You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Lords Publications > Lords Hansard > Lords Hansard Previous Sessions
Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Dykes: My Lords, does the Minister feelthat the EU3 intervention exercise from its commencement has been, on balance, a considerable success, notwithstanding the continuing existence of a number of large problems? Apart from the latest

25 Oct 2006 : Column 1206

outburst by John Bolton at the UN, would the Minister not agree that one consequence has been that the United States has confirmed that it would not consider any military intervention in Iran? Does that not lead us all to the obvious conclusion that the sooner there is a regional solution to these problems, which would include Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Iran and Syria, the better? That would require Israel’s co-operation as well.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am sure that the interplay of issues throughout the Middle East requires the involvement of a number of parties. That process of negotiation would be unlocked and would move forward more rapidly were the negotiations on the road map in the Middle East to be pursued vigorously and as rapidly as possible. Having said that, with regard to the particular problems of engaging with Iran, Iran needs to engage with everybody else. Iran must also realise that we cannot accept breaches of the UN Security Council resolutions or threats if we continue to pursue what the Security Council has agreed.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, why should a man sitting on an omnibus in Tehran support a compromise by the Iranian Government when he knows that Israel is not prepared to cede on nuclear weapons?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, different issues are involved here, and it would take a rather long answer—longer than is permitted at the Dispatch Box—to explore all of those differences. We wish to see a Middle East free of nuclear weapons, and we would prefer to see the Israelis controlled in that respect by the non-proliferation treaty as well—we have made that clear on any number of occasions. The problem in Iran is straightforward: it has started a process which the IAEA has concluded is dangerous and that the Security Council has concluded must stop. It is a simple proposition: Security Council resolutions on this matter must be obeyed.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister is putting the matter clearly. He is right to say that the proposals from the EU3 and America are also clear. But is not the reality that, even while we are talking here and certainly while the proposals are being put forward, the Iranians are continuing to fire up a large new cascade of centrifuges and that they are simply continuing with the purpose that they have in mind, which is to develop civil and possibly weapons-grade nuclear power? Does not all this conversation reinforce the validity and worthwhileness of the proposition that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, put forward in the first Question today—namely, that this inspection route and the attempt through the IAEA to curtail Iranian activities when they are determined to push ahead is probably not going to work and that a far better way would be through the nuclear fuel bank idea, which we should develop as rapidly as possible?



25 Oct 2006 : Column 1207

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I do not know that I can add much to what I said about our support for that development when I answered the first Question. However, UN Security Council Resolution 1696 makes provision for other options to be considered as forms of pressure on the Iranian regime. Under Article 41 of the UN Charter it is possible in those circumstances to discuss sanctions. If the Iranians cannot bring themselves to accept the United Nations’ decisions on the matter, that is inevitably the next step.

Lord Soley: My Lords, we accept that there is considerable sensitivity in this issue, but will my noble friend remind us that there is an unstable regime in Iran, which is part of the trouble? Should we not also remember that there is no political or moral equivalence between states that do not have rule of law and an open system of government and statesthat do?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I entirely agree with that proposition; I do not think that it can be argued against.

NHS: Tattoo Removal

3.24 pm

Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty’s Government:

The Minister of State, Department of Health(Lord Warner): My Lords, information on the cost of removing tattoos on the NHS is not collected centrally. Tattoo removal may be available on the NHS if a clinician considers that an individual patient’s health requires it.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. I draw his attention to the Answer to a Written Question on 18 October, which said that 187,086 tattoos were removed in the past year. As most of that work will have been done by plastic surgery, consultants believe that it could represent a bill of either £37 million or as much as £300 million. Will the Minister comment on the fact that people pay privately to be tattooed and that the general attitude of dentists and those who work in the National Health Service is that you cannot have beauty treatment on the NHS, only clinically necessary treatment? Is there not a risk that a great deal of money is being spent here on something that should have a lower priority?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Baroness is of course right that cosmetic surgery and treatment is not available on the NHS. I am aware of the Written

25 Oct 2006 : Column 1208

Answer that she mentioned, which was made on9 October in another place. I need to inform the House that I asked for the calculation that was used in that Answer to be rechecked by Department of Health statisticians for the purpose of this Answer. Shortly before coming into the Chamber, I was informed that the calculation was incorrect by a substantial margin owing to a significant number of errors in coding usage. I will of course ensure that the Written Answer is corrected, and I shall write to the noble Baroness, placing a copy in the Library—when we have double-checked the new calculation.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if the tattoo involves the whole of a patient’s back and it is a complete fox hunt scene with the fox going to ground, that could present certain major surgical problems? On the other hand, a patient came to me with a very offensive tattoo that he had had put on his hand while he was in prison. He was a reformed character and wanted it removed, but no one would do it, so I did it under local anaesthetic on a Saturday morning at no expense to the NHS.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will want to compliment the noble Lord on his humanitarian actions. We also suspect that, given his surgical skill, he would be able to cope with the fox-hunting dilemma that he described. I suspect that he and a number of his colleagues on the Benches opposite may well want to use the services offering laser treatment to remove tattoos saying “I love William” that have been replaced with others saying “I love Iain”, “I love Michael”, and so on.

Lord Acton: My Lords, my noble friend indicated in his Answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that statisticians had said that the Written Answer figures were incorrect. Did the statisticians indicate whether the figures were higher or lower?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I have to say that they were very, very, very substantially lower.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, are the Government considering allowing patients to mix private payment for some parts of their care with standard NHS provision, thereby subsidising their own care, rather than, as currently happens, each episode of care being wholly funded by the NHS or wholly privately funded?

Lord Warner: My Lords, although the noble Baroness’s query is a bit wide of the Question, I think she knows that, since the beginning of the NHS, it has been possible to have private pay beds in NHS hospitals available for people to receive private treatment, the profits going towards funding the NHS.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is it not extraordinary that a Question should be answered in another place grossly wrongly and that that should emerge only when a Question is asked here that would be

25 Oct 2006 : Column 1209

embarrassing to answer with the true costs? How can we give credence to any Answer about costs and statistics in the National Health Service when such things are allowed to go on unchecked until there is a further Question in this House?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I seem to recall thatunder the previous Government and indeed under successive Governments there have been errors in answers given in the other place, which have been corrected and the record has been put straight. A certain amount of humbug is coming from thenoble Lord.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, that is not an appropriate answer—

The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker):It is the Lib Dems’ turn.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, the Minister referred in his initial Answer to the problems of coding. When a clinician decides on mental health grounds to go ahead with a procedure, does the money come from the mental health budget or is it under another budget, such as an ISTC?

Lord Warner: My Lords, when a tattoo is removed for mental health reasons, I am not sure where that would figure in the accounts, but I shall make inquiries and write to the noble Baroness.

Energy: Radioactive Waste Management

3.30 pm

The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, with permission, I shall repeat a Statement made earlier in the other House by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the report of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management—CoRWM—which was published on 31 July. Similar Statements have been made in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. I thank the chair, Gordon MacKerron, and the members of the committee for the outstanding effort that they put into arriving at their unanimous report. “The issue of nuclear waste disposal has dogged successive Governments. CoRWM was asked to recommend the best option, or combination of options, for the long-term management of the UK’s higher activity radioactive waste to provide protection for people and the environment. The Government believe that CoRWM's report provides a very strong basis for moving forward with clarity and consensus. We accept CoRWM's recommendations that the UK's higher activity waste should be managed in the long term through

25 Oct 2006 : Column 1210

geological disposal, and the continuing need for safe and secure interim storage until the geological disposal is available. We also agree with CoRWM that we must continue to build on the momentum that it has helped establish.“As CoRWM’s report observes, geological disposal is the approach being adopted in many countries, including Belgium, France, Finland, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the US. Nevertheless, securing geological disposal represents a major challenge and will require a commitment over many decades. We accept CoRWM's recommendation that the process for developing a geological disposal option should be undertaken on a staged basis, with clear decision points. This will allow Government to review progress, assess costs and value for money and environmental impact before decisions are taken to move to the next stage.“Planning and development of the geological disposal option must be based on four keypillars. First, it must have a strong and effective implementing organisation, with clear responsibilities and accountabilities. Secondly, there must be strong independent regulation by the statutory regulators—the Health and Safety Executive, the environment agencies and the Office for Civil Nuclear Security. Thirdly, there must be independent scrutiny and advice to Government on implementation. Fourthly, there should be a partnership with the host community.“The CoRWM report observes that the safe and secure storage of civil legacy radioactive waste already falls within the remit of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority established under the Energy Act 2004. The NDA also has responsibility for disposal of low-level radioactive waste in its current remit. We have decided that responsibility for securing geological disposal of higher activity waste should also fall to the NDA, to create one organisation able to take a strategic view through all stages of the waste management chain, accountable in a clear and transparent way to independent regulators and Government. “The NDA is already subject to statutory safety, environmental protection and security obligations under the Energy Act 2004, and its contractors are subject to regulation by the environment agencies, the Health and Safety Executive and the Office for Civil Nuclear Security. Its strategy and annual plans are subject to approval by Government. We will ensure that in future the longer-term radioactive waste management interests of Government are appropriately represented in the NDA’s strategy, and that it has governance arrangements to reflect its increased responsibilities.“Nirex has played an important role in maintaining and developing the UK's knowledge on geological disposal, including the provision of advice to industry on waste conditioning and packaging, since the demise of its own geological disposal development programme in 1997. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I, as

25 Oct 2006 : Column 1211

joint shareholders in Nirex, are grateful to the successive chairs and the board for their hard work, and of course to the expert staff involved. None the less, the Government believe that having two organisations on the same playing field with potentially overlapping responsibilities has the potential to confuse and blur accountability. Instead we are determined to harness the skill and commitment of the staff involved within the NDA. Following the Statement we shall allow Nirex a short period to comment on the proposed ownership transfer and how it could best be brought about.“The independent environment and nuclear safety regulators believe that this proposal will provide a framework that they can regulate in a strong and effective manner. They are content that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority will be responsible for implementing the geological disposal programme, within the constitutional arrangements which I described earlier. The regulators’ support is of major importance, as strong independent regulation is key both to ensuring the safety of people and the environment and to securing confidence and trust in the delivery arrangements.“Coming to the third key pillar of our approach, we remain committed to independent advice. Accordingly, a successor independent committee will be appointed to give advice on the plans for the long-term management of radioactive waste. CoRWM has set the standards for open and transparent advice that takes into account not only the best available scientific and other expert input, but the views of the public and stakeholders. It has also built up support and brand recognition.“The new committee will therefore maintainthe current name, but its membership will be reconstituted to reflect its role in the next stageof the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely programme. The committee will be sponsored by Defra, the DTI and the devolved Administrations. Its primary functions will be to advise onthe implementation of a geological disposal programme, including considering the strategy and delivery plans and the site selection process. It will make its advice available to the UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales, as has been done by CoRWM.“The circumstances surrounding the long-term disposal of higher activity radioactive waste are unique. We have made it clear that we are not seeking to impose radioactive waste on any community. In this context, we are strongly supportive of exploring the concept of voluntarism and partnership arrangements with the local authorities serving communities that might be affected. As CoRWM recognises, there is a need to consider further how such arrangements could work in practice. Accordingly, we will look to further develop a voluntarist and partnership approach including the stages and decision points, how communities would be involved, the role of

25 Oct 2006 : Column 1212

democratically elected bodies, and the potentialfor involvement and community packages, as suggested by CoRWM.“Disposal facilities will be built only in a geologically suitable area, and we will consider how geological and scientific considerations will be meshed with other societal considerations as, for a successful programme, all criteria will need to be met. I invite any local authority or group of local authorities that wishes to be involved in these discussions to contact myself, my honourable friend the Member for Dudley South or officials directly. Similar invitations are being extended by my colleagues in the devolved Administrations.“It must be stressed that any future facility-siting process will be a wholly new process, divorced from the historical Nirex process. Lessons have been learnt from that. We are also determined that the new approach will be carried out fromthe beginning in an open and transparent waywith appropriate opportunity for public and stakeholder as well as expert involvement.“In the light of this further work, the Government will produce an implementation framework and publish it for consultation as soon as possible next year.“This announcement, and the more detailed response which I am publishing today, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House, completes stage 2 of the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely programme. We are now entering stage 3 on planning for implementation. We aim to be able to move to stage 4—the final implementation stage—in 2008, confident that the sharing of information and viewpoints and the transparency of the CoRWM process has been maintained.“The CoRWM report says that,Governments of all parties have struggled to develop a long-term approach to this issue founded on science and driven by openness and transparency. I believe my Statement today combines scientific rigour and clear accountability, and I commend it to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

3.40 pm

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement by his right honourable friend in another place. I add my thanks to his to the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management for its work and the completion of its report, which is now clear. As it says, this problem has been around for more than 30 years. Interestingly enough, it is still the same problem today as it was30 years ago. The solution has been around throughout that period, and has not changed in those 30 years.

There has been a culture of prevarication and obfuscation over that time, and I regret that there is no political honour for anybody in our discussing

25 Oct 2006 : Column 1213

this matter today. The real question is: do the Government actually mean business? I note what is said at the end of the Statement about moving through the stages to implementation, but regrettably the possibility of further prevarication exists.

I welcome the decision that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority will take responsibility for disposal of nuclear waste, and that body’s proposed absorption of Nirex. I also welcome the continuation of CoRWM to provide independent advice. However, the Statement is not clear on what happens if the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and CoRWM disagree on the strategy. Is there a mechanism to resolve that disagreement, or would such disagreement impose further delay?

I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the cryptic remark that occurs on the top of page 5,

Is that, in effect, a bidding process for local authorities that have suitable geology to, shall we say, advance themselves as possible candidates when sites are considered? That prompts a further question: what happens, as seems perfectly possible, if nobody volunteers? How is that to be resolved, or will we come back to someone having to say, “In this situation we will have to look and act without a volunteer”?

I am not quite sure what,

means. Nirex considered all types of disposal and the whole of the country. I even remember a consultation, sometime in the late 1970s, about a possible disposal site in Essex. Since we know that its work must have been very thorough, is all that work to be disregarded? Are we really to do it all again?

The final question that is not clear in this paper—inevitably so, I suspect—is the little matter of finance. Is sufficient funding already provided to enable the planning process to be fully undertaken, because it will still involve a great amount of detailed work that will incur expense? Some assurance on that would certainly help. Even more importantly, deep geological repositories, which are a major long-term development, will involve a long-term financial commitment. The horrible reality of 30 years of delay means that the cost of that work is now grossly inflated from the figure that it might have been had the job been undertaken 30 years ago. Will the Government therefore establish a fund now—not putting in all the money, but some funding? Will they start building a fund so that when we come to construction some of the money will be there? That would provide two assurances: first, that the Government are absolutely determined to get this through; and, secondly, that the planning work cannot possibly impose any additional delay. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

3.45 pm
Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page