Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 26, in

clause 16, page 15, line 21, at end add—

'(9) In the event that at any time during the year to which the plan relates the NDA has operated, or acquired with a view to operating, any nuclear operating facilities within the terms of section 6(1) or otherwise they shall include in the plan a full explanation of the reasons for acquiring or operating such facilities, an estimation of the length of time that the said facilities may operate and their strategy for bringing the operations of said facilities to an end.'.

No. 70, in

schedule 3, page 162, line 5, after 'State', insert

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

No. 71, in

schedule 3, page 162, line 9, at end insert

'following consultation with the Secretary of State and the revision to the plan being laid before each House of Parliament.

(3) The NDA may revise its plan if required to carry out work, or receiving a designation, considered to be urgent.'.

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

I want to speak to amendment No. 26, which is in the group. I shall not detain the Committee as we have already debated the matter in connection with an amendment to clause 6 tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). I got that right this time.

The amendment relates to the role of the NDA in continuing to run nuclear power stations, about which we should by now have a sense of deja vu. The previous amendment sought to restrict it to a period of 12 months, although I think that is too restrictive.

However, there should be a mechanism for making it clear that any such use is temporary; there should be a method of bringing it to an end as quickly as is practicable, except that that may not be within a few months, as closing down a nuclear generator is not merely a matter of throwing a switch.

The solution proposed is to put into the annual plan, only in the years when a station has been acquired, a statement of why it is still running, an estimation of the time that it may operate and a strategy for bringing it to an end. If, as the Minister has repeatedly assured us, the NDA is concerned only with decommissioning, he should have no problem in accepting the amendment, as it is not deliberately prescriptive. For example, the NDA may be able to say that the generator is allowed to continue for some time to fill an energy gap until other facilities come on stream; the amendment does not seek to impose time constraints. I accept that in some cases a generator may have to run for a few years.

The Minister assured us that the Government have a target for closing down existing stations, and the Bill sets up an authority to run decommissioning. The amendment merely seeks a public statement and an agreed strategy to bring those two together in specific circumstances: when the NDA takes over a station and thus becomes a generator. That is essential if the NDA is to be independent and operate with the promised transparency.

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

I assure the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), who spoke to amendment No. 26, that concerns about the NDA operating nuclear power stations, other than when decommissioning is pending, are unfounded. The rationale for the continued operation of facilities designated to the NDA will be fully covered by the combined effect of the NDA strategy and the annual plans and report. The strategy will include operational facilities. The NDA will be required to explain the decisions reached in its strategy and to keep it under review. The annual plan will set out how the NDA will carry out its functions and deliver its strategy for each site installation and facility, including running costs, capital expenditure and income. The annual report, which will be laid before Parliament, will set out what it has done to deliver its strategy and plans for all designated installations, sites and facilities. That is why I think that amendment No. 26 is unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

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

I accept, to some extent, what the Minister said, but what concerns me is that there does not seem anywhere to be a specific statement by the NDA about the anticipated time that a nuclear power station may continue to operate. It is a point that has been canvassed before, but there is still no specific obligation on the NDA to say that it is taking over a particular power station or that it anticipates that it will run for two or three years, or six months, or whatever. It would be beneficial to have some indication of that. I accept that it cannot be prescriptive and that it could not run over that period, but some indication would be useful.

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

The information that the NDA will provide will shed light on that matter, and will include the strategy for each site. That is likely to provide reassurance on the hon. Gentleman's point. I think that I can be more helpful on amendments Nos. 68, 70 and 71, which would require the NDA to lay the annual plan, including any revisions, before Parliament before it could come into effect. As willing as I was on the earlier point to reconsider that, it is important not to introduce unhelpful delay into NDA planning—a concern recognised by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson)—so it is more likely to concern the annual plan and revisions, than the earlier instance that we considered. I want to ensure that we would not be creating any unintended, difficult consequences if we were to go down the road advocated. I should also like to ensure what the implications for Scotland would be. In principle, the purpose behind his amendment is right, and if he is willing to withdraw it I give him an undertaking to reconsider the matter and see what I can introduce on Report.

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

I warmly welcome you back to the Committee, Mr. O'Brien. Given the Minister's sympathetic approach and reassurance, I am happy to wait for what he comes up with on Report, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

We come now to the motion of the Programming Sub-Committee, copies of which are on the Table at the end of the Room, and I suggest that hon. Members collect one.

That the Order of the Committee of 20th May 2004 be amended by the substitution for the Table of the following Table:-

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

The motion applies unless we conclude schedule 12 before 6 pm. Failing that, we shall proceed until 6 pm this afternoon. That is the motion; the hon. Member for Lewes now wishes to move an amendment.

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

I beg to move, as an amendment to the proposed amendment, to leave out ''6.00 pm on 27 May'' and insert ''5 pm on 8 June''.

My amendment seeks to move the knife to 5 pm on the Tuesday we return. I have moved it because, first, it is inherently unsatisfactory that a sitting should be extended at merely a few hours' notice, which is inconvenient to me and possibly other hon. Members. Secondly, there is no desire among any hon. Members here to spin this out; all of us have accepted the time that the Government have allocated to the Bill and are fully in line with the Government's intentions on the completion of its Committee stage, so it is merely a matter of when the knife falls.

Thirdly, certain clauses may not be discussed at all this afternoon, yet there could be time left at the end of consideration of the Bill. That would not be satisfactory and would be a poor use of the Committee's time. Fourthly, certain hon. Members present—I am not thinking of myself—want to speak

on later clauses and may be prevented from doing so by that. Fifthly, the Government Whip's suggestion that the break should come at clause 63 and schedule 12 is inherently unsatisfactory, because they are in the middle of the section about the nuclear constabulary.

If I may say so, that may put you in a difficult position, Mr. O'Brien, because when we return on Tuesday, hon. Members may well want to draw attention to issues on which the knife has fallen but which are tangentially attached to the issues that can properly be discussed then.

For all those reasons, I ask the Government to show some flexibility. They would lose nothing by accepting my amendment. In fact, it would improve the smooth running of the Committee and ensure that democratic processes worked properly.

Question put, That the amendment to the proposed amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 8.

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

I beg to move amendment No. 153, in

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

'(g) a report to the Secretary of State on the adequacy of funds set aside by nuclear operators, other than the NDA, for decommissioning and clean up.'.

The amendment would include that report in the provisions for annual plans. The Minister has said more than once that it is Government policy that the private sector operators—British Energy most notably or, theoretically, anyone else in future—will bear the responsibility for their own decommissioning and clean-up and that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is the body of last resort. I entirely agree with that policy. The amendment would ensure that that matter was kept under review and that there was confidence that the private company and any others were making proper provision for such matters. We do not want British Energy or another body to say that it is in financial difficulties and cannot meet its responsibilities, resulting in a further bill of £48 billion for the taxpayer. The NDA is a body of last resort, and therefore has an interest in ensuring that the private sector is making proper provision for such eventualities, as do the Government.

I am not sure that this is the right place in the Bill to raise this matter, and if the Minister makes that point, I shall concede it. However, I hope that he will accept

that there is a need for a mechanism, whether it is achieved through this annual plan or by some other means, to ensure that the private sector is making proper provision for such eventualities. I fear that the backstop that the Bill provides, in which the NDA will pick up the tab if everything goes wrong, is attractive to the private sector. If the Minister is not happy with the amendment, perhaps he will say what other mechanism is in place to ensure that British Energy—or any other operator—makes such provision.

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

I, too, am not sure that this is the right place in the Bill to discuss the matter, nor am I sure that the NDA's responsibilities should extend as far as that. However, the hon. Member for Lewes raises an important point. I will be glad to hear what the Minister has to say about the general principle of someone, somewhere, ensuring that people who operate nuclear sites make adequate provision for the future. It is an unusual industry, in so far as the running and revenue costs while generation is taking place are not the whole story. I therefore support the principle of the amendment, and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on the matter.

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

I am rather puzzled by the amendment, because it seems to me that whereas the hon. Member for Lewes has argued consistently during the Committee's discussions that there should be as wide a distance as possible between the NDA and private sector operators, he is now promoting, through the amendment, a more intimate relationship between them than is in the interests of the cause for which he argues.

Information on provisions made against clean-up will have to be included in the accounts and annual reports of any private sector operator. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury that the NDA will not have the requisite financial expertise to analyse those and to take a view on whether a third party, with which it has no connection, will be able to meet its decommissioning and clean-up obligations. Moreover, we would not want the NDA to commit time and resources to doing that, because its clear focus should be on decommissioning and clean-up. We do not want the NDA to be distracted by having to build up a capability for monitoring private sector operators.

If there were any prospect of a private sector operator not being able to discharge its liabilities, the Government would have to make a judgment on the extent of any shortfall as that arose. Ministers, rather than the NDA, would be responsible for doing that, and for taking a view on what, if anything, it would be appropriate or necessary for the Government to take on. They would do that in full recognition of the financial implications.

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

I tend to agree that the NDA is not the appropriate body to do that, but it was a vehicle on which to raise the point, as the Minister recognises. However, can the Minister assure me that there is a system in place by which Ministers would monitor any

difficulties as they occurred, rather than only recognising a problem when it has manifested itself significantly?

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

As I said, the information on which that judgment could be based would be in the accounts and annual report. That does not exclude something startling happening suddenly. One could consider what happened to British Energy as an example of that although, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are going through a restructuring of British Energy, which I hope will enable it to meet all its obligations. However, the NDA should not be taking on responsibility for monitoring that area; I believe that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that. The NDA may be a source of advice on the costs involved in the clean-up of a particular site, and clause 10 of the Bill provides for it to be able to do that.

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue and satisfied that the Minister recognises its importance and has addressed it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.