| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 7 states that,
On the question of the time-scale, in order to send a signal during the first three or four years of the operational effect of this Bill—which is probably before this or any future government would envisage making firm decisions on new build—it would be useful to acknowledge the possible close identity between many of these sites. They will be within the purview of the NDA, given its responsibilities for decommissioning and waste management, and thus are sites that would certainly be considered if there were to be new nuclear build.
From an engineering point of view, I can imagine that, in planning a site to deal with waste, for example, one would need to be clear about whether to allow for the possibility that new nuclear build might be considered on that site. One does not want to regret making a decision because it is not possible to plan for a possible future use. The famous precept, "Keep the nuclear option open", is brought down to earth in this amendment. In time, we may have to use these sites for new nuclear build. We do not want the NDA to encounter any difficulty when planning for that, and we should avoid it becoming a course that we cannot openly acknowledge.
Members of the Committee have pointed out that, for those of us who see an early need to plan for new nuclear capacity, the NDA would already have earned valuable credibility through its decommissioning role, in the running of safe sites and in managing waste. The noble Lords, Lord Ezra, Lord Jenkin, and others touched on that philosophy.
We are separating the issue of building new nuclear facilities from nuclear decommissioning. I would have made that point in relation to Amendment No. 5, but it was not moved. New nuclear build is not to be one of the principal functions of the NDA; it is a bridge too far. People would say that the Government had changed their whole policy on nuclear power. The Government are not ready to do that in this Bill. Since the question does not arise, the Minister is not in a position to answer it. That is why it cannot be a principal function for the NDA. Nor, politically, is the country ready for it.
Making provision for future nuclear build would be more acceptable if the terminology of this amendment was used. We should refer to "nuclear facilities" rather
I close by making a central point. It would not be surprising to find that the NDA needs to protect certain sites which might later be required for new build. It would be short-sighted to waste the opportunity provided by accepting what is proposed in my amendment and precluding the possibility of protecting those sites.
I hope that my noble friend will take the opportunity to think aloud—perhaps I may put it that way—about the connection between the present, the immediate future and the future. I am sure that he will not want to suggest any change of present government policy, but it would be useful to hear what can be said at this stage in an open forum. We could then reflect on what has been said before Report. I beg to move.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I welcome the opportunity that this amendment gives to probe, a little, the Government's intention regarding site use during the period when decommissioning is going ahead.
In the case that I know best, Dounreay, it is anticipated that it will be a period of many decades. Although the present clear priority is to return it to a greenfield site, it can be envisaged that during the course of the work that is being done, and done with considerable distinction, attributes of the site will become positively attractive to others who wish to learn from the experience, in which Great Britain is giving a lead. That would be a circumstance which would give rise to questions as to whether it would be open, under the clause as drafted, to the decommissioning agency to entertain contracts on the site for the benefit of decommissioning work being done by other countries. Experimental work, which might flow from cognate developments in other countries, might usefully commercially be entertained in these circumstances. It would not necessarily go as far as building a new nuclear reactor, but would simply exploit the technology that is a by-product of the complex technological developments that are in train.
We should avoid tunnel vision in making the provision for this new agency. Failure to recognise the possibilities of the exploitation of the technology would seem to me to be a great mistake. I hope that this amendment will commend itself in spirit to the Government and that they will use this opportunity of exploring further whether such ancillary work could reasonably be undertaken. It would be in the national interest if it could.
Baroness O'Cathain: I support the amendment on the basis that it very clearly shows the big void in this Energy Bill, which deals solely with clean up—well, not solely, but one-third of it is clean-up—of nuclear facilities. It does not nod in the direction of any further new build, nor in the direction of the security and safety of our supplies of electricity generation in the years to come. This was dealt with very thoroughly at Second Reading. Equally thoroughly, the Minister
But there is a real case—I shall deal with it in my later amendments—for preserving the techniques, knowledge and know-how that exist in this country at this stage, and that will be increased by the operations of the NDA, and then asking what we will do in the future. That is one way of looking at the issue in strategic terms. I do not know whether the NDA is the right agency or whether an arm of the NDA could be given that specific responsibility. On that basis, if we are not going to get exposure of the issue, I certainly support the amendment.
Lord Jordan: I, too, want to speak in favour of the sense of this amendment and to follow the theme discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. The expertise, experience and facilities that inevitably will reside in the NDA mean that such a body should not by statute be confined, limited or even prohibited from making a contribution if and when the Government's policy on nuclear energy changes.
The Government's present energy policy, as contained in the Bill, relies on their predictions—dare I say, hopes—concerning what renewables will be produced and their ability to import adequate supplies of gas. The security of this country's energy supply cannot rest solely on that well-meant optimism. Government must be in a position to react quickly to unfavourable developments. The oil crisis of the 1970s is within everyone's experience. Such a crisis could loom on the horizon. Should that happen, this amendment proposes to the Government an option, not a requirement. If the Government believe that the intent is worth taking on, perhaps they will find ways of producing more suitable wording that is to their own liking.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord, Lord Jordan, has made a very telling point. I absolutely agree with him. I am sorry that we did not debate Amendment No. 5 because a number of those points could have been made then. Not only does technological understanding and skill need to be preserved, so does public goodwill. The noble Lord who used to represent the area around Dounreay power station said that it did not necessarily mean that there might be a rebuild on that site. He said that with great care. I do not know the public opinion around Dounreay—I am sure that he does—but I get the impression that, in general, there is a lot of goodwill in areas where there have been well-run state nuclear power stations. It is very important that we do not lose that reservoir that now exists.
If only the Government could take a deep breath and have the courage to put such a provision into the Bill, it would begin to build a bridge between where we are now and where we know we must be—probably
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to clarify the point that I made. I was not seeking to say that I ruled out any idea of there being a nuclear power station built on such a site. At this stage, that might not be reasonably foreseeable. What is reasonably foreseeable is that there will be work done at the site that would be of great commercial value to others and ought to be exploitable under the Bill.
"( ) In addition, the NDA may, under the direction of the Secretary of State, take responsibility for planning and developing nuclear facilities."
"the NDA may, under the direction of the Secretary of State, take responsibility for planning and developing nuclear facilities",
That may appear to be well outside the purposes of the Bill, but I shall endeavour to explain why the issues are very pertinent. Some people may say that surely the NDA is there because we are now firmly in the era of closing down the industry. I wish to turn that hypothesis on its head.
5 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page