---

British Nuclear Group

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, despite being late, and I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) for missing the first few minutes of his speech. I was taken by surprise, but I should have learned that about this place. I wish to make three quick points. I represent a constituency at the other scale of things from my hon. Friend, in as much as the Berkeley site has been undergoing a fairly organised run-down for some months. The decision to dispense with the nuclear laboratories came as a bit of a shock, but it is pleasing to see that the work will go on. I welcomed the comments by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday. In defending the nuclear industry, I have always sought to make the point that it is nothing if it is not its work force. That is the basic integrity of the industry. One can have sites and systems, but without the people, one has no industry. It is vital that we keep those people in place. So my first point is that it is vital that we keep the presence of the industry in many different parts of the country. That is why I have always fought for Berkeley to be considered, if not as the site of a new nuclear power station—because of problems with the River Severn—but to retain the research and development facilities. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about that. Secondly, we have the issue of the ownership of the sites by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Much as I can see the benefits of separating the providers of services from the ownership of the sites, there are some concerns about possible conflicts of interest. Given that Berkeley is the first decommissioned nuclear power station in this country, a proposal is imminent for the further decommissioning of the old power site, which would be a first in the world. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept an invitation when the proposal is introduced to come and see how it would take the nuclear industry forward, in terms of solving the waste problem and the issue of the new generation. My third point is about the relationship of the BNG, whatever form it takes, and other parts of the nuclear industry. It is vital that we do not see contractualisation as the answer to everything. I am concerned that we have no overall picture of what the nuclear industry could look like in five years’ time. British Energy, BNFL, AMEC and the various other parts of the industry may have had their weaknesses, and the introduction of foreign investors may or may not be a good thing, but there need to be clarity about the industry’s structure. Without that, we will not be able to build the new generation of nuclear power stations, even if that is what we decide to do. Finally, I totally concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland that BNG is an important company that has been much abused in the past. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give us some food for thought. and hope for the future.