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

The clause relates specifically to money to be provided by Parliament and refers to

''any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, under or as a result of''

any option from British Energy. Will the Minister explain the background to the clause with particular reference to any part of British Energy that might be sold by the company before the Secretary of State's authority under the clause is exercised?

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

My point follows on from that. I raised the matter earlier, but I am still waiting for an explanation of what the clause means, despite the Secretary of State's assurance on Second Reading that the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services would deal with that.

I am concerned that it appears to be envisaged that British Energy could sell one of its nuclear power stations to a third party, and I am not clear at what point it could do that. I appreciate that the restructuring of British Energy is ongoing, but I would like clarification. Is it envisaged that as part of that restructuring British Energy could sell some of its power stations to a third party or that it could be broken up into constituent parts that would then, in effect, become third parties?

It seems from the explanatory notes that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority will have the power to acquire British Energy's shareholding in Nirex, and I wonder whether that is a clue to what is anticipated for Nirex. That was not made clear earlier, so will the Minister clarify it? Is it proposed that Nirex will be subsumed at some point by the NDA?

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

Hon. Members are right in that the clause extends the Secretary of State's powers to spend money on matters relating to British Energy. They were confirmed in the Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2003. The need for the additional authority followed on after the 2003 Act was passed as a result of detailed documentation setting out the treatment of British Energy's liabilities going forward. To answer the question directly, the clause will allow spending on acquiring and operating any former British Energy nuclear power station that has since been acquired by a third party.

The clause will allow moneys to be spent on acquiring British Energy's shareholding in Nirex. We have included that option to simplify any future restructuring of Nirex and to enable Nirex to operate without involvement from British Energy when it might no longer have a financial interest in its work. The clause will also allow ongoing expenditure in respect of the two options that we have taken up as part of the restructuring of British Energy.

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

My point relates to the Minister's remarks on selling nuclear power stations. I am still not entirely clear: would what we are talking about cover a future sale to a third party as part of the restructuring of British Energy? In effect, would we be selling on a nuclear power station to a third party with the guarantee of picking up the decommissioning tab for that particular station from now on, or does that apply only to previously sold stations? Have any stations been sold and are any in third-party hands?

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

It is not the intention to breach the ''polluter pays'' principle. The clause relates to situations in which ongoing expenditure is necessary, whether or not for the operation of any former British Energy nuclear power station acquired by a third party. The purpose of the clause is to authorise the Government to incur ongoing expenditure in respect of the options that have been taken up as part of the restructuring of British Energy. It covers the eventuality that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

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

This is a little clause with quite a lot hidden behind it. The Members who have spoken so far have helped to uncover some of that. I want to

return to the future of Nirex, which the Government failed to address this morning. I had no luck with the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services; perhaps his colleague will be more forthcoming. As the hon. Member for Angus quite correctly teased out, the clause affects Nirex, but Nirex is not even mentioned. I can only assume that whoever produced the Bill did a spell check that automatically deleted ''Nirex'' throughout the text—it has never reappeared. I can find no other explanation for its absence.

The clause allows British Energy's holding in Nirex to be dealt with in the way that this Minister set out. It is apparent that the Government have a reasonably clear idea of what is going to happen to Nirex, if they have not already settled that. Throughout the Bill, there are provisions for the NDA that relate to Nirex. In this clause, there are provisions for British Energy that relate to Nirex. We are expected to agree such clauses without any indication from the Government of the future of Nirex.

Let me give the Government a third major opportunity to offer clarification, and I do not mind whether we hear from this Minister or the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services. I do not even mind if we hear from a Labour Back Bencher, who may be better informed than the Opposition. However, will someone please tell us what the Government intend to do with Nirex? It is not good enough to expect us to pass important legislation that may result in a multi-billion pound bill for the taxpayer without us knowing what the implications are. Can this Minister tell us what the future of Nirex will be? If not, will he tell us why and what matters are under consideration that prevent him from doing so?

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

I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I cannot tell him what the future of Nirex will be and why I cannot tell him. I think that this will be the third time that he has heard the reason today; they say that there are none so blind as those who will not see. The reason is straightforward. At the moment, consideration is taking place following the review. The Secretary of State will make an announcement on the conclusions of that review. That is as plain as the light of day.

To help the hon. Gentleman with his other question, I will explain more clearly the reason for taking an option to acquire any stations that were formerly owned by British Energy. It is simply to protect the taxpayer. The Government have taken an option to buy each of the nuclear power stations owned by British Energy for £1 at the time that the owner plans to shut them, either to decommission them or to continue to operate them beyond that date. It may be possible to decommission them more cost-effectively in the public sector, using expertise gained on public sector nuclear sites. It might also be possible to defer commissioning costs that would fall on the nuclear liabilities fund, which is underwritten by the

Government by operating the stations and generating income beyond the date that the owner would otherwise shut those stations.

I am being plain with the hon. Gentleman and I hope that I have given straightforward answers to the questions that he asked, although doubtless he will want to analyse the conclusions of the review when they are announced and decide on his party's policies then.

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

I am becoming increasingly interested in the future of Nirex as the debate proceeds. I admit to being relatively new to energy matters. I have been to Sellafield, but not as recently as my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury.

Mr. O'Brien, perhaps you can help the Minister in responding to the issue. There seems to be something highly irregular in the procedure surrounding the Bill. We are being asked, in good faith, to approve a clause to stand part of the Bill before we have a whisper or suspicion—soupccon as the French would say—of what the conclusions of the review will contain. Yet this morning we saw written statements that have slipped through and were cleverly identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, in which the Government are, by written statement, effectively requesting the House to approve additional resources before then and without putting a figure on those resources.

Mr Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

I have just discovered the Nirex briefing on the Energy Bill in my papers. I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that Nirex told Committee members that:

''There are parts of the Bill where we feel clarification or Ministerial assurances would be helpful. Broadly speaking these fall into two areas:

the nature of the relationship between the short-term and long-term bodies;

clarity over the funding of the NDA and its implications for the funding of the long-term management option.''

Is my hon. Friend reassured that Ministers know what they are talking about?

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

I am not, but I stand to be reassured and I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured that I could be reassured if the Minister responded to those points.

The Bill is either not very clever or not very regular in its procedure at this point. I hesitate because the Minister was slightly cheeky—I do not know whether I am allowed to say that—and responded to some remarks that Opposition Members made on Tuesday. [Hon. Members: ''Withdraw!''] I think ''cheeky fellow'' is all right. I am not quite on his Christmas card list yet, not even with a second-class stamp.

If there is one thing a Bill Committee stands for, it is scrutiny. We have been very restrained, particularly this afternoon. We have not insisted on going through the Bill line by line, clause by clause, and possibly, with hindsight, we have let many clauses slip through the net. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury for drawing my attention to, if

not necessarily reminding me of, the Nirex brief contents. I am hesitant to let this clause go through, mindful of the fact that, at extremely short notice on the same day, we have been asked by written statement to approve emergency funds from the contingency fund. It seems completely back-to-front.

The Government are wedded, more than any other Government in living memory, to government by review, and it seems at the very least highly irregular that we are being asked to approve a particular clause before we have seen the contents of a review that will have enormous implications for the future of Nirex, about which Conservative Members care.

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

As one who will, I suspect, never get on the Minister's Christmas card list, I can say that I find the explanation completely bewildering. What we seem to have here is yet another example of being told, ''They could be running them for energy, they could be selling them on to a third party''. There is lack of clarity all the way through this Bill as to exactly what is happening to a lot of these stations. Again a blank cheque is possibly being written for something of which we are not sure. As the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) has rightly said, taken together with the statement today, there is an awful lot of money being pledged here without any adequate review or explanation. I tabled an amendment, which was not selected, to delete this clause because I was concerned about the implications. The more I hear about the clause, the more concerned I become about those implications. If she wishes to propose that it does not stand part of the Bill, I should be inclined to support her at this stage.

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

The issue here is based on an honest misunderstanding. The hon. Member for Vale of York voiced her fears—I do not think she used the phrase ''blank cheque'', although another hon. Member did—that today we are being asked to authorise sums of money before the conclusions of a review of where the money might be spent is settled and announced in Parliament. That is not what this clause does; it makes provision for the Government to incur ongoing expenditure. No sums are detailed here. Any sums in the future would be detailed, scrutinised and authorised by Parliament in the usual way. If this clause were deleted, it would simply mean the Government had no power to incur ongoing expenditure in respect of the options we have taken. We are asking for those powers to be granted, and any items of expenditure will be subject in future to the usual Parliamentary scrutiny. It is quite clear. If hon. Members do not want to authorise the powers for any ongoing expenditure, they should delete this clause. In my opinion, that would be the wrong thing to do. I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 5.