| Energy Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Weir: My point relates to the Minister's remarks on selling nuclear power stations. I am still not entirely clear: would what we are talking about cover a future sale to a third party as part of the restructuring of British Energy? In effect, would we be selling on a nuclear power station to a third party with the guarantee of picking up the decommissioning tab for that particular station from now on, or does that apply only to previously sold stations? Have any stations been sold and are any in third-party hands? Nigel Griffiths: It is not the intention to breach the ''polluter pays'' principle. The clause relates to situations in which ongoing expenditure is necessary, whether or not for the operation of any former British Energy nuclear power station acquired by a third party. The purpose of the clause is to authorise the Government to incur ongoing expenditure in respect of the options that have been taken up as part of the restructuring of British Energy. It covers the eventuality that the hon. Gentleman mentions. Norman Baker: This is a little clause with quite a lot hidden behind it. The Members who have spoken so far have helped to uncover some of that. I want to Column Number: 239 return to the future of Nirex, which the Government failed to address this morning. I had no luck with the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services; perhaps his colleague will be more forthcoming. As the hon. Member for Angus quite correctly teased out, the clause affects Nirex, but Nirex is not even mentioned. I can only assume that whoever produced the Bill did a spell check that automatically deleted ''Nirex'' throughout the text—it has never reappeared. I can find no other explanation for its absence.The clause allows British Energy's holding in Nirex to be dealt with in the way that this Minister set out. It is apparent that the Government have a reasonably clear idea of what is going to happen to Nirex, if they have not already settled that. Throughout the Bill, there are provisions for the NDA that relate to Nirex. In this clause, there are provisions for British Energy that relate to Nirex. We are expected to agree such clauses without any indication from the Government of the future of Nirex. Let me give the Government a third major opportunity to offer clarification, and I do not mind whether we hear from this Minister or the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services. I do not even mind if we hear from a Labour Back Bencher, who may be better informed than the Opposition. However, will someone please tell us what the Government intend to do with Nirex? It is not good enough to expect us to pass important legislation that may result in a multi-billion pound bill for the taxpayer without us knowing what the implications are. Can this Minister tell us what the future of Nirex will be? If not, will he tell us why and what matters are under consideration that prevent him from doing so?
4.30 pmNigel Griffiths: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I cannot tell him what the future of Nirex will be and why I cannot tell him. I think that this will be the third time that he has heard the reason today; they say that there are none so blind as those who will not see. The reason is straightforward. At the moment, consideration is taking place following the review. The Secretary of State will make an announcement on the conclusions of that review. That is as plain as the light of day. To help the hon. Gentleman with his other question, I will explain more clearly the reason for taking an option to acquire any stations that were formerly owned by British Energy. It is simply to protect the taxpayer. The Government have taken an option to buy each of the nuclear power stations owned by British Energy for £1 at the time that the owner plans to shut them, either to decommission them or to continue to operate them beyond that date. It may be possible to decommission them more cost-effectively in the public sector, using expertise gained on public sector nuclear sites. It might also be possible to defer commissioning costs that would fall on the nuclear liabilities fund, which is underwritten by the Column Number: 240 Government by operating the stations and generating income beyond the date that the owner would otherwise shut those stations.I am being plain with the hon. Gentleman and I hope that I have given straightforward answers to the questions that he asked, although doubtless he will want to analyse the conclusions of the review when they are announced and decide on his party's policies then. Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): I am becoming increasingly interested in the future of Nirex as the debate proceeds. I admit to being relatively new to energy matters. I have been to Sellafield, but not as recently as my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury. Mr. O'Brien, perhaps you can help the Minister in responding to the issue. There seems to be something highly irregular in the procedure surrounding the Bill. We are being asked, in good faith, to approve a clause to stand part of the Bill before we have a whisper or suspicion—soupccon as the French would say—of what the conclusions of the review will contain. Yet this morning we saw written statements that have slipped through and were cleverly identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, in which the Government are, by written statement, effectively requesting the House to approve additional resources before then and without putting a figure on those resources. Mr. Key: I have just discovered the Nirex briefing on the Energy Bill in my papers. I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that Nirex told Committee members that:
the nature of the relationship between the short-term and long-term bodies; clarity over the funding of the NDA and its implications for the funding of the long-term management option.''
Miss McIntosh: I am not, but I stand to be reassured and I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured that I could be reassured if the Minister responded to those points. The Bill is either not very clever or not very regular in its procedure at this point. I hesitate because the Minister was slightly cheeky—I do not know whether I am allowed to say that—and responded to some remarks that Opposition Members made on Tuesday. [Hon. Members: ''Withdraw!''] I think ''cheeky fellow'' is all right. I am not quite on his Christmas card list yet, not even with a second-class stamp. If there is one thing a Bill Committee stands for, it is scrutiny. We have been very restrained, particularly this afternoon. We have not insisted on going through the Bill line by line, clause by clause, and possibly, with hindsight, we have let many clauses slip through the net. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury for drawing my attention to, if Column Number: 241 not necessarily reminding me of, the Nirex brief contents. I am hesitant to let this clause go through, mindful of the fact that, at extremely short notice on the same day, we have been asked by written statement to approve emergency funds from the contingency fund. It seems completely back-to-front.The Government are wedded, more than any other Government in living memory, to government by review, and it seems at the very least highly irregular that we are being asked to approve a particular clause before we have seen the contents of a review that will have enormous implications for the future of Nirex, about which Conservative Members care. Mr. Weir: As one who will, I suspect, never get on the Minister's Christmas card list, I can say that I find the explanation completely bewildering. What we seem to have here is yet another example of being told, ''They could be running them for energy, they could be selling them on to a third party''. There is lack of clarity all the way through this Bill as to exactly what is happening to a lot of these stations. Again a blank cheque is possibly being written for something of which we are not sure. As the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) has rightly said, taken together with the statement today, there is an awful lot of money being pledged here without any adequate review or explanation. I tabled an amendment, which was not selected, to delete this clause because I was concerned about the implications. The more I hear about the clause, the more concerned I become about those implications. If she wishes to propose that it does not stand part of the Bill, I should be inclined to support her at this stage. Nigel Griffiths: The issue here is based on an honest misunderstanding. The hon. Member for Vale of York voiced her fears—I do not think she used the phrase ''blank cheque'', although another hon. Member did—that today we are being asked to authorise sums of money before the conclusions of a review of where the money might be spent is settled and announced in Parliament. That is not what this clause does; it makes provision for the Government to incur ongoing expenditure. No sums are detailed here. Any sums in the future would be detailed, scrutinised and authorised by Parliament in the usual way. If this clause were deleted, it would simply mean the Government had no power to incur ongoing expenditure in respect of the options we have taken. We are asking for those powers to be granted, and any items of expenditure will be subject in future to the usual Parliamentary scrutiny. It is quite clear. If hon. Members do not want to authorise the powers for any ongoing expenditure, they should delete this clause. In my opinion, that would be the wrong thing to do. I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill. Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:— The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 5.
Division No.
Column Number: 242
AYES
NOES
Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 27 May 2004 |
