When my noble friend said 1965, I tried to remember what I was doing then and I think I was probably playing around in a nursery playschool. I am extremely grateful for the wisdom and support of my noble friend and for being able to count on his great experience when I need information and advice. He is clearly very formidable in his experience and we all greatly benefit from that, even though he sometimes poses incredibly difficult questions for me to answer. One question he posed was whether ONR still has licensing provisions in the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. The answer is that ONR will be responsible for enforcing the nuclear safety sections of the 1965 Act, including, for example, the granting of nuclear site licences.
I am also extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Deben for his contribution. He is absolutely right about engagement and clarity. I hope that I will be able to respond with clarity to the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has raised. I have also learnt a new terminology today from the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill. I am always amazed at these debates at what they turn up and I can then use—probably at an event tomorrow, when I am going to be speaking on “mickles” and “muckles”. I perhaps need to get greater clarification on exactly what it means, in case I end up in huge amounts of trouble.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, and I share sometimes opposing views on the way in which we deal with waste, but I hope that we remain in constructive dialogue on this subject. The noble Lord should understand that I still firmly believe in localism and the involvement of local people in how sites in their communities are located. While a site is always in the national interest, we must never forget that those communities have to live with whatever site is on their patch.
I turn to Amendment 38B. The noble Lord has asked that the definition “GB nuclear site” in Clause 57 should be replaced by “GB civil nuclear site”. While the ONR’s role does not extend to regulating nuclear safety on Crown nuclear sites—as the noble Lord has picked up—such as those owned by the Ministry of Defence, there is a number of licensed nuclear sites which are operated by civil contractors for defence purposes. The ONR will have overall responsibility for these sites, which include the Atomic Weapons Establishment sites at Aldermaston and Burghfield and the Rolls Royce nuclear submarine fuel production plant in Derby among others. Therefore, while I appreciate the noble Lord’s efforts to add greater clarity to the Bill here, I do not think that amending it in the way that he seeks will make the definition any clearer.
Amendment 38C extends the definitions included within Clause 57 to the rest of the Bill. This amendment, however, is not required, as the terms defined in the clause are not used without appropriate reference elsewhere in the Bill. Therefore, the noble Lord should rest assured that the terms are covered, if not at the front of the Bill.
3.30 pm
The first part of Amendment 38D requires the Secretary of State to hold and maintain a list of nuclear sites. The transparency and availability of quality information to the public is an issue that affects us all and I am grateful that the noble Lord has raised it. He asked where it could be put for easy public access. Perhaps I may direct the noble Lord to the website of the Department of Energy and Climate Change, where, along with maps of nuclear sites, he will find other information.
There is already a requirement for the Secretary of State to hold such a list of nuclear sites—I have directed the noble Lord to where it is—and it comes under Section 6 of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. That section was pivotal enough to the operation of the ONR that it has been redrafted in clearer language, which I think is what my noble friend Lord Deben was asking for. The language is clearer and it appears in Schedule 12 to the Bill, on page 180. I hope that that reassures noble Lords that such a list will continue to be required and maintained in future.
The second half of Amendment 38D seeks to define “associated sites” in Clause 57(1)(a). I am grateful to the noble Lord for his amendment. His proposed definition is broader than we intended, and supporting the operation of any nuclear installation could potentially expand the ONR’s nuclear safety remit beyond what is intended. “Associated sites” in the context of this clause was designed to cover any element of a nuclear
site that was not a nuclear installation. For example, buildings and roads, if improperly placed, could have the potential to affect the safe evacuation of a site. Although we see the benefit in defining an associated site, we are concerned that the noble Lord’s amendment does not cover the intent of the clause. Therefore, I cannot accept it as it is, but I will take it away, consider it further and perhaps return to it at a later stage.
Amendment 38F extends the ONR’s nuclear security purposes to include UK aircraft transporting nuclear material. I should like to make it clear that, without this amendment, the transport of nuclear material by air within the UK, or to or from a UK nuclear site, is already within the ONR’s nuclear security purposes. The effect of this amendment would be to extend the ONR’s purposes to UK aircraft operating elsewhere in the world—on transports with no connection to the UK or its sites. This is an unnecessary extension to the existing regulatory system and scope of the regulator, and it would not be practical to enforce. The security of nuclear material transported by air outside of the UK will continue to be regulated by the relevant international regulators under the requirements of international air safety and security law.
Amendment 38J also relates to transport by air—in this case, seeking to extend the ONR’s purposes to include the safety of radioactive material transported by air. This function is currently carried out by the Civil Aviation Authority, with support, by agency agreement, for certain aspects from the ONR. This is a well established split of responsibility between safety regulators. It works very efficiently and will continue to do so with the creation of the ONR. Therefore, it is not necessary to alter the current approach through the Bill.
Amendment 40N is linked to Amendment 38D. It widens the definition of “nuclear site” to include any sites that are yet to be granted a nuclear site licence within a list of sites required by Amendment 38D. Under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, it is, as I have already said, against the law to operate a nuclear site without a nuclear site licence. Therefore, I am slightly unclear about what sites the noble Lord proposes this amendment would bring within the definition. I will of course work with the noble Lord to try to address and understand some of his concerns ahead of Report, if he so wishes.
Finally, I come to Amendment 40R relating to parliamentary procedure for regulations made under Section 18 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which transfers “enforcing authority” responsibility from the Health and Safety Executive to the ONR or the Office of Rail Regulation. The current negative resolution procedure for assigning enforcement authority status from the Health and Safety Executive to local authorities or the Rail Regulator is well established and therefore I do not see good reason for changing this with the creation of the ONR. I hope that the Noble Lords are satisfied with my responses and that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty will withdraw his amendment.