| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Jenkin of Roding: May I make one thing absolutely clear at the outset of the Committee? I have no "s" on the end of my name.
Lord Davies of Oldham: That was a sibilant slip, I am afraid, after all the years we have known each other. I do have an "s" on the end of my name and therefore such a slip is not possible in that respect. I apologise to the noble Lord. It certainly will not happen again.
Subject to the requirement that such decisions must be taken when a majority of those present are non-executives, we wish the NDA to have the freedom to regulate its own proceedings. The principle is in place and the board must be expected to regulate its own proceedings. For example, there may be decisions on which the NDA decides that more than a simple majority would be appropriate because of the nature of the decision and the desire to demonstrate the extent to which there is support for such a decision on the board.
As we all recognise, the NDA will last for very many years. We do not wish to impose unnecessary statutory constraints at the outset which might subsequently limit its ability to adapt to circumstances in the future. I recognise that noble Lords opposite have sought to clarify what is perhaps a little more convoluted in the measure than their amendments would indicate, but they will recognise that the terms of the Bill offer a degree of flexibility that we think appropriate for a body that is to last for a long time.
Lord Ezra: Can the noble Lord clarify a point he made a little earlier? He pressed the case for flexibility and said that there may be occasions when it might be desirable to have up to four executive directors. However, my reading of Clause 2(7) is that the Secretary of State will be required to issue a direction with a maximum set at no more than three executives. How does "four" come into it?
Lord Davies of Oldham: Clause 2(7) refers to the non-executive directors, but not to the chief executive, who would be the fourth member.
Lord Ezra: I thought that we were talking about the executive directors.
Lord Davies of Oldham: We are talking about the group representing the management and executive of the NDA, which could comprise four members in total.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. Who could be more appropriate than a Deputy Chief Whip to talk about the management of a body such as this? He is good at managing all kinds of groups.
It would help if the Minister could give me some idea of how many directors will be appointed in the first instance. I recognise that he has made a case for flexibility, and there may be something in that, but Ministers must have some idea of the size of the initial board. I shall carrying on speaking while they consult on this. I do not want to revert to my earlier arguments because they will not be able to spend any money until the Bill has received its Second Reading in another place. However, I am sure that a great deal of thought is being put into identifying people. I certainly hope that that is the case because, if this body is to be up and running by April of next year, they will have to move fast.
Before we leave this matter, it would be helpful if we could be given an idea of the number of people Ministers are considering for appointment.
Lord Davies of Oldham: We estimate that the total size of the body in the first instance will be between nine and 11 people. That will guarantee that the non-executives are in the majority. However, it will be some months before we shall consider moving towards a full complement. Further, it should be recognised that, over the many decades during which the body will establish its procedures and win the confidence of the wider public and all others concerned with its operations, while it might remain the same size, it may be that the number of executives reduces to the
minimum. However, the reason why we have asked for flexibility here is that it may be necessary, during the early stages, to have a slightly greater representation.4 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I find that figure surprisingly low. The management will need a range of experience and expertise to play their part. It would not in the least distress me if it turned out that the number was three or four more than that. I know that it is fashionable to cut Cabinets and shadow Cabinets down to size, but we are dealing here with an operational body that will take some extremely important decisions. The whole thrust of the Bill is that the NDA itself will be in charge of its proceedings, subject to directives issued, from time to time, by the Minister. It would seem desirable that there should be enough people on it to ensure a broad range of experience.
If the Ministers present are thinking of the numbers that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, suggested, I would have to agree that there must be some flexibility. If they find, as I suspect that they might, that, as the work of the authority proceeds, they would like to have more, they should have the power to do that. That is an argument of some force.
I am less convinced on the question of a majority. We cannot vote on it now, but I dislike the idea of a board deciding, off its own bat, that, for a particular kind of decision, it will rig the ballot, as it were, and say that a majority will not be enough. It would be an odd thing for a company to do, and I am not sure that it would not lay itself open to proceedings in a court if it did, unless there were a clear power in the articles of association to do so. I would have thought that a majority—including, of course, a majority of the non-executive directors, which is what the schedule provides for—would be sufficient. However, I shall consider carefully what the Minister said and decide whether we should come back to the matter. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Schedule 1 [The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority]:
Clause 3 [Designated responsibilities]:
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 4:
- Page 3, line 9, after "of" insert "redundant radioactive material and waste at"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 4 and the two grouped with it would bring more clarity to the expression "cleaning-up", which we find in subsection (1)(c). It is defined in Clause 34, which deals with the general interpretation of Chapter 1 of Part 1. Clause 34 says:
- " 'cleaning-up' and 'decommissioning', in relation to a site or installation, includes—
- (a) the treatment, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous material".
That definition of cleaning-up is not satisfactory. Cleaning up the site means removing the contaminant or radioactive material. It does not necessarily mean, at that stage, the treatment, storage, transportation or disposal of the hazardous material. Cleaning up a site without reference to that might simply mean removing the litter that blows around.
Given the importance of what we are talking about in terms of clean-up of the site, simply to refer to everything that happens after the waste is removed as constituting clean-up is unsatisfactory. I suggest, subject to an explanation from the Minister of his understanding of clean-up, that we would want a much firmer definition. I have not suggested one now, because I am interested to hear his definition. However, it should cover the removal from the site of the hazardous waste. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am minded to support the noble Baroness in the amendment. However, I wonder whether she has quite recognised the extent of its effect. One issue that has exercised many minds in the area—again I come back to our Select Committee five years ago—was that of fissile material that was no longer required and should be declared as waste. There has been a lot of literature about that. I shall start with the Select Committee report, my quotation starting from paragraph 7.47 and coming under the conclusions on reprocessing, plutonium and Mox—mixed oxide—fuels. We said:
- "Our concern is with the waste management implications of reprocessing".
- "The one current use for separated civil plutonium is in the fabrication of MOX fuel. In the much longer term it may be possible to use plutonium in fast breeder reactors. In the United Kingdom our stocks of separated plutonium far exceed the amounts we could use as MOX in our own reactors or that we might wish to keep as a strategic resource for a future fast reactor programme. We have no reactors which can use MOX at present".
- "The amount required as the initial charge in the core of a 1 GW(e) fast reactor is about 4 tonnes; our stocks of civil plutonium could reach over 100 tonnes by 2010".
The recommendation that we made on that was that the authorities should determine the strategic need for plutonium, and that the balance should then be regarded as waste. When I read the amendment and looked at its implications, it seemed that we should certainly include the handling of redundant plutonium.
The most recent report that we have had on the matter came from RWMAC, the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, which reported last March. At paragraph 4.12, it made its most important recommendation, which was at the heart of its press release at the time. It read:
- "One important aspect of radioactive waste management, on which RWMAC has already commented, is that policy should be robust to changes in radioactive materials declared as wastes. There are suggestions in Managing Radioactive Waste Safely"—
- "that some quantities of materials currently not classified as waste may, in the future, become waste".
- "The evolution of the RWI"—
- "into a Radioactive Materials Inventory (RMI) would provide a means of identifying all existing and potential liabilities that have significant management costs".
The noble Baroness, perhaps inadvertently, seems to have touched on a very important issue. I would not regard it as in the least improper that the NDA should have the responsibility. We will come later to the question of its responsibility for the long-term disposing of waste, but it is right that it should regard what one might call redundant fuel as part of the problem to which it ought to address itself.
I cannot forbear from ending with a short story. There is widespread apprehension—it has been frequently cited by the green movement—that plutonium is the most toxic substance known to man. I was due to speak in a debate at the Cambridge Union—it was long after I ceased to be a student; I was asked to go back as a visiting speaker—to discuss the nuclear industry. I got myself briefed by the UKAEA, and I said, "There is sure to be the question of plutonium". The representative of the UKAEA said, "You are probably right", and handed me a small package, which I opened. There was a small plastic cylinder in it. He told me what it was and said that I should take it with me, and that it would be a good defence.
Sure enough, some young man got up and said that plutonium was the most dangerous substance known to man. I simply turned to him, said, "Catch", and threw the cylinder across to him. He caught it and I said, "That is a heart pacemaker powered by plutonium oxide. May I have it back please?".
The substances are well known, and scientists who handle them well understand them, but I wish that the Government could tell us whether they are to be within the remit of the NDA. I hope that they are; it seems to me that it would have to deal with them. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, quite realised what she was getting us into.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page