| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): We are at the beginning of the Bill and, as the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, said, we need clarity. The amendment raises a number of issues as to what should or should not be in the legislation. In effect, while we all recognise the environmental requirements of the NDA, the new clause more or less amounts to a mission statement laying down the objectives of the NDA and covers the "polluter pays" principle.
It is not appropriate to cover a mission statement in legislation. It will properly be for the NDA itself, once established, to determine how it will frame its objectives in line with legislation. It is also normal practice for public bodies. We are discussing one part of a range of public documents that the NDA will issue on how it intends to discharge its responsibilities. They will include, for example, the NDA strategy, the annual plan, the memoranda of understanding with the regulators and its management statement. Together, they will govern the NDA's relationship with others—for example, with the regulators, with stakeholders and with government, whether at Westminster or Edinburgh.
A clause of this kind would be unusual. I can assure the Committee that issues of safety, security and environmental protection will be central to the NDA's activities. That is encapsulated in Clause 9(1), as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, indicated.
Equally if not more importantly, everything that is done by the NDA must comply with all regulatory and other statutory requirements which are unaffected by
the Bill. In particular, the environment agencies and the Health and Safety Executive have regulatory responsibilities and there could be some confusion if we imposed them in this rather general way on the NDA. In other words, we could be guilty of a lack of clarity if we imposed such responsibilities here rather than gaining in clarity and transparency as the noble Lord, Lord Gray, suggests we should. It is a more practical and effective way of ensuring appropriate action than a statement in the Bill of the general principles suggested in the amendment in relation to safety and environmental outcomes.On the "polluter pays" principle in the suggested new subsection (2)(b) and the adoption of international best practice in subsection (2)(c), we have the same reservations. On the first, of course, the Government are committed to the "polluter pays" principle. However, in this sector we must recognise that, as a matter of public safety, the Government have often in the past stepped in—and we may need to do so in future—in extremis to ensure nuclear clean-up and, where necessary, meet the associated costs. That is already in practice the case with British Nuclear Fuels, for whose sites the NDA will take financial responsibility, and it could be required in other cases—for example, British Energy—in future. At least in initial circumstances, the NDA or the Government might, therefore, have to meet those costs rather than the prime polluter.
That said, Clause 5(3) and Clause 10(3) provide that the NDA can require private sector operators to meet the costs where it is involved in arranging the discharge of its responsibilities. Wherever possible, the Government and the NDA will seek to ensure that the private sector operator meets the cost of the clean-up, but that will not be appropriate in all circumstances. Indeed, there is an additional complication with MoD sites, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller.
Proposed new subsection (2)(c) in the amendment on international best practice adds nothing to the way in which the Bill already envisages that the NDA will operate. It is already under a duty to ensure that persons with control of designated installations, facilities and sites adopt good practice. The NDA will not be able to discharge its functions, including research and providing advice to the Secretary of State, without itself being at the cutting edge of nuclear clean-up. As the public body with responsibility for clean-up, it will need to meet all the international obligations. Government policy is that the UK, in that area as in others, should be at the forefront of international best practice.
Proposed subsection (3) of Amendment No. 1, on the handling of radioactive waste, would constrain by statute what the NDA could do in dealing with radioactive material. The NDA is being set up to provide strategic direction, and to be the expert body on nuclear clean-up. We would expect it to be a major contributor to the development of government policy on such matters. Subsection (3) seems to constrain the NDA at the outset, which would be undesirable, not least in view of the very long-term nature of the NDA's task.
I am therefore not in favour of accepting the very general clause in the amendment. As I said, it restates the obvious in some ways and could lead to a lack of clarity on the duties of the NDA and the regulators under whose monitoring it will operate. I therefore hope that members of the Committee will not pursue it.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I have listened very carefully to what the Minister said, and have studied the report of the Select Committee in another place. I reiterate the thanks of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for our having been able to see the Government's response before it has been published in another place. That is rather exceptional, and I thank the official who organised that.
Having thought about the matter very carefully, I am inclined to come down in favour of the Minister's argument. There are elements in the proposed new clause that would constrain the NDA in what will be a very long-term exercise. It would be perfectly proper for the provisions to go into a mission statement, as the Minister said, which could be changed to meet changing circumstances. However, having studied the amendment and heard the arguments both in its favour and against it, I cannot support it.
What particularly worried me was the use of "avoided" in subsection (3) of the amendment. The NDA will be operating nuclear power stations for a good long while. Inevitably, they will produce more waste, albeit in small quantities. It seems very contradictory to start with the proposition that the NDA is to be constrained so far as possible to avoid any waste, while later in the Bill it is given the power to continue to operate Magnox stations in particular and no doubt other facilities. I have enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who has huge experience in this field, but I cannot help feeling that the amendment is an attempt to give a wholly predominant place to environmental issues—important though they are—in the decommissioning process, which must be thoroughly cost-effective. With apologies to my noble friends, who indicated that they may be tempted to support such an amendment, I cannot support it.
Baroness Byford: I apologise to the Committee that I was a few minutes late in arriving. Further to the comments of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, I, too, have reservations about the wording of the amendment. That does not mean that I do not follow its aim—together we have debated many Bills on which we have tried to get greater clarification.
Will the Minister respond to recommendation two of the Trade and Industry Select Committee's report, which states:
- "We consider that a clear and unambiguous statement of the overarching principles within which the NDA will work would be a useful addition to the draft Bill. Such a statement would have most force if it were given in the main body of the Bill."?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Before the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, speaks again, and the Minister replies, it might be appropriate to say that, although I have listened very carefully to what my noble friends have said, the Front Bench supports what the Minister said.
Lord Whitty: The Select Committee in another place argued strongly for a mission statement. Both the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and I have seen the inappropriateness of a mission statement as such in the Bill. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, comes too close to a mission statement for us to be able to accept it. I am not saying that we would not accept anything in that regard, but, by and large, the Bill already indicates clearly what the NDA should do. The amendment tends to go into wide generalities and to confuse the role of the NDA with that of the regulator.
Lord Ezra: I thank all members of the Committee who have participated in what is obviously a preliminary discussion before we get into the nitty-gritty of the Bill. Some have supported the amendment and others, including the Minister, have expressed reservations.
I will deal particularly with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, on the "polluter pays" principle. That principle is enshrined, and we are committed to it. Obviously, from time to time, there must be exceptions, but most previous nuclear waste problems have arisen from operations in public ownership, where the polluter is the public body. The case of British Energy is the one big exception, and there has been legislation to deal with it. The principle must apply but, like all major principles, circumstances sometimes mean that we must depart from it.
On the general argument about whether we should have such a clause at the start of the Bill, I still feel that we should. If the NDA is going to issue a mission statement, so be it—it would be excellent, and all companies should do that. In view of the environmentally sensitive nature of its operations, we should have a say right at the start to remind the NDA of its environmental obligations.
A number of important points were made on the detail of the amendment. I would be happy to think again about it and consider whether, in some amended form, it can be brought forward once more at a later stage. However, I feel that any points that are made regarding the environment should be at the start of the Bill and not tucked away in Clause 9, as is done at the moment.
Having said all that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Constitution of NDA]:
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page