| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
British Nuclear Fuels Limited
2.58 pm
Lord Jenkin of Roding asked Her Majesty’s Government:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the 2003 joint strategy review of BNFL concluded that the company’s focus should be on UK nuclear clean-up with value being realised from its other businesses. Statements have been made to the House on the sale of Westinghouse to Toshiba and the future sale of British Nuclear Group. The future of Nexia Solutions is being considered, possibly as part of a national nuclear laboratory. There is not expected to be any significant role for the BNFL corporate centre beyond March 2008.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, that is a much more encouraging Answer than I expected. If, indeed, Nexia Solutions is to be regarded as part of the national nuclear laboratory of which we learnt only last week in the energy review paper, that offers some prospect of the Government retaining, as was stated in the paper, a substantial research and development capacity. But where stands then the statement made by the noble Lord’s colleague, Malcolm Wicks, only two months ago in the context of the sale of Westinghouse and British Nuclear Group? He said:
“In addition, we are considering the future of BNFL's research and development arm, Nexia Solutions”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/5/06; col. 1181.]
Has that potential sale been abandoned?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as my honourable friend said, that was being considered. While, in the long term, the R&D required in any new nuclear build situation will come from the market, the Government are very concerned that in any transitional period the resource that is Nexia Solutions should be protected and should be available to the people where it is necessary.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, given BNFL's dubious previous safety record, will the Minister ensure that, whatever happens to the company and whoever takes it over, it will be fit for purpose in this Government's rush for new nuclear build for power stations? Will they ensure that the successor sees that safety is foremost?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I think I made clear in my original Answer, BNFL will almost certainly not exist beyond March 2008, and the various parts of it will go to other organisations.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, given the importance of BNFL to the economy of west Cumbria, can the Government assure us that BNFL and its owners will continue to honour their moral and legal obligations to the people who live in that part of England?
17 July 2006 : Column 1001
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I repeat that BNFL, as such, will not continue to exist. Many of the facilities that it owns will go to other bodies, and those bodies will look at the facilities in the light of their own objectives and take the appropriate action. In reality, I do not think that that will mean significant changes in the location of its activities.
Lord Christopher: My Lords, I remind the House of my involvement in the company that is the subject of the Question. Does my noble friend accept the allegation that the safety record of BNFL is as bad as was suggested, certainly compared with the rest of industry in Britain?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is always extremely difficult to give precise answers to those questions. However, the point is that this is not something that we need to go on being concerned about because, for very good reasons, the different parts of BNFL are being put under other bodies, most of which have good safety records.
Business
3.03 pm
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Triesman will repeat a Statement later this afternoon on developments in the Middle East. We shall take the Statement immediately following consideration of Commons amendments to the Commons Bill.
Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Pensions Appeal Tribunals (Armed Forces and Reserve Forces Compensation Scheme) (Rights of Appeal) Amendment Regulations 2006
Pensions Appeal Tribunals (Additional Rights of Appeal) (Amendment) Regulations 2006
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): My Lords, I beg to move the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5 June be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee] [Considered in Grand Committee on 4 July].—(Lord Drayson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
17 July 2006 : Column 1002
Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.04 pm
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara) rose to move, That the fifth report from the Select Committee be agreed to.
The report can be found at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldprohse/197/19703.htm
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Members have expressed a wish for the Minutes of Proceedings to be more helpful, both on paper and online. We have responded with a new design to appear in the new Session. I hope it will be welcome.
I should draw attention to one aspect. From the new Session, Starred Questions will be renamed “Oral Questions” and Unstarred Questions will be renamed “Questions for Short Debate”. We believe that that will be clearer to Members and to the public. Oral Questions will continue to be identified with a star on the Order Paper. None of the changes proposed has any effect on procedure. I beg to move.
Moved, That the fifth report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, while commending the committee for the decision to change Unstarred Questions into Questions for Short Debate, is there any reason why those short debates should not be tabled as Motions rather than Questions, because they are short debates? Furthermore, as those debates take place over one or one and a half hours, either in the dinner break or after other business, and as there is a long waiting list, would it be possible to consider having an occasional day set aside when we might have six or seven?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, if there is any spare time left at the end of the 30 minutes, could we give way to Members who wanted to speak on previous Questions?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock would be a matter for the Procedure Committee at some date way in the future.
On the question of the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, the proposal is merely to change the name of Unstarred Questions to Questions for Short Debate. As I said, an Unstarred Question is a fairly opaque term for some Members of the House and for those outside. Turning Unstarred Questions into “Motions for Debate” has many complications and implications: not only would a right of reply be given, but their place in the Order Paper would change, they would become amendable and divisible and their relationship to other forms of Motion would need to be considered. It would be possible for the Procedure Committee to consider those matters, but I would advise against it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
17 July 2006 : Column 1003
International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill
3.07 pm
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Whitaker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Piped Music and Showing of Television Programmes Bill [HL]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Commons Bill [HL]
3.08 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
commons amendments[The page and line references are to Bill 115 as first printed for the Commons.]
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 4. Amendment No. 1 is consequential because of amendments to Schedule 2, to which we shall turn later. It has no immediate effect on the exempted commons, but we shall ensure that exempted commons may be brought into the registers under Schedule 2 and so help to ensure that registers of what is and is not common land are comprehensive.
Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 and 13 are minor amendments to clarify references to “land” in Part 1. Amendment No. 14 is minor and technical. Amendment No. 15 enables registers to be updated to take account of natural variations in the boundary alongside rivers, lakes and tidal waters. Amendment No. 16 clarifies powers to correct mistakes in the register under Clause 19.
Amendment No. 18 clarifies applications under various provisions in Part 1. Amendment No. 20 relates to the power in Clause 24 to make regulations
17 July 2006 : Column 1004
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 4.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
- 6: Page 7, line 26, leave out “local inhabitants” and insert “the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality,”
- 7: Page 7, line 31, leave out “local inhabitants” and insert “the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality,”
- 9: Page 7, line 34, leave out “the relevant period” and insert “the period of two years beginning with the cessation referred to in paragraph (b)”
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 12. Amendments Nos. 5 and 8 to 12 respond to concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, at Third Reading that land on which houses had recently been built might nevertheless meet the criteria for registration as a green under Clause 15. The situation might arise if land had already been used by local inhabitants, as of right, for lawful sports and pastimes for at least 20 years but development then took place.
We amended the Bill in another place to deal with this point, but colleagues in another place then
17 July 2006 : Column 1005
The amendments are a substantial change from where we started. They are an even bigger departure from the old principles of customary law on which the greens registration law was based. They would more likely have made the development unlawful than protect it, so is a good example of flexibility to change the Bill to address practical difficulties.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 respond to a recent House of Lords judgment on the Trap Grounds case, which considered the effect of the words originally used in the Bill to describe the type of inhabitants whose use of land might warrant its registration as a green. The original words, taken directly from the current definition in the Commons Registration Act 1965, were,
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, spelt out in Trap Grounds that “within a locality” should be taken, if appropriate, to mean “within a locality or localities”, therefore resolving an earlier concern on this which had led to an amendment in this House to simplify the wording to refer instead just to “local inhabitants”. The doubts are now resolved about original formulation, so we need to revert to it to ensure that the intended meaning is clearly understood.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 12.—(Lord Rooker.)
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this batch of amendments. Taking them in reverse order, we had a long debate about “rural inhabitants”, which was the crux of the matter at that stage. I am happy to accept the wording before us today, which will include urban inhabitants locally as much as rural inhabitants. I am grateful for that.
In another place, my honourable friend Jim Paice raised the issue covered in Amendment No. 10, and the wording we have before us should cover his concerns. It would have been a shame not to have clarified how far a development must have gone to be established as a development. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of these amendments and we are happy to support them.
17 July 2006 : Column 1006
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, we are also happy with these amendments, particularly those relating to the definition of local inhabitants and inserting,
We are satisfied with that wording and thank the Minister for bringing these amendments forward.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.15 pm
“(aa) the replacement land must be land to which this Part applies;” “(e) updating any entry in the register relating to land registered as common land or as a town or village green to take account of accretion or diluvion.”- 16: Page 11, line 22, at end insert “and it is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether a mistake was made before or after the commencement of this section”
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 to 16.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
“(ba) paragraph 1A or 1B of Schedule 2”Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17. In moving this Motion, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 19 and 119 to 131. Amendment No. 17 is essentially a consequential amendment to Amendment No. 119, which enables additions to the register of land which Parliament has recognised as common land or town or village greens, but which was not registered under the Commons Registration Act 1965. It responds to amendments tabled in Standing Committee in the other place. It also enables the registration of land which was statutorily allotted as recreation grounds under 19th-century enclosure awards.
Amendments Nos. 124 and 128 provide alternative mechanisms to enable the deregistration of buildings and the curtilage of buildings where those buildings were present before the land was registered under the 1965 Act. Amendments Nos. 19, 120 to 123, 125 to 127 and 129 to 131 enable changes to the register under Schedule 2 on initiative of the commons registration authority, rather than in response to an application.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
“( ) An application made for the purposes of any of- (a) sections 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15, and(b) paragraph 1 or 3 of Schedule 1,| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |