Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The role of the childrens commissioner, which was established through a laudable piece of legislation, has often been cited as an example in our discussions. When the childrens commissioner appeared before the Welsh Affairs Committee on 22 April 2004, he said:
I do not have my strongest powers in the area of non-devolved matters. I cannot require documentation to be given to me. I cannot require the attendance of witnesses to give evidence on oath if I am conducting an inquiry. From the point of view of being the most powerful childrens champion possible, it would be good from my perspective if the current Children Bill were amended to extend my powers over those matters.
The experience of the childrens commissioner speaks volumes about what we have been trying to achieve during the passage of the Bill, and we may have to return to those matters in future. I hope that some of them will be addressed in the memorandum of understanding between the Assembly and the newly appointed commissioner. The appointment will be made soon, in 2007, which is to be welcomed.
The commissioners post will be the first of its kind in the world, and has huge potential to enrich peoples lives. Despite my scepticismI do not want to be pessimisticI support what is in the Bill. The Liberal Democrats wish the commissioner every success, and we sincerely hope that, through the Bill, the Government have given him the tools that he needs to do an effective job and, above all, to provide the accessibility to respond to our constituents demands.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.
Ms Dawn Butler (Brent, South) (Lab): I wish to present a petition on behalf of 5,000 individuals who are concerned about security at railway stations. At present, too few stations are staffed during the hours of operation, and many have inadequate CCTV or even help points. Too few have functioning ticket barriers during the hours of operation. The petitioners call on the rail companies to recognise their responsibility for passenger safety and to put people before profits.
To the House of Commons,
The Petition of London residents declares that many overland rail stations in London are not properly staffed at night.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that all overland rail stations are property staffed during the whole of their hours of operation after dark.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): I wish to present a petition to the House calling on Parliament and Government to reduce wildlife crime. The petition is organised by my constituent, the brave and indefatigable Faye Burton, who is also organiser of the rural policing liaison group. It has 1,274 signatures.
Your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Government to ensure that:
Judicial sentences reflect the serious nature of all wildlife crime...
All wildlife crime is entered into a nationwide database that enables the sharing of information
All police forces appoint a full-time wildlife officer to police wildlife crime
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Mr. Andrew Pelling (Croydon, Central) (Con): I am pleased to present a petition organised by Disability Croydon and Mr. Alwyn DCosta regarding the need for a unified blue badge parking scheme.
The Petition declares that the existing Blue Badge scheme has too many exemptions and variations making it difficult for disabled drivers to know the validity of their Badge when parking in certain parts of the country.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons vote to introduce a unified Blue Badge disabled parking scheme that covers the whole of England and Wales.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Mr. Mike Hall (Weaver Vale) (Lab): Earlier this afternoon, several constituents of mine and of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), came to Parliament to pass me a petition expressing their concerns about the proposed transfer of in-patient activity from Halton hospital. The petition is signed by Mrs. Pauline Warrener and 23,000 other people.
To the House of Commons
The Petition of the residents of Halton and others
Declares that North Cheshire Hospitals Trust are proposing to transfer all in-patient activity from Halton General Hospital that will result in 5 wards being transferred from Halton General Hospital to Warrington General Hospital and these proposals are causing great concern to the people of Runcorn,
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure North Cheshire Hospital Trust retains in-patient admission to Halton General Hospital.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Ms Celia Barlow (Hove) (Lab): I wish to present a petition in the name of my constituent Ms Polly Strauss of Wolstonbury road in Hove. The petition was signed by 802 of my constituents. I entirely agree with the terms of the petition, which calls for safe pedestrian crossings at the junction of the Old Shoreham road and Dyke road in Hove. The junction is next to Brighton, Hove and Sussex sixth form college, and a safer flow of traffic would also benefit the students who must use the crossing every day.
Although there has recently been some progress locally, I still believe that the local campaign deserves to be presented to the House. The petition states
The Petition of BHASVIC Lights Action Group,
Declares that there is a need for a traffic free phase at the junction of the Old Shoreham Road and Dyke Road in Hove, East Sussex, in the interests of the safety of the thousand or more pedestrians who use the junction each day.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take action to encourage the local council to undertake the adaptation of this crossing to facilitate the passage of pedestrians, and not prioritise ease of traffic flow over the safety of pedestrians.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
I concur, and I am happy to present the petition to the House.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Jonathan Shaw.]
Mr. Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab): The issue of long-term management of long-lived and highly active radioactive wastes in the UK, although by no means neglected, has been in a vacuum since 1997.
Let me make clear from the outset that this debate was not prompted by the recently published energy review and the overdue recognition of the essential role that nuclear energy has to play as part of a balanced and secure energy policy. The issue of radioactive waste management policy was not made more urgent by the outcome of the energy review; it was already a pressing issue in need of swift resolution. Attempts to link new nuclear generation with the current lack of a long-term disposal route for radioactive wastes are disingenuous and confused. Whether or not new nuclear reactors are built in this country, we urgently need a policy solution for the long-term management of radioactive waste.
Given that more than 60 per cent. of the nation's radioactive wastes currently reside in my constituency, my constituents and I have a clear and undeniable interest in this policy area, and I believe that our opinions should be listened to first and foremost in emerging policy discussions. That is morally right, for no other part of the United Kingdom takes a more keen or detailed interest in these issues than the residents of Copeland.
Copeland's unique interest is illustrated by figures relating to current radioactive waste volumes and expected future volumes as a result of decommissioning. The latest available figures for waste volumes in the UK are from 2004. Nationally, there are 1,890 cu m of high-level waste, 82,500 cu m of intermediate-level waste and 20,900 cu m of low-level waste. Prior to 2004, some 960,000 cu m of low-level waste was disposed of at the low-level waste facility near Sellafield in my constituency. Sellafield houses all the high-level waste and approximately 70 per cent. of the intermediate-level waste. The total volume of radioactive waste in the UK, including expected future arisings as a result of decommissioning, is approximately 2,270,000 cu m. Of that, high-level waste will constitute less than 0.1 per cent., intermediate-level waste 9.5 per cent., and low-level waste slightly over 90.4 per cent.
The draft recommendations of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management include support for a deep geological repository for intermediate-level waste, with the provision of robust interim provision before any repository construction. Intermediate-level waste stores cost between £80 and £100 million. A new one is currently being built at Sellafield, three more will be needed, and as of now a further two will be needed if a repository is not available before 2040. In addition, each reactor site in the UK is currently required to have an intermediate-level waste storage facility during care and maintenance operations.
This
is a complex policy area encompassing many social, scientific and
environmental issues. Regrettably, those three main strands of any
effective policy have
often been obscured by organisational issues relating to policy
implementation. The Government's establishment of CoWRM was an
essential step in the establishment of an appropriate and transparent
policy production process.
Importantly, the creation of CoRWM maintained the separation of radioactive waste management policy production and implementation by the same body. Following the publication of CoRWMs final recommendations, my community will clearly expect to enter into a dialogue with the Government, as will other communities with an interest in these issues. Speaking as someone who has worked for and within the nuclear industry and as someone who has worked for Nirex, I have a detailed understanding of the internal workings of the industry, which few, if any, other Members possess.
The Government are the first in our history to confront the policy and funding implications caused to the UK by the nations civil and military nuclear liabilities. Such engagement was long overdue and the Government should be commended for the clarity and rigour of their treatment of the issue thus far. The establishment of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority was a brave and necessary step and I am personally proud to be part of a Government who have faced up to their obligations, not only to the taxpayer, but to the environment and to my constituents in this regard. The NDA has proved its commitment to west Cumbria by locating its headquarters there. Although there is still much to be done, including the need to resolve pension issues, the NDA has established itself as a key, trusted community partner, as I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) would agree.
Unlike in the United States, where the Department of Energy sets annual budgets for nuclear decommissioning and clean-up, the NDA has established an enviably robust financial framework through the development of life-cycle baseline plans and near-term work plans for all of its sites. Those plans are designed to deliver cost-effective programmes of work without compromising environmental or safety standards. Indeed, those two qualities are foremost in all its work. They also deliver certainty and enable effective planning and investmentunlike the ad hoc American model, which is not efficient, stable or predictable. In my view, such uncertainty impinges on safe operations.
The NDAs current estimate for the clean-up of the UKs military and civil nuclear liabilities stands at approximately £70 billion. That figure contains some £14 billion used to operate income-generating plants, but does not include the likely costs of the establishment of a repository. The financial modelling is still a work in progress and the NDA is expected by the Government to produce robust costings for decommissioning and clean-up by 2008.
Given that the Government are committed to achieving the best possible value for money from the public pursea key feature of the forthcoming comprehensive spending reviewthat is a huge uncertainty to have to carry. The uncertainty is brought about by the lack of a policy relating to final disposal for intermediate and high-level radioactive wastes and it is not good for the taxpayer, for the Government, for the industry or for potential repository host communities.
CoRWM is widely expected to report its recommendations to the Government by the end of this month and provided that they follow the already published draft recommendations, the Government should accept them. The process of producing the policy recommendations has necessarily been lengthy and laborious, but given the disastrous mess made by the last Conservative Government and the shocking failure of Nirex, a lengthy and transparent process was, and remains, entirely proper.
While I was thinking of Nirex in preparation for this debate, I was reminded of the great Hunter S. Thompson. Those familiar with his work will know that his excoriating writing illustrates that the truth is more often than not stranger than fiction. The experience of Nirex endured by my community in the mid-1990s was so wretched that I was minded to entitle this debate Fear and loathing in west Cumbria, for there are few more accurate words with which to describe the reaction that Nirex still provokes in my constituency to this day.
My constituency still bears the scars of its regrettable encounter with Nirex in the 1990s. The arrogance and contempt with which the company treated locally elected representatives will never be forgotten. The imperial way in which it assumed that it was beyond reproach was staggering and the political, social and reputational damage that it brought to the whole of Cumbria was incalculable. Thankfully, the company met its nemesis in the late Bill Minto, OBE, the then leader of Cumbria county council.
At this juncture, I would like to point out that I worked for Nirex for a little over a year before, like many others, being made redundant. Some may mistakenly assume that my attitude to the company is somehow shaped by that experience[Hon. Members: No!]but that would be naive and insulting. My attitude to the company is informed purely by concerns relating to effective policy implementation. The Government have brought rigour, but so far no real clarity, to that policy area through the establishment of CoRWM. Before such clarity can be established, the Government should act to remove the agencies responsible for preventing it from being achieved because without clarity, successful policy implementation is impossible.
It is my long-held view that the continued existence of Nirex is the principal obstacle to the successful implementation of any radioactive waste management policy in this country. As an organisation, Nirex inspires suspicion and distrust. I can foresee no circumstance in which that organisation can assist in the implementation of radioactive waste management policy. Regrettably, as long as Nirex exists, the issues surrounding radioactive waste management policy in Britain are bound to remain unresolved. As if to prove its unsuitability for its continued existence, the Nirex management team have furiously lobbied MPs for months with regard to their case for its continued existence. I find the prospect of a publicly funded body aggressively lobbying democratically elected legislators not only absurd, but faintly obscene.
Although
Nirex insists that it has made serious and concerted attempts to change
its behaviour in recent
years, it remains a byword for everything that was wrong with the old
nuclear industry. Moreover, a covert lobbying programme using public
funds is hardly the hallmark of a mature, responsible and transparent
organisation. After all these years, the company still believes that
the secret to achieving stakeholder respect is to creep and scuttle in
the shadows. Any attempt by the company to change its name would invite
ridicule and further distrust. There are no options available for
Nirex. In my view, time has run out. It must be dissolved if the
country is to make progress on this policy of essential environmental
importance and intergenerational social
justice.
Nirex is not independent; it is jointly owned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry. Ninety per cent. of its funding comes from the NDA, with the remainder from the Ministry of Defence. It is even a member of the Nuclear Industry Association. It would appear that old habits clearly die hard. Nor is Nirex a regulator, as the House was correctly told on Monday.
With all that in mind, it must be recognised that Nirex contains a great deal of unique intellectual property. I have had the pleasure of working closely with those people in the past and know that, in the main, they possess impeccable integrity and ability. They have an essential role to play in the nuclear industry, but their attributes are squandered under the stewardship of the Nirex management. They deserve to be allowed to make their contribution to the policy in an environment and an organisation, or organisations, that can properly utilise their skills. That organisation is not and can never be Nirex, so we now need to be clear about ways forward on this policy.
Following the publication of the CoRWM recommendations at the end of this monthI assumethe Government could reasonably consider a number of options to establish an effective implementation body for radioactive waste management policy. The first essential step is the dissolution of Nirex. Then consideration could be given to allocating the skills and abilities of the work force, perhaps across the nuclear installations inspectorate, the Environment Agency, the NDA and perhaps even a successor body to CoRWM. That is, of course, entirely possible, and the Government should consider the fact that a replacement body for Nirex could be established that would be untainted by any association with the successive failures and the management of that company. It might even be the case that, once a volunteer site is found for the repository, the local authority in that area should determine what arrangements and structures should be established. In fact, CoRWMs ninth draft recommendation states:
Community involvement should be achieved through the development of a partnership approach, based on an open and equal relationship between the potential host community and those responsible for implementation.
The Minister will know that I have made representations to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the establishment of the national nuclear laboratory in my constituency. That, too, would be an ideal structure and environment in which to house the undoubted skills of those experts, and I hope that that will be considered.
This is
not the first timeand it might not be the lastthat I
have requested the dissolution of Nirex on
the record. As a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Committee, I have made that point separately but in public session to
both the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
and Professor Gordon McKerron, the chair of CoRWM. The comments that I
made to Professor McKerron many months ago may well have precipitated
the ill-advised lobbying onslaught from Nirex
management.
To reiterate, the dissolution of Nirex is an essential first step in successfully implementing future waste management policy. As long as Nirex exists, that will remain an intractable policy issue with no prospect of resolution. The policy has been without meaningful momentum for too long now. Prevarication and procrastination have been its hallmark since the mid-1990s. As a nation, we cannot afford to inject undue haste into the process, but neither can we afford to hide behind short-term political expediency as an excuse for inaction. Clearly, that is better left to the Leader of the Opposition. The truth is that we need action now.
The fact that I have secured this debate today should not be misunderstood. Let me emphasise that I am not volunteering my constituency as a host for a future repositorynothing could be further from the truthand as long as I have anything to do with it, Nirex will never dig another sod of turf in west Cumbria. The purpose of this debate is twofold: to seek a comprehensive and detailed process that will establish transparency and accountability in radioactive waste management policy production and implementation and to urge the Government to take the necessary decisions now, which will make the resolution of the issue possible. That will be to the benefit of communities with an interest in nuclear issues throughout the country, not simply Copeland. However, given the unique importance of Copeland in this important national policy area, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can commit to entering a dialogue with Copeland borough council and me, following the Governments response to the CoRWM recommendations. By way of informing that dialogue, I intend to send my hon. Friend the recently produced draft nuclear policy statement from Copeland borough council, a thorough piece of work and a worthy basis on which to establish future discussions.
So far, the Labour Party in government has shown that it is the only party prepared to take the necessary decisions with regard to the nuclear industry. We know that the other parties do not understand the issues, as they consistently demonstrate with their confused comments. I am proud to belong to a party of government with the courage and intellectual conviction to do what is right in this area. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister shares my desire to establish clarity in the implementation of future radioactive waste policy sooner rather than later, and I look forward to his response.
Mr.
David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I appreciate the
opportunity to say a few words in this debate, and I congratulate my
hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) on calling it. I have
two main points and I
hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to respond to them
tonight, or perhaps in further discussions.
First, I hear the pleas about Nirex made by my hon. Friend, and I share many of his concerns. However, I also share the concern, which is probably outside the main drift of the debate, about the suggestion that Nirex could be assimilated by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. I am not prepared to rule that out, but neither am I prepared to rule it in at the moment. It is unhelpful in advance of CoRWMs final report that we should already have two organisations attacking each other in public, let alone in private. It does not demonstrate that we are dealing with mature organisations working in this vital industry. It also comes on the back of the announcement that we are considering rebuildsomething for which my hon. Friend and I, and other hon. Members present, have long argued. The last thing we want is to grab defeat from the jaws of victory because of that unnecessary battle. I look forward to the final CoRWM report. I am sure that it will have something to say about Nirex and about the relationship between it and the NDA. But we should have the report and then the debate, and not make the decision beforehand.
My second point is that at a time when the industry has had the lift of the strong possibility of new buildalthough we cannot deliver it immediatelyit is worrying that only limited numbers of people work in the industry. Their psychology and capacity is vital. I want to be clear that when we get the CoRWM report, we should do whatever we can to retain them, because come what may in terms of the rebuild of the industry, we have to deal with decommissioning. We need to keep people in the industry, and that is why we should stop the obsession with constant restructuring. My hon. Friend will be used to going into Sellafield, as I am used to going into Berkeley, to be told that it is having another reorganisation. I do not know what it is to go into Berkeley without having the staff talk to me about another reorganisation. Usually, however, the reorganisation is more of the same and there is some stability in the industry. In the past two years we have seen nothing but instability, and that is why I am critical of any decisions that have apparently been taken in advance of the CoRWM report.
I shall conclude with the parochial plea that I mentioned earlier. This is a vital time for Berkeley, as there are proposals that it should be used a test case for the full decommissioning of the old Magnox reactors. The Minister will know about those proposals, as will my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy.
Although Berkeley cannot be turned back into a greenfield site, most of the remaining nuclear material would be taken away. However, it is important to understand that the proposals mean that some of the low-level nuclear waste would continue to be stored there. That is worth considering, but we need confusion about how to deal with managing the waste like we need a hole in the head.
My hon.
Friend the Member for Copeland mentioned a figure of £70
billion, but much of that is predicated on the belief that it will take
a long time to decommission our nuclear industry. That decommissioning
must be done safely, but we will gain two advantages if we can show
that the technology is capable of delivering it quickly: we will save
some money, and we will become
the world leader in the field. We will then be able to sell our skills
to the nuclear industry around the world, as we have done
previously.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |