Lords Hansard text for 30 Jan 2006 (60130-01)

Monday, 30 January 2006.

The House met at half-past two of the clock: the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

Energy Policy

Lord Jenkin of Roding asked Her Majesty's Government:

Why, when the energy review has been set up to consider, among other matters, the case for new nuclear build, they support the proposal by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd to sell Westinghouse Electric Company.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government considered the matter carefully before agreeing to the sale process and do not believe that ownership of Westinghouse is likely to have any bearing on the UK's ability to satisfy any future nuclear energy needs. The energy review team continues to be content with this position. If the private sector brought forward proposals to build new nuclear, an important element of the proposals would be the choice of new plant design. In that choice, it would be important that the private sector were not influenced by whether a given technology was government-owned or not.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: That may be all very well, my Lords, but does the Minister not appreciate the irony of the fact that on the very day that the Government published their energy review, which clearly enhances the prospects of new nuclear build in this country, BNFL finally signed the agreement to sell Westinghouse to Toshiba? The apparent conflict between those two policies is bizarre. I understand that it is now a done deal, apart from regulatory

30 Jan 2006 : Column 2

requirements, so one has to move on. Will the noble Lord give an undertaking that the Government will deploy some of the proceeds from the sale to BNFL to enhance and develop this country's remaining nuclear capability, perhaps by financing BNFL's research arm, Nexia Solutions?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the decision to sell was taken last June. The noble Lord has alighted on a coincidence with regard to dates, but the policy has been generated over many months. I cannot give the undertaking that he wants with regard to the proceeds. He will recognise that we are undertaking a further review of the country's energy requirements and that the issue of new nuclear build is within that framework; likewise, therefore, the question of any government resources that might be devoted to that end, although it will be market forces that determine a great deal of the build for Britain's energy needs in the future.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the low-carbon solutions that are looked for in the energy White Paper will include nuclear? On what basis will the Government make the calculation of how many grammes of carbon dioxide are produced per kilowatt hour? Bill Coley, from British Energy, has stated that new-build nuclear, which I believe must be based on the designs that we are discussing, produces five grammes of carbon dioxide. Are the Government happy with that figure and have they consulted the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority on whether that is a realistic amount of carbon, considering the long tail that nuclear decommissioning will cost in carbon?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord has not so much asked a question but advocated his usual viewpoint in his usual penetrative way. However, he will not get past my defences. The carbon code and the future of British energy policy are related to the review that we are undertaking. I assure him that, of course, we shall pursue all the factors necessary

30 Jan 2006 : Column 3

for us to meet the energy needs of the nation over the foreseeable decades, while at the same time meeting all international requirements on carbon emissions.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, can the Minister give us some comfort on this point? If we are to lose the only nuclear-build organisation in this country—it has been sold, it is a done deal and there are all sorts of reasons for and against it—will some of the proceeds, as my noble friend said, be directed towards maintaining a group of people of the highest possible calibre so that, if we go down the nuclear route, at least we shall have an in-house team in this country able to assess the pros and cons of various other options and market forces? The last thing we need is to find ourselves with no capability or general knowledge on nuclear matters. Perhaps the Minister could reconsider his comment and bring to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that would be very worth while in the long term.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am not sure that I need to bring this to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government already devote resources and are committed to the continuance of the resources that sustain our nuclear skills. There is no question that ever since the first energy White Paper, we have recognised the necessity, as we said at the time, to keep the nuclear option open. That necessitated investment in skills, and we shall continue with such investment. Therefore, I assure the noble Baroness that, if additional skills and additional people are identified as being required in this area, a proper request on Government would be to enhance the skills of the nation, and we shall meet that if that event occurs.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that there was not unanimity on the decision in the industry? Why does he think that certain people opposed it as vigorously as they did?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is an interesting exercise in conjecture. I take it that some people would have contended that the continuance of a public stake in this area might bring additional rewards to taxpayers, which is an important concern. Of course, they would also need to take it into account that this is a high-risk industry; the bids that the nuclear industry may make for a potential new-build in China are high-risk. My noble friend might think that the public ought not to sustain such a high-risk strategy.

Lord Bridges: My Lords, in the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, wrote to me some days ago explaining the Government's desire to withdraw from the association with Westinghouse, he gave as a reason the matter to which the Minister has just referred; namely, the apparent wish of Westinghouse to sell nuclear reactors to China. The

30 Jan 2006 : Column 4

letter concluded that the Minister felt it was too much to expose us to that particular risk. It might have been risky, but it was also an opportunity, and now we have lost it.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is the noble Lord's considered judgment. I am at least consoled by the fact that my previous answer is consistent with what my noble friend had written to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I can only say that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville is right: there was a balance to be struck on these factors. The Government have come down on one side, and I note that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, may be on the other.

Foreign-born Mothers

2.44 pm

Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether it is the case, as recently reported, that 20 per cent of all births in England and Wales in 2004 were to foreign-born mothers.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is broadly accurate. Birth registrations gave a total of 124,563 live births occurring in 2004 to mothers who were born outside the United Kingdom, out of a total of 639,721 live births. That has been presented as 19.5 per cent in published statistics and, in turn, rounded to 20 per cent in press reporting. What is not reported is that 7 per cent of that 19.5 per cent have a British-born father and that the 19.5 per cent figure includes those who were born abroad but have United Kingdom citizenship. The figure also ignores the valuable and disproportionately positive contribution that migrants make to the United Kingdom economy.

Lord Renton: My Lords, should we not bear it in mind that in most countries where British mothers give birth to children, those children do not have British nationality but will have the nationality of the country where they were born? On the other hand, is it not highly desirable that children born here of foreign parents should not have British nationality because it would give them a status in this country that they may never be here to enjoy again? I know that this is a big subject but, bearing in mind the complexities of it, would the Government consider a change in the law?

Next Section

Back to Table of Contents

Lords Hansard Home Page