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

I should like to ask the Minister briefly about clause 83(3)(a), which gives the UKAEA

''power to manage and commercially to exploit any land or other property of theirs that is no longer required by them for or in connection with the carrying out of their other functions''.

That appears to give the UKAEA a green light to undertake activities that are not related to its core functions. It allows it to take its eye off the ball and diversify into other matters. Have I read that correctly? I think that the UKAEA should concentrate on its important tasks and not seek to diversify in the way allowed by the clause. Will the Minister reassure me by explaining what that measure means, and what limitations are placed on the activities of the UKAEA by the subsection?

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

We are clarifying the extent of the UKAEA's powers to manage the properties that it owns. It already has that management function and we believe that it should continue the work it has done. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has critical examples in mind of how it is managing its property portfolio at the moment. I understand that development ventures on sites like Harwell have been warmly welcomed and applauded. We now have a legislative opportunity to clarify and confirm UKAEA's powers in that regard.

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

I am not sure that that entirely answers my point. Will the Minister confirm what I believe to be the position? Notwithstanding the diversification, which may or may not be a distraction from the organisation's main duties, will any funds accrued in this way be included in an annual report, and will he confirm that moneys raised in that way will be returned to the Exchequer? Will he also confirm what the position will be if UKAEA seeks to use the power to commercially exploit land, but does so in an incompetent manner and runs up a loss?

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

As I say, the examples to date have not raised questions about the judgment of UKAEA. I invited the hon. Gentleman to share any examples

that he has of present property management about which he has concerns. The clause allows us to confirm their powers. On the question of finance, I cannot imagine the Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry not taking into account any money made by UKAEA in a budget request it might make of Government. I am sure that my Treasury colleagues, as well as departmental colleagues, will examine the balance sheet closely.

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

I am not going to cite an example; I have no examples to cite. I have no reason to think that the process has not worked well in so far as it has been operating. However, I am asking a question to which, with respect to the Minister, I have not yet had an answer. What happens in relation to the diversification of UKAEA's activities into managing such sites? What lengths can it go to? Is the clause an open invitation for it to use that power and, if so, does it have the experience to manage matters commercially? If it does not and cannot manage matters effectively, could UKAEA even run up a loss?

I am trying to establish where the boundaries are and what controls are there to ensure that the matter is properly handled. I am not necessarily against the power, but I am seeking to delineate it.

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

If any impropriety or error of judgment led to a loss on the property portfolio, that would be treated differently from any change in the market of which they fell victim or indeed in tricky sites where property development might follow from clean-up and other costs. The economics might be more finely balanced there. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that if a profit is made, it will be returned to the public funds, the Exchequer. That is true of any profits from land management operations in general.

I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. I do not think there would be any intention to write blank cheques for foolish and irresponsible property developments. I am glad that he accepts that, so far, the track record does not appear to have given rise to concern, but he is right to ask questions about the future. I hope that I have reassured him.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Five o'clock till Tuesday 8 June at five minutes to Nine o'clock.