Mr Norman Baker (Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 104, in

clause 6, page 4, line 11, at end insert

'and for a period of 12 months only in the case of any nuclear installation'.

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 109, in

clause 12, page 10, line 18, at end insert

'consistent with the objective of decommissioning any operating plant at the earliest practical point'.

No. 112, in

clause 13, page 11, line 7, at end insert

'for a maximum period of 12 months'.

Mr Norman Baker (Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister has told us about transparency and independence, so let us try him on the question of the NDA not generating excessive waste. I was interested in the Government's White Paper, which promised an annual report on the rationale for keeping open nuclear facilities, but that seems to have mysteriously vanished between the publication of the White Paper and the Bill. We are

used to party manifestos having policies of storm quality, which become heavy rain on reaching a White Paper and light drizzle in a Bill. That is what we have in this case—a welcome suggestion has disappeared in the mysterious period between the production of the White Paper and the Bill.

The matter is at the heart of the NDA's function. I naively thought that the NDA is there to help to deal with the environmental mess that the nuclear industry has created over many years and that its function is to decommission facilities and ensure that decommissioning is dealt with safely and sensibly, consistent with the good use of taxpayers' money. That seems to be the functions of the NDA put simply.

However, that is not what the Bill says, and I want to know why. For example, clause 6 says:

''The principal function of the NDA shall be to have responsibility for securing —

. . . the operation, pending the commencement of their decommissioning, of designated nuclear installations''.

The phrase that I am keen for the Minister to explore is

''pending the commencement of their decommissioning''.

Under the system, when a nuclear operator decides that its facility is to close—or, for whatever reason, the Government decide that it should be closed—the facility should become redundant and be handed over to the NDA to be dealt with. It is odd if something that has been handed over to the NDA can continue operating indefinitely, which is how I read clause 6. That is reiterated in clause 13(2), which says that the powers of the NDA include, in particular, the

''power to operate electricity generating stations''.

Why is no limit being put on the time for which the NDA would have that responsibility? Why is there not an annual reporting mechanism, as the White Paper proposed?

Does the Minister accept that the Bill as drafted would, in theory, enable the NDA to continue to generate electricity from those nuclear stations indefinitely? I am not sure that I can imagine the circumstances in which that would arise; nevertheless the Bill would muddy the waters between the NDA's finances and those of the nuclear industry, which generates electricity and waste. It also leads to an odd situation in which the NDA, which is responsible for dealing with our waste mountain, would, rather perversely, end up having to generate its own waste because it would be operating stations that produced waste.

As I understand it, clause 6 allows BNFL's ageing loss-making Magnox reactors to be operated by the NDA, apparently without time scale. It also gives the NDA power to operate the two reprocessing plants at Sellafield. We will come on to reprocessing as an aside in the next group of amendments, but suffice it to say that it would be very curious for a body designed to deal with nuclear waste to be the primary production method of that waste. That is the effect of clause 6 as I see it. Why do we not have a time limit on the operation that the NDA would be able to set for

stations that come under its control? That is the primary question that I hope the Minister will address in responding to the amendments.

Mr Colin Challen (Morley & Rothwell, Labour)

I rise to seek further clarification on the first two sentences of clause 6, (1)(a) and (1)(b). First of all, I recollect that, on Thursday, my hon. Friend the Minister said that:

''the NDA's running of power stations will be limited, in the nuclear case, to the Magnox situation''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 20 May 2004; c. 39.]

That is an existing situation. I want to be absolutely clear that the clauses will not empower the NDA to start decommissioning future new build power stations. It does not seem entirely clear that the clauses limit the NDA's responsibilities to Magnox power stations, especially as clause 6(1)(b) refers to:

''decommissioning of those and other designated nuclear installations''.

Will the Minister clear up that those responsibilities will be limited to extant nuclear installations?

Mr Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Environment & Food; Health; Rural Affairs; Trade & Industry); Angus, Scottish National Party)

I appreciate what the last speaker said. Later amendments will seek to achieve the same thing by a different route, because of the serious concerns that the NDA will, in effect, become a nuclear generator. Clause 6(1) says

''The principal function of the NDA shall be to have responsibility for securing—

. . . the operation, pending the commencement of their decommissioning, of designated nuclear installations''.

It is clear that it has the power to continue operating those stations. There is nothing in the Bill as it stands to say on what time scale those stations will be operating or, indeed, any strategy to set a time scale on their decommissioning. If they can operate until the commencement of the decommissioning, when does decommissioning commence? Does it commence as soon as the NDA takes over, or is there a time lag? Is it once the actual decommissioning has begun by the removal of fuel rods or whatever? There are many unanswered questions. We could have a situation where the NDA in effect starts running nuclear power stations and could become a generator.

I made that point in the Committee's first sitting, and the Minister was quite dismissive. When I raised it in an intervention, he said,

''I assure the hon. Gentleman that the NDA's running of power stations will be limited, in the nuclear case, to the Magnox situation, with a defuelling and decommissioning programme being established. The role of the NDA is about decommissioning.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 20 May 2004; c. 39.]

The role of the NDA should indeed be about decommissioning. Allowing it to continue running the stations without setting out clearly a time scale bringing that to an end is muddying the waters in terms of the role. That could lead to confusion, to continuing of the nuclear legacy and, as has been mentioned, to making that nuclear legacy worse rather than trying to bring it to an end.

My one concern about the amendments, which I would be inclined to support, is the 12-month period. One of the problems of nuclear decommissioning is that it can take a long time. We have to be alive to that.

My own amendments try to place an obligation on the NDA when taking over a station to set a strategy for decommissioning that station. I have deliberately not set a time limit because every situation may be slightly different. If we set a statutory time limit of 12 months we could conceivably lead into problems if we are not able to begin the decommissioning within that period.

It is necessary to state clearly in the Bill that the role of the NDA is not about running nuclear power stations and that it will not be allowed to run nuclear power stations. I suggest that decommissioning should commence as soon as the NDA takes control of the nuclear power station and that a clear strategy and time scale are set at that point to avoid the confusion of continuing generation of waste by the NDA, which, supposedly, is to dispose of the historical waste.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

The NDA is focused on decommissioning and clean up. Hon. Members who have spoken in this debate probably will have read the debates in the other place, where the Government consistently and firmly defended the position that the NDA is a decommissioning authority, not a commissioning or operations authority. There were moves elsewhere—we may come to them in this Committee, too—to change that. We firmly resisted them because it is our view that the NDA needs to have a clear brief about decommissioning.

All the operational responsibilities for the NDA are linked to that primary responsibility, either because they contribute to clean-up or because it is impossible to separate the operational elements from clean-up. As it is drafted, clause 6(1)(a) already restricts the NDA's powers to operate a nuclear power station pending decommissioning. The reason for that is to capture the Magnox stations—as hon. Members have rightly said referring to my remarks last week—which will be among the first sites to be designated to the authority. They are all due to be closed within five years of the NDA being established. The hon. Member for Lewes said that there was not a time scale for that, but there is. The last, at Wylfa, will cease operations in 2010.As drafted, the Bill allows the NDA to operate the Magnox stations during that period in order to maximise the benefits to the public.

Mr Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Environment & Food; Health; Rural Affairs; Trade & Industry); Angus, Scottish National Party)

I still have a concern. I understand what the Minister is saying, but the Bill says

''pending the commencement of their decommissioning''

and there is no time scale. Will the Minister give us an assurance that decommissioning will start as soon as the NDA takes over a station? The NDA could take over a station, but it might be a considerable time before decommissioning commenced.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

The problem is that, by forcing closure within a year of designation, the amendment would mean quite significant revenue from a station's operation being foregone, with no benefit to clean-up. That may be the key point. The existing phased-closure programme for Magnox stations, which has been agreed with the regulators, is already optimised for managing the clean-up process. We cannot speed

it up by closing the stations early, because of capacity constraints at Sellafield. The Bill allows us to take forward the decommissioning of Magnox stations as quickly as possible given those constraints, while allowing some revenue to be earned in the meantime.

Mr Norman Baker (Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I understand the Minister's point about Sellafield. In tabling my amendment, I was not questioning the time scale for decommissioning Magnox stations; the date when they should finally shut. That is not the issue; the issue is the point at which they become the responsibility of the NDA and what the NDA does with them. I would argue that, if Magnox stations will be operational for another five years, the NDA should not be involved until later in the process.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

No, I would resist such a constraint. It may well be appropriate for the NDA to take responsibility for those sites earlier so that, with regard to their management, the overriding concern of decommissioning can be in place as early as possible.

I have another point about the use of the word ''pending'', whose meaning has been queried. It could not extend to operating a power station, either new or old, if the clear aim of decommissioning was not in sight, even if an intended closure date had been established. That may help my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen), given the question that he asked me.

The Government have no proposals for new nuclear capacity at the moment. The economics are wrong, and big questions about nuclear waste have not yet been answered. If there were a move towards new nuclear capacity in future, there would need to be consideration of the decommissioning arrangements. Nothing in the measure would exclude the NDA's having such a role, but that is certainly not envisaged in what we are discussing today.

With regard to the point made a moment ago by the hon. Member for Lewes, involving the NDA early—rather than leaving its participation to the later stages, as he suggested—will be helpful in making decommissioning as effective as possible.

Mr Norman Baker (Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

Does the Minister accept that, under clause 6(1)(d), the NDA could be given responsibility for the two reprocessing plants at Sellafield as well as the Sellafield MOX plant?

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

The intention is certainly that the NDA should be able to take on responsibility for decommissioning the full range of civil nuclear sites in the UK. I think that that addresses the hon. Gentleman's question. With regard to the time scale to which the amendment refers, it would not be right to be more specific than we have been. The amendment would impose similar constraints on any other nuclear generating stations designated to the NDA in future. Lead-in times for decommissioning may change in future and we are talking about a period of up to 100 years. It may make sense for the NDA to take responsibility for a nuclear station at an earlier or later point in the preparatory stages of decommissioning to ensure the maximum effectiveness of the

decommissioning work. We need some flexibility in legislating on a process that will take many decades. In practice, it is hard to envisage the NDA being responsible for operating a station for much longer than the time that I have indicated would be associated with the closure of the Magnox stations.

The crucial point is that the NDA will only take responsibility for operating a station if the primary objective is to achieve successful and efficient decommissioning rather than to maximise operational revenues.

Mr Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Environment & Food; Health; Rural Affairs; Trade & Industry); Angus, Scottish National Party)

Is not the Minister muddying the waters? If the NDA's primary function is to decommission, why give them a function of operating stations at all? If there is planned closure of stations, the existing operators will plan to operate them until the closure date. Surely it makes more sense for the NDA and the existing operator to work hand in glove and for the NDA to carry out its primary function of decommissioning along with the operator. I do not understand why the NDA is being given the power to continue operating. That seems slightly bizarre. It muddies the waters and gives rise to the danger that the NDA will in fact become an operator of nuclear power stations rather than a decommissioning authority.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Given that the objective is decommissioning, it makes sense for the NDA to take responsibility for the site at an early stage; not to wait till the very end when the station has been closed and only then come in to do decommissioning work. He envisages some arrangement whereby the two work hand in hand. Surely, he accepts that if the focus is to be on decommissioning, as in the Government's view it must be, the earlier the NDA is in the driving seat, the better.

Mr Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Environment & Food; Health; Rural Affairs; Trade & Industry); Angus, Scottish National Party)

I understand the Minister's comments, but that was not the point I was making. In effect, the Bill gives the NDA the power to become a generator. The Minister says that that would be for a short time, but that is not in the Bill. If there is a programme for closing stations—he says Magnox, but I believe that it covers any station—with the current generator still generating, why is it necessary for that generator to be let out of the loop and for the NDA to take over both generating and decommissioning? Surely, the principal object is decommissioning. The NDA could work with the generator, which would run down generation, while it dealt specifically with decommissioning and disposal or treatment of the waste.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

The question is, which arrangement will be the most effective in terms of public interest? I am arguing that involving the NDA, giving it responsibility and designating to it earlier is a more effective way of accomplishing the task—it also includes an opportunity to earn some revenue while the station is still operating—than leaving its involvement until a later stage. The hon. Gentleman

has not suggested any reason why that should not be the case. I am persuaded that it is the case and that early NDA involvement is in the general interest.

Mr Norman Baker (Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

At the Committee's first sitting, the Minister stated in response to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir):

''I assure the hon. Gentleman that the NDA's running of power stations will be limited, in the nuclear case, to the Magnox situation''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 20 May 2004; c. 39.]

The Minister confirmed a few moments ago that, under clause 6(1)(d), the NDA will indeed be able to operate the two reprocessing plants at Sellafield as well the MOX plant. Which of those statements is inaccurate?

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

I do not believe that either of them is inaccurate. Clause 6(1)(d) does cover THORP and Sellafield's MOX project. We cannot separate such operations from the management and clean-up of the site shared facilities.

The hon. Member for Angus said that the temporary nature of the operation is not in the Bill, but it is. Clause 6(1)(a) refers to

''the operation, pending the commencement of their decommissioning''.

It is true that we have not said how many months that might take, but the temporary nature of such involvement is crystal clear in the Bill.

Mr Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Environment & Food; Health; Rural Affairs; Trade & Industry); Angus, Scottish National Party)

Is the Minister ready to define temporary? As a time scale, ''pending the commencement'' is completely meaningless.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

It is not meaningless. It has a very clear meaning, particularly in the light of the fact that there is an existing time scale for all the Magnox stations to be closed by 2010.

Mr Norman Baker (Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I am not convinced by that and I intend to move to a vote because the Minister has been at his least convincing on the amendments before us. As the hon. Member for Angus rightly said, the phrase

''pending the commencement of the decommissioning''

is entirely meaningless. It could be at any point in the life span of the nuclear installations in question. The Minister also said that he was in the driving seat. He is not, for the very reason that he gave about the constraints at Sellafield and the fact that the Magnox stations cannot be decommissioned earlier because of those constraints.

We are faced with a situation in which the NDA in theory will decommission stations very quickly, but in fact will not be allowed to. Those stations will remain operative until at least 2010, during which time they will act as a generator and a producer of nuclear waste; at the same time as they are commanded by the Bill to deal with the problem, they will be adding to it.

The measures also blur the line between the generation of nuclear energy and the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. It is very important that those two are kept separate. The NDA must be seen to be independent. The Minister has said that he wants to see independence and transparency, but he is blurring those lines.

Notwithstanding what the Minister says, there is no certainty that the power stations will be decommissioned in 2010. They could go on for longer, and we have had a succession of due dates for decommissioning. The Magnox stations were supposed to have a life span of 25 years, but they have been continually extended. That may be the right position for those stations, but we can be no more certain of 2010 than we can of previous decommissioning dates.

Clause 6(1)(a) allows the NDA to go in very quickly after enactment and run the Magnox stations and the MOX plant for an indefinite period. That is stated in the Bill and the Minister has done nothing to clarify that or assuage me. He also creates financial uncertainty because of the relationships between the generator and the NDA in the operation of those stations. That introduces the question of the sensible use of public money and how accountable those involved are.

The Minister also fails to understand what he has said. I can assure him—I hope that he will look at this—that there is a conflict between what he said on Thursday 20 May, when he specifically stated that

Magnox was the only classification of nuclear installation to be dealt with by the NDA, and what he has admitted this morning in clause 6(1)(a). He must sort that out. I am not all happy with that and I intend to press for a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 11.