British Steel

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for bringing to the attention of the House his concerns and those of his family. Obviously, we all have Scunthorpe in our minds at the moment because a very large number of jobs in one area are at risk. The Government are active and will continue to be active in doing all we can to offer whatever appropriate help it is possible to offer, but the noble Lord will appreciate that at this stage it would not be appropriate for me to go much further. I repeat that my right honourable friend has made it clear he will come before the House to make a further Statement.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

The Minister has refused to answer a whole raft of questions this afternoon on the grounds that discussions are continuing with the company concerned. That may be a perfectly good excuse so far as matters related purely to gifts or subsidies to British Steel are concerned, but it is not a reason for the noble Lord to avoid answering questions on a fundamental government policy. I ask him again— and I hope for an answer this time—whether he believes that leaving the European Union, and leaving the customs area of the European Union, is conducive to the future prosperity of the steel industry in this country.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the most important thing is to get my right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s deal through, and for the noble Lord and others to sign up to it, to get the certainty that we need. This relates not just to the steel industry but to all parts of the economy, and we will continue to work for that.

Brexit: Energy Security (European Union Committee Report)

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, the report is excellent. With the leave of the House, I will quote a number of sentences from it. Paragraph 24 states:

“Whatever the final detail of the EU exit terms the UK is likely to be more peripheral to EU energy markets which will mean higher prices and more unreliable supply”.


Paragraph 29 states:

“Post-Brexit, the UK may be more vulnerable to supply shortages in the event of extreme weather or unplanned generation outages”.


Paragraph 30 states:

“Energy UK claimed that operating in a less efficient market ‘will have an impact on consumer bills’”.


Paragraph 32 states:

“It is likely that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU will lead to less efficient energy trade, which could in turn increase the price paid by consumers for energy security”.


Paragraph 55 states:

“Market coupling is currently estimated to be worth £100m/year to the UK … Energy UK argued that GB operators could be excluded from market coupling post-Brexit”.


Paragraph 56 states:

“In the absence of the REMIT Regulation, we would need to seek alternative arrangements to access this data and to facilitate information sharing”.


I will stop here but similar quotes are available right the way through the other 200 paragraphs of the document. Paragraph 62, which I think says it all, states:

“None of our witnesses expressed a desire to leave the IEM”.


In other words, the argument is completely one-sided. All sorts of people are pointing to the dangers and risks of Brexit to energy, such as leaving Euratom and, potentially, the IEM. No one is suggesting that it is a good thing. The House would be in dereliction of its duty if we simply ignored that fact. The British people are having serious energy costs imposed on them, which will affect every family in the country and impact on future economic growth, propensity to invest, output, employment and so forth, as sure as night follows day.

Who caused all this? Did some external enemy impose this on us? Are we the victims of an international conspiracy? Did the gods send a plague on us? Are we suffering from a curse of Zeus? No, this is a case of a Government deliberately imposing costs and risks on its people to a considerable degree. I cannot think of an analogy in history for what is going on at the moment with Brexit. This is true right across the piece, not just in the energy market but in pharmaceuticals, the automotive industry and civil aviation. As we saw in the previous debate, it is also true in financial services.

So it goes on. Every day, every week, the Government come up with proposals that they will ram through with their majority in the House of Commons—concocted from their relationship with the DUP—apparently irrespective of the cost to the British people. More and more of this comes along and we do not get any estimate of the cost to the British economy. When estimates are prepared by Whitehall, they are kept secret by the Government and we hear about them only through leaks. It is an absolutely extraordinary and disgraceful situation. We know the considerable potential cost of our leaving Euratom and that if we do so in a situation with no agreement to replace it, all sorts of disastrous things will occur: we will not be able to import radioactive isotopes, which will bring radiotherapy to an end in this country, costing lives, and so forth. That is quite horrific. We will have lorry-loads of vegetables rotting in the Port of Dover. All these things have been described by Whitehall and the departments that have been doing contingency studies into what might happen, but the Government have done their best to disguise them from the British public.

What can we do about it? It is extraordinary that leaving Euratom is an entirely gratuitous decision. There is absolutely no need whatever, simply because we leave the European Union, to leave Euratom. I know that if you ask the Government, “Why are you doing this?”, they will say, “Oh, because the British people voted for it”. The British people never voted for us to leave Euratom. I challenge the Government to give me one reference in the referendum campaign to Euratom or the energy market generally. There was not one. The British people were never told about the cost of this. The Government decided retrospectively, after the end of the referendum, that this was included in the vote. It was not at all. Why have they done such a thing? I think we all know the reason: because the Eurosceptics in the Tory party are holding the Prime Minister to ransom. She is afraid of 48 letters going to the chairman, Sir Graham Brady, if she does not satisfy their demands, so we are pushing through these policies, which are quite gratuitous, unnecessary and extremely costly. It is an extraordinary situation.

I do not think that the British public have fully understood what is going on. Of course, they will when the higher energy prices come through in a few years’ time if we go ahead with this programme. I have some simple questions for the Government. What is the cost to the British economy of leaving the EU? What is the cost to the British economy of leaving the internal energy market? What is the cost to the British economy of leaving Euratom? What is the maximum cost, if there is one, that the Government are prepared to pay to achieve these very dubious objectives?

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 1st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

I fully accept that. I think the idea is to make it clear that they have been made public and are available. I will make sure copies are made available to noble Lords.

Before dealing with precise matters relating to the amendment, I shall say a word or two about the implementation period and transition because that was raised by my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe, who has great experience in this matter as a former Minister in the department that I have the honour to represent, my noble friend Lord Trenchard and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who was in receipt of a letter from my noble friend Lady Vere. The second paragraph of that letter sent on the 28th stated that details and terms of an implementation period have yet to be agreed, that it is assumed that the United Kingdom will no longer be a member state of the EU or the EEA during the implementation period, that the base case for the length of the period is around two years and that the UK will continue to mirror the EU acquis—the entire EU legal framework—during that period.

We also note that the Commission has published its draft of the withdrawal agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred to this. It is just a draft at the moment. The exact content of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal agreement from the EU will be a matter for negotiation, and we are working hard to deliver the best possible outcome for the UK while making good progress on negotiating our deep and special future partnership with the EU. I do not think I can take the noble Lord or the Committee any further on that matter at this stage.

Amendments 7 and 18 ask for much greater consultation to be set down in law. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe was rather worried by the precedent, should it be enacted, that we make a Written Ministerial Statement at certain stages. I hope I can give the appropriate assurances about what we intend to do to keep Members of the Committee and the House fully informed about what we are doing over the course of the coming year.

First, I shall clarify my Second Reading response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I think, about the potential cost to industry of the new regime. I referred only to the cost to the ONR of setting up the domestic regime. The department has already committed to allocate to the ONR the funding necessary to establish the new regime. In respect of ongoing funding—the matter which this amendment is aimed at addressing-–I can make a clear commitment now that a decision on cost recovery and charging arrangements will be subject to close engagement with industry and other key stakeholders, as well as public consultation.

We intend to publish a public consultation and an impact assessment on the regulations later this year. I repeat to the Committee that we have made those regulations available in draft already. It is estimated that the ongoing costs of operating a domestic safeguards regime—

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

Can the noble Lord give an assurance to the Committee that the industry will not be penalised as a result of Brexit—that is to say that the contributions that will be required of it post Brexit to fund the new regulatory regime that he has been describing will not be greater than any costs that it currently incurs under the present Euratom regime?

[Lord Henley]

The noble Lord will obviously not expect me to give firm commitments of that sort in advance of any consultation. This is a matter for consultation, but we are talking about the need to make sure we have the appropriate safeguarding regime. We are already charging industry, as he puts it, for the cost of safety and other matters. As I said, I will not give any commitment of that sort because this is a matter for consultation, but I will say that the ongoing costs of operating a proper domestic safeguarding regime—I am not talking about safety or security, but purely about safeguarding—will be broadly in line with the current cost to Euratom of its safeguards activity in the United Kingdom. This is estimated to be about £9.5 million a year, as set out in the impact assessment for the Bill.

I turn to the outstanding issues raised in Amendment 7. As the Committee will be aware, the Bill already requires that before making regulations under new Section 76A of the Energy Act 2013, the Government must consult the ONR and any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate. This is consistent with the approach for making nuclear regulations under Section 74 of the 2013 Act, which the noble Baroness will be familiar with. The amendment seeks to include a duty to consult both the IAEA and the National Audit Office. I agree wholeheartedly with the importance of consultation on the new domestic regime—I stressed that at Second Reading. Consultation is of vital importance in the development of any new regulatory system and even more so with a subject of such national importance.

As I have already made clear, we have published a pre-consultation draft of the regulations and have already begun early engagement with the industry on this. Prior to this, and since the referendum, the Government have had detailed and ongoing discussions with the nuclear industry and other interested parties. We have made it clear that the development of these draft regulations establishing the new regime will be subject to detailed consultation with both the regulator and industry, with which we have already been engaging.

The Committee will be aware that it is not standard practice for the Government to consult international bodies such as the IAEA on matters of detailed domestic legislation, and for good reason. The IAEA’s focus and expertise in respect of the United Kingdom’s safeguards lies with the voluntary international agreements rather than with the domestic legislation underpinning the domestic regime. The amendment also proposes including the NAO. I believe the NAO plays an incredibly important role, but I do not think that mandatory consultation, as proposed by this amendment, is appropriate, as it already has an established process for scrutinising public spending for Parliament.

We look forward to continuing to work closely with industry and other stakeholders to take the development of the new domestic regime forward. I particularly welcome, at this stage, any comments noble Lords make on the draft regulations, which were published in January and which I imagine all those interested in the Bill have been studying with great care ever since.

Amendment 7 would also require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a Written Statement that the ONR has the capacity and independence to implement a new safeguards regime. Again, the Committee will be aware that the Government have already committed to provide Parliament with quarterly reports on progress from across the Euratom programme. They will include information on ONR capacity and readiness.

We accept the immediate importance of this issue; that is why I wrote to all Peers on 20 February. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, received it and I think others did as well. I wrote twice on that day to all noble Lords and I have copies of those letters, but I do not think it is necessary to refer to them. At the same time, a bit later I also wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Again, I have that letter available here and will make it available to other noble Lords if—

Queen’s Speech

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, it is a very great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, and to be the first in your Lordships’ House to be able to congratulate him on his magnificent maiden speech, so clearly informed by the wisdom, experience and insight he has developed through his distinguished career in the City, which culminated, as we have heard, in serving as the 688th Lord Mayor of the City of London. I had the opportunity to speak to the Lord Chief Justice this morning, who indicated to me that the noble Lord was a most successful Lord Mayor of the City of London. He is highly regarded throughout the City and beyond, and your Lordships’ House will benefit from his future contributions to the important work that we have the responsibility of discharging on behalf of our nation.

I also congratulate the Minister on the thoughtful way in which he introduced this debate and declare my interests as professor of surgery at University College London, chairman of UCLPartners and UK business ambassador for healthcare and life sciences. I shall concentrate my contribution in this debate on the area of life sciences.

We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, that financial services represent the most important part of our economy, but beyond financial services the life sciences are the second. They are an industry and a sector predicated on the development over many decades of a very finely balanced ecosystem. At the heart of that ecosystem is the National Health Service. Four of the 10 leading universities of the world, three of the 10 universities leading specifically in the field of life sciences, and two of the top 10 pharma companies in the world are based here in the United Kingdom, between them employing some 200,000 people in more than 180 countries around the world and providing a surplus in excess of £20 billion a year to the UK economy. There are some 1,300 companies in our country manufacturing in the medical area. There are 3,500 small and medium-sized enterprises, 500 of which are exporting actively, and the life sciences industries employ some 235,000 people, which is just under 1% of total private sector employment in our country. Those are important statistics, because the life sciences sector not only makes an important contribution to the economy and to generating wealth but has the vital purpose of ensuring that we can improve healthcare and the outcomes we can achieve for our patients through the application of innovation and technology that has transformed life prospects over recent decades.

A recent UK Trade & Investment report, Strength and Opportunity in 2014, which looked at the life sciences sector in 2014, established that it was a true world leader. Since 2011, the sector has attracted some £7.5 billion of inward investment into our country, which has resulted in the creation of some 18,000 jobs. The medtech sector grew at some 5.8% per annum in the period 2009 to 2014, and the biotech sector some 4% per annum. Those are very impressive figures when one looks at the general pace of economic activity during that period, and something that cannot be neglected.

The Conservative Party manifesto at the last election committed to ensuring that the United Kingdom was the most innovative country in the world. Clearly, the gracious Speech has identified certain areas of innovation—we heard in the Minister’s introductory comments a particular focus on driverless cars and travel into space—but I hope that the Minister can confirm a continued emphasis on the area of life sciences. This important area of activity, which is so bound up with the public sector, our universities and the delivery of healthcare, will not thrive unless there continues to be a determined focus on ensuring that it can compete globally. It is a sector, beyond many others. that is exquisitely dependent on collaboration—across universities, across industries and between Governments. Any loss of focus in that area will result in our country paying a heavy price.

In that regard, would the Minister be able to address two or three questions? First, is he content that there will be the opportunity for sufficient focus on the life sciences sector so that it can continue to deliver as required without any further legislation to deal with some anomalies with regard to the environment in which it has to operate? In particular, is he content that UK Research and Innovation will be able to drive the kind of collaborations and co-operation among scientists and innovators, not only in our own country but across the European Union, and potentially in other fundamentally innovative economies such as the United States and the emerging innovative economies in the east, such as China and India?

Is the Minister content that the vital role that the National Health Service has to play with regard to innovation in the life sciences sector can be delivered, particularly with the adoption of innovation at scale and pace—innovation established in our own country and applied for the benefit of the patients in our National Health Service but also using the fundamental opportunities of the NHS to demonstrate to the rest of the world the value of what we can bring to drive improvements in global healthcare?

Finally, is the Minister content that the life sciences sector can be properly supported in the negotiations attending our exit from the European Union?

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, I have been listening to him—

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

I am sorry, my Lord, but no.