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

I hope that it is appropriate to make general comments about the proposal to establish the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority as that will enable me to curtail future comments on later amendments. The good news is that the Liberal Democrats believe it right—indeed, long overdue—to establish such a body. There is a need to assess the amount of time, effort and money to be devoted to the decommissioning of nuclear facilities and the onward transmission to waste disposal. I also welcome the Government's statement, in their document, ''Developing a Framework For Stakeholder Engagement and Transparency for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA)'', that it is important to establish

''the credibility of the NDA as a body which can deliver and will make a difference.''

The establishment of such a body throws into sharp relief the costs of decommissioning, which at £48 billion will be £8,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. Although this debate is not about new nuclear build, those who advocate it may wish to consider the cost to date of the nuclear industry for every person in the country.

Mr Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Economic Affairs; Tewkesbury, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the past record of the nuclear industry has left a cost legacy. However, does he accept that, with changed technology, those costs would not necessarily be repeated?

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

That is an interesting hypothesis, which we have heard over several decades from the nuclear industry, but it has invariably proved to be wrong. Perhaps one day it will be right, but I have seen no evidence for that and would not take the chance. I want to stress that in making these comments, I am not making the argument for or against new nuclear build. I want to address my remarks to the decommissioning challenge.

The first thing to do is establish exactly how independent the nuclear decommissioning authority would be. The Government's framework document refers to the need for transparency, but there are several important relationships with the NDA that are not entirely clear. Before we go into the detailed clauses in chapter 1 of part 2, it would be helpful if the Minister commented on that.

For example, it is not entirely clear what the relationship will be between the NDA and the parts of the nuclear industry that continue to be actively involved in generation, such as BNFL and, to take a private sector example, British Energy. We know that the NDA will be situated in Cumbria, which is a welcome development as it will protect jobs up there. That was discussed on Second Reading by the local Member of Parliament, the right hon. Member for

Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), and we all agree that there is a need to ensure that the skills and knowledge base in Cumbria are not lost and that we have an opportunity to protect jobs in a positive way.

That is not in dispute, but the NDA will be literally across the road from people from whom it is receiving material and locations to be decommissioned. In those circumstances, it is important that the NDA is not only independent, but seen to be independent. The authority is a good concept. I hope that it succeeds and attracts cross-party support—not just in principle, but in practice throughout its lifetime—but if it is to do that it needs to be independent. Any suggestion that it could be used to bolster the nuclear industry would be unhelpful. It has a function entirely separate from nuclear generation, and irrespective of one's views on nuclear generation, the NDA should have that separate role and not be used either to attack or to support nuclear generation. It should have a discrete role, and it is important that it is constructed so that it is seen to have that.

There are real issues as to the independence of the NDA. Will the Minister tell us who will give it direction? The Bill, unless I have misread it, is rather vague on that. Will direction be the sole responsibility of the Secretary of State, or will the industry have a hand in determining how it is governed? That is an important point of principle. My hon. Friends and I believe that there should be an arm's-length relationship between the NDA and the industry. I do not want to speak for the Conservatives, but I imagine that their amendments will propose a different view, so this is an important principle to establish.

The relationship between the NDA and Nirex, which is the great unspoken body in the Bill, is also unclear. Nirex has a responsibility for long-term waste disposal—I do not like the word ''disposal'', because this material remains active for a huge number of years—but clause 6 gives the NDA some responsibility for disposal. Will the Minister clarify what the relationship will be between the NDA and Nirex? Will the NDA's disposal responsibilities be limited to low-level waste, as I believe they should be, or will it have a function on intermediate and high-level waste?

I hope that you agree that this is the best time to raise these questions, Mr. Sayeed. It is important that when we agree to the establishment of the NDA, we understand what we are agreeing to. The issues are fundamental and they will determine whether the NDA will work.

It is important also that the NDA has an overriding principle, so that people are clear about its primary function. I believe that it should be to protect human health and the environment, but that is not stated in the Bill. Will the Minister clarify what he believes to be the primary duty of the NDA? The lists of responsibilities in clause 6 and general duties in clause 12 do not meet that challenge.

I do not want to take too much time at this point, but there are a number of questions about the NDA. There is also the question whether it will be a nuclear

generator or simply a decommissioner. Cross-reading clauses 6 and 12 seems to imply that the NDA can be empowered to continue to generate nuclear waste and nuclear electricity, and even—possibly—to build new nuclear generation stations if that is deemed necessary to carry out its ''functions''. It could continue to generate plutonium and, in other words, it could become the opposite—

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the clause and trailing some of his amendments. I would be grateful if he confined his remarks to the clause.

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

I am trying to help the Committee by questioning the principles behind the establishment of the NDA. I want to find out exactly what the Minister intends. I have no wish to trail my amendments, as you succinctly put it, Mr. Sayeed. I have raised issues that are germane, although I will not go into them in great detail. The establishment of the NDA is a positive step, but it needs to be transparent and independent; it needs to deal with waste, not generate it. Those are the assurances that I seek from the Minister.

Dr Desmond Turner (Brighton, Kemptown, Labour)

I strongly support the principle of setting up the NDA, but I would like clarification on two points. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) is getting into complex and unnecessary ground when he tries to separate responsibilities for high-level, intermediate or low-level nuclear waste. I find that strange. Clearly the NDA should have responsibility for all nuclear waste. If it deals with a nuclear generating station that has just finished working, all those categories of waste will be involved.

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

Of course the NDA has responsibility at that point, but we must consider the question whether it retains responsibility or whether responsibility transfers to Nirex. That is not clear in the Bill.

Dr Desmond Turner (Brighton, Kemptown, Labour)

I was coming to Nirex. I put it to the Minister that responsibility should always rest with the NDA. It may choose to delegate it to a contractor under its supervision, but it should still remain responsible. I want him to confirm that point, if I am correct. What relationship is proposed between the NDA and Nirex?

Mr Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Economic Affairs; Tewkesbury, Conservative)

That final point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Lewes a few minutes ago, is important. According to a written answer,

''the Government are giving consideration to the future of Nirex. It will only be possible to set out definitively the relationship between Nirex and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority once this consideration has been completed.''—[Official Report, 10 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1506W.]

I hope that that consideration has been completed and that the Minister can tell us about it. It is important to establish what that relationship will be. As the hon. Member for Lewes said, it is also important to establish what the relationship between the NDA and the industry will be. I do not want to speak too much on that because I have tabled relevant amendments to later clauses.

We welcome the creation of the NDA. Successive Governments have undoubtedly ducked the nuclear waste issue, which is unfortunate and need not have been the case. Just last December, I had the pleasure of visiting Finland to see what that country does with its nuclear industry. It is building a fifth reactor, which is not disproportionately costly, and has made some interesting arrangements. Perhaps we can return to that.

The important point is that the Finns are also dealing very effectively with waste. They have one underground repository for low-level and medium-level waste, and are building a second for dealing with high-level waste. When one considers how efficiently and cleanly they are dealing with that and what a small surface area is taken up, one wonders why we in the UK did not deal with these matters as effectively and efficiently. That is to be regretted, but I welcome the fact that the issue is finally being addressed.

We have already expressed many concerns about how the NDA will be formulated, how it will work and what relationships it will have. In principle, however, it is good that it is being set up. There is a great deal for it to do and it has many issues to deal with, which we will discuss later. However, we support the clause.

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

I shall be brief. I also welcome the setting up of the NDA, but I share many of the reservations expressed by the hon. Member for Lewes about the questions that are still to be decided. Given your strictures, Mr. Sayeed, I will not discuss matters relating to later amendments, but I make the serious point that the NDA must be seen to be totally independent of the nuclear industry. We would all agree that the nuclear industry has had problems with the disposal of waste and with keeping records of what is in the waste dumps in the UK. If we are to tackle the nuclear legacy once and for all, we must ensure that that is done independently and transparently.

The problem of the nuclear industry may be summed up by the fact that, 18 years after Chernobyl, there are still hill farms in Scotland where the sheep cannot be moved because of the high levels of radiation that they suffered—that is all those years after a radiation cloud from Russia came over the UK. That is a measure of the problem that we face—it is not specifically a waste problem, but it is similar.

When I raised questions about the nuclear industry and future energy generation by the NDA during the last sitting of the Committee, my concerns were rubbished by the Minister. However, there are serious problems with how the Bill has been phrased in those respects. I reiterate the point that if the NDA is not seen as completely independent and as an organisation set up to deal with waste rather than to generate electricity, it could lose public support and run into difficulties.

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

I am pleased by the warm and wide welcome for the creation of the NDA, which has been reflected in the speeches.

Clause 4 simply provides for the establishment of the NDA as a body corporate and sets out its status. The NDA will be similar to most other non-departmental public bodies in that it will not act on behalf of the Crown—except in one specified circumstance, which we will discuss when we reach clause 10—and will not, therefore, enjoy any corresponding status, immunities or privileges.

In November 2001, the intention to create such a body was announced, and that was elaborated on in the 2002 White Paper. The creation of the NDA reflects the fact that there is a large technical and managerial challenge that needs to be met to deliver the necessary clean-up. It also reflects the Government's determination, through competition, to ensure that the best available skills and experience from the public and private sectors are brought to bear on the issue, and makes it clear that our priority is safe, secure, cost-effective clean-up that protects the environment—an important part of what the NDA must achieve. The creation of the NDA also reflects our desire for the management arrangements for clean-up work to be open and transparent and to command public confidence.

I hope that one of the benefits of the creation of the NDA will be to dispel some of the aura of mystery and secrecy that has surrounded the nuclear industry, which has been detrimental to the industry and to those who wanted to know more.

We shall return to many of the points raised in the debate when we discuss later amendments. I entirely agree that the NDA should be seen to be independent. It will be subject to ministerial oversight in the usual way; it will operate openly and transparently and consult on its plans. Its annual report and accounts will also be subject to the usual NDPB arrangements for public scrutiny. I believe that it will achieve the necessary independence, which I agree is important.

The NDA will have responsibility for securing the decommissioning and clean-up of designated sites, at which site operators will have to develop work plans to meet the NDA's objectives, subject to regulatory requirements; the NDA will fund those operators. The NDA's primary duty will be to drive forward clean-up and it will have to operate within the existing regulatory framework. The other things that it might do will be subject to the overarching obligation to clean up.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment & Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)

Will the Minister explain how the NDA will function within the regulatory framework as it applies to Scotland? Page 15 of the regulatory impact assessment states that the clause is subject to the agreement of the Scottish Parliament, a point that we can explore in the context of the amendments to clause 5. The Minister said that the proposal would go through speedily, but I wondered at what point it would be considered by the Scottish Parliament.

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

As the hon. Lady said, we will consider that issue in a moment. There is devolution to Scotland on these matters, which must be reflected in the Bill and in the way that the arrangements are made.

The relationship with Nirex was raised. We are still considering its future, and the review is not yet complete. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced in July that Nirex would be made independent of industry and subject to greater Government control. We are considering the means of securing that objective, and we will announce the outcome of the review as soon as it has been completed.

The NDA will carry out the responsibility for directing the work of its site operators; it could also be given responsibility for constructing and operating disposal facilities. It will be responsible for dealing with hazardous material at its sites—treating, storing, transporting or disposing of low, intermediate and high-level waste. That involves the full range of material, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown suggested. The Bill provides for the NDA to be given responsibility in designated circumstances for dealing with hazardous material not at its sites. It will set out its plans for waste management in its five-year strategy and annual work plans.

I am pleased that the establishment of the NDA has been welcomed. It is a good step forward in dealing with a big problem that will have to be dealt with for many decades, and we shall consider the details in a moment. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.