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

I beg to move amendment No. 76, in

clause 5, page 3, line 12, at end insert—

'(1A) Persons who have held office or been employed by nuclear generators or processors within a six-month period prior to appointment shall be ineligible for membership.'.

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 42, in

clause 5, page 3, line 14, after 'State', insert

'after consultation with representatives of BNFL, British Energy, Nirex and the UKAEA'.

No. 43, in

clause 5, page 3, line 16, at end insert

'and representatives of BNFL, British Energy, Nirex and the UKAEA'.

No. 44, in

clause 5, page 3, line 29, at end insert

'following the Secretary of State's consultation with representatives of BNFL, British Energy, Nirex and the UKAEA'.

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

It is germane to this clause to welcome the vision that the Minister set out in his previous contribution, particularly his recognition that the industry and the NDA must be seen to be separate, and that the NDA must be independent—that is exactly right. The amendment suggests a way of demonstrating to the public that the NDA is separate

from the industry, as well as giving the assurance that its primary duty—to deal with the decommissioning of facilities and its consequences—is separate from the interests of nuclear generators.

It is unclear exactly what the NDA's first year programme will be, because we have not discussed that yet. A figure of £2 billion has been bandied about as the money that it will have for the first year. Will the Minister confirm or deny that? In any case, who will determine the spending priorities? It is important that those who are appointed to leading positions on the NDA are separate from the industry so that they can focus clearly and independently on the role that the Minister expects them to fulfil. If people in Cumbria cross the road to join the NDA immediately, there will not be the traditional break that applies to civil servants or Ministers when they take up positions after having been in office.

There is a good reason for that break period; it is an essential safeguard. It is a well established Government practice, and the amendment would install it in this context. Without that break, the independence of the NDA could be compromised. More importantly, key personnel appointed to the NDA could come straight from the industry and determine the first year's spending programme. If the spending programme is drawn up by DTI officials, there will be a degree of independence. However, if it is drawn up based on submissions from British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., British Energy or others, we will have to question whether the priorities are right. How the money is spent is important.

In the first year, the NDA will enter into contracts—often long-term contracts—with individuals and companies pursuant to its powers and duties under the Bill. If mistakes are made in the first six months or year, they will be difficult to rectify subsequently. One might say—the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) alleges that this is my conspiracy theory—that those with an interest in the preservation and enhancement of nuclear power would be interested in how the programme is constructed by the NDA. To avoid any suggestion of that, the NDA should be entirely independent. That is what the amendment would secure. I hope that the Minister will support it.

The industry recognises that opportunities will arise from the NDA's first year of operation. Only last week, an advert from BNFL appeared in The Parliamentary Monitor that stated:

''The onset of new legislation presents a whole new world for BNFL. This legislation will manifest itself as the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.''

It continued that freedom from restraints, such as historic waste,

''will allow us to develop commercially and internationally in both government and utility sectors. In short, it's the dawning of a new era for BNFL.''

So, it clearly sees an opportunity from the establishment of the NDA. It is matter of Government policy as to whether it is a new dawning for BNFL, but that is separate from the establishment of the NDA. We must ensure that the personnel involved are clearly separate and not helping BNFL with its objective.

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

The amendments that we have tabled come from the opposite point of view to that expressed by the hon. Member for Lewes. I propose that, before the chairman, non-executive directors and chief executive are appointed, there should be discussions with the industry, and I have specified BNFL, British Energy, Nirex and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. The NDA will deal with work of the highest importance. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine anything more important in terms of the environment and public safety. The work will be extremely complicated as well as important. In fact, not much is more complicated than the nuclear industry. I am not talking about seeking the industry's permission before making the appointments—that would be wrong—but it would be sensible to seek the advice and opinions of people in the industry beforehand.

We are involved in setting up yet another body. I do not know whether it officially qualifies as a quango, but we have thousands of quangos. Some are useful and some are not, but it is very important that this body be useful and effective. It would therefore be rather foolish to disregard or reject the advice that may be given by the UKAEA, which has been operating since 1954, and by BNFL, which I understand has been operating for 30 years, if not more. That is the basis of the amendments. They do not suggest that those bodies should have to grant permission, but merely that their opinions should be sought. Given the importance of the work that will be carried out, that is the least that we should expect.

Mr Richard Page (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)

Unsurprisingly, I support my hon. Friend and, regretfully, I disagree with the hon. Member for Lewes. Along with everyone else, I welcome the setting up of this agency. As my hon. Friend said, that is long overdue. It was unfortunate that, in 1997, a geological survey in Cumbria brought a halt to the idea of having a high-level waste disposal facility.

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but he advances an argument that is contrary to the reality of what happens when civil servants leave to go to industry. They take with them knowledge of, and expertise on, Government programmes and policies and what could be happening, and that might give a financial advantage to one company. They have a six-month cooling-off period in which, in theory, the Government move on at such a rate that the expertise and knowledge of those civil servants is completely lost, and then they are supposed to go into a company without giving it the commercial advantage that it would have had had they joined it immediately. I have not yet fathomed how that prevents a civil servant from talking to the company that they are to join in six months' time, but illumination will, no doubt, come at some point.

I say to the hon. Member for Lewes that the situation is not as he suggested. It is not about a gamekeeper becoming a poacher—I exaggerate to make the point—but about a poacher becoming a gamekeeper. Is he seriously saying that someone with knowledge of the industry should not be able to join a decommissioning agency immediately so that he can

give advice and help to ensure that the work is done as quickly and effectively as possible, but that, unfortunately, the agency should have to hold off for six months before it can benefit from that person's knowledge? That would be completely against the national interest.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) made his points with his customary clarity. I am sure that, in an industry as tight-knit as the nuclear industry in this country, the Government and the officials will, in some shape or form, have discussions with people from Nirex, BNFL and so on, because they will be the necessary runners and riders for the posts that are coming along. My hon. Friend wishes to see that point covered in the Bill, so that there will be transparency in the process. I hate to tell the Government that they sometimes operate behind closed doors, but we should like to see the selection process more open and described in the Bill, so that industry knows about the type of people who will become part of the system. Let us have some political honesty and transparency; that is the reason behind my hon. Friend's amendment, which I enthusiastically support.

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

I shall be relatively brief. As has been said, the amendments come from two different extremes. I support the view of the hon. Member for Lewes, who said that it is important that the public are confident that the NDA is transparent. If the Conservatives' amendments were accepted, that transparency would be lost. This is a case not of poacher turned gamekeeper, but of showing that we have reached a new stage in dealing with the legacy of nuclear waste.

To put it bluntly, the nuclear industry has not always been transparent. There has been a culture of secrecy in many areas of it and record keeping in many nuclear dumps has been less than transparent. There is even a degree of doubt about what is in those dumps. Those who set up the dumps are not the same people who work for those organisations now.

There is a long history of secrecy in the nuclear industry, and in setting up a transparent and independent agency to deal with that legacy we must ensure that the same people cannot simply cross over to it from the nuclear industry. That is not to say that the NDA will not need technical advice. Clearly it will, and some of those giving advice may come from the nuclear industry. We are talking here about the non-executive directors and chairman of the NDA, and we must ensure that they are not those who ran the nuclear industry in the past.

Mr Richard Page (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)

Can I get this absolutely clear? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that somebody coming from industry, who may have knowledge of procedures that are not up to speed or of radioactive material being stored unsafely, should not take up the job immediately and pass on such information, but should wait six months? I would like him to clarify the point.

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

The point I am making is that a new organisation must be seen to be transparent. I am not suggesting that nobody with experience or knowledge should work for it, but we are talking here about the non-executive directors and chairman. They must be seen to be independent and focused on the historical problem.

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

The amendments all propose changes to the arrangements for appointments to the NDA board. As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury said, they point in opposite directions. The hon. Member for Lewes proposes ruling out people who have recently been employed in the nuclear industry from serving on the NDA board, and the points put by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury on that issue have merit. The board will need nuclear skills, so it would be unhelpful to set it out in legislation that the board cannot hire people who are most likely to have up-to-date knowledge. The board will need people with up-to-date expertise and we should not exclude that possibility, as the amendment would.

Equally, the proposals tabled by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury requiring the Secretary of State to consult existing nuclear organisations before appointing the chairman, chief executive and non-executive directors would also create problems. It is not appropriate to set out in legislation the organisations that should be consulted, particularly when those bodies will derive funding from the NDA. It could put those individuals in a difficult position if they were consulted in the way that he suggests.

The Bill proposes that the arrangements for appointments to the board should follow well-established procedures involving the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and that we should be able to establish a fit-for-purpose organisation and preserve flexibility to ensure that it remains fit for purpose over the long period in which we envisage it operating.

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

The Minister will not be surprised to know that I find his response to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury entirely convincing and his response to me entirely unconvincing.

To pick up on one point, of course there will be a close relationship between the NDA and the nuclear industry—it would be difficult to imagine how it could operate without such a relationship. There will be discussions between the NDA and the industry on technical matters relating to decommissioning, and the industry contains important expertise that will have to be listened to, but because that relationship will be so crucial and will have to be so close, the NDA board must be seen to be independent. That underlines the need for my amendment.

The Minister recognises that the organisations dealing with the NDA will derive funding from it, but he appears to be happy for someone working in one part of the nuclear industry on a Friday to start working for the NDA the following Monday in a position to hand out large amounts of public money to people who were their colleagues two days before. That situation seems inappropriate, fails the

Minister's transparency test and brings into question the independence of the NDA. If he is keen to protect members of the NDA from the allegation that they are in the nuclear industry's pocket, that is not the way to act.

I am disappointed by the Minister's response, but I will not press the amendment to a vote. Like several other hon. Members, however, I shall raise at a later stage a number of tests to establish whether the NDA is independent, and I hope that at least some of them will have to be met. Otherwise, his objective as stated in clause 4, which is that the industry and the NDA should be seen to be independent of each other, will fail. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

I beg to move amendment No. 75, in

clause 5, page 3, line 34, at end insert 'and the Welsh Assembly'.

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 119, in

schedule 1, page 151, line 36, at end insert 'and the Welsh Assembly'.

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

There are no Welsh nationalists on the Committee, so I am doing a job for them. That is the flippant point, but the serious point is that there is a need to ensure that within the democratic bodies of this country—this Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly—there is ownership and acceptance of the NDA as it is established. That includes its key personnel. Clause 5 and schedule 1, the latter of which refers to removing people from office, indicate that the Secretary of State should consult Scottish Ministers, but there is no mention of the Welsh Assembly.

I accept that devolution means that this is a matter for the Secretary of State in England and Wales and for the Scottish Parliament in Scotland, and I accept the logic that led to the current drafting of the Bill, but I hope that the Minister accepts that the Welsh Assembly has a legitimate interest in how matters are progressed.

At important junctures in the NDA's life, including the appointment and removal from office of key personnel, it would be appropriate to take soundings from the Welsh Assembly. My amendment suggests not that it should be given a power of veto, but simply that, as a matter courtesy and involvement, it should be consulted. That does not seem unreasonable.

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

I want briefly to support the amendment. We do not have a Welsh nationalist here, so a Scottish one is near enough. On the face of it, there is consultation with Scottish Ministers, although I would have much preferred agreement, but there we go. The hon. Member for Lewes is right to say that the devolution settlement is different in Wales. He is also right to press this matter, especially as the Richard commission is considering extending the powers of the Welsh Assembly. It may well have these powers—in the not too distant future, I hope.

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

Hon. Members make the point that the exercise of functions under nuclear legislation differs between Scotland and Wales. In Scotland, some functions under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 have been transferred to Scottish Ministers. Others were made to be exercisable in Scotland only after consultation with Scottish Ministers. In addition, the protection of the environment and the management of radioactive waste are devolved to Scotland. The hon. Member for Vale of York asked where we have got to on the procedures involving the Scottish Parliament. The Sewel motion has been passed and the Scottish Executive have agreed provisions that give Scottish Ministers powers of joint action on consultation rights that are appropriate to the devolved settlement on nuclear matters.

The position is different for Wales because much less has been devolved. Welsh Assembly officials were consulted during the preparation of the Bill, but they did not request that the Assembly should have powers under it. That is not surprising. There is little impact on devolved responsibilities in Wales. If something arose in the operation of the NDA that had an impact, the Welsh Assembly would obviously be consulted. I do not think it necessary to include that in the Bill or to incorporate the amendment relating to consultation on appointments. I hope that the hon. Member for Lewes will not press the amendment. The balance in the Bill correctly reflects the different responsibilities in Scotland and in Wales.

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

I am happy to have raised the issue. I hear what the Minister says and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.