised and discussed, and that was what was behind the amendment. Given that it would be a detour from ordinary parliamentary scrutiny, reluctantly I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 17, in
clause 25, page 23, line 39, at end add—
'( ) In determining—
(a) whether to make a grant under this section to the NDA, and
(b) the amount of such a grant,
the Secretary of State must have regard, in particular, to the extent to which he considers that the NDA should exercise its power to make grants or loans of the kind mentioned in section 13(2)(c) in order to mitigate the effects of the cessation (whether before or after designation) of the operation of a designated installation.'.—[Mr. Timms.]
Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Borrowing by the nda
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Norman Baker: The clause relates to borrowing by the NDA and it states the circumstances in which the NDA may borrow from the Secretary of State. Will the Minister explain how that information is made public and how it is conveyed to the House of Commons?
Column Number: 219
| 
