Energy Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 27 May 2004.

Standing Committee B

Clause 11 - Special functions in relation to pensions etc.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I begin by welcoming you, Mr. Sayeed, back to your role of looking after our deliberations.

Clause 11 enables the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to establish and maintain a nuclear pension scheme covering those involved in decommissioning and clean-up. Continuity of pensions provision will be very important in retaining a skilled work force, particularly when individuals can expect to change their employer from time to time without changing their work. The NDA is being given powers to operate a pension scheme in which those working for NDA purposes can remain, whatever their employment arrangements.

The Bill provides pension protection for public sector employees who are transferred for NDA purposes—the Committee will generally welcome that—when such a transfer requires those employees to leave their current pension scheme. The powers in the Bill to establish and maintain an industry-wide scheme will allow the establishment of a scheme that may be the appropriate alternative scheme for those who transfer.

The clause also allows the NDA to administer a compensation scheme for the nuclear industry if it is decided that that is appropriate. The role is currently being performed by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and, in future, the NDA may take the view that it should do that, in which case the clause would allow that. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Can the Minister make it clear whether that point relates solely to the public sector or whether in any regard the NDA might take over responsibility for pensions in the private sector nuclear industry?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The provision is in the Bill because of the position in which people who are currently in the public sector would find themselves if they transferred. For example, Treasury policy does not permit employees who leave the public sector to remain members of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority pension scheme and there has been a good deal of concern about that. UKAEA scheme members

transferred to the private sector for NDA purposes would be required to leave their scheme. In those circumstances, schedule 8 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State in the case of transfer schemes—and the NDA in the case of other types of transfer—to ensure that transferred employees are offered a pension scheme that is no less favourable when considered as a whole.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I understand that and perhaps I expressed myself badly. I have no objection to the UKAEA being covered in that way. I was seeking clarification on whether the clause would enable the scheme to be extended to what is already the private sector in the nuclear industry.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the remit and initial task of the NDA is the clean-up of public sector sites. I imagine that if there were an extension of that role to private sector sites—we have had some discussion about the circumstances in which that might be permitted—with costs being borne by the private sector, there would be nothing under the clause to exclude people engaged in that work from being members of the scheme being set up. However, that is not the principal intention and, as he knows, a number of significant hurdles would have to be overcome before the NDA reached the stage of having its role extended in the way that he envisages. However, people already working for private sector contractors on public sector sites could be covered by the scheme that the clause allows to be established.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - General duties when carrying out functions

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 105, in

clause 12, page 9, line 30, at beginning insert—

'( ) The principal objective of the NDA shall be to protect the health and safety of people, and to protect the environment, from the harmful effects of radiation from those sites for which the NDA has responsibility.'.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 106, in

clause 12, page 9, line 30, at beginning insert—

'( ) It shall be the paramount duty of the NDA to safeguard the environment.'.

No. 22, in

clause 12, page 9, line 30, leave out from first 'the' to end of line 31 and insert

'paramount duty of the NDA, in carrying out its functions, to ensure—

(a) the safety of the environment and the protection of the natural and built environment from any pollution or contamination from the release, spillage or escape of any nuclear or nuclear-related material into the air, waterways, sea or land, or from any contamination arising from the use, treatment, storage, transportation or disposal of hazardous waste (and in setting out its decommissioning strategy for any nuclear installation or site, nothing shall be done that would give rise to any such release, spillage or escape), and

(b) the safety of the general population and of the workforce in any nuclear or nuclear-related facility who may be affected by the release, spillage or escape in any fashion of any nuclear or nuclear related material into the air, waterways, sea or land, or from activities involving the use, treatment, storage, transportation or disposal of hazardous material.

(1A) It shall be the further duty of NDA, so as far as it is not incompatible with the paramount duty under subsection (1), to have regard to—'.

No. 107, in

clause 12, page 9, line 30, after first 'the', insert 'further'.

No. 23, in

clause 12, page 9, line 40, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 43.

No. 108, in

clause 12, page 9, leave out line 40.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The purpose of the amendments is to make crystal clear what the Liberal Democrats believe the principal objective of the NDA should be, which is to protect the health and safety of people and to protect the environment from the harmful effect of radiation from those sites for which the NDA has responsibility. The Minister might say that those functions are implicit, or explicit, in the wording of the Bill. He might refer to subsection (1)(b), which refers to the need to safeguard the environment. However, I would suggest that it is important to establish a primary duty for the NDA. The need to safeguard the environment, and the need to protect persons, is just one of a number of considerations in the Bill. It should be the primary consideration for public health and environmental reasons, and it would be helpful if that were stated in the Bill.

There are good reasons why we should ensure that the environment is safeguarded. It is fair to say the nuclear industry has a legacy of problems, such as environmental contamination, that have to be cleared up. The Minister will be aware of the suggestions—borne out by figures from his Department—that there have been nuclear emissions from Sellafield that were harmful to the environment over a long period. They have generated complaints from within this country and from outside as well.

The Minister will know that the nuclear industry has created ponds at Sellafield—B30 ponds and others—and it is clear that no one knows what is in them. Therefore no one is a position to have them cleared up. It is impossible for Nirex to take responsibility for the ponds unless it is clear what is in them. The history of the nuclear industry protecting the environment has not been a happy one, in that regard at least. That is not to say that it has not prevented major accidents because it has—with the exception of Windscale in the 1950s. Since then there has not been a major accident, which is a tribute to the industry. There has been a low-level history of contamination and a failure to safeguard the environment, and that should be addressed at this point.

There is a major problem with the clean-up of what is already there. We know from an answer that the Minister gave to me on 19 January that the White

Paper, ''Managing the Nuclear Legacy'', which his Department published in July 2002, showed that the costs associated with the clean-up of civil nuclear liabilities in just one area—Springfields—would be about £300 million. He will also be aware that the Trade and Industry Committee, which looked into the matter, believes that the NDA needs a clear set of overarching principles. I refer him to paragraph 13 of that cross-party report, which says:

''We consider that a clear and unambiguous statement of the overarching principles within which the NDA will work would be a useful addition to the draft Bill. Such a statement would have most force if it were given in the main body of the Bill.''

My amendment would ensure that the Trade and Industry Committee has its wish granted, and that such a statement is made explicit in the Bill.

I am sure that the Minister will say, ''Don't worry; it's all here. The Bill talks about the need to safeguard the environment and the need to protect persons.'' He will say that all the issues that I have raised are dealt with. In a sense, they are dealt with, but not in a way that states what the principal duty of the NDA shall be. We have heard in previous debates that the NDA will now be involved in generation to some degree, and it may be involved in producing nuclear fuel. It will be involved in a whole range of activities that are ancillary—to put it mildly, or generously—to the purpose of decommissioning. Under circumstances in which that remit is broadening, it is important that the NDA should focus on its primary function: to protect people's health and safety and the environment. It would be helpful for the Government, who I think take that view, if such a statement were included in the Bill.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

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.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

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

hours. I notice that item number six on the Order Paper under ''Written Ministerial Statements to be made today'' is

''Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: Nuclear Decommissioning Authority: Contingencies Fund''.

I suggest that it is inappropriate to continue the debate on the financial clauses until we know what statement the Government are going to make to the House later this morning.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advice, but I am not responsible for determining Government or other business.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

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.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

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?

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

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.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

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.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

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.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

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.

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.

The 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 (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

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

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.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I beg to move amendment No. 14, in

clause 12, page 9, line 32, leave out from 'policy' to end of line 39.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment No. 15.

Amendment (a) to proposed amendment No. 15, in

line 12, at end insert—

'(3AA) The obligations shall be equivalent to, or greater than, anything the person with control of the installation, site or facility was doing prior to its designation.'.

Government amendments Nos. 16 and 17.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

We all agree that the question of social and economic support for local communities that are heavily dependent on the nuclear industry is important, and the Government are committed to ensuring that the NDA and its site operators continue to play a full role in their communities. The issue was fully debated in the other place, and the Bill has always provided for the NDA to give encouragement and support for the social and economic life of local communities. Following representations in the other place, we amended the Bill expressly to cover support for environmental benefits as well.

On Third Reading in the other place, two more amendments were made to strengthen further the NDA's remit by requiring it to have particular regard to those considerations in its employment and contractual arrangements, in order to engender local confidence that the support given by existing operators will be maintained and enhanced. I accept the general purpose of those proposals, but their drafting is somewhat unclear in its legal effect, and there is a risk that the NDA will be hindered in discharging its principal clean-up responsibilities as a result. That is the reason for the amendments.

Amendment No.15 replaces the drafting deleted by amendment No. 14 to impose two duties on the NDA. In carrying out its function to support and encourage activities benefiting the social, economic and environmental life of local communities, the authority must, first, have regard in particular to the extent to which the previous operator was supporting such activities before designation to the NDA and, secondly, consider the obligations that should be imposed on its site operators or management contractors in respect of such activities.

These provisions reflect the fact that the NDA will deliver support predominantly through its site operators and contractors that will be operating in the local community and have the biggest impact. It will control that support through its contractual arrangements, and amendment No. 15 will require the

NDA to show that it has given due consideration to local community support issues when entering into such contracts.

The NDA will therefore consider the extent to which bidders will support social, economic and environmental issues, paying particular regard to the levels of support before designation. The underlying objective is to maintain or enhance that support for as long as the NDA's site operators remain significant economic players in the local community. For some sites, such as Sellafield or Dounreay, that will be the case for many decades to come. The duties are focused on the activities that BNFL and UKAEA currently carry out, which are worth several million pounds a year.

The hon. Member for Lewes will no doubt talk to his amendment (a). We have been open about our policy intent to maintain levels of support for west Cumbria and other communities that are local to nuclear sites. However, I do not think that it would be appropriate to make that a statutory obligation. The effect of that would be to fix the minimum level of support at the current sum, which, to take west Cumbria as an example, is about £3 million a year. That is certainly appropriate now. We cannot say that that will always be the case over the next 10, 20 or 50 years. The local economy will change a lot over that period, and it would be a mistake to set out a minimum level of support in statute into perpetuity.

I re-emphasise our commitment to support west Cumbria and other communities that are, and will continue to be for some time, dependent on the nuclear industry. There is a well-established framework for providing targeted support, and that is the right mechanism to use.

Paragraph (3c) of amendment No. 15 would put a further duty on the NDA to require its site operators or contractors to have a procurement strategy for carrying out work at the site and to consider the effect of that on the local community before entering into the contract. That addresses the objective underlying their Lordships' amendment, which is to ensure that the NDA considers the contribution that its employment and contractual arrangements can make to local communities. In practice it will be the NDA's site operators and management contractors who will meet the NDA's objectives in that regard. They will make the decisions on subcontracting and the development of the supply chain that will impact on the economic life of the local community.

Amendment No. 17 would place a duty on the Secretary of State, in determining the NDA's grant, to have regard to the extent that the NDA should make socio-economic grants to local communities to mitigate any adverse effects of the cessation of the operation of a designated installation. We seek only to clarify that the provision is not to limit the other matters to which the Secretary of State may legitimately have regard when determining the amount of a grant under clause 25. The Secretary of State will need to consider in the round the NDA's plans for activity at its sites and for fulfilling all its other functions. In addition, as clause 25 deals with the issue

of grants, it is proposed to make the amendment in that clause rather than in clause 13, which concerns the powers of the NDA.

I hope that we are all agreed that the NDA has an important responsibility to discharge for the benefit of the nation. We must not allow the NDA to be deflected from carrying out its task effectively, providing best value to the taxpayer. However, we recognise the particular problems that will be faced by regions that are heavily dependent on the nuclear industry for employment, particularly those in west Cumbria and Caithness. The NDA is not a vehicle for social and economic regeneration or a regional development agency for dealing with the economic consequences of nuclear decommissioning. The NDA will have a role to play, like any significant employer, and BNFL before it, as a matter of corporate social responsibility. The NDA will play an active role in encouraging and supporting activities and initiatives that bring social and economic benefits to local communities.

The Government's commitment to supporting such communities is shown by our establishment of a strategic task force for west Cumbria and our willingness to enter into a memorandum of agreement with the local authorities, which is being developed at the moment. The amendments reflect hon. Members' concerns for the local communities, and those expressed in the other place, and strike a balance with the NDA's core responsibilities, which none of us wants to undermine.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am grateful to the Minister for responding to my amendment before I have spoken to it; it is a most interesting way of dealing with matters, which allows me to respond to what he said.

I welcome the clause, and the Government's honourable intention to ensure that areas that have been heavily dependent on the industry should continue to have the benefit of employment, rather than being left high and dry. The Minister's comments will be welcome in Cumbria and Dounreay for that reason.

The Minister explained why amendment (a) would not be appropriate, the main reason being that it would put the provision in law in perpetuity. However, in the Bill, the duty applies only as long as the NDA is involved in decommissioning in the area. It is therefore in perpetuity only if the NDA is there in perpetuity. I am well aware that the nuclear industry has left a massive clean-up legacy: £48 billion of decommissioning; but even I do not think that it will leave it in perpetuity. The Minister was being unintentionally disingenuous when he made that suggestion. The duty to maintain the present expenditure and help for the local community should continue not in perpetuity but as long as the NDA is there, which is an entirely different proposition.

As the Minister said, BNFL provided £3 million a year in economic regeneration, social community projects, charitable giving, education and other forms of welcome assistance for the local community. It is not unreasonable that the community, which has

benefited from the Government's generous intention to help the local area, should expect that support to continue at its present level.

Cumbria has been mentioned several times and the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) intervened on Second Reading on behalf of his constituents. Support is as important in Caithness and Sutherland, if not more so, because a larger proportion of people are employed in the nuclear industry in that area than in Cumbria. Caithness and Sutherland would be very badly affected if support were to be withdrawn from the community, and it would be difficult to replicate in terms of jobs, given its geographical location in the United Kingdom.

I hope that the Minister will reflect on the amendment, even if he does not like the wording. I can understand why he would not want such a proposal in primary legislation, but I hope that he will give us a verbal assurance that it is his intention, for the foreseeable future, to continue with the present support.

Government amendment No. 17 to clause 25 appears to give the Secretary of State power to control the grants to the NDA. Will the Minister say whether the Secretary of State or the NDA will determine the nature of the grants given by the NDA to the local community? The amendment appears to allow the Secretary of State to call the shots, which is surprising given the traditional ''hands off'' nature of this sort of provision.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

Good morning, Mr. Sayeed. I listened carefully to what the Minister said in discussing amendment No. 17, but I am not entirely persuaded that we should accept amendment No. 16 without a vote. The amendments differ slightly. Clause 13(5), which amendment No. 16 would delete, goes a little further as it talks about grants and loans and is much more targeted on helping the areas that need a lot of help.

I visited Sellafield a short while ago. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the strong concern in the area about the potential loss of jobs. That cuts across the Labour and Conservative parties, although I am not sure what the Liberal Democrat approach in that area is. Trade unionists, Labour party supporters and Conservative party supporters are concerned about what will happen to Sellafield. They predict that there could be a threat to as many as 8,000 jobs in an area that already suffers high deprivation.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The hon. Gentleman is uncharacteristically ungenerous in making that little aside. The contribution that I have just made should have shown that we are concerned about jobs in the area. We believe that jobs should be protected in nuclear decommissioning and elsewhere; we supported the provisions that the Government set out and are trying to enhance them. We are not in favour

of the generation of nuclear power indefinitely, but we are in favour of protecting jobs in Cumbria and Dounreay.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I apologise if I have misrepresented him. I am referring to the lack of activity by his party in that area on the long-term future of the industry itself. I am concerned that the industry should have a future, not just in terms of the decommissioning, which is probably where we differ. He is nodding in agreement.

There is concern in Sellafield about the potential loss of 8,000 jobs in a highly deprived and remote area where it would be difficult to attract the necessary new business. The loss of activity at nearby Barrow has not helped. Although the Minister makes a good case for amendment No. 17, which would replace clause 13(5), I am not entirely persuaded that we should go down that route. I would prefer the strengthened proposal, given the seriousness of the situation in Sellafield and the concern in the area.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Member for Lewes questioned my use of the term ''in perpetuity''. That is fair enough. It will be a long time; it will be many decades. As far as most of us on this Committee are concerned, it will indeed be in perpetuity. He is right, however: the point will come many decades from now when the work will have been completed. Towards the end of that period, there will be much less work to do, so the economy in those communities will need to be restructured before the NDA comes to an end.

It is not appropriate to provide for support continuing all the way through the very long period during which that work will continue. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks on the Government's intention that the current support should be retained in the current circumstances. We would all hope that, although it may come a long time hence, there will be substantial economic regeneration and therefore not the same need for support.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

My noble Friend Lord Jopling suggested this change in the Lords. He represented a west Cumbrian seat and is also president of an association that I am honoured to represent.

The Government made it clear in the Lords that the NDA may not be the right body to address the socio-economic impact of decommissioning and that local regional bodies should be charged with that responsibility. Therefore, does the Minister accept that its main responsibility is ensuring that the budget is sufficient? As my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) said, concern was expressed in the Lords about the size of the budget. That is why it is particularly important to retain the current wording.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I am not sure precisely which wording the hon. Lady is referring to. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury is concerned about the removal of clause 13(5) by amendment No. 16. The problem is one of ambiguity: it is implied that what the NDA is doing in

respect of socio-economic support is the only issue that should concern the Secretary of State when determining the NDA's grant. I am happy to affirm that that is an important issue, but it is one of a number that the Secretary of State will need to take into account. That is the reason for that change.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

To clarify things for the Minister, clause 12(1)(a) would be highly damaging to the economic interests of west Cumbria.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

My amendment would not do the damage that the hon. Lady is concerned about. I am happy to pay tribute to the contributions of Lord Jopling and Lord Campbell-Savours, and my amendment addresses the objectives set out by them in a way that deals with the particular problems of the current wording of the Bill.

The hon. Member for Lewes is concerned that the Secretary of State will call the shots on the NDA's grant. In improving the NDA's strategy and annual plan, the Secretary of State will need to be content with its plans for supporting local communities. If necessary, the Secretary of State, if she is not content with its proposals, can direct the NDA to revise its annual plan. The NDA's decisions on the support it provides will be linked to the funding it will receive, so it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to take that into account.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

I seek clarification. The clauses affected by this group of amendments refer to the grant for communities and read as if it applies to the point at which decommissioning commences. The reactor at Dounreay no longer generates electricity and is already in the decommissioning phase. Do the clauses refer to grants for Dounreay as opposed to Sellafield?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

We are putting in place an arrangement that will apply to all sites where the NDA has a decommissioning activity. That will have important and welcome implications for the communities around Dounreay and Sellafield.

Amendment agreed to.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 55, in

clause 12, page 9, line 44, at end insert—

'(e) the need to preserve, where desirable, the possibility of the future use of the site for nuclear generation.'.

We come to the nitty-gritty of what decommissioning means. I shall speak to the amendment for a few minutes. Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 are linked to it to an extent, so if I say what I need to on this amendment, there will be no need to go into huge detail on those.

The amendment would apply when the NDA was carrying out its functions, and this matter depends on where one comes from on the nuclear issue. We would not claim to be pro- or anti-nuclear, just as we would not claim to be pro- or anti-wind. We consider each energy source on its merits and consider what is necessary for security of supply, which we discussed in great detail during the first sitting. I tabled the amendment for several reasons, including, in part, security of supply, to which I shall return in a moment,

but also because decisions are needed long before any crisis that we might reach with security of supply. Particularly in the nuclear industry, it is necessary and very important to plan for the long term.

I have spoken before about the contribution that the nuclear industry makes to electricity generation—about 22 per cent. of our electricity. I got my figures wrong when I first spoke about this, but over the next 20 years to 2023 or 2024, that 22 per cent. will be reduced to just 2 per cent., which is a significant fall in electricity generated from nuclear sources. That bothers me for the reasons that I gave a few moments ago, when I spoke about employment opportunities at, for example, Sellafield. It also bothers me from the point of view of security of supply, because where will the missing 20 per cent. come from?

If we manage to bring on renewables to the extent that they can replace the entire 20 per cent., that will be a good achievement and I hope we can do that. However, it is looking increasingly unlikely that we will be able to do so. Even if we succeeded, we would not have advanced at all in terms of the effect of carbon emissions on the environment, which is a serious consideration.

Let us say that we increase the contribution of renewables to 20 per cent. by 2020, which is the Government's target. Just imagine how good the carbon savings would be if we also had a nuclear industry producing at the current level—in other words, if more than 40 per cent. of our electricity was produced from carbon-free sources. That would be a tremendous advancement for the environment and for security of supply, because our reliance on gas from faraway places such as Russia would be greatly reduced. We should take that issue very seriously.

Just this week, two things have perhaps made us look at the nuclear industry slightly differently. The first is the article by the scientist James Lovelock that appeared in Monday's edition of The Independent. He says that a nuclear industry will be essential if we are to achieve the carbon savings that we need and avoid the problems of global warming, which he rightly identifies as extremely serious and probably more urgent than was previously realised. Given that he is a celebrated green, his proposals and views are very interesting. He calls on the green lobby to drop its opposition to nuclear power. He recognises that there are risks associated with it, but says that if we are serious about reducing global warming, which we need to do more urgently than was previously thought, we must embrace nuclear power as a main energy source.

That was interesting, but even more interesting were the comments of the former Energy Minister, the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who said it was ''a self-evident nonsense'' for the UK to run down its nuclear capacity while there is an unprecedented emphasis on the need to reduce carbon emissions. He went on to say:

''Nuclear power is our only significant source of non-carbon electricity. It is the bird in the hand, yet the green lobby wants to shoot it.''

That was a significant contribution from someone who is not on our Benches. We need to take those two warnings seriously.

The second interesting thing that has happened this week is that China has decided that it has a problem with security of supply. It is considering building four new reactors. I have already mentioned concerns about security of supply in Finland, which I visited in December. The Finns are building a fifth reactor. They have not found the waste issue too difficult to deal with; they have been imaginative about solving the problem, and are using a simple process to do so. We could have dealt with the problem equally efficiently.

I do not want to stray too far from my overall point, which is that the NDA ought to have security of electricity supply in mind when carrying out its duties, and should do everything possible to preserve the possibility of using the site for nuclear generation in future.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The hon. Gentleman defends the nuclear industry in terms of the needs of the future generation. Although he and I get on very well, we part company on this issue. I do not want to go into the pros and cons of the nuclear industry; that is not what the Committee should debate during discussions on a Bill about decommissioning historic legacies. The question of what future energy mix we should have is one for another debate. From a purist point of view, it is not appropriate for me to give a long expose of why it would be inappropriate to invest in new nuclear generation, but reasons include the possibility of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities, the waste problem and the gigantic cost.

It is important not to muddy the waters. I made this point about the Government's drafting of the Bill, and I make it to the hon. Gentleman: the Bill is about a nuclear decommissioning authority. It is important that we do not confuse it with general policy on nuclear generation. In our earlier debates—particularly when we discussed clause 6 and the issue of the NDA being allowed to operate Magnoxes and create fuel, which I believe to be inappropriate—I drew attention to how the NDA could be sucked into nuclear generation. There may be an argument, to which I do not subscribe, for nuclear generation. That is a perfectly respectable position to hold, but that is a separate matter from what the NDA should be doing. It is at our peril that we confuse the issues of energy mix and the functions of the NDA.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I do not want him to confuse my amendment with dragging the NDA into being a nuclear generator. That is not what the amendment is about: it has to do with leaving open the possibility of the future use of the site for someone—not the NDA—to take forward.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I understand that point as I have read the hon. Gentleman's amendment carefully. Nevertheless, he wishes to make it a general duty when the NDA is carrying out its functions to have regard to future nuclear generation. I am not entirely happy

about that. To use his analogy, in terms of nuclear generation, the green lobby does not go around shooting birds.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

The green lobby may not go around shooting birds, but it is quite happy to see them chopped up by windmills.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I think that we had better not go down that track too far.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

Why not?

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I would be ruled out of order by the Chairman.

The point that I wanted to make about the clean-up of sites is this: the function of the NDA, as I understand it, will be to remove radioactive materials from a site that has been used for nuclear purposes. Different categories of waste will have different solutions depending on their level of radioactivity. When the NDA has cleaned up the site, it will have removed all the waste that has been generated and the buildings. The outside of the buildings themselves will be low-level waste, and the interiors will be higher-level waste.

When the NDA has finished with the site, I imagine that it will be a piece of open land; it is difficult to imagine what else it could be. That land, as with any other piece of land in the country, could theoretically be built on for nuclear generation. To give the NDA a general duty to have that in mind when carrying out its functions would deflect from its primary decommissioning duty, and would confuse matters. That is why I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's amendment.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

I strongly agree with the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury. It is important to ensure that if the Government mean what they say about leaving options open for nuclear power, they should not be putting a duty on the NDA to dispose of assets at the best-possible price. On the contrary, they should be saying that the original land, which the NDA has the responsibility of decommissioning, was chosen as a site for nuclear activities for a good reason. There are not many such appropriate sites in the country. There should be a responsibility on the NDA to balance the opportunity for future development of nuclear power against the duty to sell off the assets in the interests of the taxpayer. It is an important amendment.

We are, after all, going through an extraordinary period of public opinion, so I am bound to ask: what is the difference between the public attitude to nuclear generation in this country and in Finland and France? They are examples of similar countries in terms of culture, standard of living and quality of life that have broken through the astonishing reactionary phobia to nuclear power so passionately espoused by Professor James Lovelock, as my hon. Friend said. I believe that the country will come to its senses. It is clearly not sensible, if we wish to be green and to save the planet in the terms of Professor Lovelock's article in The Independent on Monday 24 May, to block off the

option available for future nuclear generation on those sites: it would be a grave error. My hon. Friend's amendment seeks to keep the Government to their word in keeping the options open. For that reason I support the amendment.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I have listened to the interesting debate among Opposition Members, and I find myself persuaded by the arguments presented by the hon. Member for Lewes on the amendment. We have made clear our view that we need to keep the nuclear option open. As I said on Tuesday when we discussed the interview given by Professor Lovelock, the danger is in believing that there is a quick fix available in the nuclear option, because I do not think that there is. It is important that we keep that option, but equally important that we maintain our commitment to the expansion of renewables, and to building up the momentum that we can see building at the moment. The hon. Gentleman said—rightly, in my view—that it would be a mistake to compromise the NDA's clear focus on decommissioning and clean-up in the way that the amendment would do. I do not think that it should be the NDA's responsibility to make judgments about future use. It must focus on the most appropriate end point for clean-up in its own right. The NDA proposals for the end point for each site must be included in its strategy, must be widely consulted on and must be agreed by Ministers. The NDA must have regard to Government policy on decommissioning, a policy that we are reviewing.

The one point on which I agree with the hon. Members for Tewkesbury and for Salisbury is that, if there is any future nuclear build in the UK, existing nuclear sites are, logically, the most likely locations for it. However, none of the requirements being placed on the NDA would rule that out. The NDA commands widespread support, not just across the Committee, but across the spectrum of views on nuclear power. It does so because we have made sure that it remains focused on decommissioning and clean-up. Successful, cost-effective clean-up will contribute to the future debate on the possibility of nuclear new build, but anything that suggests that the NDA has a specific role in supporting future nuclear build would seriously undermine the consensus from which the NDA benefits.

The hon. Member for Salisbury was concerned about the NDA being obliged to sell off nuclear sites. There is no reason why clean-up should block future nuclear use. Future nuclear development will be in the hands of the market. If the NDA was to sell land, a nuclear operator could purchase it. I can see the case for that, but it would be wrong to give the NDA the obligation that the amendment would give it.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

To pick up on the Minister's final point, I do not think that the amendment would give the NDA an obligation to use one type of fuel or energy source. What it would do is—to use the Minister's words—leave the option open.

I hesitate to say so, but the Minister's reply was uncharacteristically unpersuasive. We have heard a lot about leaving the option open, both from this Minister

and from Ministers in another place, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury said, it is an empty phrase. Perhaps he did not use those words. What does the phrase mean? New nuclear build is always an option. How could we close that option? We cannot—it is always there. So, leaving the option open is an empty phrase, especially in opposing the amendment.

The amendment does not suggest that the NDA should be involved in promoting the nuclear industry in any way. It says that, in physical terms, we should leave open the option or the possibility of using that site for nuclear generation in the future. It would not, in any way, oblige the NDA to be involved. It would not ask the NDA to approve of nuclear power.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Leaving the nuclear option open is not an empty phrase. It entails two specific things. The first is ensuring that we retain a strong core of nuclear skills in the UK. The second is ensuring that we continue to participate in nuclear research. Those are the two key requirements for ensuring that the nuclear option remains open.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I entirely agree with the Minister. When we get to it, amendment No. 56 will touch on that issue, so I will not go too far down that road now. I still think that we must set out exactly what we are going to do. I am straying on to the next amendment, but, if we are to retain a skilled work force, we must promise them more than just decommissioning work. There must be better career prospects than that if they are to be retained. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I rather indelicately suggest that he has replaced one empty phrase with two empty phrases. We need action to prove that we are serious.

The Minister conceded that the existing sites would be the most appropriate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury said, there might be a lack of available sites. Although places such as Sizewell and Sellafield would probably be more welcoming, there will be a natural objection in some areas to nuclear activity. Given that attitude, we may not be overrun with offers of sites for new nuclear build or for extending the life of nuclear generation. Therefore, it is important that we leave the existing sites in such a state that they can be used should the industry—not the NDA or the Government—wish to take up that option. Given the security of supply issue, which I have touched on, and the environmental problems that we face, I must press the amendment to a vote to demonstrate that at least Conservative Members are serious when they say that the option must be kept open.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 13.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 56, in

clause 12, page 10, line 4, at end insert

'and it shall publish details of how that skilled workforce is to be recruited, trained and maintained.'.

As promised, I shall not rehearse the arguments I just made about the importance of keeping the nuclear industry alive and well for the purposes of security of supply and reduction of carbon emissions. This amendment refers to the duty to maintain and develop a skilled work force. It would amend clause 12(2)(a), which refers to

''a skilled workforce able to undertake the work of decommissioning nuclear installations and of cleaning up nuclear sites''.

We could go further and say that we want a skilled work force capable of taking the nuclear industry onwards and upwards, but all the amendment asks is that details be published

''of how that skilled workforce is to be recruited, trained and maintained.''

As I said earlier, I am not persuaded that nuclear scientists will be retained in this country if all they have to work on is decommissioning. China is considering building new nuclear reactors, and it will not be the only country to do so. Many people involved in the nuclear industry may well be tempted to go abroad if we are not careful. The amendment does not address that but merely asks for details to be published about how a skilled work force would be recruited, trained and maintained.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

It is hard to overestimate the seriousness of the skills shortage in science and technology in this country. Almost every week, the Select Committee on Science and Technology, on which I serve, comes up against the problem of skills shortages in science and technology. Whether one talks to the Government chief scientist or to specialists in nuclear power or any other branch of science, one realises that there is a severe shortage of scientists in this country. Ironically, that shortage is probably most marked in the field that supports alternative energy production. Even in a field as basic as wind turbine technology, it is simply not possible to recruit enough people to build the necessary number of wind turbines and to put them in place so that we can reach our short and medium-term alternative energy source targets.

The shortage of nuclear energy scientists is worse. There are more than 440 nuclear generating plants throughout the world, from Japan to the United States. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury mentioned, it was announced only today that there would be four new plants in China. If we are

to keep up with this technology, and if we are—to coin a phrase—to keep the options open for the nuclear industry, it is fundamental that we ensure that nuclear technology is available, and that we have the people to build the next generation of nuclear power plants, as well as to decommission existing generators.

If we do not keep the options open, we will be isolated from the rest of the world in relation to these skills and technologies. Moreover, we will be unable to complete our own decommissioning process, because the people who built the nuclear power stations and maintained them for 50 years are retiring in large numbers, and it will be very difficult to recruit technologists to keep those stations going in the next 10 to 20 years. It will be almost impossible to recruit and train people to build new ones unless we make the effort to explain how we are going to do that, which is exactly what the amendment aims to do. It would make it a duty to explain

''how a skilled work force is to be recruited, trained and maintained.''

What difference would the amendment make? Scientists in this country do not, in my judgment, make enough noise about the problem, but they do say that science education in this country has never been worse. It has been declining steadily for 30 years, but the lack of science education from the first year of our primary schools right through to universities now means that we are seriously lagging behind competitor nations. We do our nation no service if we do not take the opportunity to include in the Bill an express requirement—a duty—to have open and transparent objectives for recruitment to, and training in, these sorts of technologies. For that reason, I support the amendment.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I, too, support the amendment, although perhaps not for the reasons given by the two previous speakers.

I was trying to help the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, so I shall refer to the words of his amendment rather than his speech. The amendment relates to subsection 2(a) on page 10, which talks about

''the maintenance and development in the United Kingdom of a skilled workforce able to undertake the work of decommissioning nuclear installations and of cleaning up nuclear sites''.

That is what the work force would do. Rightly, his amendment would add:

''it shall publish details of how that skilled workforce is to be recruited, trained and maintained.''

Under the clause, the work force, details of which he wants published, would deal solely with cleaning up nuclear sites and decommissioning installations. The hon. Member for Salisbury always makes a very good case for science, with which I do not disagree, but the amendment would not help. There is a need for a skilled work force to carry out the functions—decommissioning nuclear installations and cleaning up nuclear sites—given in the clause.

The hon. Member for Tewkesbury implied that someone of a particular skills base would find such work less attractive than building a new nuclear power station, but I do not share his view. We need all the skills we can get to ensure that decommissioning is

carried out properly, effectively and safely, and that the environment and public health—of those involved and those who live nearby—are protected. That important and difficult task requires a great deal of skills and knowledge. Those who have been involved in the nuclear industry will doubtless play a part, and so they should, because the job should be done competently, above all else.

The task is so important, so I support the amendment, which would require the publication of the details of how that work force should be recruited, trained and maintained. That way, we could be confident that they were the right people doing the right job and that there was some measurement of that. However, that issue is slightly different from the wider point about the skills needed for a new generation of nuclear reactors.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The point of the amendment is already covered by clause 15(2)(b), which requires the NDA in its strategy to set out

''how it proposes to ensure the maintenance and development in the United Kingdom of a skilled work force''.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury spoke rather disparagingly about nuclear clean-up work. I profoundly disagree with him. He suggested that there was something inferior or undemanding about nuclear clean-up work, but such work will, in fact, require the very highest levels of skill and expertise. Also, new research will have to be conducted. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but he gave the impression that he thought that the work required to meet the challenges that we face in nuclear clean-up—and which we need many people to commit their professional careers, skills and energies to—was second rate or unsatisfying. There are excellent career prospects, too, given the scale of the clean-up work that we will have to conduct over the coming decades.

The hon. Member for Salisbury was right to draw attention to some of the scientific challenges that we face, but I do not agree with his gloomy forecast about the successes that we might enjoy. There are certainly challenges and we are addressing them vigorously. There have been dramatic improvements in standards in primary schools and we are also addressing the problem through the creation of specialist schools. We have seen big improvements at the secondary level, work on 14 to 19 education and a huge increase in the science budget, which, if I remember rightly, will have more than doubled by 2006. Given the scale of the competitive challenge that we face around the world, such as what is happening in China, in India and elsewhere, it is essential that we continue to invest substantially in science education and research, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I will take up the Minister's invitation to correct him. It is easy to argue with what someone did not say, and I did not say ''inferior'', ''undemanding'' or ''second rate''. I suggested that, if the only option was decommissioning and generation in the nuclear industry did not have a future, the attractions proposed to keep people on our shores

would be inadequate. I do not think that the incentives would be as attractive as they would be if we had a vibrant nuclear industry with a great future.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that clean-up in itself will require the highest levels of skill and research, and that therefore, for many people, it will provide a fulfilling—and vital, from the national point of view—career?

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I do not disagree with the Minister. I was about to say that when I visited Sellafield, the people there demonstrated exceptional skill. My point was that we would have a better chance of retaining even more scientists if we also had an ongoing programme; it is not contradictory to say those two things.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury identified a big problem that faces the UK; the skills shortage in relation to very technical work. That shortage is not just in the nuclear industry, but in the aerospace industry, which is big in my constituency, and which cannot attract sufficient numbers of people with the right kind of skills. There are even skill shortages in the NHS, in terms of the more scientific work that is undertaken. You are frowning at me, Mr. Sayeed, as if to suggest that I am out of order, but my analogy concerns the skills shortage. That problem has been faced by successive Governments; it has not been brought about by this Government.

UCAS, which deals with all the applications for university, is also in my area. When I visited that organisation recently, I was told that there was a serious problem with people applying for science-based courses, which reinforces the strong point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. The amendment seeks detail of the Government's correct intention to ensure that there is a skilled work force that can undertake the clean-up and decommissioning of nuclear sites.

The Minister mentioned that clause 15(2)(b) provides that the strategy must set out

''how it proposes to ensure the maintenance and development in the United Kingdom of a skilled workforce.''

However, neither that nor, unusually, the Minister's response, entirely satisfied me. I think that we have made the point that we intended through our discussion, and so I reluctantly beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 57, in

clause 12, page 10, line 11, after 'money', insert

'including the maximisation of income for the industry at the installations or sites whose operation it is to secure, pending the commencement of their decommissioning.'.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 67, in

clause 15, page 13, line 15, at end insert

'including an assessment of the possibility and practicability of extending the productive life of the site, where appropriate'.

Amendment No. 152, in

clause 16, page 14, line 39, at end insert—

'(g) a report on the justification for the continued operation of nuclear installations operated under section 6, subsection (1)(a) and (1)(d).'.

Amendment No. 96, in

clause 17, page 16, line 14, after 'State', insert—

'(ia) a report on the justification for the continued operation of nuclear installations operated in accordance with the NDA's responsibilities designated in section 6(1)(a) and (d);'.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

Amendment No. 57 would insert the requirement to include the

''maximisation of income for the industry at the installations or sites whose operation it is to secure, pending the commencement of their decommissioning.''

In an attempt to gain the support of the hon. Member for Lewes, I emphasise that that does not mean that the NDA would, in any way, be dragged into the long-term operation of nuclear sites for the generation of electricity. However, the amendment would require that before decommissioning is begun, the maximum amount of income should be drawn from those sites. The hon. Member for Lewes might be prepared to support that.

Amendment No. 67 is linked to my earlier amendment No. 55, which would have required the NDA to leave the site in a state in which it could be used in the future, if that were appropriate. Amendment No. 67 would require an assessment to be included of the

''possibility and practicability of extending the productive life of the site, where appropriate.''

I believe that I have already made the case for that, and so will not detain the Committee further by repeating myself.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I disagree with amendment No. 67, which covers points that we debated earlier about the separate functions of the NDA. Amendment No. 57 is rather more interesting. I confess that I am slightly torn about it. On the one hand, who could argue about the importance of maximising the income stream, when not do so would lose money for the taxpayer, who is already paying so much to the nuclear industry? That seems justifiable. On the other hand, the amendment seems to compromise, to some degree, the function of the NDA. If it must think about maximising income it may take its eye off the decommissioning ball.

My vision—clearly it is not the same as the Government's, unfortunately—is of the NDA becoming involved only when it is time to decommission. There would not be a period between its taking control and the commencement of decommissioning. I do not subscribe to the Government's view that the NDA should run the stations for several years pending decommissioning. We discussed that in relation to clause 6. That is my initial reaction to what is proposed by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury.

Amendment No. 152, tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), is not dissimilar to amendment No. 96, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner). It relates to generation and the length of time for which the NDA would operate stations and derive income from them. I shall not rehearse all the arguments made on previous amendments, because that probably is not necessary, but the operation of stations by the NDA seems to me in some ways contrary to, and a distraction from, its primary functions. It should concentrate solely on decommissioning. There is a danger that it could end up with generation capacity on its hands for a considerable period.

We have heard about the life expectancy of the Magnox stations. I know that the Minister considers the final date to be just that. I am sure that he believes that, and it may be so; it has not been so in the past, so we cannot be 100 per cent. certain. However, if the stations are to continue to operate, we need to know, annually, the reasons for that, the progress that is being made and whether there are steps that should be taken.

With nuclear generation capacity in the hands of the NDA, a sudden energy crisis—if the hon. Member for Tewkesbury is right—might lead to a desire to keep Magnox stations open. I do not, personally, think that that will happen, but it could, I suppose, if the scenario he outlined is correct. The NDA would then become a longer-term generator. It would then, presumably, consider its management functions and the question whether it should concentrate on that task or decommissioning.

We should be entitled to know, at that point, whether the decommissioning strategy for which the authority was created was still on track or had been diverted to some other course. Amendment No. 152, and, indeed, amendment No. 96, would ensure that the process underwent scrutiny, and that the NDA was kept on track.

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

I had not realised that the Liberal Democrat amendment No. 152 was identical to my own, although it was tabled somewhat later.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

For the sake of clarity, I assure the hon. Gentleman, despite that insinuation, that the similarity was entirely a coincidence. I suspect that the briefing that led him to table his amendment is similar to the one that came to me. My amendment was not tabled on the back of his.

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

But it does show that some of us work faster than others.

The amendment is a reasonable one, despite the fact that it has also been tabled by other hon. Members. I do not table it in the spirit of paranoid fantasy that the hon. Member for Lewes has been exhibiting on this topic. I am quite content that the Government's intention is that the NDA should operate nuclear installations only for purposes associated with subsequent decommissioning and that it will not take

any over with the intention of running them as straightforward generators. I am satisfied on that point.

Amendment No. 96 is to clause 17, which is about the NDA's annual report to the Secretary of State. It seems only reasonable to include in that report an account of the reasons in each instance why the NDA has kept a station running. That should be part of the normal scrutiny process. The amendment is harmless and one that, I hope, the Minister might feel able to accept. It would help to allay the worries of not just the hon. Member for Lewes but others outside who share his fears.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I hope that I can allay those fears on the basis of what is already envisaged in the Bill. Some reasonable points have been made in arguing for amendments Nos. 152 and 96.

Under clause 15, the NDA strategy must set out its decommissioning objectives and strategy for the installations and facilities that it will operate, including the expected expenditure and income involved. The NDA's annual plan has to set out expenditure and income issues for the year in question, as well as any proposed changes that will affect the operation of installations or facilities. It must also set out an estimate of the cost and income for those installations and facilities.

The NDA's annual report must contain details on what has been done towards achieving its objectives and implementing its plan. It must deal with its operational activities separately from its decommissioning and clean-up work. In seeking approval for its strategy and plans, the NDA will need to demonstrate that it is fulfilling its duty under clause 12(3) to operate facilities in a way that is most beneficial to the public. That will include an assessment of the net value of the continued operation of nuclear installations, including the impact on the cost of clean-up.

I hope that, on the basis of that explanation, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown and the hon. Member for Lewes will accept that the existing arrangements already require the case for continued operation of NDA facilities to be made, kept under regular review and fully reported on.

Amendments Nos. 57 and 67 would not work in the Bill, and I shall explain why. Amendment No. 57 would include the continued operation of nuclear facilities in order to maximise income as part of the NDA's work to secure value for money. I have no problem with the NDA maximising income from the facilities that it operates for as long as it is beneficial to do so. Income generated by the operation of designated facilities will be credited to the nuclear decommissioning funding account, which records moneys to be made available for nuclear clean-up.

However, the amendment would not work because securing best value relates to the NDA's dealings with others in carrying out its duties, for example with site operators or its contractors. It does not relate to the NDA maximising income from operating facilities. I

can assure the hon. Member for Tewkesbury that the NDA will make a full assessment of the case for continued operation.

Amendment No. 67 would require the NDA to provide an assessment of the option of extending the productive life of a nuclear site. If the intention is to get the NDA to consider extending the operational life of a site, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is misplaced. Clause 15(5) relates to the end of the site restoration process, when the NDA has discharged all its responsibilities in respect of a site. At that point, the continued use of a site will not be the NDA's concern. If amendment No. 67 is intended to ensure that a site continues to be used for nuclear purposes, it is also misplaced. In its strategy, the NDA will propose objectives for each site, including the condition to which the NDA should bring each site in order to discharge its responsibilities. Those objectives are subject to ministerial agreement and could be changed.

While the NDA could propose that a site may be suitable for further industrial use or as a power station, Ministers would have to agree. What happens to the site when the NDA has satisfied the objectives in the strategy is not a matter for the NDA. Any decisions on new build could be taken only after full public consultation and would be subject to private sector operators making proposals. I hope that that explanation persuades the hon. Member for Tewkesbury to withdraw his amendment and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown and the hon. Member for Lewes not to press theirs.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

We have heard the customary assertions by the hon. Member for Lewes on how the NDA will be running the entire nuclear generating industry in the near future. I do not subscribe to that, nor do I therefore see the need for amendments Nos. 152 and 96.

The hon. Gentleman was generous enough to say that he is half-minded to support my amendment No. 57. I am not sure whether I am half right or half wrong in that case. There is a duty, for the reason he gave rather than the reason I gave, to maximise income while a site is still productive, if only to reduce the cost to the taxpayer of the clean-up and the decommissioning. That should be a duty of the NDA.

As for the productive life of the site, it does not stray too far from the original purpose of the NDA to ask it to do that assessment. As we are still on clause 12 and we have to get to clause 83 by this afternoon, I will not press those issues to the vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 15, in

clause 12, page 10, line 18, at end insert—

'(3A) In the case of each designated installation, designated site or designated facility, it shall be the duty of the NDA, in carrying out its function by virtue of section 10(1)(e)—

(a) to have regard, in particular, to the extent to which the person with control of the installation, site or facility was doing anything falling within subsection (3B) prior to its designation; and

(b) to consider what obligations in relation to the doing of anything falling within that subsection should be imposed on any person with whom the NDA is proposing, in connection with the discharge of any of its responsibilities in relation to the installation, site or facility, to enter into a contract for that person to provide services.

(3B) What falls within this subsection is anything that is done for the purpose of giving encouragement and other support to—

(a) activities benefiting the social or economic life of communities living near the installation, site or facility; or

(b) activities producing other environmental benefits for those communities.

(3C) Where the NDA is proposing, in connection with the discharge of any of its responsibilities in relation to a designated installation, designated site or designated facility, to enter into a contract with any person for him to provide any services, it shall be the duty of the NDA, before entering into that contract—

(a) to require that person to produce his proposed strategy for the procurement of the goods and services that he will need to procure for the purpose of carrying out his obligations under the contract; and

(b) to consider the likely effect of the implementation of that strategy on the economic life of communities living near the installation, site or facility.'.—[Mr. Timms.]

Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Powers for carrying out functions

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 61, in

clause 13, page 11, line 3, leave out from first 'the' to first 'to' in line 4 and insert

'Secretary of State may by order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure grant the NDA such powers (in addition to those contained in subsection (2)) as appear to him'.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 62, in

clause 13, page 11, line 6, leave out 'include, in particular' and insert

'set out in this subsection are'.

No. 64, in

clause 14, page 12, line 13, at end insert—

'(2A) Where, as a result of consideration under subsection (2), the NDA decides that it requires powers additional to those conferred by section 13(2), it shall inform the Secretary of State of that decision immediately.'.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

These amendments relate to the powers of the NDA, but in particular the opportunity that it has to change those powers. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire is not here, because these are what he would call probing amendments. Therefore, I will not take too much time over them. I would like the Minister to explain why the NDA might want to exercise or change its powers. I am slightly alarmed by subsection (1), which states:

''The NDA shall have power, for the purpose of carrying out its functions, to do all such things as appear to it to be likely to facilitate the carrying out of its functions, or to be incidental to carrying them out.''

That seems a little wide, so I seek to amend it. I also seek to require the NDA to present to Parliament its reasons for changing its powers. I hope the Minister can reassure us on this issue.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I hope that I can provide the reassurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks. Clause 13(1) provides the NDA with all the general powers necessary to carry out its functions or which are incidental to so doing. The drafting is quite normal in that respect. Subsection (2) serves to identify specific powers, which might not be thought to fit within the general provision, to provide clarity. The amendments would reverse that arrangement by implying that the only powers the NDA has are those in subsection (2), which should be added to only by order, subject to affirmative resolution.

I accept that these are probing amendments, but I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that bodies established by legislation should be given the powers necessary to perform their functions in that legislation. We should not later have to introduce secondary legislation to allow the body to function. If the amendment were to be accepted without an order immediately being made, the NDA could operate a non-nuclear generating station such as Fellside under subsection (2)(a), but it could not do any of the routine things, such as leasing buildings and purchasing IT, that would be necessary for it to operate.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured by my explanation of subsection (1) and the more specific list in subsection (2), and that he withdraws the amendment.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

I beg to move amendment No. 25, in

clause 13, page 11, line 7, at end insert

'which are in operation at the time that this Act receives Royal Assent and subsequently acquired by the NDA'.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 95, in

clause 13, page 11, line 7, at end insert

'but not to construct new nuclear generating stations or reprocessing facilities'.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

This is a simple but important amendment. I do not want to pre-empt what the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown will say about amendment No. 95, which has the same objective as my amendment. We are trying to achieve the same thing by different routes.

The Committee has had long and ultimately fruitless exchanges on new nuclear build, whether the Bill as drafted could lead to the construction of new nuclear power stations and whether the public purse could end up meeting their decommissioning costs. You will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to go over the arguments again, Mr. Sayeed, as they have already had a fair airing in the Committee. I will probably fail to convince the Minister yet again that this is a matter of great concern, and he will fail to convince me that that is not the case.

Clause 13 gives the NDA a power to operate electricity generating stations—I will presume that that refers purely to nuclear power stations so as not to set another hare running—but whatever the Minister may say about the economics of the situation, it has been said time and again that various clauses leave possibilities open. This is another such clause, as subsection (2)(a) does not specify that only existing nuclear power stations are at issue.

I remind the Minister that last week, in response to my intervention on the issue, he said:

''I assure the hon. Gentleman that the NDA's running of power stations will be limited, in the nuclear case, to the Magnox situation, with a defuelling and decommissioning programme being established. The role of the NDA is about decommissioning.''——[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 20 May 2004; c. 39.]

That is fine and well, but it is desirable that it should be made plain in the Bill. The amendment would achieve that objective by making it clear that only existing stations, which are up and running when the Bill comes into force, would be run by the NDA. The Minister could have no objection to that eminently reasonable suggestion, but I am not holding my breath in anticipation.

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

I guess that my amendment No. 95 has broadly the same aim, but it is more about the avoidance of doubt. It is as simple as that. I am satisfied that the Government do not intend for the NDA to go around commissioning new nuclear stations, but even if it did, that is not in itself particularly sinister. The really important matter is whether a new nuclear installation is commissioned, whoever commissions it. The responsibility for future decommissioning costs is clearly important too, and I would not wish it to fall on the public purse.

Although I know that it is not the Government's intention that the NDA should commission new nuclear installations, the Bill seems to allow it to do so. The purpose of the amendment is to make it clear that that is not the case. It is about drafting, the avoidance of doubt and confirming the Government's intention, making it clear to everybody concerned, including the hon. Member for Lewes.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

It may help if I start by saying that subsection (2)(a), which is the target of the amendment, provides the NDA with the power to operate only non-nuclear electricity generating stations. The operation of nuclear power stations pending decommissioning is already covered in clause 6(1)(a), which we have debated. Clause 13 cannot override the limitation in clause 6, which specifies the circumstances under which the NDA can operate nuclear power stations.

Subsection (2) cannot be construed as extending the NDA's powers in respect of its principal functions, including the constraint that it is allowed to operate only nuclear generating stations pending decommissioning. Subsection (2) lists powers that we consider might not be thought to fall within the general powers identified in subsection (1), but which may be necessary for the NDA to carry out its functions. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton,

Kemptown and the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) that the NDA will not be building and running nuclear power stations, even if there was a decision to pursue the nuclear option in the future. I hope that that is helpful.

There are two problems with the effects of amendments Nos. 25 and 95. Subsection (2)(a) is intended to cover the power to operate non-nuclear electricity generating stations that are necessary for or inextricably linked to nuclear sites. Such stations include the Fellside combined heat and power plant, which supplies essential steam to the Sellafield site, and the Maentwrog hydroelectric plant in north Wales, which supported operations at the Trawsfynydd Magnox station. Amendment No. 25 would prevent the NDA from operating any power stations built in the future, such as one to replace Fellside, or any power stations attached to sites that are designated to the NDA in the future. That could unhelpfully restrict the NDA's ability to secure the proper operation of a nuclear site.

On amendment No. 95, I caution against preventing the NDA from being able to build any new reprocessing facilities, given the long time scales, about which we have spoken. It would be unwise to remove that from the range of options available to the NDA in delivering its objectives. Indeed, clause 7(4) enables the NDA to be given the responsibility for building facilities, including reprocessing facilities. However, the NDA is allowed to do that only to the extent that such action is necessary to carry out its responsibility to secure the treatment, storage, transportation or disposal of hazardous material. Given those assurances, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

I must confess to being somewhat astonished at what the Minister just said. We seem to have witnessed a massive expansion of the possible role of the NDA in the course of one speech. I am not satisfied with what the Minister said. We have discussed clause 6 and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the NDA from continuing to run nuclear or any other power stations for as long as it wishes. I would like to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 63, in

clause 13, page 11, line 34, at end insert—

'(2A) Where any BNFL installation is designated under section 6, in deciding how best to carry out its functions at that installation, site or facility, the NDA shall provide BNFL with the opportunity to bid for a contract to carry out any decommissioning, or any other, work which BNFL considers it to be competent and qualified to carry out, and the NDA shall give due consideration to such a bid.'.

This is, I suppose, a probing amendment, but it is also a little more than that. Two issues motivated it. The first is the importance to BNFL of the work that it does, and particularly to the west Cumbria area, given the economic benefit that it brings to what is a disadvantaged area. The second is that BNFL has a range of skills and expertise, as does the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. The purpose of the amendment is to make those points and to probe the Minister on how he envisages the process working when the NDA does not physically carry out the work and contracts other people to do it. The amendment is an attempt to make the point that it is important to BNFL to be able to bid for that work, but also to ask the Minister to explain how he sees the process working.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that any bid made by BNFL to manage an NDA site will be considered along with any others received. I think that he would accept that for competition to work, as we hope it will in this area, it needs to be open and fair. We want to encourage new competitors to enter the market and so increase the chances that the NDA will achieve the goal of site management competition that secures the best skills for the job and achieves clean-up as efficiently and effectively as possible. BNFL will be free to compete for site management contracts that will entail ownership of the site licensee company that retains control of the site for regulatory purposes. However, the hon. Gentleman will probably agree that it would not be appropriate to refer, as the amendment does, to one particular current site operator—BNFL. That would send a signal to the market that there is not a level playing field. We want new competitors to feel that they have just as much of a chance as BNFL, and making a specific reference to BNFL would be unhelpful. My view is that BNFL makes a large and important contribution, and I am certain that it will continue to make that contribution for a long time to come, winning work on the basis of its undoubted skills and excellence.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

The fact that we have had a very short debate on this issue does not in any way mean that it is not important—it is extremely important. The Minister has given me the assurance for which I was looking, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 113, in

clause 13, page 11, line 34, at end insert—

'(2A) The power under subsection (2)(d) may not be exercised for the benefit of companies that operate nuclear installations or designated facilities for treating or disposing of hazardous material.'.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 114, in

clause 13, page 11, line 34, at end insert—

'(2A) The power under subsection (2)(d) may not be exercised for the benefit of BNFL or British Energy.'.

No. 115, in

clause 13, page 11, line 34, at end insert—

'(2A) The power under subsection (2)(e) may not be exercised for the benefit of nuclear companies except where the full cost is recovered from those companies.'.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am back again on the question of financial propriety, which I am keen to pursue. I take the view that there ought to be a clear delineation between the NDA and the private sector nuclear industry for reasons of good accounting practice, the safeguarding of public money and transparency—all concepts that the Minister would endorse.

The amendment is partly probing and partly rather more. I wish to explore the areas in which grants or loans might be made available under the powers in clause 13(2)(d) and (e). Unless the Minister convinces me otherwise—as he knows, I am always open to reason—it would seem illogical to give grants and loans to the private sector nuclear industry under powers relating to research and site clean-up, because the industry itself, as the Minister has said on previous occasions, has responsibility for cleaning up its own sites. British Energy is a self-contained, private sector company that has a duty to deal with its assets and liabilities. Only in the event of market failure should the taxpayer pick up the bill and support it. That seemed to be the Minister's view, based on earlier discussions of the Bill.

It would muddy the waters—I use the phrase again because, unfortunately, the Bill demands it on many occasions—if there was an incestuous relationship and grants and loans were transferred from the NDA to British Energy, particularly given the inevitably close relationship that will exist between the NDA and the private sector, and given the nature of the nuclear industry. The Minister was not keen to accept the idea that there should be space between the NDA and those who were employed in the nuclear industry and who could be employed two days later by the NDA. He rejected earlier amendments to that effect.

It is important that there are clear lines of financial accountability. My amendments to paragraphs (d) and (e) explore such matters. In particular, I draw the Minister's attention to amendment No. 115, which states that the power in paragraph (e)

''to use its facilities, and facilities on designated sites, for the carrying out of research on behalf of others''

should be amended such that it

''may not be exercised for the benefit of nuclear companies except where the full cost is recovered from those companies.''

That seems entirely reasonable. It would protect the public purse and ensure transparency.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman suggested, if I understood him correctly, that the amendment was aimed at British Energy. However, as it is phrased, it goes wider than that. Indeed, there is an explicit reference to BNFL in amendment No. 114, so the effect of the amendments would be somewhat different from what he has indicated.

The NDA has the power to fund research into nuclear clean-up and other functions. What is important is that it is limited to funding the research that it needs to carry out its functions. I would be much more relaxed about who is carrying out the research, given that the purpose and the function of the research are key. In practice, it is likely that most of the expertise that the NDA would wish to draw on will be found in the very organisations that the amendments would exclude. Universities carry out important work in this area, but the vast majority of relevant nuclear research skills are in BNFL.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I fully accept that there will be a call for established nuclear skills, which are often present in BNFL, British Energy or universities. I do not have a problem with contracts being entered into on a proper basis and being subject to financial audit. However, clause 13(2)(d) refers to ''grants or loans'' rather than proper contracts.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

A grant for research would be given on a basis with which the hon. Gentleman says that he is comfortable. His amendments would prevent such contractual relationships being entered into as will be necessary for the NDA to fund research. The NDA's interest will be in securing research output that makes the best contribution to the successful pursuit of its functions. It should not be constrained by these amendments. From what he just said it appears that he accepts that.

Amendment No. 115 would stop the NDA making its research facilities available for nuclear companies except under full cost recovery. I am not sure what a nuclear company is, but by imposing that constraint the amendment could prevent the NDA from securing the research output it needs to carry out its functions, or from maximising its income through the lease of its research facilities, which might be attractive in some circumstances. Insisting on full cost recovery could result in NDA facilities not being used to their full extent, which would be to the detriment of the NDA.

On Second Reading and in another place, debates focused heavily on what we are doing to keep the nuclear option open. The hon. Gentleman is not as concerned about that as others are, but with responsibility for some unique nuclear research facilities in the UK, the NDA will play an important role in facilitating research into our nuclear future. In an intervention on the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, I made the point that a key element in keeping the nuclear option open is to ensure that we continue to engage in nuclear research. An amendment that would prevent such research by nuclear companies except on the basis of full cost recovery, even if it would

otherwise benefit both parties involved, would be unhelpful. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Lewes will withdraw the amendment.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

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.

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.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

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—

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

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

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.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

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.

Clause 14 - Strategy for carrying out functions

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

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''

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.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

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

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

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.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

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.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

Given the Minister's sympathetic and welcome response, I am willing to do that. He raised the point of delay. In earlier amendments, I

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 (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 89, in

schedule 2, page 159, line 19, at end insert—

'(aa) Nirex;'.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

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

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?

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I support the hon. Gentleman, without, on this occasion, qualification. The Minister obviously recognises the importance of the strategy, having said, in response to my amendment, that he will consider whether it is necessary for it to go before Parliament; I welcome that. I agree that the strategy is important, and in view of that it would be sensible for Nirex to be included when all the other listed organisations are consulted. Indeed, Nirex already works with several of those organisations, if not all of them. I wonder whether it was inadvertently omitted from the Bill.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I must ask the hon. Member for Lewes to be patient for just a little longer. The NDA will need to take account of the disposal options available to it at any time. Initially, that may well involve taking account of the letters of comfort provided by Nirex to site operators. However, it is not appropriate to place Nirex in the same category as the nuclear regulators and those directly affected by the clean-up work. At the moment, existing site operators do not have obligations to consult Nirex on their decommissioning plans, so it is hard to see any strong reason why the NDA should be under a statutory obligation to do so.

On the broader point, which I think the hon. Gentleman is using the amendment as a peg to make, we are nearing the end of the review of how to implement the aims set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which are to make Nirex independent of industry and to bring it under greater Government control. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman supports those aims, and I can tell him that conclusions from the review will be announced soon. The future of Nirex will need to be fully considered in the light of the functions that it performs; the committee on radioactive waste management's review of the strategy for long-term management of the UK's higher-activity radioactive waste; and the changes to the nuclear industry's structure and the operations that will result from the NDA's creation. However, the outcome of the review will be announced quite soon.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

We are no further forward. The conclusion will be announced ''soon'', which I suppose is slightly nearer than ''in due course'' or whatever the last formulation was, but it is not much better. The Minister has not explained why it has taken a year to progress the matter from last July, when the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made the statement in quite definitive terms. When I opened the debate on the amendment, I asked the Minister whether, if he could not say what the decision was and why the conclusion had not been reached, he could at least indicate what the hold-ups were. What are the matters under consideration that have caused it to take a year to progress this issue? None of those questions was answered.

Without wishing to over-egg the pudding, I also think that it is slightly discourteous to ask the Committee to consider a Bill that is crucial to the work of Nirex when we are not clear on that body's future role. It is difficult to know what amendments to table to be able to understand exactly what the NDA's termination point will be unless we understand the whole picture, and we are not being given that. Earlier, the hon. Member for Salisbury referred to a written statement that we did not know about. What we are discussing now is also something that is germane to the Bill but which we do not know about. It is slightly discourteous to the Committee to react in that way. I again urge the Minister to indicate what the problem is and what matters are under consideration, and to give a general indication of the direction in which this issue is going. He owes that to the Committee today.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Clause 15 - Contents of strategy

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 151, in

clause 15, page 13, line 31, at end insert—

'(6A) The strategy required by subsection (1)(a) must set out the income from any private sector operator from the decommissioning and cleaning-up of any installation or site owned by that private sector operator.'.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 154, in

clause 16, page 15, line 11, after 'incurred', insert

'and the income it is likely to secure'.

No. 157, in

clause 17, page 16, line 14, after 'State', insert—

'(ia) details of its forward programme of work, including anticipated income and expenditure, for the forthcoming year'.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

In the interests of brevity, let me say that the amendments are self-explanatory and merely designed to provide clear lines of financial accountability, transparency and propriety. They expressly refer to ''income and expenditure'' in particular matters.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The NDA's primary purpose is the decommissioning and clean-up of the UK's nuclear legacy—those public sector civil nuclear sites currently owned and operated by BNFL or UKAEA. That is what comprises the roughly £50 billion programme of nuclear clean-up, and the NDA will also acquire financial responsibility for those sites under clause 24. The Bill also allows the NDA to be given responsibility for securing clean-up at other sites. That is a matter of thinking ahead; the NDA will be the expert public sector body on nuclear clean-up. If circumstances arise in which the Government is faced with having to act in respect of private sector sites, we want to have that option available.

It is important, however, not to get carried away. There is one nuclear operator in the private sector—British Energy—which is currently the subject of a restructuring agreement that seeks to ensure safe and secure management of its nuclear liabilities. That is currently under discussion with the European Commission. The NDA will not be involved with the future operation of British Energy installations, except possibly on behalf of, or in an advisory capacity to, the Government in relation to their preparations for British Energy's operations on decommissioning. Even if the full cost of decommissioning of British Energy fell to the Government, which we are actively working to avoid, that would amount to well under 10

per cent. of the NDA's total clean-up programme, without taking account of any revenue derived from operating the generating stations in the meantime, before they are passed to the NDA to be decommissioned. The net impact on the public purse would be much lower. I hope, on that basis, that the hon. Gentleman feels that he can withdraw the amendment.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

For the record, amendment No. 151 says:

''The strategy required by subsection (1)(a) must set out the income from any private sector operator from the decommissioning and cleaning-up of any installation or site owned by that private sector operator.'.

I tell the Committee that so that it is aware of what the Minister is recommending that we do not pass.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The existing provisions on the NDA strategy annual plan report require the NDA to set out what it is doing in that respect.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

If the Minister is telling me that that is already covered by the requirement in place, I am happy to accept that assurance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Annual Plans

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 68, in

clause 16, page 14, line 14, at end insert—

'(1A) In the case of work carried out, or designations urgently made, the NDA shall, with the permission of the Secretary of State, amend its annual plan, even though it may already have been made and submitted.'.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 26, in

clause 16, page 15, line 21, at end add—

'(9) In the event that at any time during the year to which the plan relates the NDA has operated, or acquired with a view to operating, any nuclear operating facilities within the terms of section 6(1) or otherwise they shall include in the plan a full

explanation of the reasons for acquiring or operating such facilities, an estimation of the length of time that the said facilities may operate and their strategy for bringing the operations of said facilities to an end.'.

Amendment No. 70, in

schedule 3, page 162, line 5, after 'State', insert

'and such a plan has been laid before each House of Parliament'.

Amendment No. 71, in

schedule 3, page 162, line 9, at end insert

'following consultation with the Secretary of State and the revision to the plan being laid before each House of Parliament.

(3) The NDA may revise its plan if required to carry out work, or receiving a designation, considered to be urgent.'.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

The amendments relate to the annual plans that the NDA must prepare for each financial year. They would require the annual plan to be approved not only by the Secretary of State but by Parliament. Given the Minister's sympathetic consideration of my amendment to require the strategy to be considered by Parliament, I hope that he will be sympathetic about allowing the annual plan to be laid before Parliament.

My amendments are intended to be helpful. I accept that there may be circumstances when the NDA needs to revise its plan, but I suggest in my amendments that it will be able to do that through reference to the Secretary of State. However, amendment No. 71 recognises that the NDA may be required to revise its plan

''if required to carry out work, or receiving a designation, considered to be urgent.''

The amendments are grouped together rather strangely, in that I am suggesting that the plan must go before Parliament, but also accept that there are times when urgent consideration might be necessary. In such circumstances, the NDA will be allowed to amend the plan. Having considered the amendments again, I would probably concede—before the Minister says it—that we may need to consider the way in which they are drafted, but the spirit is there and I should like to hear the Minister's response.

It being twenty-five past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee B

Energy Bill [Lords]

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

I understand that at the end of this morning's sitting amendment No. 68 was proposed and it is now open for debate. I shall interrupt the proceedings of the Committee so that we can debate the programme resolution that has just been adopted by the Sub-Committee, but first we must conclude our debate on the amendment.Clause 16 Annual Plans

Clause 16 - Annual Plans

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 26, in

clause 16, page 15, line 21, at end add—

'(9) In the event that at any time during the year to which the plan relates the NDA has operated, or acquired with a view to operating, any nuclear operating facilities within the terms of section 6(1) or otherwise they shall include in the plan a full explanation of the reasons for acquiring or operating such facilities, an estimation of the length of time that the said facilities may operate and their strategy for bringing the operations of said facilities to an end.'.

No. 70, in

schedule 3, page 162, line 5, after 'State', insert

'and such a plan has been laid before each House of Parliament'.

No. 71, in

schedule 3, page 162, line 9, at end insert

'following consultation with the Secretary of State and the revision to the plan being laid before each House of Parliament.

(3) The NDA may revise its plan if required to carry out work, or receiving a designation, considered to be urgent.'.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

I want to speak to amendment No. 26, which is in the group. I shall not detain the Committee as we have already debated the matter in connection with an amendment to clause 6 tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). I got that right this time.

The amendment relates to the role of the NDA in continuing to run nuclear power stations, about which we should by now have a sense of deja vu. The previous amendment sought to restrict it to a period of 12 months, although I think that is too restrictive.

However, there should be a mechanism for making it clear that any such use is temporary; there should be a method of bringing it to an end as quickly as is practicable, except that that may not be within a few months, as closing down a nuclear generator is not merely a matter of throwing a switch.

The solution proposed is to put into the annual plan, only in the years when a station has been acquired, a statement of why it is still running, an estimation of the time that it may operate and a strategy for bringing it to an end. If, as the Minister has repeatedly assured us, the NDA is concerned only with decommissioning, he should have no problem in accepting the amendment, as it is not deliberately prescriptive. For example, the NDA may be able to say that the generator is allowed to continue for some time to fill an energy gap until other facilities come on stream; the amendment does not seek to impose time constraints. I accept that in some cases a generator may have to run for a few years.

The Minister assured us that the Government have a target for closing down existing stations, and the Bill sets up an authority to run decommissioning. The amendment merely seeks a public statement and an agreed strategy to bring those two together in specific circumstances: when the NDA takes over a station and thus becomes a generator. That is essential if the NDA is to be independent and operate with the promised transparency.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I assure the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), who spoke to amendment No. 26, that concerns about the NDA operating nuclear power stations, other than when decommissioning is pending, are unfounded. The rationale for the continued operation of facilities designated to the NDA will be fully covered by the combined effect of the NDA strategy and the annual plans and report. The strategy will include operational facilities. The NDA will be required to explain the decisions reached in its strategy and to keep it under review. The annual plan will set out how the NDA will carry out its functions and deliver its strategy for each site installation and facility, including running costs, capital expenditure and income. The annual report, which will be laid before Parliament, will set out what it has done to deliver its strategy and plans for all designated installations, sites and facilities. That is why I think that amendment No. 26 is unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

I accept, to some extent, what the Minister said, but what concerns me is that there does not seem anywhere to be a specific statement by the NDA about the anticipated time that a nuclear power station may continue to operate. It is a point that has been canvassed before, but there is still no specific obligation on the NDA to say that it is taking over a particular power station or that it anticipates that it will run for two or three years, or six months, or whatever. It would be beneficial to have some indication of that. I accept that it cannot be prescriptive and that it could not run over that period, but some indication would be useful.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The information that the NDA will provide will shed light on that matter, and will include the strategy for each site. That is likely to provide reassurance on the hon. Gentleman's point. I think that I can be more helpful on amendments Nos. 68, 70 and 71, which would require the NDA to lay the annual plan, including any revisions, before Parliament before it could come into effect. As willing as I was on the earlier point to reconsider that, it is important not to introduce unhelpful delay into NDA planning—a concern recognised by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson)—so it is more likely to concern the annual plan and revisions, than the earlier instance that we considered. I want to ensure that we would not be creating any unintended, difficult consequences if we were to go down the road advocated. I should also like to ensure what the implications for Scotland would be. In principle, the purpose behind his amendment is right, and if he is willing to withdraw it I give him an undertaking to reconsider the matter and see what I can introduce on Report.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I warmly welcome you back to the Committee, Mr. O'Brien. Given the Minister's sympathetic approach and reassurance, I am happy to wait for what he comes up with on Report, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

We come now to the motion of the Programming Sub-Committee, copies of which are on the Table at the end of the Room, and I suggest that hon. Members collect one.

That the Order of the Committee of 20th May 2004 be amended by the substitution for the Table of the following Table:- ProceedingsTime for conclusion of proceedings Clauses 1 to 5, Schedule 1,6.00 pm on 27th May Clauses 6 to 14, Schedule 2, Clauses 15 and 16, Schedule 3, Clauses 17 to 30, Schedule 4, Clauses 31 to 41, Schedule 5, Clauses 42, Schedule 6, Clauses 43 to 48, Schedule 7, Clause 49, Schedule 8, Clause 50, Schedule 9, Clauses 51 to 54, Schedule 10, Clauses 55 and 56, Schedule 11 And Clauses 57 to 64. Schedule 12, Clauses 65 and 66, 5.00 pm on 24th June Schedule 13, Clauses 67 to 72, Schedule 14, Clauses 73 to 78, Schedule 15, Clauses 79 to 96, Schedule 16, Clauses 97 to 135, Schedule 17, Clauses 136 to 138, Schedule 18, Clauses 139 and 140, Schedule 19, Clauses 141 to 156, Schedules 21 and 21, Clauses 157 to 170, Schedule 22, Clauses 171 to 193, Schedule 23, Clause 194, new Clauses, new Schedules and any remaining proceedings on the Bill.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

The motion applies unless we conclude schedule 12 before 6 pm. Failing that, we shall proceed until 6 pm this afternoon. That is the motion; the hon. Member for Lewes now wishes to move an amendment.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move, as an amendment to the proposed amendment, to leave out ''6.00 pm on 27 May'' and insert ''5 pm on 8 June''.

My amendment seeks to move the knife to 5 pm on the Tuesday we return. I have moved it because, first, it is inherently unsatisfactory that a sitting should be extended at merely a few hours' notice, which is inconvenient to me and possibly other hon. Members. Secondly, there is no desire among any hon. Members here to spin this out; all of us have accepted the time that the Government have allocated to the Bill and are fully in line with the Government's intentions on the completion of its Committee stage, so it is merely a matter of when the knife falls.

Thirdly, certain clauses may not be discussed at all this afternoon, yet there could be time left at the end of consideration of the Bill. That would not be satisfactory and would be a poor use of the Committee's time. Fourthly, certain hon. Members present—I am not thinking of myself—want to speak

on later clauses and may be prevented from doing so by that. Fifthly, the Government Whip's suggestion that the break should come at clause 63 and schedule 12 is inherently unsatisfactory, because they are in the middle of the section about the nuclear constabulary.

If I may say so, that may put you in a difficult position, Mr. O'Brien, because when we return on Tuesday, hon. Members may well want to draw attention to issues on which the knife has fallen but which are tangentially attached to the issues that can properly be discussed then.

For all those reasons, I ask the Government to show some flexibility. They would lose nothing by accepting my amendment. In fact, it would improve the smooth running of the Committee and ensure that democratic processes worked properly.

Question put, That the amendment to the proposed amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 8.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 153, in

clause 16, page 14, line 39, at end insert—

'(g) a report to the Secretary of State on the adequacy of funds set aside by nuclear operators, other than the NDA, for decommissioning and clean up.'.

The amendment would include that report in the provisions for annual plans. The Minister has said more than once that it is Government policy that the private sector operators—British Energy most notably or, theoretically, anyone else in future—will bear the responsibility for their own decommissioning and clean-up and that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is the body of last resort. I entirely agree with that policy. The amendment would ensure that that matter was kept under review and that there was confidence that the private company and any others were making proper provision for such matters. We do not want British Energy or another body to say that it is in financial difficulties and cannot meet its responsibilities, resulting in a further bill of £48 billion for the taxpayer. The NDA is a body of last resort, and therefore has an interest in ensuring that the private sector is making proper provision for such eventualities, as do the Government.

I am not sure that this is the right place in the Bill to raise this matter, and if the Minister makes that point, I shall concede it. However, I hope that he will accept

that there is a need for a mechanism, whether it is achieved through this annual plan or by some other means, to ensure that the private sector is making proper provision for such eventualities. I fear that the backstop that the Bill provides, in which the NDA will pick up the tab if everything goes wrong, is attractive to the private sector. If the Minister is not happy with the amendment, perhaps he will say what other mechanism is in place to ensure that British Energy—or any other operator—makes such provision.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I, too, am not sure that this is the right place in the Bill to discuss the matter, nor am I sure that the NDA's responsibilities should extend as far as that. However, the hon. Member for Lewes raises an important point. I will be glad to hear what the Minister has to say about the general principle of someone, somewhere, ensuring that people who operate nuclear sites make adequate provision for the future. It is an unusual industry, in so far as the running and revenue costs while generation is taking place are not the whole story. I therefore support the principle of the amendment, and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on the matter.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I am rather puzzled by the amendment, because it seems to me that whereas the hon. Member for Lewes has argued consistently during the Committee's discussions that there should be as wide a distance as possible between the NDA and private sector operators, he is now promoting, through the amendment, a more intimate relationship between them than is in the interests of the cause for which he argues.

Information on provisions made against clean-up will have to be included in the accounts and annual reports of any private sector operator. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury that the NDA will not have the requisite financial expertise to analyse those and to take a view on whether a third party, with which it has no connection, will be able to meet its decommissioning and clean-up obligations. Moreover, we would not want the NDA to commit time and resources to doing that, because its clear focus should be on decommissioning and clean-up. We do not want the NDA to be distracted by having to build up a capability for monitoring private sector operators.

If there were any prospect of a private sector operator not being able to discharge its liabilities, the Government would have to make a judgment on the extent of any shortfall as that arose. Ministers, rather than the NDA, would be responsible for doing that, and for taking a view on what, if anything, it would be appropriate or necessary for the Government to take on. They would do that in full recognition of the financial implications.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I tend to agree that the NDA is not the appropriate body to do that, but it was a vehicle on which to raise the point, as the Minister recognises. However, can the Minister assure me that there is a system in place by which Ministers would monitor any

difficulties as they occurred, rather than only recognising a problem when it has manifested itself significantly?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

As I said, the information on which that judgment could be based would be in the accounts and annual report. That does not exclude something startling happening suddenly. One could consider what happened to British Energy as an example of that although, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are going through a restructuring of British Energy, which I hope will enable it to meet all its obligations. However, the NDA should not be taking on responsibility for monitoring that area; I believe that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that. The NDA may be a source of advice on the costs involved in the clean-up of a particular site, and clause 10 of the Bill provides for it to be able to do that.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue and satisfied that the Minister recognises its importance and has addressed it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 17 - Annual reports

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 156, in

clause 17, page 15, line 24, after 'State', insert

'and to the Scottish Ministers'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 155, in

clause 17, page 15, line 27, leave out subsection (2).

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

These amendments would make the modest change of involving Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament more comprehensively. Scottish Ministers have an interest in how the NDA operates, discharges its responsibilities and carries out its functions, not only when a matter relates directly to Scotland, so that they can form an overall view of the NDA's performance. To make an overall assessment of the NDA, Scottish Ministers need fuller access to material. That is the purpose of the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell).

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

If the NDA's report contains anything relating to its responsibilities as set out in clauses 9(2) or 9(3), which deal with the handling of devolved matters, the NDA must send a copy to Scottish Ministers as well as to the Secretary of State. Scottish Ministers must then lay the report before the Scottish Parliament. If the report does not contain anything relating to what is set out in subsections (2) or (3), that requirement does not apply. The effect of clause 9 on Scottish sites, such as Dounreay, is that they would

have to be cleared of all hazardous materials stored on the site. Scottish Ministers would not automatically receive a copy only if clean-up was virtually complete, therefore it would not have to be laid before the Scottish Parliament.

Documents are laid before Parliament or the Scottish Parliament only when they have a clear interest in them. The amendment would mean that every NDA report would have to be laid before the Scottish Parliament by Scottish Ministers regardless of whether they have an interest in it. That would be unnecessary. If Scottish Ministers were not formally sent a copy of the report by the NDA, they would still be able to see copies of it. However, the requirement to lay the report applies only if there is a Scottish interest.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The Minister is telling me what I know to be the Government's policy; they have adopted that position on other legislation. In that sense it is consistent. My point was that Scottish Ministers might have a wider interest in the NDA's operation, even if a report does not relate directly to Scotland. The way that the NDA discharges its responsibilities in England and Wales affects the allocation of resources, time and effort to Scottish matters. That is why it is important to include Scottish Ministers. However, I have had my say so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 158, in

clause 17, page 16, line 24, after 'Parliament', insert 'without undue delay'.

The amendment would add the words ''without undue delay'' to subsection (6). That would emphasis a point made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. To fulfil that duty, Parliament should have access to documents as soon as possible rather than when the Secretary of State gets round to it. The amendment is an attempt to emphasise the need for parliamentary scrutiny so I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to it.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Unfortunately, the amendment would have exactly the opposite effect to the one that the hon. Gentleman argues for. The convention is that the Secretary of State lays reports before Parliament not when she gets round to it, but as soon as possible after she receives them. The wording of the amendment, which specifies ''without undue delay'', would imply that there could be an acceptable or due delay in the Secretary of State laying the NDA's report before Parliament. That is clearly not what the hon. Gentleman would want, and on that basis I hope he will quickly withdraw his amendment.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Far be it from me to load the scales even further on the side of the Government against Parliament. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I thank the Minister for his private advice on amendment No. 6, which I shall not seek to move.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - Duties to operate installations and provide treatment etc.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 149, in

clause 19, page 17, line 35, at end insert

'to ensure minimal adverse impact upon the environment'.

I would like to spell out the requirements in subsection (2)(c), which relate to the management of the land. My point is a sort of return to the argument we had about the principal duty earlier. The Minister may say that he anticipates my comments, so I shall anticipate his instead. He may say that the general and specific duties also mentioned in that subsection imply what the amendment specifies, and that there is a general duty to ensure minimal adverse impact on the environment. I would argue, however, for the importance of that being clearly understood. It is helpful to emphasise the importance of minimising the adverse impact on the environment by spelling it out in the Bill.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman is right; there is already a clear requirement on the NDA to take account of environmental concerns. The problem in this case, however, goes further than that. As in our earlier debate, the amendment would cut across the well-established lines of regulatory responsibility by giving the NDA a duty to ensure or deliver something that is the proper responsibility of someone else; namely, the nuclear regulators.

Obviously, the NDA will have to work within the existing regulatory framework and work closely with the regulators. Clause 12 recognises that by placing a duty on the NDA to have particular regard to the need to safeguard the environment. My officials, with the support of the nuclear regulators, have been drafting a memorandum of understanding that will be agreed between the NDA and each of the regulators, which will set out the basis of their working relationships.

The responsibility for complying with environmental regulation must rest with the person with control of a nuclear site, installation or facility. The responsibility to enforce such regulations must rest with the regulators. It is important that the Bill does not change that framework, and I fear that the amendment would do that. It would interpose the NDA into the existing regulatory arrangements in a way that would create uncertainty and undermine

their effectiveness. I am confident that the independent regulators can deliver the outcome that the hon. Member for Lewes seeks—he has already paid tribute to those involved in the matter—through their commitment and expertise in enforcing the environmental regulations. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

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

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

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.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

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.

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.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

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

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

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.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

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.

With that information, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

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

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

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.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

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

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

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.

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.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

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.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

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

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

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?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The arrangements are not unusual for an executive non-departmental public body. The NDA will be funded entirely by grant payments by the Secretary of State, but there may be circumstances, as the hon. Gentleman said, in which it makes good operational sense for the NDA to borrow money to optimise its contractual arrangements for delivering clean-up. The clause allows the NDA to borrow conventionally from the Secretary of State or, with her agreement, from other sources.

The borrowing will be communicated to those who take an interest in such matters through the published NDA annual reports and plans. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that that will give him and others the information in which they will be interested.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Government guarantees for NDA borrowing

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 101, in

clause 28, page 25, line 9, at end insert—

'(2A) Before making such a guarantee under subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall assess the ability of the NDA to meet its commitments as contained in section 26(4), and shall not give a guarantee under subsection (2) unless satisfied that the NDA can meet those commitments.'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 102, in

clause 28, page 25, line 10, leave out

'as soon as practicable after'

and insert 'Before'.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

A moment ago, we heard about NDA borrowing. Clause 28 refers to Government guarantees for NDA borrowing. Does the Minister think that guaranteed borrowing falls in the same category as grants to the NDA? It seems to me that the two are slightly different, because there is no specified amount that the NDA can borrow.

I am not saying that the NDA should not borrow. I am saying that, if the Secretary of State gives a guarantee to the NDA

''in such manner, and on such terms, as he thinks fit'',

she should assess the ability of the NDA to meet its commitment before giving the guarantee. I do not know the exact figure that we are talking about, but it is alarming that the taxpayer could be asked to underwrite sums of the magnitude that we are talking about without any reference to Parliament.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The arrangements set out in the clause are the normal ones for such circumstances. The Bill sets out an overall framework of parliamentary oversight and public accountability at what is, I think, an appropriate level considering the NDA's strategy.

The annual planning and the annual reporting process give Parliament the opportunity to consider the big picture of the organisation.

I have again considered whether there is a case for strengthening the arrangements for parliamentary oversight, and I do not think that there is a strong case for doing so. As the hon. Gentleman said, amendment No. 101 would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the NDA can meet any commitments entered into before guaranteeing NDA borrowing. That is unnecessary, because the NDA is entirely dependent on the Secretary of State for its funding. Any income that the NDA generates must be returned to the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State will need to fund the NDA to meet its obligations and carry out its functions, including meeting any debt repayments. The ability of the NDA to meet its commitments will flow from the funding provided by the Government. Any guarantee provided by the Secretary of State about NDA borrowing would simply recognise that.

The question of whether the NDA should be allowed to borrow money from third parties is covered in clause 26. The NDA requires the consent of the Secretary of State and the Treasury before it can do so. At that point, the Secretary of State should decide whether the borrowing is appropriate, whether the Government should fund it and whether a guarantee, if necessary, should be given.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

The issue is different from that of making grants, which are more controllable by the Secretary of State. This is a borrowing guarantee. Borrowing can run out of control, so I stress my concern about the clause. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 29 and 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clauses 31 to 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 - Nuclear transfer schemes

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 133, in

clause 41, page 37, line 14, at end insert

'the details of, and reasons for, which must be clearly set out.'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 134, in

clause 41, page 37, line 15, at end insert

'and lay his proposals before Parliament at least one month before making the proposed transfer, except in the case where the transfer is considered urgent.'.

No. 135, in

clause 41, page 37, line 20, at end insert

'and lay his proposals before Parliament at least one month before making the proposed transfer, except in the case where the transfer is considered urgent.'.

No. 136, in

clause 41, page 37, line 25, at end insert

'and lay his proposals before Parliament at least one month before making the proposed transfer, except in the case where the transfer is considered urgent.'.

No. 139, in

clause 43, page 39, line 14, at end add—

'(5) The Secretary of State must lay any proposals to transfer property, rights and liabilities before Parliament at least one month before that transfer takes place, other than in cases where the transfer could be considered urgent.'.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

Amendment No. 133 asks for the details of, and reasons for, any nuclear transfer to be set out. The other amendments in the group would require the proposals for such transfers to be laid before Parliament. I presume that given our earlier discussions, the Minister will not agree to the amendments but I felt that it was worth tabling them.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman is right that my response to these amendments is similar to my response to his earlier ones.

Amendments Nos. 134, 135 and 136 would require transfer schemes to be laid before Parliament one month before they came into effect. That would cause difficulty, because transfer schemes may contain commercially confidential information. Although there are statutory provisions to exclude commercially sensitive information from the NDA's strategy in paragraph 6(5) to schedule 2, there are no such provisions for transfer schemes. A document laid before Parliament clearly becomes public, so there would be particular difficulties.

The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the arguments on amendments Nos. 133 and 139. I hope that, like last time, I am able to persuade him that they are unnecessary.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clause 43 - Transfers with the consent of the transferor

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I tabled amendment No. 138 to this clause to be consistent with earlier amendments relating to British Energy. It would have added British Energy to the list of organisations that must be

consulted before being taken over. On the basis of previous discussions, I do not think that there is any need to pursue the point further.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Transfer of Nuclear Liabilities Investment Portfolio

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Will the Minister give a brief explanation of the rationale behind the clause?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

When the NDA takes on responsibility for cleaning up BNFL's sites it should get the benefit of the fund established by BNFL to meet its clean-up costs. Clause 45 provides for the nuclear liabilities investment portfolio to be transferred by scheme to the Secretary of State and then paid into the consolidated fund. The value of the nuclear liabilities investment portfolio, which on 31 March 2003 was £3.84 billion, will then be credited to the NDA's nuclear decommissioning funding account provided for in clause 34. That is the rationale for the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 - Extinguishment of BNFL losses for tax purposes

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

This clause has a rather alarming title, and it says that

''after the trigger date, all the relevant losses of every BNFL company arising before that date shall be treated for the purposes of corporation tax as extinguished.''

That seems to wipe the slate clean. I suppose that the Treasury has agreed to that. Can the Minister quantify the losses that will flow from that provision?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The accumulated tax losses in BNFL companies that have built up over time largely arise, one way or another, from provisions made in BNFL's accounts for the future costs of nuclear decommissioning and clean-up. In other words, they relate largely to deductions made in the past for the future expenses of nuclear decommissioning and clean-up. The losses will be extinguished when the NDA takes responsibility for decommissioning and clean-up under clause 24 or when assets and liabilities are transferred from BNFL under clause 42, whichever occurs first. I do not have a figure for the sum involved,

but I will certainly see whether I can provide that for the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9 agreed to.

Clause 51 - Supplementary powers of the Secretary of State, the NDA and the UKAEA

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 148, in

clause 51, page 43, line 16, at end insert

'but shall not do so without first consulting the NDA.'.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

The amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the NDA before entering into agreements for the purposes of accepting or imposing contractual obligations. I am sure that the Minister will say that it is not necessary, but a requirement to consult the NDA before entering into those agreements seems slightly lacking from subsection (1).

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

When the Secretary of State uses the powers here in relation to a transfer scheme involving the NDA, I agree that the NDA should be consulted and that is exactly what clause 41(3) provides for. It imposes a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the NDA before making any transfer scheme that involves the NDA or is connected with the NDA carrying out its functions. The power in clause 51 may also be used in relation to transfer schemes that do not involve the NDA and are not connected with it carrying out its functions. If the Secretary of State decided to privatise parts of a new BNFL or UKAEA, that would be done by transfer schemes. In those cases, I do not think that the Secretary of State would need to consult the NDA, because it would not have any direct or indirect interest. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that when the NDA has an interest, it would indeed be consulted, but the requirement for it to be consulted in other circumstances is unnecessary.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

The clause refers in subsections (2), (3) and (4) to agreements that the NDA and the UKAEA may enter into, so I suppose it is somewhat

confusing, but I accept the Minister's explanation for why it is not included at that particular point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 52 to 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 10 agreed to.

Clause 55 - The Civil Nuclear Constabulary

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

This takes me back to the time I spent discussing such matters in relation to the Police Reform Act 2002. Clearly, there is some crossover between the proposed civil nuclear constabulary, the normal police forces and the Ministry of Defence police, some of whose duties might overlap. Can the Minister comment on subsection (2)(b), which gives the constabulary the duty to safeguard nuclear material in Great Britain and elsewhere? A number of issues arise from that, which I would like briefly to explore.

The first issue is that nuclear material may not simply be on licensed sites; it may, for example, be transported across the country by road, rail or air. Will the proposed constabulary have the authorisation to accompany nuclear material when it is being transported, and how will that power link in with that of British Transport police? Have British Transport police been consulted on this and is the Minister confident that there is no overlap of responsibility, or indeed potential duplication of effort, from those movements?

The second question relates to the work that might overlap with the MOD police. The Minister will be aware that the MOD keeps nuclear material on its sites, and the MOD police have their own regime under which they operate. Is it anticipated that the civil nuclear constabulary will safeguard nuclear material in Great Britain and elsewhere on MOD sites? I appreciate it is called a civil nuclear constabulary, but on the other hand the terms of subsection (2)(b) do not specify nuclear material that has arisen through the operation of civil nuclear facilities. Therefore, I take it to mean that that could apply to MOD material. Will he clarify that for me?

Thirdly, can the Minister clarify the purpose of the phrase ''and elsewhere'' in subsection (2)(b)? Is he suggesting that the civil nuclear constabulary will have authority to act outside the borders of Great Britain? That seems rather odd to me. Does that refer to British territories overseas, or does he anticipate some other purpose?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The clause requires the civil nuclear police authority to maintain the civil nuclear constabulary, and it sets out the constabulary's

primary functions. The hon. Gentleman is particularly interested in subsection (2), and, if I have written his questions down correctly, the answers are as follows.

The members of the constabulary can accompany nuclear material when it is in transit; that is the intention of the clause's drafting. British Transport police have been consulted on these arrangements, and I am satisfied that there is no unnecessary duplication between the duties of the civil nuclear constabulary and others.

The duties of the civil nuclear constabulary would not extend to the protection of MOD sites, which answers the hon. Gentleman's second question. Thirdly, it is envisaged that there will be occasions when members of the civil nuclear constabulary will safeguard material outside Great Britain—for example, when there is a shipment they will be able to accompany the material and provide protection in that way.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 11 agreed to.

Clauses 57 and 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59 - jurisdiction of constabulary

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 58, in

clause 59, page 48, line 25, at end insert—

'(5A) Where a member of the Constabulary has been requested by a constable of—

(a) a police force for a police area in Great Britain;

(b) the Police Service of Northern Ireland;

(c) the Ministry of Defence Police; or

(d) the British Transport Police Force,

(''the requesting force'') to assist him in the execution of his duties in relation to a particular incident, investigation or operation, members of the Constabulary have for the purposes of that incident, investigation or operation the same powers and privileges as constables of the requesting force.

(5B) Members of the Constabulary have in any police area the same powers and privileges as constables of the police force for that police area—

(a) in relation to persons whom they suspect on reasonable grounds of having committed, being in the course of committing or being about to commit an offence, or

(b) if they believe on reasonable grounds that they need those powers and privileges in order to save life or to prevent or minimise personal injury.

(5C) But members of the Constabulary have powers and privileges by virtue of subsection (5B) only if—

(a) they are in uniform or have with them documentary evidence that they are members of the Constabulary, and

(b) they believe on reasonable grounds that a power of a constable which they would not have apart from that subsection ought to be exercised and that, if it cannot be exercised until they secure the attendance of or a request under subsection (5A) by a constable who has it, the purpose for which they believe it ought to be exercised will be frustrated or seriously prejudiced.'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 11—Provision of assistance to other forces—

'(1) The chief constable of the Constabulary may, on the application of the chief officer of any relevant force, provide constables or other assistance for the purpose of enabling that force to meet any special demand on its resources.

(2) Where a member of the Constabulary is provided for the assistance of a relevant force under this section—

(a) he shall be under the direction and control of the chief officer of that force; and

(b) he shall have the same powers and privileges as a member of that force.

(3) Constables are not to be regarded as provided for the assistance of a relevant force under this section in a case where assistance is provided under section 59.

(4) In this section—

''chief officer'' means—

(a) the chief officer of the police force for a police area in Great Britain;

(b) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland;

(c) the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force; or

(d) the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police;

''relevant force'' means—

(a) the police force for a police area in Great Britain;

(b) the Police Service of Northern Ireland;

(c) the British Transport Police Force; or

(d) the Ministry of Defence Police.'.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

Chapter 3, which sets up the civil nuclear constabulary, is more important than we might think. It is a quirk of our constitution that this police force is answerable to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and a number of other police forces are in a similar position. What we decide today will be important to every police force in the country, every Home Office constabulary in our constituencies and the other police forces, including the MOD and the other military police forces.

It is part of our history that sometimes we find a police force accountable to a local police authority and sometimes to a Minister and to Parliament. When Samuel Pepys set up a security force for the royal dockyards, little did he think that one day in May 2004 the consequences of that action by the Government of the day would still be important, but that is when it all started. Pilfering from the royal dockyards was a serious problem, so he set up the Admiralty constabularies. They predate anything that we would recognise as a Home Office constabulary today.

So it continued for many years. The Pepys bobbies were part of the establishment until the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. I served on the Standing Committee that considered that Bill, which was important because it transformed the MOD police from special constabulary gatekeepers into full constabulary officers trained to the same standards as any other police force in the country.

The 1987 Act was reformed by the Armed Forces Acts 1996 and 2001. I served on both Standing Committees. Under those Acts, the Secretary of State for Defence is responsible to Parliament, but now there is a new police authority, giving a modest

measure of independence. We shall shortly reconsider those slightly arcane procedures under the promised new tri-service Acts.

Most nations have decided that there is a need for an armed civilian police force. Some countries, such as France, achieve that by having a police force and a gendarmerie. Other nations, such as the United States, have county and federal police as well as a national guard. Most of us have our county constabularies. I am proud to have in Wiltshire the oldest as well as the best police force, hence its motto, Primus et Optimus.

The Home Office said many years ago that it did not have responsibility for policing the railways and that it did not know much about rolling stock, so British Transport police were established, answerable to the Secretary of State for Transport and accountable to Parliament. In 1992, when I was a Minister at the new Department of National Heritage, I was responsible for the Royal Parks police, who have full constabulary power. They are not and never were park keepers, and a Minister is still accountable to Parliament for them. The current process of integrating them with the Metropolitan police seems to have ground to a halt. In 1954, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary was set up as an armed police force.

So, we have four police forces in this country that are accountable to Ministers. They are not subject to any direct democratic accountability, although the Metropolitan police are very indirectly accountable through the Mayor of London. Most of us have county constabularies. The UKAEA constabulary has about 500 officers and is accountable to Parliament through the Department of Trade and Industry. The Bill proposes a completely new structure, most of which is very welcome indeed. The problem is that it does not go far enough, which is what I wish to address.

The Bill transforms the special constables into full constabulary officers, but their power has been severely limited, such that the UKAEA Police Federation believes that there are consequences for national security and that they must be addressed. It has written to me to say that there must be concessions on powers so that its members can act in an emergency properly to carry out their duties. The general secretary of the federation said:

''It is imperative that we achieve this concession for various reasons, foremost of which is the fact that we have an enormous responsibility in our area of work. Without this fundamental requirement, when we encounter policing needs in areas where we would not normally have constabulary powers, we are helpless to react. Moreover, we have examined case studies and scenarios where the absence of such emergency powers could have dire implications and consequences for national security.''

Clearly, the matter must be taken seriously.

The federation also argues that emergency powers are required for the simple reason that members of the public expect all police officers, especially those in uniform, to act in an emergency and protect the public interest. It is strange that the Government have recently granted British Transport police and MOD police exactly those powers. The federation would like identical concessions to be made for its constabulary.

The matter was addressed during the Bill's passage through another place, but pretty perfunctorily. I have enormous sympathy for the Minister, who will have to answer these questions. He did not volunteer to be responsible for a police force, let alone learn about the complexities of it.

The debate in the other place was extraordinary. When it was put to the Minister, Lord Triesman, that the police federation's request was sensible and should be granted, he stated:

''While we know that there has been support in some circles for the proposition, there is not widespread support for the proposition from the Association of Chief Police Officers. It is not at all clear that such a proposition would be welcomed by all bodies involved in public policing.''

I find that extraordinary, because I have a letter dated 9 February 2004 from the chief constable of Staffordshire, who is the Association of Chief Police Officers chief constable with responsibility for this matter. He wrote to Mr. Keith Latham, the assistant director of the nuclear regulatory branch of the DTI, to say:

''There has been extensive debate around the wider police family. Concessions have been made in terms of police powers to the British Transport Police and the Ministry of Defence Police to act in an emergency, particularly when they come across something in an area where they would not normally have Constabulary powers.

We would be content for identical concessions to be made in respect of the UKAEAC because members of the public would expect police officers, especially in uniform, to act in an emergency they happen to come across.''

That is a strange conflict of opinions. Will the Minister justify not acceding to the federation's request? Under this clause, if a uniformed UKAEA police constable in a marked police car came across a car crash, a robbery in progress, a rape or a murder, they would have to pass by unless they are willing to rely on the powers of citizen's arrest, such as you and I have, Mr. O'Brien. The public will not understand that.

The Minister in the other place also said that the constabulary lacked expertise. He said that the British Transport police and the Ministry of Defence police have powers of emergency action for two reasons:

''First, they are regularly policing the general public and have developed a level of expertise in dealing with the public across a wide range of incidents and circumstances.''

A member of a police force who constantly polices state property that is proactively and sometimes violently demonstrated against, such as Aldermaston or other bases, would have a good idea of the level of expertise required in those circumstances. Many officers involved in such policing are more experienced than most constabulary officers.

The second reason would be if

''it has been established that the number of situations that have arisen which would require the use of those extended powers justifies their being available in those circumstances, and none of that is true of the UKAEA Constabulary.''

That is extraordinary and means that we will not train people and give them powers because we do not think that certain circumstances are likely to arise. Does that

mean that we should not train the Metropolitan police on how to handle a murder because it does not happen often?

The Minister in the other place continued:

''The Government are concerned that the constabulary should not have powers until there is an established operational need—that is the criterion—and constabulary officers will not be in a position regularly to exercise such powers.''

Once again, that argument means that we should not bother to train the police because they will not often have to deal with the hijack of a ship on the high seas. However, the expertise of those police officers is unique in circumstances such as policing demonstrations in international waters or if a ship bearing nuclear cargo enters our territorial waters.

The Minister in the other place went on to say:

''It is a small constabulary and reacting to circumstances and demands from other forces might also divert it from the core tasks of protecting civil nuclear sites and materials.''

That is bizarre. My county constabulary is the smallest in the country, yet it regularly has to police the most densely populated military area in the country. It interfaces with the MOD police and the military police to look after the state's interests at the army's headquarters at Wilton, the country's biggest training area on Salisbury plain, Porton down, Boscombe down military airfield and a number of other installations. Therefore, that argument does not wash.

Another important point is the liability of members of the police who intervene in an incident as a private citizen. If an off-duty policeman comes across a civil disturbance, such as rape, murder, burglary or a car crash, he will make it known that he is a policeman. He will almost certainly be carrying a warrant to prove as much. Knowing that he has full constabulary power, he will be able to take control of the situation and use his training and expertise to regulate it. That power will not be available to any of the police officers we are discussing. I emphasise that they are trained in the same place by the same people and to the same standard as the Metropolitan police and every other county constabulary. There is no difference between them: the quality is the same. Why, therefore, are they not considered appropriate to have the full constabulary power?

My noble Friend Baroness Byford asked about liability in such circumstances; for example, what would happen if one of the excellent UKAEA constables was helping at an incident and something went wrong. A police constable is covered in such circumstances but if he is acting under civilian powers, he can be sued by insurance companies or by the persons concerned. That is a grave disadvantage, but all that Lord Triesman, the Minister in the other place, could say in response was:

''I wish I could give a simple answer. I cannot do that—not because I wish to evade the question, but because the number of possible circumstances is huge and the extent of liability would reflect those circumstances.''——[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. 566-567.]

Lord Triesman said that he would write to Baroness Byford ''with further indications''. I have not seen his letter, so I should be grateful if the Minister would let us know what Lord Triesman said about the matter.

It is extraordinary that we are asking special police to undertake serious responsibilities, which require a completely different range of skills and knowledge. They are not just guarding gates and checking round the perimeter; they have a specialist knowledge of how to guard very sensitive cargoes. In, I think, 1987, when a nuclear depth charge fell off a lorry outside West Dean naval arms depot, which is in my constituency, I was enormously relieved that members of the UKAEA constabulary were present because they knew exactly what to do. Of course, the chief constable of Wiltshire had primacy, but he was able to rely on their expertise.

The Government should rethink this proposal, which is petty and not in the public interest. Does it protect the Treasury? I do not think so. It makes no difference to the Treasury if an officer has full constabulary power; he is there, on the pay roll, doing the same job, but the Government are depriving him of the influence and status that he deserves.

The Minister in the other place said that he would keep an open mind and be prepared to reconsider what happened here. I know that it is a complicated affair and I do not want to put the Minister on the spot. It is unfair to ask him to respond, and I will entirely understand if he reads out the brief. However, I want him to say that he would be willing to reconsider the proposal and come back on Report, because it is important to get this right. I hope that I have been able to express the frustration of this small but excellent police force in a non-partisan way and that I will have support from both sides of the House for my request that the Government should look at the matter again and table new proposals on Report.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for making the case for his amendment. The points he made justify the need for clear answers.

I shall make one or two short points, which are not unconnected with the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised and on which I should welcome clarification. There are one or two inconsistencies in clause 59, which I shall try to tease out. Subsection (1)(b) proposes that the powers of a constable should be given for a radius of 5 km within a nuclear site. Quite apart from the points made by the hon. Gentleman, there seems to be some uncertainty as to where the 5 km limit is. Is the Minister really saying that a police officer pursuing someone or undertaking other activities will suddenly reach the 5 km boundary—assuming that he knows where it is—and say, ''Hang on, I can't go over this boundary''? That seems somewhat unlikely. In any case, how is an officer supposed to know where the 5 km boundary is? Will it be marked round every nuclear site with a piece of string, so that we all know how far 5 km is from the centre or, indeed, from the edge of that site? That seems a little ludicrous. People should either have

powers on site or have powers everywhere. It seems difficult to argue that creating a 5 km boundary is the right process.

Subsection (2), which relates to trans-shipment sites as opposed to relevant nuclear sites, does not refer to a 5 km boundary. Why is there a 5 km boundary for nuclear power stations, but not for trans-shipment sites? The same argument must apply, so again I fail to see the logic behind the proposals.

Subsection (3) is about an entirely different situation again. It relates to material that is in transit. Under this subsection, there are powers and privileges at every other place when that appears to be expedient, and that appears to be almost anywhere. Again, the matter is not entirely clear and subsections (1), (2) and (3) seem to be contradictory.

One crumb of comfort for the hon. Member for Salisbury is subsection (4), which says that in certain, narrow circumstances, a member of the constabulary will have the right to act as a constable. He may do so to pursue a person who has interfered with or removed nuclear material or attempted to do so. That provision is obviously very sensible.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

There is another dimension to this. The operational requirements are set out in a national policing protocol, which we have not seen. Then there are the memorandums of understanding between the Home Office and each different Home Office constabulary concerned. Then there is the question of the Scottish forces, because they are different. We do not know what the Association of Chief Poilce Officers in Scotland has said, and I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us that.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

That is a further complication. It is important to get some clarification and clarity. Clause 59 is not entirely satisfactory. I say that having served on the Committee that considered what became the Police Reform Act 2002. We considered the various complications that Home Office Ministers at that time attempted to address. Members of this Committee have various hats on. We are interested in energy or the environment. However, none of us is an expert—well, one or two of us may be—on police matters. With all due respect to the Minister, he has his hands full dealing with energy and post offices, without worrying about police matters. It is therefore important that, collectively, we obtain external advice. The hon. Member for Salisbury has made a case as to why the clause should be reconsidered, and I hope that the Minister will take that argument on board.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

As the hon. Member for Salisbury made clear, his proposals would allow members of the civil nuclear constabulary to exercise police powers and privileges in a broader range of circumstances than is currently provided for in the Bill or is the case for the UKAEA constabulary. In considering his points, it is important to be clear about the purposes of the civil nuclear constabulary. Under clause 55(2), its primary function is to protect civil nuclear licensed sites and to safeguard nuclear material in Great Britain and elsewhere. The civil nuclear constabulary is not, therefore, part of general public policing provision

throughout the UK. It is quite small, specialised and highly trained, and has a key role in protecting civil nuclear licensed sites and material from the threat of terrorism. It is paid for by the nuclear operators specifically for that purpose. The jurisdiction set out in this clause reflects that role.

The measure allows members of the constabulary to exercise police powers and privileges at civil nuclear licensed sites for an area of 5 km around them, which allows them to protect and operate on the sites. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes for drawing attention to that important point, although I do not think that they would have too much difficulty working out where such areas are, contrary to his assertion. They can also exercise those powers at a transhipment site such as a port—and anywhere—in order to protect nuclear material in transit or to pursue a person reasonably believed to have removed or interfered with nuclear material.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Irrespective of whether 5 km is manageable—the Government do not have an answer to that—if it is necessary for the protection of nuclear sites to have the 5 km radius, why is it not necessary for a transhipment site to have such a radius?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

In the case of civil nuclear licensed sites, we take the view that there is a permanent requirement to protect such sites from people who might want to take material away from them. The position is different in a port, or anywhere else, through which material is passing. That is the distinction.

The hon. Member for Salisbury made a well-informed contribution; he spoke on Second Reading about the matter. However, the Bill gives greater flexibility to the constabulary to exercise police powers throughout Britain than at present. The jurisdiction in clause 59 is appropriate for the purpose for which the constabulary is in place. He made comparisons with the Ministry of Defence police and the British Transport Police. He is right; the additional powers that were the subject of amendment No. 58 were extended to those organisations by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. However, I do not think that a standard formula applies here.

At the time that that Act was introduced, consideration was given to the jurisdiction of the British Transport police, the Ministry of Defence police and the UKAEA constabulary. As a result, the UKAEA constabulary's jurisdiction was extended to all civil licensed nuclear sites and the area 5 km around such sites to allow greater flexibility to escort any civil nuclear material and to protect transhipment sites. In other words, the matter was considered before the 2001 legislation, and the changes indicated by the hon. Gentleman were made to the arrangements for the MOD police and the British Transport police. A view was taken then about what was appropriate for the UKAEA constabulary, which is reflected in this Bill. In particular, the 5 km zone is not available to the MOD police or British Transport police, so that gives the UKAEA constabulary the flexibility that it needs.

There may be circumstances where a member of the constabulary comes across an incident that requires intervention while outside their normal jurisdiction that is not related to nuclear sites or materials. Such incidents are likely to be rare, and they certainly do not seem to have led to a serious problem for the last 50 years, during which the constabulary has been operating without the extended jurisdiction that is the subject of amendment No. 58. Of course, one could conceive of circumstances in which it would be helpful for such additional powers to be available, but I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not draw any attention to any actual circumstances. As I say, there does not seem to have been any problem in the past.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Will the Minister set out any objections to such an extension of powers?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

It is interesting that the Liberal Democrat spokesman raises that point. What is our principal approach to the extension of powers and privileges that affect other members of society to those who do not currently have them? My view is that we should extend those powers only if a clear case has been made for doing so. The implication of the hon. Gentleman's question is that we should give them to people in case they might one day need them. There must be a clear case for extending powers that affect people's liberties before the extension is made, rather than extension being the default position.

There are currently 120 cases a month that require British Transport police to operate outside of the railways. Between 1995 and 1999, there were more than 15,000 cases in which MOD officers provided assistance to Home Office forces. I have not seen any convincing evidence or case for a similar operational requirement for the constabulary under discussion.

The hon. Member for Salisbury referred to the fact that the Minister in another place had made it clear that the operational case for extending the powers of the constabulary will be kept under review. I can confirm that again, but I would be very surprised if the Government changed their view on the matter between now and consideration on Report. If the need for extension becomes clear, I envisage that it will be taken account of in future Home Office legislation. It is important to extend those powers and privileges only if there is a clear case for doing so, and at the moment there is not.

The hon. Gentleman was a bit dismissive of the important point made by my noble Friend that police numbers in the constabulary will be at a level designed to enable it to fulfil its primary function. That is important because we should not allow the constabulary to be diverted from its central task by reducing the numbers securing a licensed site while responding to a traffic incident, for example.

The UKAEA Police Federation wants to see its powers extended and it suggests that there could be dire implications for national security if they were not.

I have not seen any evidence to substantiate such a claim, and the onus is on those who advocate the extension of powers over the default position of non-extension.

The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to what ACPO said. I listened to the wording that he quoted from the ACPO submission, and I think he correctly quoted that ACPO would be content for such an extension. ACPO did not make the case for it, however. ACPO would not object to an extension, but that is different from it advancing an argument in favour of the change.

The hon. Gentleman asked me what ACPO Scotland said. In its submission it pointed out that the intended provision would not allow the civil nuclear constabulary to go to the assistance of other forces. It did not make the case for extending the powers; it simply made an observation.

On the basis of the evidence that I have heard, the way in which we have drawn up the powers is appropriate given the role that we need the constabulary to play. If things were to change, it would be possible to extend the powers, but in the absence of a clear case for extension at the moment we should not simply extend them in case they are needed in the future.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

Of course, the Minister is right that the legislation proposes wider powers than currently exist. The powers are quite different, but they are wider than they were. He said that we should have regard to the constabulary's primary function, which is the protection of those particular sites. He then said, however, that the function of the UKAEA police was ''not part of public policing''. That is not so.

I do not know what it feels like in East Ham, but in Salisbury—where we have regular policing from not only the county constabulary, but the MOD police, the military police, the provost marshals, the UKAEA police and the British Transport police—we feel safe because there is such an interface. We know that they all have constabulary power, except the UKAEA constabulary, who cannot intervene. The Minister seriously misjudges the situation if he thinks that a marked police car with uniformed police and flashing blue lights will not stop at the scene of an accident because the police officers in the situation have not got the right protocol—the memorandum of understanding—and because they judge that it is too dangerous for them to get involved because they have only citizens' rights.

The Minister also gave me no answer on the question of liability. He misjudges public perception of those circumstances. I am sure that in the not-too-distant future we will return to the matter again. It is all a matter of judgment, and the Minister has made the judgment that he will not make any concession between now and consideration on Report. I am disappointed, and I know that there will be many sad policemen in the UKAEA, who will be disappointed

that the Labour Government have let them down on this matter, as well as on so much else. I shall therefore press the matter to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 11.

Clause 63 - Charges

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I seek clarification from the Under-Secretary of what the clause will lead to. I would like an example of where those charges might be levelled.

I presume that the clause concerns recouping money from, for example, British Energy. If that is the case, can the Under-Secretary say how agreement would be reached between ''that person''—to quote subsection (1)(a)—and the police authority, or how that would be determined by the Secretary of State, as provided for in subsection (1)(b). What sort of services will be recouped in terms of costs? Will the Under-Secretary also confirm that the full cost will be recovered, and that there will not be a net expenditure to the police authority?

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I hope that I can help. Under the current funding of the constabulary as part of the UKAEA, the costs of providing policing services to BNFL and Urenco are recovered. Within the UKAEA, the constabulary is treated as a separate accounting unit, recovering its costs from internal customers.

The new arrangements for the constabulary will be based on those that already exist, which appear to work well. The constabulary polices a few well-defined organisations, and the proposed arrangements are therefore fairly straightforward to administer. As is standard practice for non-departmental public bodies, the details of the authority's financial arrangements will be set out in its financial memorandum. I hope that

that satisfies the hon. Gentleman that the established arrangements, which appear to have served us well, will continue.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 12 agreed to.

Clause 65 - Inspection

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I hope to ask a question that is tangential, although not directly related. Is the constabulary covered by the Independent Police Complaints Commission set up under the Police Reform Act 2002?

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I am checking my brief, but I am not entirely sure whether that is the case.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

There is to be a voluntary agreement.

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for communicating to me the fact that the constabulary will have a voluntary agreement to be so covered.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am not sure whether to welcome a voluntary agreement. If the Government are not planning a statutory requirement for the constabulary to come under the IPCC, I will regret that. Under the IPCC arrangements, members of the public have the right to complain about the behaviour of a police officer. It is possible that members of the public may interact with officers of the constabulary, because they may be within 5 km of a nuclear site. It would be wrong if they did not have that statutory right to invoke the complaints procedure.

A voluntary agreement presumably means that the Government intend that the constabulary should come under the IPCC. If they have that intention, why is it not being put on a statutory footing?

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I am happy to write to the Committee before the next sitting to set out the arrangements.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 13 agreed to.

Clause 67 - Civil Nuclear Police Federation

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

My question concerns the rights of the members of the constabulary. What is their position if they identify a practice, process or individual act that they regard as inappropriate and believe should be investigated? If they exercise the right to report that, but the practice, process or act is not corrected, where do they stand in terms of the Official Secrets Act or their code of conduct? What is their position if they want to draw to the attention of the public, a Select Committee or another body their legitimate concerns about radioactive or nuclear matters that have not been satisfactorily dealt with internally?

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

The clause sets out the role and responsibilities of the Civil Nuclear Police Federation in similar terms to those of other statutory federations and follows closely the precedent of section 59 of the Police Act 1996. It enables the Secretary of State to give statutory recognition to the Civil Nuclear Police Federation to represent members of the constabulary in matters affecting welfare and efficiency. That role is currently undertaken by the UKEA Police Federation, which is a non-statutory body, although it has sole negotiating rights for members of the constabulary. I believe that the constabulary is covered by the whistleblowers Act, and I am happy to elaborate on that in writing if further clarification is required.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 68 to 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 14 agreed to.

Clauses 73 to 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 15 agreed to.

Clauses 79 to 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82 - Expenditure on nuclear related matters

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

The clause relates specifically to money to be provided by Parliament and refers to

''any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, under or as a result of''

any option from British Energy. Will the Minister explain the background to the clause with particular reference to any part of British Energy that might be sold by the company before the Secretary of State's authority under the clause is exercised?

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

My point follows on from that. I raised the matter earlier, but I am still waiting for an explanation of what the clause means, despite the Secretary of State's assurance on Second Reading that the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services would deal with that.

I am concerned that it appears to be envisaged that British Energy could sell one of its nuclear power stations to a third party, and I am not clear at what point it could do that. I appreciate that the restructuring of British Energy is ongoing, but I would like clarification. Is it envisaged that as part of that restructuring British Energy could sell some of its power stations to a third party or that it could be broken up into constituent parts that would then, in effect, become third parties?

It seems from the explanatory notes that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority will have the power to acquire British Energy's shareholding in Nirex, and I wonder whether that is a clue to what is anticipated for Nirex. That was not made clear earlier, so will the Minister clarify it? Is it proposed that Nirex will be subsumed at some point by the NDA?

Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South)

Hon. Members are right in that the clause extends the Secretary of State's powers to spend money on matters relating to British Energy. They were confirmed in the Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2003. The need for the additional authority followed on after the 2003 Act was passed as a result of detailed documentation setting out the treatment of British Energy's liabilities going forward. To answer the question directly, the clause will allow spending on acquiring and operating any former British Energy nuclear power station that has since been acquired by a third party.

The clause will allow moneys to be spent on acquiring British Energy's shareholding in Nirex. We have included that option to simplify any future restructuring of Nirex and to enable Nirex to operate without involvement from British Energy when it might no longer have a financial interest in its work. The clause will also allow ongoing expenditure in respect of the two options that we have taken up as part of the restructuring of British Energy.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

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?

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.