| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Miss McIntosh: In view of the Minister's conciliatory tone and his appreciation of the vulnerability of some customers and Ofgem's excellent work, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 17
'(1) Part 1 of this Act is based upon general environmental principles which must be followed by any person or body in carrying out any of its functions under this Part of this Act.
(2) These general principles are—
(a) that the health and safety of people and the environment must be protected from the harmful effects of nuclear wastes;
(b) that the costs of pollution must be borne by the person or body responsible for causing the pollution; and
(c) that international best practice in radiation protection should be implemented.
(3) In addition to the above principles, the NDA should also seek to ensure—
(a) that the creation of nuclear waste should be avoided or minimised;
(b) that nuclear wastes should be concentrated and contained rather than diluted and dispersed throughout the environment;
(c) that the most hazardous wastes are prioritised for conditioning to put them into a passively safe state; and
(d) that there are no unnecessary transports of waste.'.—[Norman Baker.]
13 Jul 2004 : Column 1352
Brought up, and read the First time.
Norman Baker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 26, in page 3, line 31 [Clause 3], leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'(4) The Secretary of State must satisfy himself on an annual basis that any person with control of a nuclear installation who is not—
(a) a Crown appointee;
(b) the UKAEA;
(c) a wholly-owned subsidiary of the UKAEA;
(d) any other publicly owned company which was so owned on 4th July 2002;
(e) a wholly owned subsidiary of such a company; or
(f) the NDA itself, is taking the necessary steps to ensure that decommissioning work and liabilities will be fully funded through the establishment and maintenance of a fully segregated fund for that purpose and that an appropriate contribution is made to the funding of the designated long-term nuclear waste management body.'.
Amendment No. 41, in page 3, line 38, at end insert—
'(4A) The provisions of subsection (4)(e) above shall only be exercised in respect of British Energy following bankruptcy of that company.'.
Amendment No. 37, in page 4, line 21, at end insert—
'(10) No powers allocated to the NDA shall be taken to affect the powers and duties of NIREX.'.
Amendment No. 42, in page 5, line 29 [Clause 5], at end insert—
'(5A) The provisions of subsection (5)(e) above shall only be exercised in respect of British Energy following bankruptcy of that company.'.
Amendment No. 38, in page 7, line 10 [Clause 7], at end insert—
'(1A) The NDA shall undertake no activities that will lead to an increase in the generation of nuclear waste except pursuant to the safe operation of nuclear plants for power generation.'.
Amendment No. 39, in page 7, line 18, at end insert—
'(2A) The NDA shall not allow considerations relating to the potential generation of income to result in additional production of nuclear wastes.'.
Amendment No. 29, in page 8, line 33 [Clause 9], leave out
'need to safeguard the environment'
and insert
'environmental principles set out in section [Environmental principles for purposes of Part 1] and'.
Amendment No. 30, in page 8, line 34, leave out paragraph (c).
Amendment No. 31, in page 8, line 39, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
'(a) to ensure that the health and safety of people and the environment must be protected from the harmful effects of nuclear wastes;'.
Amendment No. 32, in page 8, line 42, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
'(b) to ensure that the costs of pollution must be borne by the person or body responsible for causing the pollution; and'.
13 Jul 2004 : Column 1353
Amendment No. 33, in page 9, line 1, leave out paragraph (c).
Amendment No. 34, in page 9, line 4, after first 'to', insert
'section [Environmental principles for purposes of Part 1](1),'.
Amendment No. 40, in page 9, line 4, after first 'to', insert 'section 7(2A),'.
Amendment No. 35, in page 9, line 4, leave out 'to (c)' and insert 'and (b)'.
Government amendments Nos. 11 and 12, and 15 to 17.
Norman Baker: I am sorry that we have just 21 minutes left of the Report stage. Members of all parties have been brief and to the point this afternoon, but we are still running out of time. Other important amendments have still to be discussed; I guess that they will be picked up on Third Reading, if at all.
I was complimenting the Minister earlier for having taken on board certain points that had been raised in Committee. That was true, but none of them relate to the nuclear industry. There has been a studious refusal by the Government to take on board the points that were made properly and convincingly on that issue by several Members in Committee. The Bill will make £48 billion of public money available to decommission the nuclear industry, which is £8,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. That is one reason why the uncharacteristically glib suggestion by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) that we should have a new season of nuclear power stations needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, given the massive cost to the taxpayer. The second reason is, of course, the amount of nuclear waste that is mounting across the country as we speak.
The proposal for a nuclear decommissioning authority is a sensible one. My colleagues and I have always welcomed the idea that such an authority should be set up to deal with this problem, which has been allowed to fester for far too long. Unfortunately, however, the way in which the Government proposes to set up the NDA has worrying aspects. They were raised in Committee, and I am bound to say that we did not receive satisfactory answers from the Minister to some of the salient points that we made.
The NDA has no overarching environmental responsibility, which seems extraordinary for a body that is to deal with nuclear waste. I draw the Minister's attention to new clause 17, which seeks to instil some environmental principles into the NDA. The general principles set out in subsection (2) are:
"(a) that the health and safety of people and the environment must be protected from the harmful effects of nuclear wastes;
(b) that the costs of pollution must be borne by the person or body responsible for causing the pollution; and
(c) that international best practice in radiation protection should be implemented."
"In addition to the above principles, the NDA should also seek to ensure—
(a) that the creation of nuclear waste should be avoided or minimised;
(b) that nuclear wastes should be concentrated and contained rather than diluted and dispersed throughout the environment;
(c) that the most hazardous wastes are prioritised for conditioning to put them into a passively safe state; and
(d) that there are no unnecessary transports of waste."
Those are completely uncontroversial, commonsense principles, and I fail to see why the Government do not want to adopt them. Perhaps the answer is that the NDA will not simply be a body that is set up to decommission the nuclear industry and to deal belatedly with some of the environmental mess that it has caused, as some of us wish it to be. Perhaps it will have the further function of providing an income stream for the Treasury. Members on both sides of the House have made the point that there has been a refusal to allow segregated funds to be established. That would be dealt with by amendment No. 26, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and me.
We believe that the NDA is going to continue to be allowed to operate plants ad infinitum. That is on the record from the Minister in Committee. There is no absolute cut-off point; it will be able to continue to operate those plants. Indeed, if the hon. Member for Salisbury is correct in his assertion that there is going to be a big gap in our energy supply, the NDA could suddenly be called on to carry on operating those plants indefinitely. That is not what is intended for the NDA, but it is allowed for in the Bill. That should not be the case, and the amendments would prevent that from occurring.
Let us be clear about this. There is a nuclear generation industry, for better or worse, and there should be a decommissioning industry as well. We should not mix the two up, which is what the Government are doing as a result of the way in which they have structured the NDA in the Bill. I detect the hand of the Treasury here. It wants money back from the nuclear industry. It is baulking, understandably, at the £48 bill that has landed on Gordon Brown's doormat, and it wants some money back. The way to do that is to get an income stream from the NDA, which would get the money from generating electricity and otherwise using the existing plant. So the irony is that the NDA, which is being set up to decommission the industry, is actually going to be given the power to generate further waste. That is what the Government have set out in the Bill, but amendments Nos. 38 and 39 would explicitly prevent that from happening.
"The NDA shall undertake no activities that will lead to an increase in the generation of nuclear waste except pursuant to the safe operation of nuclear plants for power generation."
That would prevent any reprocessing, which the Minister is apparently also happy for the NDA to be involved in. Amendment No. 39 states:
"The NDA shall not allow considerations relating to the potential generation of income to result in additional production of nuclear wastes."
That should be the position of the NDA. We should separate the generation capacity from the decommissioning capacity, but as a result of the way in which the Government have structured the Bill, that has not been done. The NDA will even be enabled to hand over money, and power, to British Energy, a private sector company. That is what is allowed for in the Bill.
13 Jul 2004 : Column 1355
The Minister said that of course there must be a backstop, in case nuclear waste is arising and a private company cannot handle it. Yes, but does not that allow a nice let-out for British Energy, which already has a pretty nice credit line from the DTI? That money could be used for other purposes. Our amendment suggests that that option should only be exercised if British Energy goes bankrupt. It is then a matter for the public purse to deal with, for the sake of the environment. Of course we must deal with it in that situation, but Parliament's role, and the DTI's role, is not to bail out private companies. The Minister should therefore accept that amendment too.
I am conscious of time, and other Members want to speak. I suggest to the Minister, however, that he has convinced neither the Committee, nor, I suspect, the House, on the nuclear aspects of the Bill. As I said to the Minister in Committee, the Government's nuclear policy is not bad, but it is not reflected in the Bill that has been written for him.
5.45 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |