Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2018

Debate between Baroness Buscombe and Lord Jones

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Jones]

I am grateful, but they should have been much bigger.

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, I would love to concur with the noble Lord. The following point is certainly not in my brief but is something that I think about a lot. The children we have referenced today will sooner or later become the working young. I think of my three children, who are all working now but do not earn very much. The issue is how the working young will afford pensions in the future. In probably about an hour’s time we will debate the order on auto-enrolment, which shifts the culture in terms of people contributing to their future pensions. There is very much a cross-party consensus on working out how we can make pensions sustainable in the long term. However, in the short term, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that, notwithstanding the fact that we would like to be ever more generous, it simply is not possible.

[Lord Jones]

That is a fair answer. Has the Minister answers to some of the questions that I posed? If she does not have them to hand, she may wish to write to me. However, she may wish to answer one or two of the questions.

[Baroness Buscombe]

I thank the noble Lord. I have just found the answers in my array of papers. He asked about different benefits, particularly disability and carer benefits. We now spend over £50 billion a year on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions, which is over £7 billion more than in 2010. The noble Lord asked about disability living allowance and benefits for carers. We are increasing benefits for the additional costs of disability and for carers in line with inflation. Recipients of carer’s allowance will now get £550 more per year than in 2010, while the monthly rate of disability living allowance paid to the most disabled children will have risen by more than £104. On a before-housing-cost basis, the absolute poverty rate among people living in a family where someone is disabled has fallen to a record low.

I am sorry that I have not been able to respond to noble Lords’ questions, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Jones, in relation to cold weather payments. That was discussed in the department yesterday, but I will write to the noble Lord.

National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Debate between Baroness Buscombe and Lord Jones

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Grand Committee

[Baroness Buscombe]

I thank noble Lords for their very helpful contributions to this short debate. I begin by responding to the noble Lord, Lord Jones. The measure that was introduced back in I think 1998 was a huge step change in clarity, fairness and respect for people who are low paid.

[Lord Jones]

It was historic.

[Baroness Buscombe]

It was historic—the noble Lord is absolutely right. I bear the scars of one who at that time, as vice-chairman of the Conservative Party, had to appear on “Question Time” when the minimum wage came in. The noble Lord is quite right: Her Majesty’s then Opposition initially opposed the measure. Being on a television programme such as “Question Time” and having to face an audience while trying to defend our opposition to the minimum wage was one of the most difficult moments in my life. As I said, it was historic and I am so pleased that my party has not only over the years changed its view about this, but taken these measures forward. We are very proud that we now have a national living wage. That is certainly something I feel strongly about.

The noble Lord asked who the chairman of the Low Pay Commission is. The new chairman is Mr Bryan Sanderson, who was appointed on 17 February for one year. He has eight commissioners working with him.

With respect to Wales, I am pleased to say that an estimated 100,000 workers in Wales will benefit from the national minimum wage and the national living wage. This figure is published on page 79 of the impact assessment. I hope the noble Lord is encouraged by that.

I was very appreciative of the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. I absolutely agree that the Low Pay Commission should be commended for the work it has done on the development of this policy. Obviously, we continue to work with the commission in this regard.

The noble Lord asked about young people and the likely impact of encouraging more apprenticeships. I have also been involved in the Technical and Further Education Bill, so I am very aware that the Government are encouraging more apprentices, which we hope will have a huge impact on the number of young people in work. I will give a bit more detail on the national minimum wage with regard to young people. The age-related rates protect younger workers, who are more vulnerable in the labour market; for example, in the fourth quarter of 2016 the unemployment rate for people aged 16 to 24 was 12.6%, compared with 3.6% for those aged 25 and over. So we are more cautious for this group and how their wages are set. But we are also conscious of the fact that we need to encourage more young people into work through apprenticeships.

We set minimum pay thresholds. Businesses are free to set higher rates of pay if they can afford and choose to do so. As I have just said, youth unemployment is persistently higher than for those aged 25 and over. For younger workers, the priority in those first years is to secure work and gain experience—something that has always been reflected in the national minimum wage rate structure.

The noble Lord also referred to enforcement. If the Committee will bear with me, I will give a bit more detail about enforcement, given that this is such an important area. I take on board his reference to the situation at Debenhams, which is not acceptable. The Government are committed to cracking down on employers who break national minimum wage law. We are absolutely clear that anyone entitled to be paid the minimum wage should receive it. BEIS is responsible for the policy on national minimum wage compliance and enforcement, and HMRC enforces the National Minimum Wage Act on behalf of BEIS. All businesses, irrespective of their size or business sector, are responsible for paying the correct minimum wage to their staff. The vast majority of responsible employers make sure that they get it right. As I said earlier, we have increased the enforcement budget because we recognise that accurately predicting the true level of non-compliance across the country is difficult. With the increase in wages comes the increased risk of non-compliance. HMRC follows up on every complaint it receives, even those that are anonymous. This includes those made to the ACAS helpline and those it receives from other sources.

I touched on sanctions earlier. There is a civil route, where HMRC conducts an investigation and identifies that there has been an underpayment. A notice of underpayment is then issued, instructing the employer to pay the workers the arrears they are owed and a penalty of up to 200% of those arrears. In addition, we have a system of naming and shaming. Employers risk facing reputational damage through being named and shamed in a government press notice, which is then picked up by local and national press. All employers who have underpaid their workers by more than £100 are eligible to be named. To date, we have named more than 1,000 employers.

I hope I have covered the questions raised regarding these regulations. The Government estimate that more than 2 million workers will directly benefit from the uprating of the national minimum wage and national living wage. The fundamentals of the UK economy are strong and our economy continues to grow. GDP growth was 0.6% in the fourth quarter of 2016—above market expectations—and the economy is currently 8.7% larger than its pre-crisis peak. The labour market has continued to perform well, with robust employment growth in low-paying sectors.

A number of specific points were raised in this debate that I hope I have responded to. The Government are committed to ensuring that work pays and that the lowest paid enjoy the benefits of a strong economy. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Nuclear Industries Security (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Debate between Baroness Buscombe and Lord Jones

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Grand Committee

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I will begin by giving some background information and explaining why we are making these amendments. The UK takes civil nuclear security issues very seriously, including with regard to regulation. Since 1980, the UK has been a signatory to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material—the CPPNM. The convention requires signatories to have in place a robust legislative and regulatory regime to ensure the security of civil nuclear materials stored or in transit. The UK also complies with international guidance and best practice in this field produced by international bodies, in particular the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The Nuclear Industries Security Regulations 2003—NISRs—represent the cornerstone of the United Kingdom’s regulatory regime for civil nuclear security. The NISRs place significant obligations on the operators of civil licensed nuclear sites with regard to physical security measures for facilities, nuclear material and the security of sensitive nuclear information. The NISRs also cover the movement of nuclear material by air, road and rail in the UK and globally in UK-flagged vessels. This legislation requires all civil nuclear operators to produce and implement robust nuclear site security plans, and for transporters of nuclear material to produce transport security statements.

These draft amendments would update the NISRs in four key areas. Their overarching aim is to further enhance civil nuclear security arrangements and ensure that the United Kingdom’s regulatory regime remains up to date, comprehensive and robust. This will help ensure that the United Kingdom continues to give effect to its obligations under the CPPNM. I will provide further detail on each of the amendments.

The first amendment is to Regulation 4(1) of the NISRs, which requires that a nuclear site security plan approved by the ONR is in place for each nuclear site. However, at present the NISRs do not specify on whom this obligation is placed. The amendment will make it the responsibility of the designated “responsible person” for the nuclear site, as defined in the NISRs, to ensure that there is an approved security plan in place at all times. In tandem with this, a related amendment to Regulation 25 makes it a criminal offence for the responsible person to fail to meet their obligations under Regulation 4(1) as amended. The creation of this offence underlines the security imperative that the Government place on nuclear operators maintaining up-to-date security plans that have the approval of the independent regulator. In combination, the amendments to Regulations 4(1) and 25 will add clarity to the regulatory regime by making the responsible person accountable for ensuring that their site has approved nuclear security measures in place at all times. The implications of creating a new criminal offence have been fully considered and the Ministry of Justice has approved the measure.

We are also amending Regulations 4(3)(d) and 16(3)(c). These amendments are aimed at further enhancing industry information security and preparedness for cyber-related incidents. It will be a requirement for nuclear site security plans and transport security statements to set out the steps to be taken in the event of the loss or theft of or unauthorised access to sensitive nuclear information. Requiring duty holders to outline these contingencies will help ensure that risks associated with information security and cyberattacks are identified from the outset and effectively managed using measures approved by the ONR.

We are also making amendments to Regulations 9, 17(3) and 22(7), which relate to personnel security. Ensuring robust measures are in place to combat the potential threat that insiders pose to the civil nuclear industry is, of course, a key priority for the Government and the regulator. These amendments are intended to provide the ONR with greater flexibility in determining whether nuclear premises’ relevant personnel are suitable in security terms. Instead of solely approving all relevant personnel itself, the ONR will be able to assess and approve the industry’s broader personnel security arrangements; for example, by examining the effectiveness of review and aftercare arrangements for personnel working in the sector. This will allow the ONR to approve processes to be used by duty holders to determine whether relevant personnel are suitable in security terms. This will involve consideration by the ONR of whether the measures used by duty holders are in accordance with Her Majesty’s Government’s personnel security policy. We are also making an amendment to Regulation 22(5)(a) to remove a reference to guidance published by the ONR on security classifications that has now become obsolete.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy conducted an industry consultation on these amendments between 24 June and 22 July 2016. In total, 19 responses were received from a range of industry stakeholders. On the basis of these responses, department economists have forecast one-off administrative costs to the civil nuclear industry of less than £100,000 arising from the changes. This assessment has been approved by the Regulatory Policy Committee. I consider the security benefits arising from these changes to far outweigh the costs.

In parallel to the amendments, the ONR intends to issue revised security guidelines to the civil nuclear industry. These guidelines, known as the security assessment principles, are closely aligned to emerging threats to nuclear security, especially in relation to cybersecurity and information assurance. The amendments that I have outlined will complement the revised guidelines. I therefore commend these draft regulations to the Committee and beg to move.

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear exposition on such a serious measure and offer support for the draft instrument. There are two nuclear power stations in Wales: Trawsfynydd in the wilds of Meirionnydd and Wylfa in Môn Mam Cymru—Anglesey. Trawsfynydd may have reached the end of its productive life, but the hope is that Wylfa reactor 2 will come into being at an appropriate time. These stations in the far north-west of the lovely land of Wales are hugely important for employment, well-paid jobs and skills, and generate supporting jobs distances away from the plants.

How many people at each of those stations are engaged in security—if the Minister is allowed to give me that answer? I think it is a reasonable question. How many nuclear security police are there at each of those plants? I have read the Explanatory Memorandum and the instrument. When the stations were built, it was inevitable that road improvements would have to be made, and the rail links became ever more important—for obvious reasons when we consider nuclear waste.

In paragraph 7, headed “Policy background”, of the Explanatory Memorandum, paragraph 7.2 refers to,

“an approved nuclear site security plan be in place for each nuclear premise. The current requirement does not specify upon whom the duty is placed. These regulations clarify the position by specifying that it is the responsible person in relation to each nuclear premise who has the duty to ensure that there is an approved nuclear site security plan in place, and make it a criminal offence for the responsible person to fail to do so”.

I have mentioned two nuclear sites in Wales. What would be the rank and description of such a person referred to in paragraph 7.2?

I spent nearly 10 years on the Intelligence and Security Committee, and think I am asking responsible questions, but I would understand if the Minister could not immediately offer an answer or felt that she had to give me a reason why she could not give an answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Buscombe]

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on this Motion. First, I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Jones, although it is with some trepidation because I am a little afraid of trying to pronounce the names of the stations he referenced: Wylfa and Trawsfynydd—that is my attempt.

[Lord Jones]

Splendid!

[Baroness Buscombe]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I welcome what he said about supporting jobs on those sites. He asked a number of questions, including about the number of people on those sites. I am not at liberty to say exactly how many people are employed. However, for example, the rank and description of the person described in paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum will be the holder of the nuclear site licence and this will vary by establishment.

The noble Lord also asked about personnel security. Nuclear sites must comply with personnel security vetting requirements and all workers in the sector must be cleared to a level commensurate to their required access to nuclear material and sensitive nuclear information. Given the noble Lord’s past experience in this area, he will appreciate that it is very difficult for me to give much detail on each site.

[Lord Jones]

If, on further thought, the Minister may be able with the assistance of her officials to write to me, I would not object to that.

[Baroness Buscombe]

Of course I would be happy to write, if I fail to provide the noble Lord with sufficient reassurance.

All staff have responsibility for ensuring effective security at civil nuclear sites. Having an effective security culture is, of course, very important. There will be a number of security-specific roles at civil nuclear establishments, and these vary depending on the site. All sites are subject to the same requirements and standards. In line with the graded approach, the level of security at each site will be determined by the nature of materials and equipment and the information held.

I welcome the very positive response from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, to the measure and agree that it is non-contentious. He asked a number of questions, and I will deal first with Euratom. If he will allow me, I want to spend a few moments on this because it is important to be as clear as I can. Leaving Euratom is a result of the decision to leave the EU, as they are uniquely legally joined. However, the UK supports Euratom and will want to see continuity of co-operation and standards. We remain absolutely committed to the highest standards of nuclear safety, safeguards and support for the industry. Our aim is clear: we want to maintain our mutually successful civil nuclear co-operation with Euratom. The statutory regime for civil nuclear security is based solely on UK legislation. There are no Euratom or EU directives relating to nuclear security that the UK is required to comply with. In fact, the EU has no competence in relation to nuclear security. Euratom has no role in setting security standards, regulations or the inspection of security arrangements in the UK civil nuclear sector.

The Government do not comment on specific security or intelligence arrangements at individual sites. The most sensitive commissioned civil nuclear sites and transportations of nuclear materials in the UK are protected by the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. The CNC is a specialised, dedicated elite firearms force, with a Royal College of Policing firearms licence, charged with the protection of the most sensitive civil nuclear sites and nuclear materials in England, Scotland and Wales.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked one other question about defence sites such as Aldermaston; indeed, it is a question I asked officials last week. The answer is categorically no, they are not subject to this SI and are not a part of these regulations. There is a separate regulatory regime that applies to defence sites. I hope I have been able to respond sufficiently fully.