---

British Nuclear Group

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. He is absolutely correct; indeed, I could not have put it better myself. Speaking as a member of a local community surrounding a nuclear facility, I can say that that is precisely what such communities believe. I return to the litany of errors committed by Opposition Front Benchers. Only this week, the new Leader of the Opposition notably failed to back calls for a new programme of nuclear power generation in Britain. I deeply regret his turning his back on the industry, at its time not only of greatest need, but of greatest opportunity. More importantly, at a time when climate change has emerged as perhaps the definitive political challenge of our time, it is a tragedy that Conservative Front Benchers should fail to back the single largest carbon dioxide-free producer of energy—energy that is available not only to Britain, but the world. I implore the Leader of the Opposition to reconsider, and I will happily sit down with him and his shadow Secretary of State—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker)—and convince them of the nuclear case. This issue is above and beyond party politics. I hope that all parties in the House will be able and mature enough to devise a national consensus on energy policy, and I urge the Conservatives to join me in calling for new nuclear power generation in the UK. Last week, during a trip to the USA, I visited the Hanford nuclear facility in Washington state before meeting representatives of the Hanford area on Capitol Hill. I learned a lot from that visit, and it is appropriate to compare and contrast the British and American approaches to the nuclear industry. It is important to do so because there are significant differences between the two. Let me make it clear at the outset that I am a passionate pro-American, but that cannot and will not influence my views on what I believe to be right for the Sellafield site and my community. It is important to understand and be aware of the US nuclear regulatory framework and working practices, because a US-based company is almost certainly going to buy BNG. There may or may not be some involvement from French interests, and a number of consortiums might attempt a purchase. Should a consortium bid for, and succeed in buying, BNG, I could not support the break-up or carve-up of the Sellafield site. That has been done before—notably by BNFL during the 1990s—and it resulted in a deterioration in working practices and managerial accountability structures. Such an approach also compromised safety, so I would need to be convinced that it is now workable. At this stage, I have seen nothing to convince me that it is, and I firmly believe that the Sellafield site is best served by one operator. In the event of the successful purchase of BNG by a US-based company, I would expect that company immediately and wholeheartedly to embrace the British nuclear industry’s working and regulatory practices, and to adopt the British corporate social responsibility culture. That means the adoption of a local supply chain purchasing policy, a close and productive relationship with the trade unions, the establishment and implementation of significant socio-economic development plans for the areas in which it operates, and an effective and satisfactory approach to working terms and conditions—including already amassed pension entitlements—that is acceptable to the existing work force. Fundamentally, it means doing things our way. Above all, it means working safely. The safety of the Sellafield work force and the safety of my community is non-negotiable, whatever other inducements might be proposed. The British nuclear work force is the best nuclear work force in the world. I can say that with confidence as I have up close and personal experience of it. Standards of safety in the UK industry are better than elsewhere in the world, technological development and applied scientific and research application is amongst the best in the world, and productivity standards are now approaching the best there are as well. It is those attributes that make our nuclear workers, our nuclear scientists, our nuclear engineers and our nuclear working practices among the most sought after in the world. Speak to any US multinational with a developing interest in buying BNG—and I have spoken to some—and they will explain that an association with the British nuclear industry is the key to opening up the vast nuclear clean-up and decommissioning markets in Russia, former Soviet Union states and eastern Europe. BNG’s recent record illustrates that, as the company has successfully decommissioned and cleaned up more than 50 redundant nuclear facilities world wide. The company is also on a sound financial footing, with signs of real further improvements in financial performance this year and in years to come. The company’s profitability has not been achieved at the expense of either productivity or safety, a feat attributable not only to management, but the knowledge and experience of the shop floor. Last year, Sellafield’s vitrification plant delivered a record-breaking 503 canisters against a predicted target of 450. By contrast, the US vitrification programme is billions of dollars over budget and in complete disarray. The Sellafield MOX plant recently delivered a second batch of four MOX fuel assemblies to NOK—Nordostschweizerische Kraftwerke AG—in time for its summer reactor reload, and last week signed a new £200 million-plus contract with another continental utility. Those are causes for celebration. In January 2006, the company completed the clean-up of historic liquid waste from one of the oldest plants at Sellafield, preventing more than 44 yearsof liquid emissions and saving the taxpayer up to£300 million in potential new building costs. Only last week I was discussing problematic clean-up issues with the US Department of Energy. It highlighted a particular problem in the US with technetium. That is an issue solved by BNG some time ago—I am delighted to say that I was involved in the project—which piqued a great deal of interest among the US Department of Energy officials. If anyone from BNG is listening to this debate or reads the report, I advise them to get down to the patent office as soon as possible, because a significant sum could be made from their unique technological skills and expertise. The market applications are huge. With regard to safety—we should bear in mind the fact that Sellafield is the largest construction site in Britain and one of the largest in Europe—the current days-away case record rate is 0.23 against a target of 0.28, which is lower than any similar rate among any US contractors currently operating in that country. BNG Project Services has a days-away case record rate of zero and has worked almost 3 million man hours without a single lost-time accident. I could go on, but the point is made. The British nuclear industry places safety above everything else and it is a matter of fact that foreign contractors will have to emulate that safety culture if they want to operate in Britain. We lead the world in that regard and others have a great deal to learn from us. I cannot guess at the value of BNG in financial terms. However, when assessing the revenue of any potential sale, I ask that the Government consider more than the financial value of the sale. Value is measured in more than money and the highest bidder for BNG may not necessarily be the best bidder for my community. It is imperative that the highest financial bid should not bring with it the highest actual cost to my constituents or any part of the UK in the areas of safety, environmental performance and socio-economic investment and development. Public acceptability of a particular contractor must be considered in the process of any sale, and weight must be given to that in devising the criteria against which potential BNG purchasers are judged. It must be said, one year after the establishment of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, that its presence in my constituency and West Cumbria generally has been enthusiastically received. It has proven already to be a genuinely involved, listening community partner, which has already demonstrated that it has the interests of the West Cumbria community uppermost in its thoughts and actions. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the budgeting process of the NDA. I was concerned to discover in the US that the budget for nuclear clean-up is done on a year-by-year basis, so the budgets are set annually. They are therefore subject to the vagaries of the political process—cut in some years and expanded in others. In the UK, my hon. Friend and the Department have provided a comprehensive, stable framework for nuclear decommissioning and clean-up to take place, and I am grateful for that. I understand that the NDA will devise the BNG sale criteria, no doubt in conjunction with BNG, BNFL and the DTI. What I now require is significant involvement from the West Cumbrian community in determining what those criteria should be. The socio-economic obligations for both the NDA and its contractors are laid out in the Energy Act 2004, and I now hope to explore with the aforementioned groups the United States National Defence Authorisation Act 1993, especially section 3161, which helps to define the socio-economic obligations of US contractors operating in nuclear decommissioning environments. My hon. Friend will know of the importance of the West Cumbria Strategic Forum and I believe that it would be appropriate if that body were involved in establishing the sale criteria. Finally, the future of British Nuclear Group is of fundamental importance to West Cumbria. It is vital that its sale be conducted properly, transparently and with the interests of those communities where BNG currently operates upheld at the centre of this process. The successful bidder must be the one who understands the ambitions and aspirations of its host communities and the working practices of the UK nuclear industry. I thank my hon. Friend for his patience and time, and look forward to his response.