| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Before the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, replies, can the Minister tell me whether there is any difference between the NDA having a "responsibility" and the NDA having a "duty"? Frequently, in legislation, we find that a body has a duty to do something, but here, all the time until much later in the Bill, there is reference to a responsibility. Clause 9 refers to a duty.
Lord Whitty: The responsibilities are as set out largely in this clause and, to some extent, in Clause 9. They are the areas for which—I do not wish to be tautologous—the NDA is responsible. The duties are laid on them either by Act of Parliament or by designation by the Secretary of State. There are duties laid on it in both respects. Future designations could spell that out more clearly than the Bill. That could arise in the light of the CoRWM recommendations and the Government's response to them. Further duties could be laid on the NDA at that point, which would not be inconsistent with the Bill.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I have heard what the Minister has said, and I shall read it carefully. My impression of what he said was that it was a little clearer than the letter. I think that he said, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, that there was no such duty on the NDA yet. If the Government decide, in the light of the CoRWM report, that the way is open for all the processes that will be needed for long-term disposal, the NDA could be the body that is charged with the duty of taking the matter forward, but that is not necessarily so. Is that right? If it is to be the relevant body, it has or could have sufficient power under the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, nods assent, having consulted his oracles, so I think that I have got that right.
We must consider this carefully. We have until the end of 2005 before CoRWM is expected to report. I understand that, and I fear that a lot of time has been lost on the matter already since the House of Lords report. Nevertheless, I think that there is a view now that it is time to get on with things, particularly if the
public are to be reconciled to the idea that we need new nuclear build, for all the reasons that have been discussed. The way ahead on the problem of waste must be sufficiently clear to reassure the public. I am grateful for the noble Lord's response.6.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 12:
- After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is slightly more abstract and theoretical in concept than others that I shall table. That is why I need to explain it at slightly greater length than normal. I ask for the indulgence of the Committee.
First, I shall deal with proposed new subsection (2) in the amendment, which seeks simply to remove a drafting ambiguity by making it clear that the duties of the NDA extend not only to existing nuclear power plants but to any which may be built in the future. In other words, the amendment makes it clear that what is being set up by the Bill is not an authority that will die a natural death when it completes the immediate task before it of ensuring the safe decommissioning of the 20 nuclear power plants currently in service or already in the process of decommissioning.
I should make it clear—emphatically—that if the Government accept the proposed new subsection, as I hope they will, we will acknowledge that we do not consider that they are committing themselves in any way to any new nuclear build. The subsection is simply intended to ensure that there is no end to the role of the NDA as long as—however long—there is a nuclear power industry.
The main substance of the proposed new clause requires the NDA to prepare a plan within five years of the passing of the Act to cover its duties and responsibilities in the event that any new nuclear plants are built. Of course, in preparing that plan the
The energy White Paper, which one might have thought would have something to say on the subject, was non-committal, except to the extent that it predicted that only one plant would still be in operation by 2025. That is just 21 years away. I raised the point at Second Reading but the Minister said in reply:
What has the question of whether we build any further nuclear power stations got to do with the NDA? It has everything to do with it because the last of the present nuclear stations will still be operational until, as I have said, 2025—or perhaps until 2035, according to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, in answer to a Question. To decommission each of the plants will take decades. I hope that the noble Lord realises that I listen very carefully and read what has been said afterwards.
The NDA has to plan for that and for the future in case new plants are built. It has to be involved in the planning of new plants for which later on it may ultimately be responsible. It has to make sure that the mistakes made in the 1940s and 1950s, when the earliest plants were built, will not be repeated. Those mistakes were not including in the plans for a new plant the facilities necessary for its ultimate decommissioning and waste management.
Currently—and here I quote from the brief that I and many Members of the Committee have received from BNFL—in the case of older plants,
The NDA has to be involved from the outset in all the necessary planning of any future nuclear plants. The amendment makes sure that it will be part of the equation if and when the Government make any decision about future nuclear build. It is certainly not my place—nor is it my intention—to repeat the arguments that members of the Committee have heard many times, especially in the course of recent debates, about the place of nuclear energy in our power equation. The Minister of State told the All-Party Group on Nuclear Energy on 3 December that,
Again, let me make it absolutely clear that I am not at this time asking the Government to announce a policy either for or against nuclear power. Indeed, at Second Reading, the Minister stated that:
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I recall that, in answer to an earlier amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that it was not necessary. Do we assume that if, in the future—which he was not prepared to look at too closely—a decision were taken to pursue nuclear build, the NDA would necessarily be the body to discharge that role? I am equally dubious about whether it is the body to pronounce on the issues that this proposed new clause suggests. Essentially this is a policy matter, one which could be interestingly and helpfully illuminated by factual information of a kind more at the disposal of a Royal Commission or some other body not engaged in something as hands-on as the decommissioning of existing reactors. I would hope that the personnel engaged in that task are particularly suited to it. I am not at all sure whether they would be suited to evaluating the kind of evidence relating to whether there should be replacement plants—I agree that it ought to be considered within the next five years.
I agree with the underlying thesis of this amendment—that there is an unacceptable and, in a sense, unnecessary uncertainty. The independent collation of the best evidence that is undoubtedly available on the pros and cons of what is described as the "feasibility" of commissioning and building a new nuclear power plant ought to be given urgent consideration. However, I doubt that this is the right body to do that.
"DUTIES IN RELATION TO NEW AND POTENTIAL NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS
(1) In addition to the responsibilities placed on the NDA by section 3 of this Act, it shall have the responsibilities provided for in this section.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt, the obligations of the NDA imposed by this Act shall apply equally to any nuclear installation, site or facility commissioned after the commencement of this Act.
(3) Within five years from the passing of this Act, the NDA shall submit a plan ("the plan") to the Secretary of State on the subject of the feasibility of building and commissioning new nuclear power plants to replace those becoming or likely to become obsolete within the ensuing fifteen years.
(4) The plan shall include projections as to the economies of such plants and their eventual decommissioning and as to the effect on the supply of electricity to the various parts of the United Kingdom in the absence of new nuclear facilities, and may include such other material as the NDA may consider to be relevant to the subject.
(5) The Secretary of State shall lay the plan before Parliament within one month of its receipt, and after consultation with such persons or bodies as he deems appropriate shall publish his response."
"The policy has been set out in the White Paper".—[Official Report, 11/12/03; col. 918.]
And what did the White Paper say on the question of future nuclear build? It stated:
"We do not propose to set targets for the share of total energy or electricity supply to be met from different fuels".
If the Government are not going to set targets, who is?
"the biggest challenge is not how to tackle a particular task, but determining exactly what has to be dealt with".
I also draw attention to the fact that the skills and expertise in decommissioning need to be preserved intact, both for our own purposes and to enable those skills to be exported in the future.
"we need the possibility of new nuclear build".
He did not say that to Parliament. No doubt, in due course we shall be told whether or not that is government policy. If it is, the NDA needs to plan and prepare for it. That is all this amendment would require it to do.
"It is not appropriate to provide in legislation a commitment to nuclear build".—[Official Report, 11/12/03; col. 918.]
All this amendment requires is for one of the players in the field—the NDA—to make some plans during the next five years and for the Government to consider them at whatever point they think it necessary and appropriate to do so. I ask nothing more and seek no commitment either way. I beg to move.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page