§ 8. Mr. Peter Bradley (The Wrekin)On how many occasions since electricity privatisation (a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) the regulator have brought a prosecution against an electricity company and on what grounds. [90016]
§ The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle)There have been three prosecutions by the Department for breaches of the regulatory framework governing overhead lines and related equipment. Two of those were for breaches of the safety requirements for overhead lines and ancillary equipment, and one was for a breach of the overhead lines approvals regime under section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989. There have been none by the regulator.
§ Mr. BradleyI thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and for the personal interest that he has taken in the long-running saga of the Hadley pylon in my constituency. About 18 months ago, the Midlands electricity board erected the pylon, without seeking or receiving consent. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Hadley pylon action group—especially Mrs. Sandra Hodnett and Mrs. Ann West—on the sustained campaign that has been waged during the past 18 months? Does he share my concern about the utter contempt with which MEB approached the matter—in its dealings with the community, the local authority and, latterly, the DTI? Can he give me and the campaign group an undertaking that, in the absence of a complete, valid retrospective application for consent from MEB, he will institute legal proceedings against the company?
§ Mr. BattleI compliment my hon. Friend on the tenacious and patient way in which he has raised the Hadley pylon case, both with the company and with the Department, on behalf of his constituents. I have urged the Department to investigate the case, to insist on the information that is required from the company, and to take the necessary steps to call the company to legal account. 556 As my hon. Friend will understand, it is for solicitors to take counsel's advice with regard to prosecution, but I certainly intend to keep a close eye on the case. It is a saga that has gone on for far too long.
§ Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)This is the first time that I have had the pleasure of questioning the hon. Gentleman; I very much hope that, despite press briefings to the contrary, it will not be the last.
On electricity privatisation, will the Minister explain why the announcement of the privatisation of BNFL was sneaked out through a written answer, rather than being made in a statement to the House that is subject to questioning and debate? Does the Minister believe that the taxpayer is receiving full value from the sale of 49 rather than 51 per cent. of the company?
§ Mr. BattleI am not sure how that question connects to pylons. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the privatisation of electricity. We have spent two years in government sorting out the botched job that the Conservatives did on privatising the electricity industry. That is why we are now trying to sort out the wholesale market, and introducing proposals to improve regulation and put the consumer first—which the Conservatives manifestly failed to do.
With regard to the nuclear industry, I recall holding the same position as the hon. Gentleman when the last lot privatised that industry; they left the liabilities with the Government and sold off the income stream. We do not intend to take that route; we shall do it in a way that benefits the people, the taxpayers and the Government. The announcement was not sneaked out; it was well trailed in the media, it does not need primary legislation and, what is more, a full parliamentary answer was given on the matter. It is open for consultation; I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's further comments.
§ Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North)In fact, it was my written question earlier in the week that provoked the statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, whom I congratulate on his interesting and skilful announcement on the future of BNFL.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry assure the House, given that this is a matter of major public importance with many billions of pounds' worth of public assets at stake, that there will be the fullest consultation on the detailed implementation of the proposals over the next few months? Will he assure the House that we have learned lessons from the previous Government's mistakes, whereby billions of pounds of public assets were sold at knockdown prices and the taxpayer lost out? Will he also assure the House that, whatever form the introduction of private sector investment in BNFL takes, we shall not find ourselves in a position in which the lucrative side of the business has gone to shareholders and the taxpayer has been left to pick up the bill for many decades to come for the cost of storing our mountains of plutonium?
§ Mr. BattleI thank my hon. Friend for those questions, and I can reassure him on all three counts. Yes, there will be full consultation. There has already been full 557 consultation with those who work at the plant and the trade unions, as my hon. Friend will be aware from their comments, and that consultation is now being widened. The lessons to be learned from the previous Administration have been spelt out in the comments of the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office. They are as plain as day and we are not going down that route, which is why our proposals are innovative and different. I can give absolute assurances on health and safety at the plant. The changes will be good and beneficial.
BNFL has world-class technicians, technologists and scientists who can help to handle the legacy of the nuclear industry from the past 50 years. I have visited work that the company has won in America, where it is cleaning low-level waste from power stations and laboratories. BNFL has management strategies and methods that have been practised here in Britain, at Berkeley and other power stations. Its workers can restore sites so that in future they can be used as offices, perfectly clean and uncontaminated. It is a world-class business, and BNFL needs to be free to win the work and become a world leader in cleaning up and decommissioning the nuclear legacy of the past 50 years.