| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
27 Jan 2003 : Column 579—continued
Mr. Smith: The penalties have been increased. I shall certainly keep a very close eye on the matter to see whether we need to strengthen them still further. On the withdrawal of driving licences, the fact that it is being drawn to people's attention and that such a threat is hanging above them works all the more effectively when the licence is not removed; they cough up the money that they owe.
Point of Order
4.17 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you and many hon. Members will have seen in the weekend press extensive coverage on the Government's imminent announcement about the contract that is to be placed for two new aircraft carriers. As you know, the order in which questions for oral answer appear on the Order Paper is not a precise science. Of course, I do not accuse you of having any involvement in the matter, which is decided by random selection. However, amidst many questions about Iraq today, there was one about procurement, and it is most unfortunate that it was withdrawn even as proceedings here were under way. I cast no aspersions on the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), whose question was withdrawn; it may be that he was caught on the train, or whatever. None the less, will you do two things for me? First, will you make inquiries to ensure that no pressure was brought to bear—
David Cairns (Greenock and Inverclyde): Have you met him?
Mr. Howarth: I have to say that I think that it is most unlikely; I regard the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok as a friend and he is a very fine man.
Given the controversy about the contract, I hope that no pressure was brought to bear on the hon. Gentleman, although I think it unlikely; otherwise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you make it clear to hon. Members that, if they can give the House as much notice as possible, it is a courtesy to the House that makes the planning of such questions rather easier? For the benefit of those who sit elsewhere in the Chamber, I hope that we can put it on record that the reason why the House was unable to discuss the issue is that there was no opportunity to do so.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I am not sure that I am in a position to rule on pressure—or non-pressure—that is brought to bear on hon. Members. However, I appreciate that it is unfair for many reasons when questions are withdrawn in the way in which the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) described. He has put his point firmly on the record.
Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
4.19 pm
Mr. William Cash (Stone): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill contains provisions that merit further investigation. Erskine May and Standing Orders explicitly state that public Bills to which the Standing Orders relating to private business apply are subject to certain proceedings that are additional to the normal stages in passing public Bills.
Indeed, the Speaker has defined a hybrid Bill as
- "a public Bill that affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interests of other persons or bodies of the same category or class."
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving prior notice of his point of order. Mr. Speaker has given the matter careful consideration, but he does not find the Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to be hybrid in any respect. The Bill is an enabling measure that gives the Secretary of State authority to incur expenditure on British Energy, a private sector group that is engaged in nuclear generation, or to acquire a British Energy undertaking. However, it does not require her to do so. The nuclear generating industry to which the Bill applies is a specific class for the purpose of legislation. The other member of the class is British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., a wholly publicly owned company, which is not adversely affected by the provisions of the Bill.
In reaching his conclusion that the Bill is not hybrid, Mr. Speaker has examined the precedents for such Government action under the Rolls-Royce (Purchase) Act 1971, the British Leyland Act 1975 and the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Act 1980.
4.23 pm
The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Before we even begin our consideration, we have a fascinating vignette in which the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) reveals himself 27 years later as the man behind Maxwell-Hyslop.
The Secretary of State came to the House on 28 November last year to make an announcement on British Energy. That company is Britain's only private sector nuclear generator and our largest single electricity
generator. It was in serious financial difficulty, and the Government had provided it with a loan facility since early September to enable it to continue to operate.British Energy proposed a restructuring plan to return the company to financial viability in the private sector. That was a complex deal, which required the participation of several financial stakeholders. The Government were prepared to play their part in the restructuring by providing financial support for BE's nuclear liabilities. They were prepared to underwrite BE's enhanced arrangements for decommissioning and contribute significantly to the historic spent nuclear fuel liabilities.
However, we were always conscious of the risk that BE would not be able to deliver the deal. It was therefore important that Government were alert to the alternative scenario of the possible failure of the deal and fully prepared for the company to go into administration.
In her statement, the Secretary of State made clear her intention to introduce legislation that would tackle either eventuality: successful restructuring or administration. That is the purpose of the Bill. I want to re-emphasise that throughout our dealings with British Energy our key objectives have been nuclear safety and the security of electricity supplies. It might be helpful if I explain that a little further.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire): Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Wilson: I want to make a little progress.
As hon. Members will be aware, an unplanned business failure of British Energy could have jeopardised those objectives. Nuclear reactors, self-evidently, have their own special safety requirements. One cannot simply shut down a reactor and walk away if one runs out of money. For example, for as long as fuel remains inside, the cooling and safety systems must be operated, and funding is required to ensure that that is possible. Likewise, if BE stations were suddenly forced to stop generating electricity with little advance warning, there would be serious consequences for the security of electricity supplies.
Mr. Lansley: The Minister will recall that as recently as early December he was saying that the energy White Paper would be published early in the new year. Will he concede that, notwithstanding the urgency of the Bill, it would be far better if we had sight of the Government's more general proposals for energy in the White Paper? Can the Minister explain why it has not been published so as to enable the debate to take place in that context?
Mr. Wilson: We had this little exchange during trade and industry questions last month. I do not know why the Tories are so worried about timing—it is not as if they are going anywhere. I said that it would be published early in the new year, and it will be. We had a discussion on Report, in relation to academic institutes, about what was meant by early in the new year.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): By Hogmanay?
Mr. Wilson: Hogmanay was late that year. The White Paper will be published at the end of February or the
beginning of March—I will not put a precise date on it. Everybody with an interest in these subjects agrees that it is better to get it right than to be pinned down to a specific date. Elements of the British Energy issue also have an impact on the timetable.
Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe): There is a pretty general consensus that this contingency legislation is needed, but there has been speculation that it indicates the Government's preference for rejecting some of the performance and innovation unit's recommendations and introducing new nuclear power stations. Will the Minister confirm that the Bill is without any prejudice towards that end and that the Government recognise that such a policy would face widespread opposition?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |