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

I beg to move amendment No. 88, in

clause 10, page 8, line 4, at end insert

'except that no monies shall be passed to those responsible for generating radioactive material'.

I am happy to say that this is another probing amendment, which should gladden the heart of the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire. I seek to unravel the financial relationship between the NDA and the private sector of the nuclear industry. I hope to get a fuller answer from the Under-Secretary than with my previous probing amendment. I must say that having one's probing amendments responded to in that way does not encourage one to table any more.

The amendment would amend the provision giving the NDA the function, so far as it thinks it appropriate, to promote

''the carrying out of research by others into those matters''—

those matters being the ''decommissioning of nuclear installations'', the ''cleaning-up of nuclear sites'' and so on. I seek to clarify whether the Government envisage a situation in which the NDA would pass money to British Energy or another private sector operator pursuant to that function.

If, as the Under-Secretary has stated, British Energy is responsible for its own clean-up operations, it ought to be dealing with such matters itself rather than relying on the NDA to fund its research. Will private sector operators fund their own responsibilities, or will that be another subsidy from the taxpayer to the private sector in the nuclear industry? If so, what are the constraints and rules? Is it simply a matter for the NDA's discretion?

Will the Under-Secretary admit that there is a need to clarify financial propriety between the NDA and the private sector? How does he intend to deal with that? What method will be deployed to ensure that public money is not spent improperly, that there is proper accountability for that money, and that we have the opportunity to follow such matters in the House of Commons and to raise matters of concern?

Any arrangement whereby billions of pounds of taxpayers' money is out of our jurisdiction due to commercial confidentiality because contracts have been signed would be intolerable.The hon. Member for Tewkesbury raised a similar issue earlier about billions of pounds that he wanted to be subject to scrutiny, which he rightly put to a vote.

This is another example of a situation in which taxpayers' moneys may be handed over to the private sector through the NDA, but in which we may have no way of following what the NDA is doing, or its reason for doing so.

Will the Under-Secretary clarify the relationship between the NDA and the private sector in terms of financial propriety, and tell us whether he envisages that the NDA will be empowered to subsidise British Energy for what is its responsibility—the carrying out of research for its own sites for which it has financial responsibility? If he does not clarify this point, I will raise it again in debate on a later clause.

Mr Nigel Griffiths (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Edinburgh South, Labour)

This is not a probing amendment. It is a wrecking amendment that would severely restrict the NDA's ability to spend money on promoting research carried out by others that is related to its functions.

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's view of the world. On the one hand, he picks on an evil group of people who are running every nuclear facility and believes that they should not receive a penny for that, despite the fact that we have to ensure that the products of the nuclear industry are clean and made safe. On the other, he sees a group of academics or researchers—perhaps again found at the jobcentre—who would help to carry out the research that the NDA requires. It is simply not like that, and the amendment reflects that caricature fairly accurately.

Mr Richard Page (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)

I hesitate to intervene on the Minister. Now that I am on his Christmas card list I do not want to be deleted. The hon. Member for Lewes says that this is a probing amendment, from which one gathers that he will not press it to a vote. He would love to know what relationship the NDA is expected to adopt with the other private companies. To what extent will they be commissioned to do various works and how will money pass from one side to the other? Everyone agrees that they have to do this task and that work has to be undertaken and payment made. No one is against that. That gives the Minister a golden opportunity to explain how he sees this operating in practice.

Mr Nigel Griffiths (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Edinburgh South, Labour)

I welcome that intervention. The hon. Gentleman has clarified a good point that was put by the hon. Member for Lewes, which I will come to shortly.

The amendment would make it hard for the NDA to promote any research that could help it to do its job more effectively. It would rule out the possibility of the NDA funding research by most current operators and those involved in the nuclear industry, such as BNFL, British Energy and others. That is one of the reasons why we cannot accept the amendment.

The Committee is entitled to know how much information would be made public and how that would be done. The Bill already commits the NDA to a published strategy, an annual plan and an annual report. They will all involve extensive consultation, ministerial approval and publication. The budget will be disclosed to Parliament and be available for scrutiny there. No hon. Member or interested party outside will be hampered in scrutinising what is happening.

That openness will leave us open to the press releases from the Liberal Democrats and others saying, ''Shock, horror—the NDA has gone to some expert in the industry to help to promote research.'' Well, we heard it here first. I hope that will not come as a shock and nor should it when we are simply ensuring, by resisting amendment No. 88, that the NDA is not hamstrung in its function of promoting research. Nor should Parliament be denied the opportunity, through the annual report and other mechanisms, to see what research is being funded. All that is in the public interest. I hope, with that assurance, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

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

As I said, this is a probing amendment. There is no such thing as a wrecking amendment from the Opposition because in this Parliament one would never get through. Such amendments could not possibly wreck anything, even if that was what they were designed to do. Amendments are either probing or making a point that, were the proposal agreed to, would achieve a beneficial effect.

The Minister is also wrong to represent me as characterising the nuclear industry as a collection of Dr. Nos—he does himself no service there. However, there is a need, to which I shall return, for financial clarity, particularly in this odd arrangement. In many respects, the nuclear industry is like no other. Inevitably, there is a close relationship between the NDA and the nuclear generators, whether they are in the private or the public sector. However, because of that relationship, and because of how the industry is constructed as well as its historical path to the point where it is now, it is particularly important that there should be financial probity, financial clarity and transparency. The Minister was good enough to agree with that point.

Earlier amendments that would have created some distance in terms of appointments to the NDA were rejected. It is possible that the NDA will pick up functions from the private sector and that it will hand over money for research to BNFL or British Energy. Such things might be justified individually, and the expertise in the industry should not be neglected—it might be useful in the decommissioning process. Nobody would argue with that. However, we should add those factors together and look at the overall picture in the context of an industry that is peculiar in that there is nothing in this country with which it can be compared. Also, it has an incestuous relationship

with the putative NDA and the generators. We should then check what measures are in place to ensure that public money is not improperly committed.

The NDA cannot be kept distant from the nuclear generators in the way that, say, the banking ombudsman can from the banking sector. I accept that such relationships are not possible in this case. Given those circumstances, what safeguards are in place? The Minister has spoken of an annual report and other such matters. Those are worth while and unexceptionable, but they do not meet the need. I have drawn attention to the points that I want to make, but the Committee should return to the matter of financial transparency and how it can best be achieved, and to the point about ensuring that moneys allocated for nuclear decommissioning are not spent on propping up the nuclear industry and further generation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Mr Richard Page (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)

I was not going to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, as he appeared to be reaching the end of his contribution, and it is not my job to sell the Government's position, but I put it to him delicately that he makes it sound as if a nuclear company can start up like some cowboy builder and say, ''We will knock up a nuclear power station down the road, and if it all goes bang, someone else can pick up the tab.'' If a nuclear power station of whatever description is to be built, it must undergo planning and detailed safety checks, and everything that is done must be given Government approval, otherwise the Government will pull the plug on it. As the Government would have

approved it all the way down the line, surely the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes is a little fanciful?

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, I have been listening carefully to his contribution and it contains a lot of repetition. I therefore ask him to introduce some new material, or to wind up his speech.

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

I take that stricture on board, Mr. O'Brien.

To answer the point from the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, existing nuclear power stations went through a process of approval, but that did not stop British Energy going bust at the end of the day. He may say that it is unlikely, but it could happen; it could be avoided by amending the Bill.

Mr Nigel Griffiths (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Edinburgh South, Labour)

Who says that being a member of a Standing Committee is not an intellectual treat?

The Bill is not about new nuclear build. The NDA is concerned with clean-up arrangements. The Government have made it clear that it is for the market to take decisions on the economic viability of new nuclear build, including clean-up costs. Amendment No. 24 would remove the option to give the NDA the responsibility of acting on the Secretary of State's behalf in respect of agreements with third parties for decommissioning and clean-up activities. If the amendment were to be accepted, the NDA would not be able to act as a potential nominee on the Government's behalf in arrangements with those third parties. It would not change the Government's obligations, as the NDA would still have responsibility for securing the clean-up of public-sector nuclear sites. It will be the most appropriate body to take on the discharge of such Government obligations.

Much mention has been made of handouts and bail-outs. I shall share a secret with the Committee. The Chancellor privately may be a most generous man, but he does not like handing out public money to bail out anyone or any organisation. No blank cheques will be coming out of No. 11 at the eleventh hour under the present Chancellor. The notion that the NDA is a conduit of limitless public funds to the nuclear industry, with the Chancellor taking no interest in it, is ludicrous. Together with the safeguards that I have already outlined—the strategy, the annual plan and the annual report—that arrangement will serve us best. What more does the hon. Gentleman want?

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

This may be a rhetorical question. I am sure that the Chancellor is a canny man, which is why he wants the money being frittered away on the nuclear industry to be recouped if possible. He wants reprocessing as it gives an income stream.

The Under-Secretary says that the NDA is predominantly about decommissioning. That is its function, but at some point—this is allowing for Greenpeace—it might want the option to build and operate a certain type of nuclear power station, perhaps a plutonium-burning station, to dispose of part of the UK's plutonium stock pile. That would deal with the waste. Is not that a possible outcome for the NDA, and does it not have the power to do that if it wishes?

Mr Nigel Griffiths (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Edinburgh South, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman sets up so many Aunt Sallies that it is difficult to know where to start. I believe that the pro-nuclear and the anti-nuclear lobbies agree that the disposal of nuclear waste is a priority, and that we need a 21st century agency to handle that, and to do so with the confidence of Parliament and the public. The NDA is the agency to do that. Removing the option to give the NDA the responsibility to act on behalf of the Secretary of State, as amendment No. 24 would do, is not what people on either side of the nuclear divide want to promote; except, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman. I have already emphasised that the NDA cannot construct and operate a new nuclear generating station. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.

I hope also that I have persuaded the hon. Member for Angus to withdraw the amendment.

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

Frankly, I am not convinced by the Under-Secretary's arguments. Throughout our debates, we have seen that there is a possibility of such things happening. The Under-Secretary, in his own inimitable way, simply bats them aside, as his colleague did. People have real concerns about the matter. I shall not press the amendment to a Division, but there are serious concerns and he should think about how to deal with them. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Five o'clock until Thursday 27 May at five minutes to Nine o'clock.

O'Brien, Mr. Bill (

Chairman

Atkins, Charlotte

Baker, Norman

Challen, Mr.

Griffiths, Nigel

Key, Mr.

MacDonald, Mr.

McIntosh, Miss

Murphy, Mr. Denis

Page, Mr.

Robertson, Mr. Laurence

Ruffley, Mr.

Stewart, Ian

Timms, Mr.

Tipping, Paddy

Turner, Dr. Desmond

Walley, Joan

Weir, Mr.

White, Brian

Whitehead, Dr.