| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest to the Committee that we complete the Committee stage of this Bill next Monday.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Lord Hylton: Perhaps I may ask the Government why they thought it necessary to continue this Committee stage on Monday. Why not finish it off today and be done with it?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: That is generally accepted to be a matter for the usual channels. The allocation of time is discussed in detail. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and other noble Lords who take part in debates on Northern Ireland will recognise that there is a degree of unpredictability about the length of time different parts of the legislation may take. As a courtesy to noble Lords, we discussed during the lunch break whether your Lordships would be prepared to go further on this Bill today knowing that we had agreed a break point. It would be discourteous to Members, not only those here now who are not prepared to continue further, but more importantly to those who wish to take part in the remaining stages of this Bill who had been assured that that would not happen today. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. It is very unusual to stand at this Dispatch Box and apologise to the House for us rising early.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
- House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past three o'clock.
Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
Energy Bill [HL]
(First Day) Thursday, 15 January 2004.
The Committee met at a quarter past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. The Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 1:
- After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 1 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 25 and 27. The amendment would lay down the general environmental conditions in which the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority should operate. It follows the recommendation made by the House of Commons Select Committee on Trade and Industry that there ought to be an over-arching clause to start with.
If ever there were an activity that impinged on the environment, it is the activity proposed for the NDA. It is right that the Bill should begin with the environmental obligations. In their answer to the House of Commons Select Committee, which they have kindly sent to us, the Government indicated that some of the points were mentioned in Clause 9. We agree: they are mentioned in Clause 9, if not as fully as in the new clause. However, we consider that Clause 9 is not the appropriate place, and we have, therefore, suggested an amendment to Clause 9 that would bring the environmental obligations together in the new clause. We regard that as something of great importance, and we would be glad to hear the views of the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I did not speak at Second Reading, as there seemed to be a great many speakers who knew a lot more about the subject than I. However, I would like to say that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is right to put the question before the Committee.
Reassuring the public about the safety and environmental aspects of nuclear generation, in particular, needs a higher profile in this country from now on. Awareness of progress on decommissioning and waste disposal and the responsibilities of new agencies in respect of effectiveness and mode of working will help the public to come to terms with the longer-term future, which, as became clear at Second Reading, must include a major expansion of nuclear power. We will come to that matter with other amendments.
The amendment is about rebuilding confidence now. Subsection (2) of the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 1 is perhaps reiterating existing law, which makes that part of the amendment unnecessary. Existing environmental law and international agreements would have to be followed. It seems to me that subsections (1) and (3) of the proposed new clause should perhaps appear in the Bill. I do not know what the Government will say about that, but I would say to the noble Lord, with great respect, that that part of the amendment perhaps is not necessary.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I support my noble friend. In a matter of such importance as setting up a new body such as the NDA, it strengthens the Bill to have an objective clause at the beginning—before even the constitution of the body is discussed—so that it is clear to everyone exactly what the objective is. The phrases in the amendment tabled by my noble friend
Baroness O'Cathain: Just for clarification, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, a question. Subsection (2)(b) of the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 1 states:
Lord Gray of Contin: I support the amendment. It is very important that the NDA starts with the blessing of everyone connected with the energy industry and, in particular, the general public. For those reasons, it is essential that any doubts or reservations are satisfactorily answered.
Decommissioning is not a new venture. We should not be afraid to defend the record of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and others. We should learn from the experience gained from its activities. It has been successful. Windscale, Harwell, Winfrith and Dounreay have all carried out decommissioning contracts. Those activities have not been without their problems, but it is to be hoped that the industry has learnt from them.
I make no apology for referring to these matters at this stage because they tie up with the proposed amendment. There must be a plan. Something from which the industry has suffered in the past has been an unnecessarily secretive attitude. Anything that we can do in the legislation being put through Parliament to make the industry more aware of that and to make it act in a more open fashion is obviously an advantage.
Public perception of the nuclear industry is that it produces vast quantities of highly radioactive waste material, which is dangerous and a threat to the environment. The reality is that the industry provides a very small quantity of highly radioactive waste and larger, but still modest, quantities of intermediate and low-level waste. Compared with other industries producing toxic waste, the nuclear industry is not exceptional in technical requirements for managing it. However, it is of paramount importance that the industry—particularly the new NDA—is seen to be open and honest in all that it does.
We must learn from the past. Twenty-five years ago, the nuclear industry enjoyed widespread support throughout the country. But, on a number of occasions, it was found to be less than frank and forthcoming with its own supporters, let alone the general public. It paid dearly for that. Nevertheless that confidence can be regained, but the industry must
Clause 1 made a start, but in that clause there are a number of references to Scotland, to which we shall have to return later. But I give advance warning to the Minister that we shall want answers to the relationship between, for example, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the First Minister and Scottish Ministers. Who will be the captain of the team? Where does the buck stop?
Reading through the Bill, I find that the relationship between those various Ministers is not clearly defined. It is no use saying that this will be a joint effort or that will be a joint effort. At the end of the day, someone is responsible and someone has got to take responsibility. We shall want it spelt out more clearly who that person is.
Finally, concern has been expressed by some companies who see the possibility of the NDA becoming a competitor with them. Powergen, for example, is a little concerned to ensure that the Government's support for the restructuring of British Energy does not damage BE's competitors. If the NDA is to become a public sector operator of a nuclear power plant, for example, that must be very carefully considered.
I raise those points in general because the new clause is in general terms. I wish to register my support for it.
"OBJECTIVE OF THE NDA
(1) The objective of the NDA is based upon general environmental principles that must be followed by any person or body in carrying out its functions under this Act.
(2) The general environmental principles are—
(a) the health and safety of people and the environment must be protected from the harmful effects of radiation;
(b) 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) The NDA shall also ensure—
(a) the creation of nuclear waste should be avoided or minimised;
(b) nuclear waste is concentrated and contained rather than diluted and dispersed throughout the environment;
(c) the most hazardous wastes are prioritised for conditioning to put them into a passively safe state; and
(d) there is no unnecessary transport of waste."
"(b) the costs of pollution must be borne by the person or body responsible for causing the pollution".
That is just the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, has just spoken about. More than anything else, the NDA is to deal with all the legacy waste, and that is what we are talking about. There are still problems with Ministry of Defence nuclear waste; does the MoD have to pay for it? Will people be able to put their finger on who actually caused the waste? I believe that we are talking about legacies going back some 40 years. Is that right? We might not be able to indicate who they are.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page