Clause 12 - General duties when carrying out functions
Energy Bill [Lords]
8:55 am

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

I beg to move amendment No. 105, in

clause 12, page 9, line 30, at beginning insert—

'( ) The principal objective of the NDA shall be to protect the health and safety of people, and to protect the environment, from the harmful effects of radiation from those sites for which the NDA has responsibility.'.

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 106, in

clause 12, page 9, line 30, at beginning insert—

'( ) It shall be the paramount duty of the NDA to safeguard the environment.'.

No. 22, in

clause 12, page 9, line 30, leave out from first 'the' to end of line 31 and insert

'paramount duty of the NDA, in carrying out its functions, to ensure—

(a) the safety of the environment and the protection of the natural and built environment from any pollution or contamination from the release, spillage or escape of any nuclear or nuclear-related material into the air, waterways, sea or land, or from any contamination arising from the use, treatment, storage, transportation or disposal of hazardous waste (and in setting out its decommissioning strategy for any nuclear installation or site, nothing shall be done that would give rise to any such release, spillage or escape), and

(b) the safety of the general population and of the workforce in any nuclear or nuclear-related facility who may be affected by the release, spillage or escape in any fashion of any nuclear or nuclear related material into the air, waterways, sea or land, or from activities involving the use, treatment, storage, transportation or disposal of hazardous material.

(1A) It shall be the further duty of NDA, so as far as it is not incompatible with the paramount duty under subsection (1), to have regard to—'.

No. 107, in

clause 12, page 9, line 30, after first 'the', insert 'further'.

No. 23, in

clause 12, page 9, line 40, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 43.

No. 108, in

clause 12, page 9, leave out line 40.

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

The purpose of the amendments is to make crystal clear what the Liberal Democrats believe the principal objective of the NDA should be, which is to protect the health and safety of people and to protect the environment from the harmful effect of radiation from those sites for which the NDA has responsibility. The Minister might say that those functions are implicit, or explicit, in the wording of the Bill. He might refer to subsection (1)(b), which refers to the need to safeguard the environment. However, I would suggest that it is important to establish a primary duty for the NDA. The need to safeguard the environment, and the need to protect persons, is just one of a number of considerations in the Bill. It should be the primary consideration for public health and environmental reasons, and it would be helpful if that were stated in the Bill.

There are good reasons why we should ensure that the environment is safeguarded. It is fair to say the nuclear industry has a legacy of problems, such as environmental contamination, that have to be cleared up. The Minister will be aware of the suggestions—borne out by figures from his Department—that there have been nuclear emissions from Sellafield that were harmful to the environment over a long period. They have generated complaints from within this country and from outside as well.

The Minister will know that the nuclear industry has created ponds at Sellafield—B30 ponds and others—and it is clear that no one knows what is in them. Therefore no one is a position to have them cleared up. It is impossible for Nirex to take responsibility for the ponds unless it is clear what is in them. The history of the nuclear industry protecting the environment has not been a happy one, in that regard at least. That is not to say that it has not prevented major accidents because it has—with the exception of Windscale in the 1950s. Since then there has not been a major accident, which is a tribute to the industry. There has been a low-level history of contamination and a failure to safeguard the environment, and that should be addressed at this point.

There is a major problem with the clean-up of what is already there. We know from an answer that the Minister gave to me on 19 January that the White

Paper, ''Managing the Nuclear Legacy'', which his Department published in July 2002, showed that the costs associated with the clean-up of civil nuclear liabilities in just one area—Springfields—would be about £300 million. He will also be aware that the Trade and Industry Committee, which looked into the matter, believes that the NDA needs a clear set of overarching principles. I refer him to paragraph 13 of that cross-party report, which says:

''We consider that a clear and unambiguous statement of the overarching principles within which the NDA will work would be a useful addition to the draft Bill. Such a statement would have most force if it were given in the main body of the Bill.''

My amendment would ensure that the Trade and Industry Committee has its wish granted, and that such a statement is made explicit in the Bill.

I am sure that the Minister will say, ''Don't worry; it's all here. The Bill talks about the need to safeguard the environment and the need to protect persons.'' He will say that all the issues that I have raised are dealt with. In a sense, they are dealt with, but not in a way that states what the principal duty of the NDA shall be. We have heard in previous debates that the NDA will now be involved in generation to some degree, and it may be involved in producing nuclear fuel. It will be involved in a whole range of activities that are ancillary—to put it mildly, or generously—to the purpose of decommissioning. Under circumstances in which that remit is broadening, it is important that the NDA should focus on its primary function: to protect people's health and safety and the environment. It would be helpful for the Government, who I think take that view, if such a statement were included in the Bill.

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

Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 confuse me because they are contradictory. One proposes that there be a paramount duty to protect health and safety and the environment, and the other just mentions the environment. Which is the hon. Gentleman's favoured amendment?

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

The Minister makes a fair point. If I were confident that the Government would automatically accept the amendments that I table and incorporate them into legislation without further delay, I would be slightly more careful. I have given him a choice. I am so generous that I am offering him two ways out of the dilemma, not just one.

Amendment No. 105 is my preferred option, but in case it is unacceptable for some reason, I have offered the Minister amendment No. 106 as an alternative. Either way, the amendments are an opportunity to raise the issue. He will doubtless not accept my amendments, no matter how wonderfully scripted and drafted they might be, but I hope that he will accept the force of the argument and return later with words of his own.

Mr Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Sayeed. This morning we are about to consider more than a dozen clauses on the financial framework of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. That will no doubt detain us for many

hours. I notice that item number six on the Order Paper under ''Written Ministerial Statements to be made today'' is

''Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: Nuclear Decommissioning Authority: Contingencies Fund''.

I suggest that it is inappropriate to continue the debate on the financial clauses until we know what statement the Government are going to make to the House later this morning.

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advice, but I am not responsible for determining Government or other business.

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

I had just about finished, but that was an important point of order. It drew attention to a lack of joined-up presentation. That is a generous interpretation. The other interpretation is that we are being asked to agree legislation, and subsequently being given information that might be relevant. The other day, I pointed out that we have not been told yet what is happening with Nirex, although its future is crucial to the role of the NDA. It is unhelpful of the Government not to be clear on such matters, so that we can discuss them in the full knowledge of what is going on.

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

As that was almost a continuation of the point of order, may I suggest to hon. Members that such points of order would be best made on the Floor of the House?

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

I shall not detain the Committee long, but I want to speak to amendments Nos. 22 and 23, which I tabled. Like the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), their purpose is to insert into the Bill the requirement that it be a paramount duty of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to have concern for the environment. They are in essence trying to achieve the same thing as the amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman. However, as so often in the Bill, different parties are trying to achieve the same aims by slightly different means.

Amendment No. 22 is rather longer than amendments Nos. 105 and 106 and attempts to get round the problems of those amendments by bringing both matters together in one provision and making it a paramount duty of the NDA to look after not only the environment, but health and safety. In using this route, I have deliberately tried not to deviate too far from the current wording of the Bill and have given the Government the opportunity to accept that the lack of any mention of the paramount duty of the NDA to have due regard to environmental issues is an error. At present, the clause merely states that the NDA must ''have particular regard'' to the need to safeguard the environment, health and safety and nuclear security. That is not a strong enough statement; hence I have changed the wording to ''paramount duty'', as has the hon. Member for Lewes.

Mr Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

I must rise to defend my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes. I wonder how the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) would react if were all to adopt the Latin pronunciation of his constituency when we referred to him.

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

I would suggest that the Gaelic pronunciation is more appropriate. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) has referred to me as the hon. Member for Weir, so I think I can be given some latitude in this matter. I will refrain from referring to Lewes again as my pronunciation is obviously mangling south-eastern English.

Throughout the debates on this matter, when we have raised real issues about the future of local industry, the Minister has stated time and again that the NDA and the whole Bill are about decommissioning and not nuclear generation. That being the case, one must assume that the NDA's whole purpose is the environment and the health and safety of the population and workers in the nuclear industry.

The addition of amendment No. 22 would not in any way damage what the Government are trying to do; it would strengthen the role of the NDA and make it clear that it is an environmental and decommissioning concern. Amendment No. 23 clearly follows on from amendment No. 22 and does not stand alone, so it could not be agreed to without also agreeing to amendment No. 22.

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

Let me start by responding to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). I will ensure that the information that he asked for will be before the Committee before we reach clause 24. I do not think that it affects the debate that we are likely to have today, but he raised a fair point.

The contradiction between the two amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes highlights the practical difficulty of determining what is most important: the protection of the environment or public safety—indeed, we are all concerned about nuclear security as well. I agree with him about the importance of safeguarding the environment.

In the end, nuclear decommissioning and clean-up are about protecting the environment over the long term for the benefit of future generations. By setting up the NDA, we are making it clear that we want nuclear clean-up to be driven forward as quickly and effectively as possible. Concerns about the environment as well as about public safety and security are at the heart of the NDA. The hon. Member for Lewes highlighted the environmental point, and that is reflected in subsection (1)(b).

There are some difficulties with the amendments. There is a problem with cutting across the existing responsibilities of nuclear regulators, in particular. Nothing in the Bill alters the regulatory framework that the independent regulators enforce. The nuclear installations inspectorate will continue to enforce site licence conditions and health and safety regulations applicable to NDA sites, and the Environment Agency and Scottish Environment Protection Agency will continue to regulate discharges to air, land and water.

We are internationally recognised for having a very good regulatory regime that sets the highest standards of nuclear safety, security and environmental protection. The Committee will agree that we must not do anything to undermine the successful work that the regulators carry out or anything that would give the impression that they are ineffective or inadequate.

The hon. Member for Lewes rightly paid tribute to the safety record of the nuclear industry, and we would not want to put at risk the arrangements that have ensured that record until now. It is important not to cut across a well established and reliable regulatory framework by giving the NDA a duty—above all other duties—or a principal objective to ensure the effective discharge of existing regulatory requirements. It is essential that responsibility rests with the person controlling a nuclear site—the site licensee. Anything that undermined that principle would give great cause for concern to the regulators whose task it is to protect public safety and the environment.

The creation and operation of the NDA will establish a golden triangle, as it was colourfully referred to in another place, comprising the NDA, its site operators and the regulators. Those three parties will work together to maintain and develop regulatory standards, ensure compliance and drive forward clean-up to everyone's benefit.

The hierarchy in the NDA's duty that would be created by amendments Nos. 22, 23, 106 and 107 would be problematic in that it would place the protection of the environment and safety of the public, or perhaps just the environment, at the top of the hierarchy. I would suggest that nuclear security is also a high priority and, therefore, that the arrangement in the Bill is the most appropriate. Nuclear site operators need to comply with all the regulatory requirements, and it would not be sensible to separate Government policy from the group of considerations.

I hope that on the basis of that explanation of how the regulatory requirements currently work, the hon. Member for Lewes will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining his view. He is right that the clause already refers to the environment and public safety, and we welcome that.

I am slightly mystified by the suggestion that the considerations would cut across regulators. The Minister appears to be saying that because one regulator has a duty to ensure something, it cannot also be a principal duty for someone else. I would have thought that protecting the environment and ensuring public safety would be a principal duty for everyone involved in the nuclear industry. If someone else has that principal duty, that does not obviate the need for other bodies in the industry to have it as well. If nuclear security is forgotten about, the implications for the

environment and public health and safety would be unfortunate. In that sense, the point is covered by the two areas that I have picked out.

The Minister will not accept that point, but I understand where he is coming from, and in light of the discussion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

I beg to move amendment No. 14, in

clause 12, page 9, line 32, leave out from 'policy' to end of line 39.

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment No. 15.

Amendment (a) to proposed amendment No. 15, in

line 12, at end insert—

'(3AA) The obligations shall be equivalent to, or greater than, anything the person with control of the installation, site or facility was doing prior to its designation.'.

Government amendments Nos. 16 and 17.

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

We all agree that the question of social and economic support for local communities that are heavily dependent on the nuclear industry is important, and the Government are committed to ensuring that the NDA and its site operators continue to play a full role in their communities. The issue was fully debated in the other place, and the Bill has always provided for the NDA to give encouragement and support for the social and economic life of local communities. Following representations in the other place, we amended the Bill expressly to cover support for environmental benefits as well.

On Third Reading in the other place, two more amendments were made to strengthen further the NDA's remit by requiring it to have particular regard to those considerations in its employment and contractual arrangements, in order to engender local confidence that the support given by existing operators will be maintained and enhanced. I accept the general purpose of those proposals, but their drafting is somewhat unclear in its legal effect, and there is a risk that the NDA will be hindered in discharging its principal clean-up responsibilities as a result. That is the reason for the amendments.

Amendment No.15 replaces the drafting deleted by amendment No. 14 to impose two duties on the NDA. In carrying out its function to support and encourage activities benefiting the social, economic and environmental life of local communities, the authority must, first, have regard in particular to the extent to which the previous operator was supporting such activities before designation to the NDA and, secondly, consider the obligations that should be imposed on its site operators or management contractors in respect of such activities.

These provisions reflect the fact that the NDA will deliver support predominantly through its site operators and contractors that will be operating in the local community and have the biggest impact. It will control that support through its contractual arrangements, and amendment No. 15 will require the

NDA to show that it has given due consideration to local community support issues when entering into such contracts.

The NDA will therefore consider the extent to which bidders will support social, economic and environmental issues, paying particular regard to the levels of support before designation. The underlying objective is to maintain or enhance that support for as long as the NDA's site operators remain significant economic players in the local community. For some sites, such as Sellafield or Dounreay, that will be the case for many decades to come. The duties are focused on the activities that BNFL and UKAEA currently carry out, which are worth several million pounds a year.

The hon. Member for Lewes will no doubt talk to his amendment (a). We have been open about our policy intent to maintain levels of support for west Cumbria and other communities that are local to nuclear sites. However, I do not think that it would be appropriate to make that a statutory obligation. The effect of that would be to fix the minimum level of support at the current sum, which, to take west Cumbria as an example, is about £3 million a year. That is certainly appropriate now. We cannot say that that will always be the case over the next 10, 20 or 50 years. The local economy will change a lot over that period, and it would be a mistake to set out a minimum level of support in statute into perpetuity.

I re-emphasise our commitment to support west Cumbria and other communities that are, and will continue to be for some time, dependent on the nuclear industry. There is a well-established framework for providing targeted support, and that is the right mechanism to use.

Paragraph (3c) of amendment No. 15 would put a further duty on the NDA to require its site operators or contractors to have a procurement strategy for carrying out work at the site and to consider the effect of that on the local community before entering into the contract. That addresses the objective underlying their Lordships' amendment, which is to ensure that the NDA considers the contribution that its employment and contractual arrangements can make to local communities. In practice it will be the NDA's site operators and management contractors who will meet the NDA's objectives in that regard. They will make the decisions on subcontracting and the development of the supply chain that will impact on the economic life of the local community.

Amendment No. 17 would place a duty on the Secretary of State, in determining the NDA's grant, to have regard to the extent that the NDA should make socio-economic grants to local communities to mitigate any adverse effects of the cessation of the operation of a designated installation. We seek only to clarify that the provision is not to limit the other matters to which the Secretary of State may legitimately have regard when determining the amount of a grant under clause 25. The Secretary of State will need to consider in the round the NDA's plans for activity at its sites and for fulfilling all its other functions. In addition, as clause 25 deals with the issue

of grants, it is proposed to make the amendment in that clause rather than in clause 13, which concerns the powers of the NDA.

I hope that we are all agreed that the NDA has an important responsibility to discharge for the benefit of the nation. We must not allow the NDA to be deflected from carrying out its task effectively, providing best value to the taxpayer. However, we recognise the particular problems that will be faced by regions that are heavily dependent on the nuclear industry for employment, particularly those in west Cumbria and Caithness. The NDA is not a vehicle for social and economic regeneration or a regional development agency for dealing with the economic consequences of nuclear decommissioning. The NDA will have a role to play, like any significant employer, and BNFL before it, as a matter of corporate social responsibility. The NDA will play an active role in encouraging and supporting activities and initiatives that bring social and economic benefits to local communities.

The Government's commitment to supporting such communities is shown by our establishment of a strategic task force for west Cumbria and our willingness to enter into a memorandum of agreement with the local authorities, which is being developed at the moment. The amendments reflect hon. Members' concerns for the local communities, and those expressed in the other place, and strike a balance with the NDA's core responsibilities, which none of us wants to undermine.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for responding to my amendment before I have spoken to it; it is a most interesting way of dealing with matters, which allows me to respond to what he said.

I welcome the clause, and the Government's honourable intention to ensure that areas that have been heavily dependent on the industry should continue to have the benefit of employment, rather than being left high and dry. The Minister's comments will be welcome in Cumbria and Dounreay for that reason.

The Minister explained why amendment (a) would not be appropriate, the main reason being that it would put the provision in law in perpetuity. However, in the Bill, the duty applies only as long as the NDA is involved in decommissioning in the area. It is therefore in perpetuity only if the NDA is there in perpetuity. I am well aware that the nuclear industry has left a massive clean-up legacy: £48 billion of decommissioning; but even I do not think that it will leave it in perpetuity. The Minister was being unintentionally disingenuous when he made that suggestion. The duty to maintain the present expenditure and help for the local community should continue not in perpetuity but as long as the NDA is there, which is an entirely different proposition.

As the Minister said, BNFL provided £3 million a year in economic regeneration, social community projects, charitable giving, education and other forms of welcome assistance for the local community. It is not unreasonable that the community, which has

benefited from the Government's generous intention to help the local area, should expect that support to continue at its present level.

Cumbria has been mentioned several times and the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) intervened on Second Reading on behalf of his constituents. Support is as important in Caithness and Sutherland, if not more so, because a larger proportion of people are employed in the nuclear industry in that area than in Cumbria. Caithness and Sutherland would be very badly affected if support were to be withdrawn from the community, and it would be difficult to replicate in terms of jobs, given its geographical location in the United Kingdom.

I hope that the Minister will reflect on the amendment, even if he does not like the wording. I can understand why he would not want such a proposal in primary legislation, but I hope that he will give us a verbal assurance that it is his intention, for the foreseeable future, to continue with the present support.

Government amendment No. 17 to clause 25 appears to give the Secretary of State power to control the grants to the NDA. Will the Minister say whether the Secretary of State or the NDA will determine the nature of the grants given by the NDA to the local community? The amendment appears to allow the Secretary of State to call the shots, which is surprising given the traditional ''hands off'' nature of this sort of provision.

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

Good morning, Mr. Sayeed. I listened carefully to what the Minister said in discussing amendment No. 17, but I am not entirely persuaded that we should accept amendment No. 16 without a vote. The amendments differ slightly. Clause 13(5), which amendment No. 16 would delete, goes a little further as it talks about grants and loans and is much more targeted on helping the areas that need a lot of help.

I visited Sellafield a short while ago. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the strong concern in the area about the potential loss of jobs. That cuts across the Labour and Conservative parties, although I am not sure what the Liberal Democrat approach in that area is. Trade unionists, Labour party supporters and Conservative party supporters are concerned about what will happen to Sellafield. They predict that there could be a threat to as many as 8,000 jobs in an area that already suffers high deprivation.

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

The hon. Gentleman is uncharacteristically ungenerous in making that little aside. The contribution that I have just made should have shown that we are concerned about jobs in the area. We believe that jobs should be protected in nuclear decommissioning and elsewhere; we supported the provisions that the Government set out and are trying to enhance them. We are not in favour

of the generation of nuclear power indefinitely, but we are in favour of protecting jobs in Cumbria and Dounreay.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I apologise if I have misrepresented him. I am referring to the lack of activity by his party in that area on the long-term future of the industry itself. I am concerned that the industry should have a future, not just in terms of the decommissioning, which is probably where we differ. He is nodding in agreement.

There is concern in Sellafield about the potential loss of 8,000 jobs in a highly deprived and remote area where it would be difficult to attract the necessary new business. The loss of activity at nearby Barrow has not helped. Although the Minister makes a good case for amendment No. 17, which would replace clause 13(5), I am not entirely persuaded that we should go down that route. I would prefer the strengthened proposal, given the seriousness of the situation in Sellafield and the concern in the area.

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

The hon. Member for Lewes questioned my use of the term ''in perpetuity''. That is fair enough. It will be a long time; it will be many decades. As far as most of us on this Committee are concerned, it will indeed be in perpetuity. He is right, however: the point will come many decades from now when the work will have been completed. Towards the end of that period, there will be much less work to do, so the economy in those communities will need to be restructured before the NDA comes to an end.

It is not appropriate to provide for support continuing all the way through the very long period during which that work will continue. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks on the Government's intention that the current support should be retained in the current circumstances. We would all hope that, although it may come a long time hence, there will be substantial economic regeneration and therefore not the same need for support.

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

My noble Friend Lord Jopling suggested this change in the Lords. He represented a west Cumbrian seat and is also president of an association that I am honoured to represent.

The Government made it clear in the Lords that the NDA may not be the right body to address the socio-economic impact of decommissioning and that local regional bodies should be charged with that responsibility. Therefore, does the Minister accept that its main responsibility is ensuring that the budget is sufficient? As my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) said, concern was expressed in the Lords about the size of the budget. That is why it is particularly important to retain the current wording.

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

I am not sure precisely which wording the hon. Lady is referring to. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury is concerned about the removal of clause 13(5) by amendment No. 16. The problem is one of ambiguity: it is implied that what the NDA is doing in

respect of socio-economic support is the only issue that should concern the Secretary of State when determining the NDA's grant. I am happy to affirm that that is an important issue, but it is one of a number that the Secretary of State will need to take into account. That is the reason for that change.

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

To clarify things for the Minister, clause 12(1)(a) would be highly damaging to the economic interests of west Cumbria.

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

My amendment would not do the damage that the hon. Lady is concerned about. I am happy to pay tribute to the contributions of Lord Jopling and Lord Campbell-Savours, and my amendment addresses the objectives set out by them in a way that deals with the particular problems of the current wording of the Bill.

The hon. Member for Lewes is concerned that the Secretary of State will call the shots on the NDA's grant. In improving the NDA's strategy and annual plan, the Secretary of State will need to be content with its plans for supporting local communities. If necessary, the Secretary of State, if she is not content with its proposals, can direct the NDA to revise its annual plan. The NDA's decisions on the support it provides will be linked to the funding it will receive, so it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to take that into account.

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

I seek clarification. The clauses affected by this group of amendments refer to the grant for communities and read as if it applies to the point at which decommissioning commences. The reactor at Dounreay no longer generates electricity and is already in the decommissioning phase. Do the clauses refer to grants for Dounreay as opposed to Sellafield?

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

We are putting in place an arrangement that will apply to all sites where the NDA has a decommissioning activity. That will have important and welcome implications for the communities around Dounreay and Sellafield.

Amendment agreed to.

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

I beg to move amendment No. 55, in

clause 12, page 9, line 44, at end insert—

'(e) the need to preserve, where desirable, the possibility of the future use of the site for nuclear generation.'.

We come to the nitty-gritty of what decommissioning means. I shall speak to the amendment for a few minutes. Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 are linked to it to an extent, so if I say what I need to on this amendment, there will be no need to go into huge detail on those.

The amendment would apply when the NDA was carrying out its functions, and this matter depends on where one comes from on the nuclear issue. We would not claim to be pro- or anti-nuclear, just as we would not claim to be pro- or anti-wind. We consider each energy source on its merits and consider what is necessary for security of supply, which we discussed in great detail during the first sitting. I tabled the amendment for several reasons, including, in part, security of supply, to which I shall return in a moment,

but also because decisions are needed long before any crisis that we might reach with security of supply. Particularly in the nuclear industry, it is necessary and very important to plan for the long term.

I have spoken before about the contribution that the nuclear industry makes to electricity generation—about 22 per cent. of our electricity. I got my figures wrong when I first spoke about this, but over the next 20 years to 2023 or 2024, that 22 per cent. will be reduced to just 2 per cent., which is a significant fall in electricity generated from nuclear sources. That bothers me for the reasons that I gave a few moments ago, when I spoke about employment opportunities at, for example, Sellafield. It also bothers me from the point of view of security of supply, because where will the missing 20 per cent. come from?

If we manage to bring on renewables to the extent that they can replace the entire 20 per cent., that will be a good achievement and I hope we can do that. However, it is looking increasingly unlikely that we will be able to do so. Even if we succeeded, we would not have advanced at all in terms of the effect of carbon emissions on the environment, which is a serious consideration.

Let us say that we increase the contribution of renewables to 20 per cent. by 2020, which is the Government's target. Just imagine how good the carbon savings would be if we also had a nuclear industry producing at the current level—in other words, if more than 40 per cent. of our electricity was produced from carbon-free sources. That would be a tremendous advancement for the environment and for security of supply, because our reliance on gas from faraway places such as Russia would be greatly reduced. We should take that issue very seriously.

Just this week, two things have perhaps made us look at the nuclear industry slightly differently. The first is the article by the scientist James Lovelock that appeared in Monday's edition of The Independent. He says that a nuclear industry will be essential if we are to achieve the carbon savings that we need and avoid the problems of global warming, which he rightly identifies as extremely serious and probably more urgent than was previously realised. Given that he is a celebrated green, his proposals and views are very interesting. He calls on the green lobby to drop its opposition to nuclear power. He recognises that there are risks associated with it, but says that if we are serious about reducing global warming, which we need to do more urgently than was previously thought, we must embrace nuclear power as a main energy source.

That was interesting, but even more interesting were the comments of the former Energy Minister, the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who said it was ''a self-evident nonsense'' for the UK to run down its nuclear capacity while there is an unprecedented emphasis on the need to reduce carbon emissions. He went on to say:

''Nuclear power is our only significant source of non-carbon electricity. It is the bird in the hand, yet the green lobby wants to shoot it.''

That was a significant contribution from someone who is not on our Benches. We need to take those two warnings seriously.

The second interesting thing that has happened this week is that China has decided that it has a problem with security of supply. It is considering building four new reactors. I have already mentioned concerns about security of supply in Finland, which I visited in December. The Finns are building a fifth reactor. They have not found the waste issue too difficult to deal with; they have been imaginative about solving the problem, and are using a simple process to do so. We could have dealt with the problem equally efficiently.

I do not want to stray too far from my overall point, which is that the NDA ought to have security of electricity supply in mind when carrying out its duties, and should do everything possible to preserve the possibility of using the site for nuclear generation in future.

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

The hon. Gentleman defends the nuclear industry in terms of the needs of the future generation. Although he and I get on very well, we part company on this issue. I do not want to go into the pros and cons of the nuclear industry; that is not what the Committee should debate during discussions on a Bill about decommissioning historic legacies. The question of what future energy mix we should have is one for another debate. From a purist point of view, it is not appropriate for me to give a long expose of why it would be inappropriate to invest in new nuclear generation, but reasons include the possibility of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities, the waste problem and the gigantic cost.

It is important not to muddy the waters. I made this point about the Government's drafting of the Bill, and I make it to the hon. Gentleman: the Bill is about a nuclear decommissioning authority. It is important that we do not confuse it with general policy on nuclear generation. In our earlier debates—particularly when we discussed clause 6 and the issue of the NDA being allowed to operate Magnoxes and create fuel, which I believe to be inappropriate—I drew attention to how the NDA could be sucked into nuclear generation. There may be an argument, to which I do not subscribe, for nuclear generation. That is a perfectly respectable position to hold, but that is a separate matter from what the NDA should be doing. It is at our peril that we confuse the issues of energy mix and the functions of the NDA.

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

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I do not want him to confuse my amendment with dragging the NDA into being a nuclear generator. That is not what the amendment is about: it has to do with leaving open the possibility of the future use of the site for someone—not the NDA—to take forward.

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

I understand that point as I have read the hon. Gentleman's amendment carefully. Nevertheless, he wishes to make it a general duty when the NDA is carrying out its functions to have regard to future nuclear generation. I am not entirely happy

about that. To use his analogy, in terms of nuclear generation, the green lobby does not go around shooting birds.

Mr Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

The green lobby may not go around shooting birds, but it is quite happy to see them chopped up by windmills.

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

I think that we had better not go down that track too far.

Mr Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

Why not?

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

I would be ruled out of order by the Chairman.

The point that I wanted to make about the clean-up of sites is this: the function of the NDA, as I understand it, will be to remove radioactive materials from a site that has been used for nuclear purposes. Different categories of waste will have different solutions depending on their level of radioactivity. When the NDA has cleaned up the site, it will have removed all the waste that has been generated and the buildings. The outside of the buildings themselves will be low-level waste, and the interiors will be higher-level waste.

When the NDA has finished with the site, I imagine that it will be a piece of open land; it is difficult to imagine what else it could be. That land, as with any other piece of land in the country, could theoretically be built on for nuclear generation. To give the NDA a general duty to have that in mind when carrying out its functions would deflect from its primary decommissioning duty, and would confuse matters. That is why I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's amendment.

Mr Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

I strongly agree with the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury. It is important to ensure that if the Government mean what they say about leaving options open for nuclear power, they should not be putting a duty on the NDA to dispose of assets at the best-possible price. On the contrary, they should be saying that the original land, which the NDA has the responsibility of decommissioning, was chosen as a site for nuclear activities for a good reason. There are not many such appropriate sites in the country. There should be a responsibility on the NDA to balance the opportunity for future development of nuclear power against the duty to sell off the assets in the interests of the taxpayer. It is an important amendment.

We are, after all, going through an extraordinary period of public opinion, so I am bound to ask: what is the difference between the public attitude to nuclear generation in this country and in Finland and France? They are examples of similar countries in terms of culture, standard of living and quality of life that have broken through the astonishing reactionary phobia to nuclear power so passionately espoused by Professor James Lovelock, as my hon. Friend said. I believe that the country will come to its senses. It is clearly not sensible, if we wish to be green and to save the planet in the terms of Professor Lovelock's article in The Independent on Monday 24 May, to block off the

option available for future nuclear generation on those sites: it would be a grave error. My hon. Friend's amendment seeks to keep the Government to their word in keeping the options open. For that reason I support the amendment.

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

I have listened to the interesting debate among Opposition Members, and I find myself persuaded by the arguments presented by the hon. Member for Lewes on the amendment. We have made clear our view that we need to keep the nuclear option open. As I said on Tuesday when we discussed the interview given by Professor Lovelock, the danger is in believing that there is a quick fix available in the nuclear option, because I do not think that there is. It is important that we keep that option, but equally important that we maintain our commitment to the expansion of renewables, and to building up the momentum that we can see building at the moment. The hon. Gentleman said—rightly, in my view—that it would be a mistake to compromise the NDA's clear focus on decommissioning and clean-up in the way that the amendment would do. I do not think that it should be the NDA's responsibility to make judgments about future use. It must focus on the most appropriate end point for clean-up in its own right. The NDA proposals for the end point for each site must be included in its strategy, must be widely consulted on and must be agreed by Ministers. The NDA must have regard to Government policy on decommissioning, a policy that we are reviewing.

The one point on which I agree with the hon. Members for Tewkesbury and for Salisbury is that, if there is any future nuclear build in the UK, existing nuclear sites are, logically, the most likely locations for it. However, none of the requirements being placed on the NDA would rule that out. The NDA commands widespread support, not just across the Committee, but across the spectrum of views on nuclear power. It does so because we have made sure that it remains focused on decommissioning and clean-up. Successful, cost-effective clean-up will contribute to the future debate on the possibility of nuclear new build, but anything that suggests that the NDA has a specific role in supporting future nuclear build would seriously undermine the consensus from which the NDA benefits.

The hon. Member for Salisbury was concerned about the NDA being obliged to sell off nuclear sites. There is no reason why clean-up should block future nuclear use. Future nuclear development will be in the hands of the market. If the NDA was to sell land, a nuclear operator could purchase it. I can see the case for that, but it would be wrong to give the NDA the obligation that the amendment would give it.

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

To pick up on the Minister's final point, I do not think that the amendment would give the NDA an obligation to use one type of fuel or energy source. What it would do is—to use the Minister's words—leave the option open.

I hesitate to say so, but the Minister's reply was uncharacteristically unpersuasive. We have heard a lot about leaving the option open, both from this Minister

and from Ministers in another place, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury said, it is an empty phrase. Perhaps he did not use those words. What does the phrase mean? New nuclear build is always an option. How could we close that option? We cannot—it is always there. So, leaving the option open is an empty phrase, especially in opposing the amendment.

The amendment does not suggest that the NDA should be involved in promoting the nuclear industry in any way. It says that, in physical terms, we should leave open the option or the possibility of using that site for nuclear generation in the future. It would not, in any way, oblige the NDA to be involved. It would not ask the NDA to approve of nuclear power.

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

Leaving the nuclear option open is not an empty phrase. It entails two specific things. The first is ensuring that we retain a strong core of nuclear skills in the UK. The second is ensuring that we continue to participate in nuclear research. Those are the two key requirements for ensuring that the nuclear option remains open.

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

I entirely agree with the Minister. When we get to it, amendment No. 56 will touch on that issue, so I will not go too far down that road now. I still think that we must set out exactly what we are going to do. I am straying on to the next amendment, but, if we are to retain a skilled work force, we must promise them more than just decommissioning work. There must be better career prospects than that if they are to be retained. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I rather indelicately suggest that he has replaced one empty phrase with two empty phrases. We need action to prove that we are serious.

The Minister conceded that the existing sites would be the most appropriate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury said, there might be a lack of available sites. Although places such as Sizewell and Sellafield would probably be more welcoming, there will be a natural objection in some areas to nuclear activity. Given that attitude, we may not be overrun with offers of sites for new nuclear build or for extending the life of nuclear generation. Therefore, it is important that we leave the existing sites in such a state that they can be used should the industry—not the NDA or the Government—wish to take up that option. Given the security of supply issue, which I have touched on, and the environmental problems that we face, I must press the amendment to a vote to demonstrate that at least Conservative Members are serious when they say that the option must be kept open.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 13.

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

I beg to move amendment No. 56, in

clause 12, page 10, line 4, at end insert

'and it shall publish details of how that skilled workforce is to be recruited, trained and maintained.'.

As promised, I shall not rehearse the arguments I just made about the importance of keeping the nuclear industry alive and well for the purposes of security of supply and reduction of carbon emissions. This amendment refers to the duty to maintain and develop a skilled work force. It would amend clause 12(2)(a), which refers to

''a skilled workforce able to undertake the work of decommissioning nuclear installations and of cleaning up nuclear sites''.

We could go further and say that we want a skilled work force capable of taking the nuclear industry onwards and upwards, but all the amendment asks is that details be published

''of how that skilled workforce is to be recruited, trained and maintained.''

As I said earlier, I am not persuaded that nuclear scientists will be retained in this country if all they have to work on is decommissioning. China is considering building new nuclear reactors, and it will not be the only country to do so. Many people involved in the nuclear industry may well be tempted to go abroad if we are not careful. The amendment does not address that but merely asks for details to be published about how a skilled work force would be recruited, trained and maintained.

Mr Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

It is hard to overestimate the seriousness of the skills shortage in science and technology in this country. Almost every week, the Select Committee on Science and Technology, on which I serve, comes up against the problem of skills shortages in science and technology. Whether one talks to the Government chief scientist or to specialists in nuclear power or any other branch of science, one realises that there is a severe shortage of scientists in this country. Ironically, that shortage is probably most marked in the field that supports alternative energy production. Even in a field as basic as wind turbine technology, it is simply not possible to recruit enough people to build the necessary number of wind turbines and to put them in place so that we can reach our short and medium-term alternative energy source targets.

The shortage of nuclear energy scientists is worse. There are more than 440 nuclear generating plants throughout the world, from Japan to the United States. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury mentioned, it was announced only today that there would be four new plants in China. If we are

to keep up with this technology, and if we are—to coin a phrase—to keep the options open for the nuclear industry, it is fundamental that we ensure that nuclear technology is available, and that we have the people to build the next generation of nuclear power plants, as well as to decommission existing generators.

If we do not keep the options open, we will be isolated from the rest of the world in relation to these skills and technologies. Moreover, we will be unable to complete our own decommissioning process, because the people who built the nuclear power stations and maintained them for 50 years are retiring in large numbers, and it will be very difficult to recruit technologists to keep those stations going in the next 10 to 20 years. It will be almost impossible to recruit and train people to build new ones unless we make the effort to explain how we are going to do that, which is exactly what the amendment aims to do. It would make it a duty to explain

''how a skilled work force is to be recruited, trained and maintained.''

What difference would the amendment make? Scientists in this country do not, in my judgment, make enough noise about the problem, but they do say that science education in this country has never been worse. It has been declining steadily for 30 years, but the lack of science education from the first year of our primary schools right through to universities now means that we are seriously lagging behind competitor nations. We do our nation no service if we do not take the opportunity to include in the Bill an express requirement—a duty—to have open and transparent objectives for recruitment to, and training in, these sorts of technologies. For that reason, I support the amendment.

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

I, too, support the amendment, although perhaps not for the reasons given by the two previous speakers.

I was trying to help the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, so I shall refer to the words of his amendment rather than his speech. The amendment relates to subsection 2(a) on page 10, which talks about

''the maintenance and development in the United Kingdom of a skilled workforce able to undertake the work of decommissioning nuclear installations and of cleaning up nuclear sites''.

That is what the work force would do. Rightly, his amendment would add:

''it shall publish details of how that skilled workforce is to be recruited, trained and maintained.''

Under the clause, the work force, details of which he wants published, would deal solely with cleaning up nuclear sites and decommissioning installations. The hon. Member for Salisbury always makes a very good case for science, with which I do not disagree, but the amendment would not help. There is a need for a skilled work force to carry out the functions—decommissioning nuclear installations and cleaning up nuclear sites—given in the clause.

The hon. Member for Tewkesbury implied that someone of a particular skills base would find such work less attractive than building a new nuclear power station, but I do not share his view. We need all the skills we can get to ensure that decommissioning is

carried out properly, effectively and safely, and that the environment and public health—of those involved and those who live nearby—are protected. That important and difficult task requires a great deal of skills and knowledge. Those who have been involved in the nuclear industry will doubtless play a part, and so they should, because the job should be done competently, above all else.

The task is so important, so I support the amendment, which would require the publication of the details of how that work force should be recruited, trained and maintained. That way, we could be confident that they were the right people doing the right job and that there was some measurement of that. However, that issue is slightly different from the wider point about the skills needed for a new generation of nuclear reactors.

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

The point of the amendment is already covered by clause 15(2)(b), which requires the NDA in its strategy to set out

''how it proposes to ensure the maintenance and development in the United Kingdom of a skilled work force''.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury spoke rather disparagingly about nuclear clean-up work. I profoundly disagree with him. He suggested that there was something inferior or undemanding about nuclear clean-up work, but such work will, in fact, require the very highest levels of skill and expertise. Also, new research will have to be conducted. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but he gave the impression that he thought that the work required to meet the challenges that we face in nuclear clean-up—and which we need many people to commit their professional careers, skills and energies to—was second rate or unsatisfying. There are excellent career prospects, too, given the scale of the clean-up work that we will have to conduct over the coming decades.

The hon. Member for Salisbury was right to draw attention to some of the scientific challenges that we face, but I do not agree with his gloomy forecast about the successes that we might enjoy. There are certainly challenges and we are addressing them vigorously. There have been dramatic improvements in standards in primary schools and we are also addressing the problem through the creation of specialist schools. We have seen big improvements at the secondary level, work on 14 to 19 education and a huge increase in the science budget, which, if I remember rightly, will have more than doubled by 2006. Given the scale of the competitive challenge that we face around the world, such as what is happening in China, in India and elsewhere, it is essential that we continue to invest substantially in science education and research, and that is exactly what we are doing.

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

I will take up the Minister's invitation to correct him. It is easy to argue with what someone did not say, and I did not say ''inferior'', ''undemanding'' or ''second rate''. I suggested that, if the only option was decommissioning and generation in the nuclear industry did not have a future, the attractions proposed to keep people on our shores

would be inadequate. I do not think that the incentives would be as attractive as they would be if we had a vibrant nuclear industry with a great future.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that clean-up in itself will require the highest levels of skill and research, and that therefore, for many people, it will provide a fulfilling—and vital, from the national point of view—career?

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

I do not disagree with the Minister. I was about to say that when I visited Sellafield, the people there demonstrated exceptional skill. My point was that we would have a better chance of retaining even more scientists if we also had an ongoing programme; it is not contradictory to say those two things.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury identified a big problem that faces the UK; the skills shortage in relation to very technical work. That shortage is not just in the nuclear industry, but in the aerospace industry, which is big in my constituency, and which cannot attract sufficient numbers of people with the right kind of skills. There are even skill shortages in the NHS, in terms of the more scientific work that is undertaken. You are frowning at me, Mr. Sayeed, as if to suggest that I am out of order, but my analogy concerns the skills shortage. That problem has been faced by successive Governments; it has not been brought about by this Government.

UCAS, which deals with all the applications for university, is also in my area. When I visited that organisation recently, I was told that there was a serious problem with people applying for science-based courses, which reinforces the strong point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. The amendment seeks detail of the Government's correct intention to ensure that there is a skilled work force that can undertake the clean-up and decommissioning of nuclear sites.

The Minister mentioned that clause 15(2)(b) provides that the strategy must set out

''how it proposes to ensure the maintenance and development in the United Kingdom of a skilled workforce.''

However, neither that nor, unusually, the Minister's response, entirely satisfied me. I think that we have made the point that we intended through our discussion, and so I reluctantly beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

I beg to move amendment No. 57, in

clause 12, page 10, line 11, after 'money', insert

'including the maximisation of income for the industry at the installations or sites whose operation it is to secure, pending the commencement of their decommissioning.'.

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 67, in

clause 15, page 13, line 15, at end insert

'including an assessment of the possibility and practicability of extending the productive life of the site, where appropriate'.

Amendment No. 152, in

clause 16, page 14, line 39, at end insert—

'(g) a report on the justification for the continued operation of nuclear installations operated under section 6, subsection (1)(a) and (1)(d).'.

Amendment No. 96, in

clause 17, page 16, line 14, after 'State', insert—

'(ia) a report on the justification for the continued operation of nuclear installations operated in accordance with the NDA's responsibilities designated in section 6(1)(a) and (d);'.

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

Amendment No. 57 would insert the requirement to include the

''maximisation of income for the industry at the installations or sites whose operation it is to secure, pending the commencement of their decommissioning.''

In an attempt to gain the support of the hon. Member for Lewes, I emphasise that that does not mean that the NDA would, in any way, be dragged into the long-term operation of nuclear sites for the generation of electricity. However, the amendment would require that before decommissioning is begun, the maximum amount of income should be drawn from those sites. The hon. Member for Lewes might be prepared to support that.

Amendment No. 67 is linked to my earlier amendment No. 55, which would have required the NDA to leave the site in a state in which it could be used in the future, if that were appropriate. Amendment No. 67 would require an assessment to be included of the

''possibility and practicability of extending the productive life of the site, where appropriate.''

I believe that I have already made the case for that, and so will not detain the Committee further by repeating myself.

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

I disagree with amendment No. 67, which covers points that we debated earlier about the separate functions of the NDA. Amendment No. 57 is rather more interesting. I confess that I am slightly torn about it. On the one hand, who could argue about the importance of maximising the income stream, when not do so would lose money for the taxpayer, who is already paying so much to the nuclear industry? That seems justifiable. On the other hand, the amendment seems to compromise, to some degree, the function of the NDA. If it must think about maximising income it may take its eye off the decommissioning ball.

My vision—clearly it is not the same as the Government's, unfortunately—is of the NDA becoming involved only when it is time to decommission. There would not be a period between its taking control and the commencement of decommissioning. I do not subscribe to the Government's view that the NDA should run the stations for several years pending decommissioning. We discussed that in relation to clause 6. That is my initial reaction to what is proposed by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury.

Amendment No. 152, tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), is not dissimilar to amendment No. 96, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner). It relates to generation and the length of time for which the NDA would operate stations and derive income from them. I shall not rehearse all the arguments made on previous amendments, because that probably is not necessary, but the operation of stations by the NDA seems to me in some ways contrary to, and a distraction from, its primary functions. It should concentrate solely on decommissioning. There is a danger that it could end up with generation capacity on its hands for a considerable period.

We have heard about the life expectancy of the Magnox stations. I know that the Minister considers the final date to be just that. I am sure that he believes that, and it may be so; it has not been so in the past, so we cannot be 100 per cent. certain. However, if the stations are to continue to operate, we need to know, annually, the reasons for that, the progress that is being made and whether there are steps that should be taken.

With nuclear generation capacity in the hands of the NDA, a sudden energy crisis—if the hon. Member for Tewkesbury is right—might lead to a desire to keep Magnox stations open. I do not, personally, think that that will happen, but it could, I suppose, if the scenario he outlined is correct. The NDA would then become a longer-term generator. It would then, presumably, consider its management functions and the question whether it should concentrate on that task or decommissioning.

We should be entitled to know, at that point, whether the decommissioning strategy for which the authority was created was still on track or had been diverted to some other course. Amendment No. 152, and, indeed, amendment No. 96, would ensure that the process underwent scrutiny, and that the NDA was kept on track.

Dr Desmond Turner (Brighton, Kemptown, Labour)

I had not realised that the Liberal Democrat amendment No. 152 was identical to my own, although it was tabled somewhat later.

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

For the sake of clarity, I assure the hon. Gentleman, despite that insinuation, that the similarity was entirely a coincidence. I suspect that the briefing that led him to table his amendment is similar to the one that came to me. My amendment was not tabled on the back of his.

Dr Desmond Turner (Brighton, Kemptown, Labour)

But it does show that some of us work faster than others.

The amendment is a reasonable one, despite the fact that it has also been tabled by other hon. Members. I do not table it in the spirit of paranoid fantasy that the hon. Member for Lewes has been exhibiting on this topic. I am quite content that the Government's intention is that the NDA should operate nuclear installations only for purposes associated with subsequent decommissioning and that it will not take

any over with the intention of running them as straightforward generators. I am satisfied on that point.

Amendment No. 96 is to clause 17, which is about the NDA's annual report to the Secretary of State. It seems only reasonable to include in that report an account of the reasons in each instance why the NDA has kept a station running. That should be part of the normal scrutiny process. The amendment is harmless and one that, I hope, the Minister might feel able to accept. It would help to allay the worries of not just the hon. Member for Lewes but others outside who share his fears.

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

I hope that I can allay those fears on the basis of what is already envisaged in the Bill. Some reasonable points have been made in arguing for amendments Nos. 152 and 96.

Under clause 15, the NDA strategy must set out its decommissioning objectives and strategy for the installations and facilities that it will operate, including the expected expenditure and income involved. The NDA's annual plan has to set out expenditure and income issues for the year in question, as well as any proposed changes that will affect the operation of installations or facilities. It must also set out an estimate of the cost and income for those installations and facilities.

The NDA's annual report must contain details on what has been done towards achieving its objectives and implementing its plan. It must deal with its operational activities separately from its decommissioning and clean-up work. In seeking approval for its strategy and plans, the NDA will need to demonstrate that it is fulfilling its duty under clause 12(3) to operate facilities in a way that is most beneficial to the public. That will include an assessment of the net value of the continued operation of nuclear installations, including the impact on the cost of clean-up.

I hope that, on the basis of that explanation, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown and the hon. Member for Lewes will accept that the existing arrangements already require the case for continued operation of NDA facilities to be made, kept under regular review and fully reported on.

Amendments Nos. 57 and 67 would not work in the Bill, and I shall explain why. Amendment No. 57 would include the continued operation of nuclear facilities in order to maximise income as part of the NDA's work to secure value for money. I have no problem with the NDA maximising income from the facilities that it operates for as long as it is beneficial to do so. Income generated by the operation of designated facilities will be credited to the nuclear decommissioning funding account, which records moneys to be made available for nuclear clean-up.

However, the amendment would not work because securing best value relates to the NDA's dealings with others in carrying out its duties, for example with site operators or its contractors. It does not relate to the NDA maximising income from operating facilities. I

can assure the hon. Member for Tewkesbury that the NDA will make a full assessment of the case for continued operation.

Amendment No. 67 would require the NDA to provide an assessment of the option of extending the productive life of a nuclear site. If the intention is to get the NDA to consider extending the operational life of a site, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is misplaced. Clause 15(5) relates to the end of the site restoration process, when the NDA has discharged all its responsibilities in respect of a site. At that point, the continued use of a site will not be the NDA's concern. If amendment No. 67 is intended to ensure that a site continues to be used for nuclear purposes, it is also misplaced. In its strategy, the NDA will propose objectives for each site, including the condition to which the NDA should bring each site in order to discharge its responsibilities. Those objectives are subject to ministerial agreement and could be changed.

While the NDA could propose that a site may be suitable for further industrial use or as a power station, Ministers would have to agree. What happens to the site when the NDA has satisfied the objectives in the strategy is not a matter for the NDA. Any decisions on new build could be taken only after full public consultation and would be subject to private sector operators making proposals. I hope that that explanation persuades the hon. Member for Tewkesbury to withdraw his amendment and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown and the hon. Member for Lewes not to press theirs.

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

We have heard the customary assertions by the hon. Member for Lewes on how the NDA will be running the entire nuclear generating industry in the near future. I do not subscribe to that, nor do I therefore see the need for amendments Nos. 152 and 96.

The hon. Gentleman was generous enough to say that he is half-minded to support my amendment No. 57. I am not sure whether I am half right or half wrong in that case. There is a duty, for the reason he gave rather than the reason I gave, to maximise income while a site is still productive, if only to reduce the cost to the taxpayer of the clean-up and the decommissioning. That should be a duty of the NDA.

As for the productive life of the site, it does not stray too far from the original purpose of the NDA to ask it to do that assessment. As we are still on clause 12 and we have to get to clause 83 by this afternoon, I will not press those issues to the vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 15, in

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

'(3A) In the case of each designated installation, designated site or designated facility, it shall be the duty of the NDA, in carrying out its function by virtue of section 10(1)(e)—

(a) to have regard, in particular, to the extent to which the person with control of the installation, site or facility was doing anything falling within subsection (3B) prior to its designation; and

(b) to consider what obligations in relation to the doing of anything falling within that subsection should be imposed on any person with whom the NDA is proposing, in connection with the discharge of any of its responsibilities in relation to the installation, site or facility, to enter into a contract for that person to provide services.

(3B) What falls within this subsection is anything that is done for the purpose of giving encouragement and other support to—

(a) activities benefiting the social or economic life of communities living near the installation, site or facility; or

(b) activities producing other environmental benefits for those communities.

(3C) Where the NDA is proposing, in connection with the discharge of any of its responsibilities in relation to a designated installation, designated site or designated facility, to enter into a contract with any person for him to provide any services, it shall be the duty of the NDA, before entering into that contract—

(a) to require that person to produce his proposed strategy for the procurement of the goods and services that he will need to procure for the purpose of carrying out his obligations under the contract; and

(b) to consider the likely effect of the implementation of that strategy on the economic life of communities living near the installation, site or facility.'.—[Mr. Timms.]

Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.