Schedule 2 - Procedural requirements applicable to NDA's Strategy
Energy Bill [Lords]
11:00 am

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

I beg to move amendment No. 65, in

schedule 2, page 158, line 6, after 'State', insert

'and such strategy has been laid before each House of Parliament'.

In earlier sittings, we have discussed the principle of laying certain matters before Parliament. That is what the amendment would require the Secretary of State to do. The schedule refers to the NDA's strategy for carrying out its functions. The strategy already has to go to the Secretary of State, so it is obviously recognised as a serious matter.

The strategy is an important part of the Bill and will be an important part of the NDA. The schedule is quite long; I will not go through it all but it covers issues such as the skilled work force, effective competition for contracts, good practice and activities that benefit the social or economic life of communities. It goes on to talk about the NDA's objectives for decommissioning and cleaning up and the means by which it intends to achieve those objectives. It also states that the NDA needs to make a statement of the condition to which the site needs to be restored.

The strategy contains a good deal, and it seemed sensible to lay it before each House of Parliament as well as producing it to the Secretary of State.

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

The hon. Gentleman has made a persuasive case for his amendment. From the Government's point of view, it is certainly important that Parliament is kept fully informed on such matters. I ask him to withdraw his amendment, if he will, and to allow me to reflect on whether there might be any difficulties with unwanted delays. As long as I can satisfy myself on that point, I would be happy to bring forward a Government amendment on Report to do exactly what he has called for.

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

Given the Minister's sympathetic and welcome response, I am willing to do that. He raised the point of delay. In earlier amendments, I

added a get-out from the particular way of doing things in cases when a matter might be considered urgent. We are dealing with matters that could be extremely urgent and are serious. On the basis of the Minister's assurance that he will consider the matter further, 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. 89, in

schedule 2, page 159, line 19, at end insert—

'(aa) Nirex;'.

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 66, in

schedule 2, page 159, line 36, at end insert—

'(i) Nirex.'.

Amendment No. 90, in

schedule 2, page 161, line 9, at end insert—

'(aa) Nirex;'.

Amendment No. 91, in

schedule 3, page 162, line 12, at end insert—

'(aa) Nirex;'.

Amendment No. 92, in

schedule 3, page 163, line 40, at end insert—

'(aa) Nirex;'.

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

We return to the subject of Nirex. I regret that we must do so. This would have been a short item if we had been given full answers when I raised the issue previously. Unfortunately we were not given them, so I am drawn to revisit the matter.

It is extraordinary that Nirex is not included in the list of consultees. I notice that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury has picked up the same point in his amendment. We need the Minister to clarify what is happening about Nirex and its relationship with the NDA. We need that clarification while the Bill is progressing through Parliament; we need it in Committee today. We cannot put up any longer with the formula statement that it is under discussion between Ministers. We certainly cannot be expected to pass the Bill in its present form, without knowing what is happening to Nirex. I think that the Conservatives share that view—and that Labour Members do too. The matter has been raised at Environment questions and on other occasions by Labour Members. When I raised it yesterday I received a one-line answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), which told us nothing we did not already know.

Last summer the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced that Nirex would be made independent of its industry shareholders, so that it would be impartial and in a strong position to advise the Government. That is the right policy, and I endorse what the Secretary of State said. The press then reported a clash between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry. It was reported that the DTI wanted to split Nirex between

the Environment Agency and the NDA, which would give the industry more say, and DEFRA appeared to be resisting that.

I have tried to find out what is happening, through subsequent parliamentary questions, as have other hon. Members. I think that it is the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) who has raised it on behalf of Labour Members. We are presented with the same formula on each occasion. For example, the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services answered a written question of mine:

''The Department is continuing to work with Defra and other departments to determine the future of Nirex.''—[Official Report, 8 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1283W.]

What is so difficult about determining the future of Nirex and its relationship with the NDA? It is almost a year since the Secretary of State made the announcement and effectively appointed, or at least indicated a wish to appoint, someone to the relevant post. Yet I am not sure that Nirex appears at all in a Bill that is crucial to the role of Nirex and the future of decommissioned waste. Perhaps it appears somewhere, but I have not found it yet. It does not even appear in the list of consultees that the NDA must deal with.

What is happening? Will the Minister make a definitive statement about what the role of Nirex will be? What will its relationship be with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority? When will it take responsibility for particular waste streams, and why has there been no clear statement from the Government for 12 months? Will the Minister tell us what the body's future is, or, if he cannot, will he explain the delay and tell us what matters are under consideration and when they will be resolved?

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

I support the hon. Gentleman, without, on this occasion, qualification. The Minister obviously recognises the importance of the strategy, having said, in response to my amendment, that he will consider whether it is necessary for it to go before Parliament; I welcome that. I agree that the strategy is important, and in view of that it would be sensible for Nirex to be included when all the other listed organisations are consulted. Indeed, Nirex already works with several of those organisations, if not all of them. I wonder whether it was inadvertently omitted from the Bill.

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

I must ask the hon. Member for Lewes to be patient for just a little longer. The NDA will need to take account of the disposal options available to it at any time. Initially, that may well involve taking account of the letters of comfort provided by Nirex to site operators. However, it is not appropriate to place Nirex in the same category as the nuclear regulators and those directly affected by the clean-up work. At the moment, existing site operators do not have obligations to consult Nirex on their decommissioning plans, so it is hard to see any strong reason why the NDA should be under a statutory obligation to do so.

On the broader point, which I think the hon. Gentleman is using the amendment as a peg to make, we are nearing the end of the review of how to implement the aims set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which are to make Nirex independent of industry and to bring it under greater Government control. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman supports those aims, and I can tell him that conclusions from the review will be announced soon. The future of Nirex will need to be fully considered in the light of the functions that it performs; the committee on radioactive waste management's review of the strategy for long-term management of the UK's higher-activity radioactive waste; and the changes to the nuclear industry's structure and the operations that will result from the NDA's creation. However, the outcome of the review will be announced quite soon.

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

We are no further forward. The conclusion will be announced ''soon'', which I suppose is slightly nearer than ''in due course'' or whatever the last formulation was, but it is not much better. The Minister has not explained why it has taken a year to progress the matter from last July, when the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made the statement in quite definitive terms. When I opened the debate on the amendment, I asked the Minister whether, if he could not say what the decision was and why the conclusion had not been reached, he could at least indicate what the hold-ups were. What are the matters under consideration that have caused it to take a year to progress this issue? None of those questions was answered.

Without wishing to over-egg the pudding, I also think that it is slightly discourteous to ask the Committee to consider a Bill that is crucial to the work of Nirex when we are not clear on that body's future role. It is difficult to know what amendments to table to be able to understand exactly what the NDA's termination point will be unless we understand the whole picture, and we are not being given that. Earlier, the hon. Member for Salisbury referred to a written statement that we did not know about. What we are discussing now is also something that is germane to the Bill but which we do not know about. It is slightly discourteous to the Committee to react in that way. I again urge the Minister to indicate what the problem is and what matters are under consideration, and to give a general indication of the direction in which this issue is going. He owes that to the Committee today.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.