Draft Justification Decision Power (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2019 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Justification Decision Power (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

It is a great pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Sir Henry—in my case for the first time, but given the number of regulations due to be considered over the next few weeks, possibly not the last time. The Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004, which I will call the “justification regulations” to simplify matters, provide a framework within which justification decisions regarding ionising radiation are made. It may not surprise you, Sir Henry, to learn that those decisions are an important part of our regulatory regime that surrounds ionising regulations, as they determine whether a practice involving ionising radiation is justified in advance of its first being adopted or approved. In addition, it may be determined as a result of a review that a class or type of practice is no longer justified, so it works both ways.

The power to make those decisions is currently provided by section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. It is possible that only yourself, Sir Henry, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, and I were around to witness the passage of that Act; it did pass me by at the time, but I have concentrated on the matter for the purpose of today’s statutory instrument. Given the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union and Euratom, and the repeal of the 1972 Act, the justifying authority will not retain the power to make justification decisions regarding practices involving ionising regulation. This instrument corrects that inoperability by providing the authority with a replacement power to make justification decisions involving ionising regulation. The powers to make this secondary legislation are found in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which received Royal Assent in June 2018.

I will briefly explain the background to our position in relation to the 2004 regulations. The Committee should be aware that we are committed to maintaining an up-to-date and internationally concurrent justification regime, because we are a world leader in radiological safety and that needs to continue. We also have an international reputation as a trusted partner, with other countries trading nuclear skills, services and materials with us. These regulations are the first step towards regulatory approval for a new class or type of practice involving ionising radiation—for example, medical treatments and new designs of nuclear reactors that may be proposed. The regulations provide that framework.

The bit of the framework that the regulations provide is how Government determine whether the practice is justified in this context, rather than the general word “justified”. In this more narrow sense, “justified” means that the individual or societal benefit of a practice involving ionised radiation outweighs its potential detriment to health. It is a balance, which any Government need to have a system to be able to recognise. Those decisions are taken by the justifying authority, which could be the Secretary of State of the relevant Department or the devolved Administrations, in the form of regulations.

I will quickly mention the devolved Administrations, because they have been involved a lot in this process, and have been content for us to establish and make changes to the justification regime using UK-wide regulations. The instrument allows us to make UK-wide justification decisions in reserved areas, but also allows the devolved Administrations to make their own justification decisions using regulations covering their own geographical areas for activities that fall within the devolved subject matters. I can confirm that we have received letters of consent from each of the devolved Administrations agreeing that they are happy for us to proceed.

Let me briefly expand on the draft regulations. Further to the invocation of article 50, the 2018 Act will repeal the 1972 Act when we exit the EU. However, to ensure continuity for the UK, the 2018 Act will preserve EU-derived domestic legislation so that it continues to have effect in domestic law. That will leave our statute book with several EU-related inoperabilities, including the power to make justification decisions; there are others, but they are not the subject of this debate.

The draft regulations will provide the justifying authority with a replacement power, created under section 8 of the 2018 Act, to make justification decisions under the 2004 regulations once the existing power ceases to be available as a result of the repeal of the 1972 Act. It is important to note that the draft regulations will not allow the Secretary of State or the devolved Administrations to make decisions in any other way, nor will it give them any extra powers or competencies that they did not have under the 2004 regulations. The replacement power is narrower than the power under the 1972 Act: it is limited to the making of justification decisions for the purposes of the justification regulations.

Looking forward, the Department is aware of several potential justification applications that may require a decision by the Secretary of State in the normal way. A functioning justification regime is necessary to ensure that those applications are subject to the appropriate scrutiny procedures. To give just one example, the HPR1000 reactor, intended for use at Bradwell, is a new nuclear reactor design that will require a justification decision before it can be deployed.

I hope Committee members will confine their remarks to specific technical points related to the draft regulations and agree that the regulations are necessary to ensure a functioning statute book on exit day, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I am pleased to confirm, Sir Henry, that you have presided over peace and tranquillity this afternoon. I thank the shadow Minister and the Scottish National party spokesman. [Interruption.] I thought the Whip was bringing out more sweets.

In response to the shadow Minister’s question, I happily confirm that the regulations are absolutely a replica of the previous ones. He used the word “malfeasance”. I confirm for the record that there has not been any, and there will not be.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2019 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

I repeat my sentiment of yesterday that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. It is even more of a pleasure because yesterday’s Committee was chaired with such brilliant style and dignity that my shadow, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, was kept to record brevity. It will not help his reputation, but I thank him for his co-operation—and everybody else for theirs. I expect that today’s proceedings will be rather longer, but I will try to curtail my own contribution.

The regulations, which were laid before the House on 29 November last year, set out the legal framework of our new domestic civil nuclear safeguards regime after we withdraw from Euratom—the European Atomic Energy Community, for those unfamiliar with the body. The regulations are made under powers set out in the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018, which amended the Energy Act 2013. They replace the current legal framework, which is provided principally by our membership of Euratom.

I emphasise that the two sets of regulations dealt with yesterday and today are essential to establishing our domestic regime whether we leave the EU with a deal or without one. They are linked to the Nuclear Safeguards (Fissionable Material and Relevant International Agreements) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which set out the definitions of fissionable material and relevant international agreements. I am sure that Members who were in yesterday’s Committee will remember them in full, and I will test them later to see whether they were listening—

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Bring it on.

[Richard Harrington]

—with the exception of the Opposition Whip. I remind everybody who has not wished the hon. Gentleman a happy birthday that it was his birthday yesterday. I think I have milked that one enough, but I will try to be nice to him in the hope that there will not be several votes this afternoon.

As I said, for the purpose of the regulations, the terms are defined under the 2013 Act, as amended. If it is acceptable to the Committee, I will not repeat what nuclear safeguards are. If anybody would like me to, I am very happy to go over that, but I went over it yesterday and at various points during the passage of the 2018 Act, pointing out that they are distinct from safety and security and are to do with non-proliferation.

The regulations are essential for two reasons. First, they will show the international community that we honour international legal nuclear safeguards, and that we are a responsible nuclear state. Secondly, the detail in the regulations and in yesterday’s will, we hope, retain public, industry and international trading partner confidence and enable the continuity of civil nuclear trade. We have to ensure that our civil nuclear ambitions continue and are not diminished when Euratom safeguards no longer apply to the UK.

The 2018 Act empowers the Office for Nuclear Regulation to be the regulator for safeguards. It did not do that before; the ONR regulated safety and security. The Act gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations giving effect to our nuclear domestic regime when we leave Euratom. The regulations perform that function.

The regulations establish requirements on operators of qualifying nuclear facilities. They establish provisions for the ONR to be the new safeguards regulator when it takes over the roles and responsibilities currently with Euratom. Regulations 3 to 33, together with schedule 1, set out the requirements for operators, which include, for example, the record that an operator is required to keep, together with the forms that the operator must send to the ONR. Regulations 7 to 9 set out the requirements for an accountancy and control plan. Regulations 39 to 42 set out the provisions dealing with the ONR as safeguards regulator. Regulation 43 sets out the offences, with regulations 44 to 49 setting out the provisions dealing with notifications of the Secretary of State. Schedule 4 sets out the transitional provisions.

Our Department held an extensive consultation about the regulations; there were 28 responses, and we ourselves responded at the end of November last year. I thank those who contributed, because the comments on the regulations assisted our final policy deliberations. In response, we introduced a specific commencement date of 1 January 2021 for the accountancy and control plans, which gives operators further time to produce the plans, as they requested. We have introduced a new exemption for certain educational establishments holding very small quantities of qualifying nuclear material. We listened to comments on the transitional provisions in schedule 4 and further developed this to support operators and ensure a smooth move from Euratom to our safeguards regime. As part of the consultation we published an impact assessment for the regulations. A final fit-for-purpose nuclear safeguards impact assessment was published on 29 November 2018.

I am pleased to report that there has been good progress on many of the steps required to ensure delivery of a new domestic safeguards regime in the UK. We have signed our bilateral safeguards agreements—we discussed Japan extensively in yesterday’s Committee—and they were approved by Parliament on 19 December. The ONR is ready to take on the role and responsibility of the UK safeguards regime. It has been enhancing its capabilities. Several members of the Nuclear Safeguards Public Bill Committee expressed fear about that during the Bill’s passage. We heard evidence from Mina Golshan of the ONR explaining possible concerns that the posts would not be recruited and filled. We took those concerns on board, and I am pleased to say that the fears have not been realised. That is not because she was advising incorrectly; until a role is advertised and recruited it is almost impossible to tell what is going to happen.

From January 2019, the domestic regime commenced parallel running alongside Euratom, processing and checking reports received from industry through a system of safeguards managing and reporting. While it is running in parallel, we will have an opportunity to identify any adjustments necessary. We have time to do that before 29 March. On recruitment, which has been of interest to the House, the first phase of recruitment has been fulfilled, with 16 new safeguard officers in place—seven more than the minimum of nine that we felt were required to deliver the regime. Four nuclear material accountants have been appointed, giving a total of 20 in post.

These regulations, together with our international agreements, allow the ONR to deliver a safeguards regime that meets our international obligations from day one after exit. I believe the ONR’s capacity and expertise will build over time to be, by December 2020, equivalent in effectiveness and coverage to that currently provided by Euratom. That was our policy intent. It is the means by which the UK will exceed the commitments that we need to give the international community. The entire purpose of this is not to do the minimum required, but to do what we have done since all this started, showing leadership in the world. That is the regime we are aiming for.

I believe the draft regulations, together with the ones approved yesterday are vital to enable us to operate our domestic civil nuclear industry. They will deliver the Government’s commitments to establish a new regime by December 2020 that is equivalent in effectiveness and coverage to that currently provided by Euratom, and to meet international obligations from day one of exit. In certain respects the safeguards commitments set out in the new bilateral safeguards agreed between ourselves and the International Atomic Energy Agency will be exceeded. I very much look forward to hearing what hon. Members have to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

That is my understanding, and I am very pleased to put that on the record.

[Dr Whitehead]

The second part of the question before us is the position of the ONR in this matter. As I am sure hon. Members will know, the ONR has a large number of functions. The nuclear safeguards function is being added to the ONR’s overall set of responsibilities, where previously it was undertaken separately by inspectors appointed by, working for and embedded with Euratom. The inspectors who will undertake the work will now be within the purview of the ONR. As the Minister noted, questions were raised during the passage of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill about the recruitment of inspectors in the number required to carry out the function and how that would be done between the time of the Bill’s passing and now. The Minister made some comments both yesterday and today about the recruiting process undertaken by the ONR.

It is sort of good news that the recruiting process seems to have gone well. Certainly we raised some concerns during the passage of the Bill about how that would be done and whether it would be possible in the time available. The Minister said at the start of the Bill process that the aim of the inspection regime was to carry out an inspection regime as good as that under Euratom from the word go. Indeed, the impact assessment accompanying the SI states that 30 to 35 staff will be needed,

“to be able to deliver its functions”—

that is, the ONR’s functions—

“to a standard equivalent in effectiveness and coverage as that currently provided by Euratom”.

That is the gold standard as far as staffing is concerned. The Minister said both yesterday and today that additional inspectors had indeed been appointed and that the ONR’s recruitment target for the first phase has been met: 16 safeguards officers are in place, he said, which is seven more than the minimum of nine required to deliver the regime at the end of March. As I understand the position, we have inspectors in place to carry out inspection to an international standard, but not to the level previously set out in the regime overseen by Euratom.

The explanatory memorandum for today’s SI states:

“It is intended that these agreements”—

the international agreements mentioned yesterday and today—

“combined with these Regulations, will allow ONR to establish a new regime which will deliver international standards from day one of exit, building, over time, to be equivalent in effectiveness and coverage to that currently provided by Euratom, and which will exceed international standards.”

The reality is that as far as the ONR is concerned, our present level of recruitment of inspectors allows us to get by, but does not allow us to reach Euratom standards. Although that seems to be a satisfactory recruitment process in terms of getting to those international standards, it falls fairly well short of the aim of the ONR’s operation, as indicated at the time of the Bill.

It may be that since the SI deals with a potential abrupt and total EU exit on 29 March, being able to carry out inspections that meet an international standard on 1 April is all that is required, but I would be interested to hear from the Minister how quickly it is proposed that we can get up to those Euratom standards, perhaps during a transition period. That inspection regime was set out as the gold standard at the time of the Bill, and meeting its standards appears to still be the intention of the Government. I hope the Minister will be able to assure me on that point, and perhaps add a few points about the further recruiting process necessary to get us to that position.

The second issue I will raise is the cost of setting up the ONR to carry out its new functions. As Members who sat on the Nuclear Safeguards Public Bill Committee will recall, we were informed by—among other things—the explanatory notes to the Bill that the cost of setting up the ONR, its computer systems and so on was potentially up to £10 million. Now, we see in the explanatory memorandum for this piece of legislation that the cost of that task will be something like £28 million.

I wonder why there is that substantial variation between what we were told at the time of the Bill and what is before us today. Is it just that the estimates were wrong at the time of the Bill? Is it that additional costs have been added on to the setting up of the ONR? Is it perhaps that, given the situation we find ourselves in, we will technically still be within the Euratom orbit for 20 months should there be a transition period following Brexit? Presumably, those Euratom inspectors would continue their work for that period of time while the newly recruited inspectors work alongside them. Is it that additional cost that is creating those very inflated figures? On its face, it looks like the estimates that we were given at the time of the Bill were way out, and while the running costs appear to be about the same as was suggested at the time of the Bill, that figure looks very different. I ask the Minister to enlighten me about why there is such a difference, and whether he himself is happy with it, since I think that money will come out of Departmental funds. In any event, that substantial difference can be happily passed through as we move towards implementing this new regime.

Subject to the answers to those two questions, we do not intend to oppose the statutory instrument, because we think that it is very important that the regulations, and proper running of the system under the ONR, are fully in place as soon as possible. We therefore welcome the fact that the regulations are, as far as I can see, clearly in place and that we will be able to get up and running with an inspection regime from a very early stage.

[Richard Harrington]

I thank the shadow Minister for his two very interesting and significant points. First, on the matter of staffing and ONR recruitment, 30 to 35 staff was an estimate, including administrators, that the ONR made for the number of staff that it required. It now has a team of 20 in place—that is 16 and four—including inspectors and nuclear material accountants. The ONR is satisfied with progress to date. That is all I can say. That was the estimate in the first place, but it is very satisfied that what it has will provide the ability to deal with international standards, but not yet the gold standards to which the hon. Gentleman referred. At this stage, the ONR is satisfied and believes that it may require fewer people in total than it first thought. It is not because of a lack of recruitment or of suitable people. It knows the legal duty it has to fulfil; its legal brief is to get to Euratom standards as quickly as it can. I would not like it to be thought that this is a failure of recruitment or anything like that. However, we rely on the ONR, because it is the regulator.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for that information. It may well be the case that there will be a period of parallel running during a transitional period. After all, the regulations are essentially designed to start us off in a no-deal Brexit. If there is another form of Brexit, there will be a transition period. Is the Minister’s intention to continue with the reporting arrangements that he set out for the House at the time of the passing of the Bill, to give a regular update on those sort of changes as the new regime gets under way?

[Richard Harrington]

Yes, it is our intention to do so, exactly as we have been doing up to now. I know that the hon. Gentleman, and I hope many people, will read such updates. They will certainly be provided, as we said.

The second point concerned the financial side—the increase in costs between the original estimates and the impact assessment produced today. The hon. Gentleman is correct. The transitional costs have increased since the ONR has had more information and we have had a better understanding of its activities. The difference in cost is based on what we estimate to be higher costs during an implementation period to get to Euratom standards. They reflect the fact that the ONR will be able to deliver an international standard safeguards regime from 1 April 2019, and that we will develop the regime to achieve Euratom equivalents by 2021. The hon. Gentleman is correct that that is an increase in cost. Best endeavours were used to do the estimate but, as it has become reality, the costs have come out higher.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Nuclear Safeguards (Fissionable Material and Relevent International Agreements) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2019 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Nuclear Safeguards (Fissionable Material and Relevant International Agreements) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

I am honoured, Mr Sharma, to serve under your chairmanship for the first time on a Delegated Legislation Committee. If Hansard is not listening, I would like to ask the Whips what their secret agenda is in providing us with sweets. I will not go into that, but I thank them very much.

The regulations define the terms “fissionable material” and “relevant international agreement” for the purpose of sections of the Energy Act 2013, as amended by the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018. They are linked to the Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which will be considered in the Commons tomorrow and in the Lords very shortly afterwards.

I shall begin by emphasising that the two sets of regulations are essential to establishing our domestic regime, whether we leave the EU with a deal or not—their effect will be exactly the same in either outcome. The powers to make this secondary legislation are found in the 2013 Act, which we amended with the 2018 Act. The territorial extent and application of the regulations is to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. A second set of affirmative resolution regulations will be debated tomorrow, after Parliament has considered these regulations. Those regulations will set out the detail of the legal framework for our new domestic safeguards regime and, in certain places, use the terms defined in the regulations before us.

To remind hon. Members who are perhaps less familiar with the matter than me or the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, nuclear safeguards are accounting, reporting and verification processes designed to assure and demonstrate to the international community that civil nuclear material is not diverted unlawfully into military or weapons programmes. That is not to do with nuclear safety and nuclear security.

We have a very good record as a responsible nuclear state and were a founding member of the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1957. The IAEA ensures that states honour their international legal nuclear safeguards obligations in connection with the non-proliferation treaty, and basically stops civil nuclear being used for military purposes.

We have always voluntarily accepted two safeguards agreements with the IAEA: a voluntary offer agreement and an additional protocol, which is defined in the regulations. Those bilateral agreements will replace the trilateral safeguards agreements between the UK, the IAEA and Euratom that have been in place since 1978. We need that to enable the continuity of civil nuclear trade with our international trading partners.

The Government have prioritised putting agreements in place with key countries—Australia, Canada, Japan and the US—that require nuclear co-operation agreements, unlike others. NCAs are legally binding treaties that allow states to formally recognise their willingness to co-operate with each other on civil nuclear matters. We have now concluded—and Parliament has now approved—the ratification of replacement bilateral NCAs with Australia, Canada and the US. We already have a bilateral NCA with Japan.

I reiterate the Government’s commitment to establishing, by December 2020, a regime that is equivalent in effectiveness and coverage to that currently provided by Euratom, and that will exceed the commitments that the international community expects us to meet. I am confident that the fissionable regulations and nuclear safeguards regulations do that. We want to establish a regime that will operate in a similar way to the existing arrangements, taking account of best practice in our regulation making and considering the need to minimise disruption to industry, which were undertakings I gave during the passage of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill.

These regulations and the nuclear safeguards regulations are structured to require information concerning nuclear safeguards to be supplied to the relevant entity, whether that is the Commission or the Office for Nuclear Regulation. The regulator may then forward that, as appropriate, to the IAEA.

Turning to the regulator, the ONR, Members will be pleased to hear of the significant progress it has made in the set-up of the domestic regime since I last updated Parliament in October. From this month—in the past couple of weeks—our domestic regime has commenced parallel running alongside Euratom, processing and checking reports received from industry through our IT system—the safeguards information management and reporting system—and producing the declarations required to enable the UK to meet its international obligations. We have been running the scheme in parallel so that we have time in the next few weeks, if we need it before the end of March, to see whether any adjustments need to be made.

Another point made during the passage of the Bill was about recruitment of suitable inspectors. I am pleased to report that the ONR’s recruitment target for the first phase has been met: 16 safeguards officers are in place, which is seven more than the minimum of nine required to deliver the regime at the end of March; and four nuclear material accountants have been appointed, so 20 are in post.

Between July and September last year, my Department held a consultation on the content of these draft regulations and the nuclear safeguards regulations. In total, 28 formal responses were received. At the end of November we published our response. No major changes to these regulations were suggested.

I feel that I ought to go through the detail of the draft regulations, if hon. Members will bear with me for a few hours—[Interruption.] I am just checking whether anyone is listening, Mr Sharma, and I am pleased that you were. I will not be a few hours, but I feel it is important to set out the detail for the record.

The 2013 Act defines various elements of qualifying nuclear material and provides that “fissionable material” and “relevant international agreement” be defined in regulation. Fissionable material forms a component of “qualifying nuclear material”, which is defined in section 76A(6) of the Act, as amended by the Nuclear Safeguards Act. Fissionable material is therefore to be defined as: plutonium-239; uranium-233; uranium containing the isotopes 235 or 233, or both, in an amount such that the abundance ratio of the sum of those isotopes to the isotope 238 is greater than the ratio of the isotope 235 to the isotope 238 occurring in nature; and any material containing one or more of those. Basically, we use the definitions in the IAEA statute.

The second definition in the draft regulations is of a “relevant international agreement”, again under the amendments made by the Nuclear Safeguards Act. There are six agreements. The first two were signed on 7 June last year, and are between the UK and the IAEA. The other four are with other states: new bilateral agreements between the UK and the US, Canada and Australia were signed in 2018, and the one with Japan, which already exists, was signed in 1998. Parliament approved the ratification of the new bilateral agreements on 19 December last year.

The definitions contained in the draft regulations are of importance, as the nuclear safeguards regulations, which the House will consider tomorrow, will apply to qualifying nuclear material, including fissionable material. The nuclear safeguards regulations will also require operators to provide additional nuclear safeguards information to the ONR on qualifying nuclear material, and to the Secretary of State on certain non-nuclear materials, which are subject to a relevant international agreement, as defined in these draft regulations. I look forward to contributions of right hon. and hon. Members on the proposed definitions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I will be brief for two reasons: first, I would like not to ruin further the Labour Whip’s birthday; secondly, I would not like to keep Labour Members from attending the parliamentary Labour party meeting that I understand is going on. I am sure the leader of the Labour party will be delighted if you, Mr Sharma, attend in a different capacity from your chairmanship, and I am sure the hon. Member for Southampton, Test will be able to speak for longer than five minutes in that meeting.

Of the two points raised, I will deal with the Japan issue first. A bilateral NCA between the UK and Japan is already in place. It is not like the other one. I confirm that it will remain in place following the UK’s departure from the EU. It is not necessary to conclude a new NCA with Japan. We are having detailed discussions with the Japanese on this issue and negotiations to make sure that if any adjustments are needed, they will be made. Without doubt, that the agreements remain operable after our exit from Euratom is very important, but I really am not concerned about that.

In response to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire, we have every intention of continuing discussions with the Scottish Government. I thank him for saying that, but we have a series of meetings not just with the devolved Assemblies and Governments but with all interested stakeholders. That continues on a regular basis.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Nuclear Safeguards (Fissionable Material and Relevant International Agreements) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2019 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Nuclear Safeguards (Fissionable Material and Relevant International Agreements) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

I am honoured, Mr Sharma, to serve under your chairmanship for the first time on a Delegated Legislation Committee. If Hansard is not listening, I would like to ask the Whips what their secret agenda is in providing us with sweets. I will not go into that, but I thank them very much.

The regulations define the terms “fissionable material” and “relevant international agreement” for the purpose of sections of the Energy Act 2013, as amended by the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018. They are linked to the Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which will be considered in the Commons tomorrow and in the Lords very shortly afterwards.

I shall begin by emphasising that the two sets of regulations are essential to establishing our domestic regime, whether we leave the EU with a deal or not—their effect will be exactly the same in either outcome. The powers to make this secondary legislation are found in the 2013 Act, which we amended with the 2018 Act. The territorial extent and application of the regulations is to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. A second set of affirmative resolution regulations will be debated tomorrow, after Parliament has considered these regulations. Those regulations will set out the detail of the legal framework for our new domestic safeguards regime and, in certain places, use the terms defined in the regulations before us.

To remind hon. Members who are perhaps less familiar with the matter than I or the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, nuclear safeguards are accounting, reporting and verification processes designed to assure and demonstrate to the international community that civil nuclear material is not diverted unlawfully into military or weapons programmes. That is not to do with nuclear safety and nuclear security.

We have a very good record as a responsible nuclear state and were a founding member of the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1957. The IAEA ensures that states honour their international legal nuclear safeguards obligations in connection with the non-proliferation treaty, and basically stops civil nuclear being used for military purposes.

We have always voluntarily accepted two safeguards agreements with the IAEA: a voluntary offer agreement and an additional protocol, which is defined in the regulations. Those bilateral agreements will replace the trilateral safeguards agreements between the UK, the IAEA and Euratom that have been in place since 1978. We need that to enable the continuity of civil nuclear trade with our international trading partners.

The Government have prioritised putting agreements in place with key countries—Australia, Canada, Japan and the US—that require nuclear co-operation agreements, unlike others. NCAs are legally binding treaties that allow states to formally recognise their willingness to co-operate with each other on civil nuclear matters. We have now concluded—and Parliament has now approved—the ratification of replacement bilateral NCAs with Australia, Canada and the US. We already have a bilateral NCA with Japan.

I reiterate the Government’s commitment to establishing, by December 2020, a regime that is equivalent in effectiveness and coverage to that currently provided by Euratom, and that will exceed the commitments that the international community expects us to meet. I am confident that the fissionable regulations and nuclear safeguards regulations do that. We want to establish a regime that will operate in a similar way to the existing arrangements, taking account of best practice in our regulation making and considering the need to minimise disruption to industry, which were undertakings I gave during the passage of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill.

These regulations and the nuclear safeguards regulations are structured to require information concerning nuclear safeguards to be supplied to the relevant entity, whether that is the Commission or the Office for Nuclear Regulation. The regulator may then forward that, as appropriate, to the IAEA.

Turning to the regulator, the ONR, Members will be pleased to hear of the significant progress it has made in the set-up of the domestic regime since I last updated Parliament in October. From this month—in the past couple of weeks—our domestic regime has commenced parallel running alongside Euratom, processing and checking reports received from industry through our IT system—the safeguards information management and reporting system—and producing the declarations required to enable the UK to meet its international obligations. We have been running the scheme in parallel so that we have time in the next few weeks, if we need it before the end of March, to see whether any adjustments need to be made.

Another point made during the passage of the Bill was about recruitment of suitable inspectors. I am pleased to report that the ONR’s recruitment target for the first phase has been met: 16 safeguards officers are in place, which is seven more than the minimum of nine required to deliver the regime at the end of March; and four nuclear material accountants have been appointed, so 20 are in post.

Between July and September last year, my Department held a consultation on the content of these draft regulations and the nuclear safeguards regulations. In total, 28 formal responses were received. At the end of November we published our response. No major changes to these regulations were suggested.

I feel that I ought to go through the detail of the draft regulations, if hon. Members will bear with me for a few hours—[Interruption.] I am just checking whether anyone is listening, Mr Sharma, and I am pleased that you were. I will not be a few hours, but I feel it is important to set out the detail for the record.

The 2013 Act defines various elements of qualifying nuclear material and provides that “fissionable material” and “relevant international agreement” be defined in regulation. Fissionable material forms a component of “qualifying nuclear material”, which is defined in section 76A(6) of the Act, as amended by the Nuclear Safeguards Act. Fissionable material is therefore to be defined as: plutonium-239; uranium-233; uranium containing the isotopes 235 or 233, or both, in an amount such that the abundance ratio of the sum of those isotopes to the isotope 238 is greater than the ratio of the isotope 235 to the isotope 238 occurring in nature; and any material containing one or more of those. Basically, we use the definitions in the IAEA statute.

The second definition in the draft regulations is of a “relevant international agreement”, again under the amendments made by the Nuclear Safeguards Act. There are six agreements. The first two were signed on 7 June last year, and are between the UK and the IAEA. The other four are with other states: new bilateral agreements between the UK and the US, Canada and Australia were signed in 2018, and the existing one with Japan was signed in 1998. Parliament approved the ratification of the new bilateral agreements on 19 December last year.

The definitions contained in the draft regulations are of importance, as the nuclear safeguards regulations, which the House will consider tomorrow, will apply to qualifying nuclear material, including fissionable material. The nuclear safeguards regulations will also require operators to provide additional nuclear safeguards information to the ONR on qualifying nuclear material, and to the Secretary of State on certain non-nuclear materials, which are subject to a relevant international agreement, as defined in these draft regulations. I look forward to contributions of right hon. and hon. Members on the proposed definitions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I will be brief for two reasons: first, I would like not to ruin further the Labour Whip’s birthday; secondly, I would not like to keep Labour Members from attending the parliamentary Labour party meeting that I understand is going on. I am sure the leader of the Labour party will be delighted if you, Mr Sharma, attend in a different capacity from your chairmanship, and I am sure the hon. Member for Southampton, Test will be able to speak for longer than five minutes in that meeting.

Of the two points raised, I will deal with the Japan issue first. A bilateral NCA between the UK and Japan is already in place. It is not like the other one. I confirm that it will remain in place following the UK’s departure from the EU. It is not necessary to conclude a new NCA with Japan. We are having detailed discussions with the Japanese on this issue and negotiations to make sure that if any adjustments are needed, they will be made. Without doubt, that the agreements remain operable after our exit from Euratom is very important, but I really am not concerned about that.

In response to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire, we have every intention of continuing discussions with the Scottish Government. I thank him for saying that, but we have a series of meetings not just with the devolved Assemblies and Governments but with all interested stakeholders. That continues on a regular basis.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

1. What steps his Department has taken to support businesses to create highly skilled jobs in Devon and Cornwall.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to everyone else. The two local enterprise partnerships covering the area—Cornwall and Isles of Scilly LEP, and Heart of the South West LEP, which includes Devon—are receiving £317 million through the local growth fund to drive regional development. That includes a £3 million investment in the Electronics and Photonics Innovation Centre at the White Rock business park in Paignton, which helps to support skilled jobs in a key local growth sector.

[Kevin Foster]

As my hon. Friend mentions, Torbay’s £8 million EPIC centre will open later this year, helping to boost our vital photonics industry. What further support can his Department offer to help boost Torbay’s high-tech sector?

[Richard Harrington]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on everything he does for employment in this area and in his constituency. He knows that my Department is working with Heart of the South West LEP, which is leading the development of our local industrial strategy. Torbay is actively engaged in that work. I believe the strategy will identify the particular strengths of the region and future opportunities for increased productivity, including in sectors such as photonics.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

The development of marine industries in Plymouth and across Devon and Cornwall is a really important part of our local economy. Will the Minister agree to meet a delegation from Plymouth to look at how the creation of the UK’s first national marine park could trigger more investment in our marine technologies and industries in the west country?

[Richard Harrington]

It would be a pleasure. The hon. Gentleman and I have met before to discuss such subjects, and I am happy to do so again.

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

In my constituency, 85% of employees are employed in small businesses, which tell me they struggle to find the skilled workers they need. What can my hon. Friend’s Department do with the Treasury and the Department for Education to ensure that small colleges in particular have the funding they need to provide those skills?

[Richard Harrington]

As my hon. Friend knows, my Department is part of the picture; he correctly says the DFE is responsible for skills, but that is an important part of our industrial strategy, both nationally and locally. We are really pushing to put the skills agenda at the top of LEP programmes and everything else to do with that, because we realise, as he says, that small business will power the economy of the future.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

The south-west is one of the fastest growing economic areas in the country, predominantly in tourism and tech. With the devaluation of the pound, many people have decided to have holidays in Cornwall, and we have tech-based businesses such as Microtest, a health-based solutions company in my constituency. People are making lifestyle choices about where in the country they want to live. What more can we do to facilitate moves away from the city to the coast?

[Richard Harrington]

As someone with previous experience of business in the south-west, in the tourism industry, I understand exactly what my hon. Friend says. The Government’s strategy is very much based on regional devolution—LEPs in particular—and areas such as his will see the benefits of that in the future.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

2. What steps he is taking to maintain cross-border supply chains after 29 March 2019.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

5. What recent steps he has taken to support businesses and their supply chains.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

The Government support businesses throughout the UK by encouraging innovation, investing in infrastructure and skills and, more importantly, building long-term partnerships with businesses as part of our modern industrial strategy. We have demonstrated our support for the importance of our supply chain through the automotive, aerospace and nuclear sector deals.

[Peter Aldous]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Fabrication yards in UK ports have supply chains that extend throughout the UK, but there is real concern for their future. Can the Minister confirm that the oil and gas and the offshore wind sector deals will make provision for realising the full potential of those yards and their supply chains?

[Richard Harrington]

I certainly can, and I welcome the deal proposals that have been put forward by both the offshore wind and the offshore oil and gas sectors.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddle- worth) (Lab)]

24. It is almost a year since Carillion collapsed, leaving losses to small business supply chains of more than £2 billion. My constituent, Neil Skinner, was among those affected. Will the Minister and the Government support my ten-minute rule Bill, which is coming to the House next week and would introduce project bank accounts for all public sector contracts in order to prevent such losses to small businesses?

[Richard Harrington]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will be delighted to know that we are working closely with the sector. I have some experience of project bank accounts in the construction sector and I have seen them work. We will look very carefully at this.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Precisely what support is being given to the steel industry and its supply chain?

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Gentleman and I frequently speak about the steel industry, and I meet regularly with the trade body, UK Steel, and all the different companies to monitor the future carefully. The industry is important to us, and I am still hopeful that we can work on a sector deal, so I am interested to hear proposals from the various companies.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to support the UK space industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

11. What steps he is taking to support the manufacturing and automotive sector.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

The automotive sector is one of the great success stories of our country, and our sector deal is a good example of how we will continue to support it going forward. We have committed around £1 billion over 10 years up to 2023 through the Advanced Propulsion Centre to research, develop and commercialise the next generation of low-carbon technologies, to keep us at the cutting edge of the automotive industry’s development.

[Bridget Phillipson]

The UK car industry is under huge pressure, yet far from providing the certainty that the sector needs, we will be debating our trading relationship with the European Union for years to come. Is it not the case that the deal that the Government are putting forward fails to protect tens of thousands of highly-skilled automotive jobs in my region? Not only that, but it is far worse than the deal we have now.

[Richard Harrington]

I am sure the hon. Lady knows that the deal has been backed by everybody in the automotive sector. I meet regularly with them and they have been outspoken about the perils of defeating the Prime Minister’s deal. I hope that the hon. Lady will think about that when she goes through the voting Lobby.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

What is the Minister’s response to the report published last month by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee—the membership of which, by the way, includes the Scottish National party Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry)—which concluded:

“The consistent and overwhelming message expressed by”

business

“is that to make…decisions they need certainty and it is for that reason they support the Withdrawal Agreement”?

[Richard Harrington]

As ever, my hon. Friend has absolutely nailed this. The automotive sector, like the BEIS Committee, is totally in favour of the Prime Minister’s deal. I am sure that the SNP spokesman has listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said, and I am sure that he will be supporting the deal next week.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

18. The Scottish Government’s £18 million advanced manufacturing challenge fund is at serious risk of being undermined by Brexit, with the Bank of England’s analysis showing that the UK relies on the EU for more than 30% of manufacturing sales. When will the UK Government start listening to the majority of Scots and protect Scotland’s economy and jobs by keeping us in the single market and the customs union?

[Richard Harrington]

I must remind the hon. Lady of my answer to the previous question: the best thing for the Scottish economy is the Prime Minister’s deal. I hope the hon. Lady will consider that when she votes next week.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very saddened that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) is departing our midst. I know he has many pressing commitments and a very full diary, but if he stayed, he might get called. It would be very sad to lose the right hon. Gentleman’s pearls of wisdom.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

You are racing ahead, Mr Speaker; we had got so far behind.

My hon. Friend should know that we are strongly supporting the aerospace industry through our aerospace growth partnership, which includes supporting business with nearly £2 billion of public research and development funding from 2013 to 2026. The sector deal for aerospace includes £125 million of funding to support the electrification of flight, developing new aircraft technologies and transport concepts. I am sure that will be excellent for your future holidays, Mr Speaker.

[Fiona Bruce]

What plans do Ministers have to extend the Sharing in Growth scheme in the aerospace industry? It has helped Congleton business Senior Aerospace Bird Bellows to improve productivity and secure new orders. The company is very much looking forward to receiving the Minister on his planned visit to Congleton in March.

[Richard Harrington]

I am very much looking forward to seeing my hon. Friend on that visit. We are in dialogue with senior management at Sharing in Growth about the scope to extend the programme further, and that will continue ahead of the comprehensive spending review.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Space Studio School in Feltham, started by the Rivers Academy, continues to innovate, bringing about high-quality science education and industry-related work, and engaging with the National Space Centre, the European Space Agency, NASA and the aerospace industry around Heathrow. Does the Minister agree that even stronger relationships between schools and industry are vital to ensure that we stay competitive? Will he agree to visit the Space Studio in west London to see what is being done there and what more can be done to improve opportunities for young people?

[Richard Harrington]

Yes and yes.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The Minister will be aware of the problems as well as the possibilities for Bombardier in east Belfast, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has raised them consistently. Given the job loss announcements several weeks ago, will he undertake to do whatever he can on the possibilities for expansion next year?

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Gentleman knows, I hope, that Bombardier is a company close to my heart. I speak regularly to him and his colleagues and to the company, and I will do anything I can to ensure that company’s prosperity.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

13. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on fiscal support for businesses based in Scotland to prepare for the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

Prior to Royal Assent for phase 2b of High Speed 2, will my hon. Friend consider establishing a cross-departmental taskforce with the Department for Transport, to provide businesses that are being forced to relocate with the necessary advice and support, including financial support?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

My hon. Friend should know that I have listened carefully to her question. In the first instance, a meeting between myself, herself and a representative from the Department for Transport might be a way to get that moving.

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)]

Last week I wrote a letter to the Secretary of State about the taskforce in Liverpool and Birkenhead that wishes to save Cammell Laird from any further redundancies. Will he meet us this week, as a matter of urgency?

Higher Activity Radioactive Waste

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

As a pioneer of nuclear technology, the UK has accumulated a legacy of higher activity radioactive waste. The UK’s radioactive waste inventory is currently stored securely at various sites. However, each of these sites requires constant maintenance and protection to keep it safe and secure. Geological disposal is internationally recognised as the safest way to dispose permanently of higher activity radioactive waste.

Today I am publishing the policy paper, “Implementing Geological Disposal: Working with Communities: An updated framework for the long-term management of higher activity radioactive waste”. This document sets out the Government’s overarching policy framework for managing higher activity radioactive waste through implementing geological disposal and how we will work with communities to find a location for a geological disposal facility. Alongside publishing this policy paper, the Government are also today launching a new national consent-based process to find a site to host a geological disposal facility (GDF).

A GDF will be a highly engineered structure at a depth of between 200-1,000 metres, which will be used to isolate radioactive waste behind several barriers to ensure that no harmful amount of radioactivity ever reaches the surface environment. The structure will feature vaults and tunnels built inside a suitable, stable rock, within which packaged solid waste in purpose-built containers will be emplaced and then backfilled and sealed.

The GDF will be a multi-billion-pound infrastructure investment and will provide skilled jobs and benefits to the community that hosts it for more than 100 years. Delivering a GDF to dispose permanently of the UK radioactive waste inventory is a responsible public service to future generations and will contribute to the Government’s industrial strategy, which identified the key role the nuclear sector has in increasing productivity and driving clean growth.

There is no preferred location for a GDF and we are adopting a consent-based process to identify a suitable area to host the facility. A suitable site will be determined jointly by the willingness of a community to host a GDF and the suitability of the geology in the area. The process to find a location for the GDF will be led by RWM (Radioactive Waste Management Ltd, a subsidiary of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority), who will work in partnership with local authorities and other community representatives to find a suitable location. Local authorities will have a key role in the decision-making process and will be required to test public support in the local area for a GDF being located there before construction can proceed.

The policy paper we are publishing today applies to England only. Although the “Working with Communities” consultation was published jointly by the UK Government and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, as the Northern Ireland Executive is currently suspended, a decision cannot be made at this time on further involvement by Northern Ireland in the geological disposal programme. Future policy decisions in relation to geological disposal in Northern Ireland would be a matter for the Executive.

The Welsh Government consulted in parallel with the UK Government on a similar process for engaging with communities and is separately publishing a summary of the issues raised, and their response to the consultation. Scotland has a different policy for the long-term management of higher activity radioactive waste and is not participating in the geological disposal programme.

Alongside the policy paper, I am also publishing separately a summary of the responses to the working with communities policy consultation that took place between 25 January and 18 April 2018 and the Government’s response to the key issues raised. The responses to the consultation demonstrated broad support for the approach to engaging with communities. We have accepted the feedback we received on the benefit of providing additional detail and clarity on parts of the process for working with communities, particularly in relation to the role of principal local authorities.

Alongside this, RWM is publishing a suite of documents that include detailed guidance on how they will work with communities and regional reports from its national geological screening exercise, which will provide communities with information about the geology across the country. RWM is also publishing a draft site evaluation framework document for consultation, which describes the factors that it will take into account in evaluating prospective sites for a GDF.

The response to the consultation on the draft national policy statement (NPS) for geological disposal infrastructure and the BEIS Select Committee report on the NPS will be published separately in due course, alongside a revised proposal for the NPS. Overall, the draft NPS is fit for purpose and contains the adequate levels of guidance and details needed by the developer.

[HCWS1217]

Fuel Poverty

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered fuel poverty.

I hope that no Members will leave the Chamber during such an important debate. I have just spilt a glass of water over the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I apologise. [Interruption.] Yes, it is not the worst thing that has happened to Members today from what I have heard.

Fuel poverty is debated annually in the House. Let me give some background to that. Our 2015 fuel poverty strategy for England committed us to ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny as we take action to tackle fuel poverty. That commitment to transparency is why we created the Committee on Fuel Poverty and why we hold the annual debates.

The problem of fuel poverty crosses party lines and needs action from many different stakeholders. I welcome all contributions today and the positive way in which I know they will be made. I am looking at the shadow spokesman when saying that and pleading with her to show her usual grace and dignity in opposing me.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I am afraid that the Minister cannot expect quite so much grace and dignity from me—I apologise. To be serious, there is good reason to be deeply concerned about the fuel poverty statistics because we have just heard from the Office for National Statistics that last winter, the figure for premature winter deaths exceeded 50,000— the highest for more than 40 years. With respect, the Government are not doing anything near enough on fuel poverty, and I want to put that on the record at the beginning of the debate.

[Richard Harrington]

I would ascribe grace and dignity to the hon. Lady’s usual contributions. This is a serious matter. The hon. Lady is right that last winter’s severely cold weather included wind-chill factors of minus 10° C and I accept what she says about the statistics. However, I do not accept her assertion that the Government have done nothing about that. If she will bear with me for the rest of my contribution, I will answer her point, and if I do not, I am sure that she will intervene.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I hope that the Minister will say something about rural areas. Fuel poverty is one of the biggest problems for rural areas because of the nature of the properties, which are often older, with older people living in them, but also because the schemes do not reach them. In particular, the energy company obligation—ECO—has completely failed and I hope that the Minister will say something about that. It is a tragedy that people in rural areas are more likely to die early because of fuel poverty.

[Richard Harrington]

I will indeed mention that. Various groups have lobbied all Members of Parliament to contribute to the debate and I agree with the basis of what they say.

It is also fair to say that fuel poverty is a devolved matter and that the debate originates from the fuel poverty strategy for England.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Harrington]

If the hon. Lady gives me a second, I hope that I will mention the point that she was about to make. Fuel poverty is a problem across the United Kingdom. I am sure that we all have constituents who struggle to keep their homes warm during the winter. The weather has no borders and does not understand devolved legislation. I am sure that the hon. Lady will confirm that.

[Patricia Gibson]

The Minister has said that measures to tackle fuel poverty have been devolved. The real drivers of fuel poverty are the high cost of fuel—the tax on which is reserved, as he knows—and, of course, people simply not having enough money. We know about the hardship that universal credit is causing, so I would say that the real and fundamental causes of fuel poverty are very much in the power of this Government to tackle, beyond energy efficiency measures.

[Richard Harrington]

I agree with the hon. Lady. The Government have many different strategies, and energy efficiency measures are one of them. The importance of working together with the devolved authorities on this issue was never in more evidence than during last winter’s beast from the east—I see the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is not in his seat. As temperatures plunged, many households throughout the UK faced broken boilers and frozen pipes. The sustained cold weather made it even more difficult for those on the lowest incomes and in the worst properties to be able to heat their home.

As has been mentioned, last month the Office for National Statistics reported there were 50,000 excess winter deaths last winter. The figure was said by the ONS to be unusually high because of multiple causes, including the virulent strain of flu, the relative ineffectiveness of the influenza vaccine and the colder than average winter temperatures. However, old, inefficient and cold homes, combined with occupants who are vulnerable to the impact of living in a cold home, certainly have been a factor.

The fabric of our building stock cannot continue to be a source of ill health. We have put in place an ambitious framework to tackle this issue, based on energy efficiency being the best long-term solution to tackle fuel poverty.

[Caroline Lucas]

I do not know how the Minister can say he has put in place something that is so ambitious when no public funds are going into domestic fuel poverty and energy efficiency, for the first time in years. In the past we had Warm Front and other schemes, but right now the Government are putting no taxpayers’ money into these schemes.

[Richard Harrington]

I respectfully disagree with the hon. Lady, and I will outline the £3 billion-worth of Government help.

Our 2017 clean growth strategy sets an ambition of improving as many homes as possible to energy performance certificate band C by 2035, wherever practical, cost-effective and affordable, but the truth is that the most vulnerable must be helped first. We are committed to improving the homes of the fuel poor to band C five years earlier, by 2030, and we have set interim milestones to keep us on track. As many fuel-poor homes as reasonably practical will be improved to band E by 2020, and to band D by 2025.

A key way in which we are delivering energy efficiency measures to meet that ambition is through the energy company obligation, which has led to energy efficiency upgrades to nearly 2 million homes across England, Scotland and Wales since 2013. Recognising the need to support low-income and vulnerable households first, we have taken action to ensure that ECO is targeted at those who need it most.

When the scheme was first introduced in 2013, 30% of ECO spending was focused on addressing fuel poverty, and by 2015 it had been increased to 70%. Today 100% of the energy company obligation is focused directly on low-income and vulnerable households, and we have introduced a new innovative element that will bring down the long-term cost of low-carbon measures.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

The ECO programme has been very successful indeed, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the barrier technologies of insulation in roofs and better windows, doors and floors that make a difference but the introduction of clean tech in homes? Clean tech can often deliver significant savings, too, so I hope that, as a result of the recent consultation, things like smart thermostats will now be included in the ECO catalogue.

[Richard Harrington]

As usual, my hon. Friend is well informed and well spoken on this subject. I share his hope, and he makes a significant point. I hope he will see this come to pass.

We are also clear that landlords should play a role in upgrading the energy efficiency of the properties they rent out. The private sector regulations will require landlords to improve the energy efficiency of band F and band G properties so that their tenants will be living in properties rated band E or above by 2020. We expect that these regulations, which require landlords to invest up to £3,500 on their property, will enable all privately rented F and G properties to receive support, and about half of these homes will be improved to an energy performance level of band E. This action to tackle the worst homes first—those rated F or G—is consistent with the approach set out in our fuel poverty strategy, but we will be consulting on options to ensure rental properties are improved to the band C target level by 2030. The private rental sector has to make its contribution as well.

We recognise that long-term sustainable solutions such as the ones I have mentioned are little comfort to those who are cold now. It is important to complement this approach with more immediate support, which is why we extended the warm home discount to 2021, so that it can continue to provide more than 2 million low-income and vulnerable households with a £140 rebate off their energy bill each winter.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The Minister is talking about taking immediate action. It is some time now since the Dieter Helm review came out with a number of recommendations to sort out the chaos of the subsidies going into the alternative energy business, which would take the cost pressure off the most vulnerable households. The Minister does not look as though he has read it. Its approach would take the pressure off the most vulnerable households, so why do the Government not respond and implement those recommendations?

[Richard Harrington]

I will make one small change to what the hon. Gentleman said, in that I have read that report and I have met Dieter Helm. I will happily send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the recent energy speech that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made. If the hon. Gentleman does not have a copy, I will send it to him with my compliments—I might even get the Secretary of State to sign it for him for Christmas.

We extended the warm home discount to 2021, so that it can continue to provide more than 2 million low-income and vulnerable households with a £140 rebate off their energy bill each winter. In addition, the winter fuel payments provide all pension households—people of pension age in the households—with additional financial support worth up to £300. Cold weather payments also provide relief to the elderly, the vulnerable and those who need extra support with their fuel bills during spells of cold weather. Last year, that alone provided an estimated £98 million in cold weather payments to keep people warm in vulnerable households.

[James Heappey]

The Minister, or at least the Treasury, will know who receives cold weather payments. Is any measure taken of the energy-efficiency of the homes in which those recipients live and therefore of whether, rather than just spending money every time the weather is cold, we might improve the energy-efficiency of those properties and so reduce the requirement for those payments to be received in the future?

[Richard Harrington]

If it is acceptable to my hon. Friend, I will write to him on that subject, because I need to speak to the Treasury about its analysis, which is what his question is about.

We are providing all consumers, including the fuel poor, with more control over their bills. The smart meter programme will mean millions of customers will be in control of their energy use, helping them to save money. A new safeguard tariff coming into effect on 1 January will protect 11 million consumers from high bills. On average, households will save £76 a year, with some saving a lot more. Significantly, as a result of these measures, the average fuel poverty gap has decreased from £379 in 2011 to £326 in 2016. Over that five-year period, the total fuel poverty gap has decreased by £88 million in real terms. Although it is important to recognise that progress is being made, we acknowledge that we still have a long way to go. The clean growth strategy included an ambitious set of policies for homes, the extension of energy-efficiency support through to 2028 and at least £640 million per year. We will be reviewing what the best form of support this will be in 2022, and I would welcome the views on this topic of hon. Members here today.

We will update the fuel poverty strategy for England in 2019, and we look forward to receiving good ideas on how we can make further progress. The new strategy will align our work on fuel poverty with our clean growth strategy and industrial strategy. We had always planned for the fuel poverty strategy to be a living, evolving document, because changing technology and innovation will mean that what worked in the past will not necessarily be the best plan for the future.

[Graham Stringer]

Will the Minister explain to the House why, as smart meters are rolled out in the north of England, we are not getting the most up-to-date and best smart meters, which people in Watford are getting? Why is the north being discriminated against?

[Richard Harrington]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that my constituents in Watford are doing well out of smart meters, and they are, but the pace of the expansion is under continual review with the suppliers. The Secretary of State’s powers were extended in the recent Smart Meters Act 2018 and will be used to encourage take-up of smart meters, which is gathering momentum. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, though, because it is patchy in different parts of the country.

The main point is that for the first time we have an opportunity to ensure that our fuel poverty strategy is joined up with our holistic plan to improve energy efficiency throughout Britain. The new strategy will focus on better ways of identifying those in fuel poverty and targeting our assistance to them directly. It will help us to identify the most cost-effective means of achieving our target in 2020, 2025 and 2030.

Let me bring the focus back to our main goal, which is to improve the lives of those in fuel poverty. No one deserves to live in a cold home. We have the opportunity next year to set out a refreshed fuel poverty strategy that will lay out an updated plan for meeting the 2030 target. I would welcome hon. Members’ views based on their experience of fuel poverty, so that we can work together to set out a new, ambitious plan. This issue transcends party lines and affects us all. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ questions and contributions on this topic.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Heat Networks Regulation

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

I believe this is the first time I have had the honour of speaking in a Westminster Hall debate under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and I am very pleased to do so. I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) for securing a debate on this important issue.

When I started thinking about heat networks, I realised that when I first moved to London, which I respectfully say was probably before hon. Lady was born, I lived in an old block of flats with a big boiler in the basement. We were all either freezing cold or boiling hot, and we paid far too much for heating via our service charge. My understanding is that that is really what a heat network is—obviously not just in one block of flats but in an area—so I immediately sympathised with her cause.

Of course there is a lot more to it than that. I agree entirely with the hon. Lady’s assertion that we need to ensure that all heat network consumers are well protected and benefit from fair bills, which is not the case at the moment. On the plus side, heat networks are a valuable part of our commitment to decarbonising heat, and we expect the sector to expand significantly with continued support from the Government. That does not mean it should continue as it is now, but the principle of heat networks is good if they work properly, and they can be of mutual benefit to the Government’s decarbonisation projects, to energy and local authority suppliers and to consumers in all our constituencies.

More than 400,000 consumers across the country are already on a heat network, and most report a largely positive experience. They are currently covered by general consumer protection and competition law and by the Heat Network (Metering and Billing) Regulations 2014. In addition, consumers on a Heat Trust-registered scheme, which the hon. Lady mentioned and I will come to in a moment, have free access to the energy ombudsman’s services.

In 2017, my Department commissioned a large-scale survey to quantify consumer experiences of heat networks in England and Wales for the first time. The results show that heat network consumers are as satisfied as non-heat network consumers with their heating system, and that on average they are likely to pay less for their heating. That is supported by analysis from the Competition and Markets Authority, which I strongly welcome. However, both our consumer survey and the CMA found evidence that some consumers get a poor deal on price and do not receive the quality of service we expect. That is exactly what the hon. Lady said, and she was backed up well by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), whose constituents have clearly had a similar experience.

In its final report in its heat networks market study, the CMA makes important recommendations about how to strengthen consumer protections for heat network consumers. My Department has been reviewing the CMA’s findings alongside the recommendations of the industry-led taskforce that reported at the beginning of the year. Very soon, we will set out our priorities for establishing the long-term market framework that the hon. Lady mentioned, with—I stress this—a key focus on protecting consumers.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) on introducing the debate. She made some very good points. On the point that the Minister has made, the Government have highlighted and responded to the unfair hiking of leasehold charges, and have dealt with that issue. The examples are from the few rather than the many, if you like. We are discussing district heat schemes. A few unscrupulous providers of those schemes are trying to exploit the people they are provided for. I think it requires legislation, rather than a good-will scheme or framework to deal with that. Would the Minister put that into his thinking when the Government respond?

[Richard Harrington]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree with him. It seems to me that legislation is exactly what is needed. In my three years as a Minister, I have learned that it is easy to talk about legislation, but it is all in the detail. We have to make sure that it does exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) mentioned, which is to protect consumers, but at the same time provide a basis for the industry to expand. As I said, for decarbonisation and for many things, the structure can be a really good one for consumers.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I agree with the Minister. At the moment, technology and confidence in it is being put at risk by the fact that consumers on many schemes—not all—are not getting a good deal. Would the Minister give us a sense of the timeline that the Department is thinking about for legislation and providing that extra protection? I have been campaigning for more than three years, ever since I was elected, and my constituents are not willing to wait another year or two years until that protection is brought in.

[Richard Harrington]

I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. I wish I could wave a magic wand and say that it is going to be done the week after next. It is in the pipeline; I can assure him of that. It would be wrong of us to jump into something without giving it considerable thought. I fully accept his frustration and that of his constituents, and that is paramount. To him and the hon. Member for Lewisham East, that may sound like I am waffling and prevaricating, but it is just how it is. I would be very happy to meet them in the early part of next year to discuss progress, if that would help. The Department is not putting this on the back burner or anything like that. I give them that undertaking.

I believe that heat networks, if done properly, represent a significant opportunity to upgrade part of the whole UK energy infrastructure and seize the opportunity for British business that the technology presents. Heat accounts for about a third of UK carbon emissions. We have to cut our emissions to meet our carbon reduction targets. Heat and heat networks can play a critical role in this. We have made considerable progress generally through renewable heat incentives and energy company obligations, which have provided an incentive for heat networks to install lower carbon heat sources. The investment of £320 million in heat network projects, which is a mixture of grants and loans, is to be encouraged. Again, we have to ensure that where the Government are providing that support, adequate consumer protection measures are in place by requiring projects to demonstrate Heat Trust or equivalent standards when operational.

There are many heat network suppliers that provide strong consumer protections, such as Energetik, established by Enfield Council to provide better value, reliable and environmentally-friendly energy. I hope that the service charter that Energetik provides to its customers sets out clearly the minimum standards of service they can expect, what measures they provide to those vulnerable customers needing extra help and how they can be contacted should something go wrong.

We have worked closely with industry and consumer groups to support, through funding and guidance, the development of the UK-wide Heat Trust scheme, which is an independent consumer protection scheme designed specifically for customers. It draws on the terms of service offered to gas and electricity consumers. That said, I reiterate the comments made by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. I agree with him that it is a voluntary scheme and does not protect all customers. I accept the assertion made by the hon. Member for Lewisham East that it does not protect all consumers, which I am sure is correct. However, I do not think it is all bad; I think it has been an improvement as well.

Where sites are registered with the Heat Trust, such as the Catford Green development in the constituency of the hon. Member for Lewisham East, they are not offered protections on pricing and contracts. Although we can learn some things from the work of the Heat Trust, that does not remove the need for further action. That is particularly the case as heat networks often operate as natural monopolies and customers can be contracted for very lengthy periods of up to 25 years, as the hon. Lady said. We want to ensure that heat network consumers are able to make informed choices about whether a property on a heat network is right for them, and to feel confident that if issues relating to their heating systems arise, they have recourse and there is a way to redress them.

The role of Government is to ensure that we are providing clean and secure energy at an affordable price to the consumer. We need a long-term market framework that places consumers at its heart, that still delivers sustained investment in the sector and maximises the potential economic and environmental benefits of heat networks. I hope that I have outlined a number of measures that the Government have already put in place and I hope that industry, consumer groups and all interested stakeholders will work closely with us as we develop our plans for further interventions.

Question put and agreed to.

Bombardier

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

Following Bombardier’s announcement that it plans to reduce its workforce by 490 employees at its Belfast aerostructures site, I have this morning spoken to Michael Ryan, the chief operating officer of aerostructures and engineering services, and arranged a follow-up meeting with him later this afternoon. This follows the company’s announcement earlier this month that a further 5,000 staff from its global workforce will need to leave it over the next 12 to 18 months.

I understand that the employee consultation period of 90 days has now been triggered. During this time, Bombardier will be doing what it can to mitigate the number of compulsory redundancies required, including considering the possibility of voluntary redundancy packages. I recognise this is unwelcome news for the Belfast workforce and their families. It is regrettable that they face further uncertainty at this time of year, but Bombardier is a private company and the Government have no role in its commercial decisions. My top priority has been to emphasise our support for Bombardier’s high-quality UK workforce, now and in the future. The Shorts factory in Belfast employs about 4,000 skilled workers, with almost a quarter of those working on the A220, the new joint venture with Airbus. It also supports a supply chain of hundreds of companies and many more jobs in the UK. It is in all our interests that Bombardier’s Belfast facility is successful. Last year, when the joint venture was announced, both Bombardier and Airbus made a number of important commitments to me, including that wing manufacturing will continue in Belfast; that the treatment of UK sites and suppliers will be equal to that of other Bombardier and Airbus suppliers, and that the strategy will be one of building on existing strengths and commitments, not on plant closures, taking opportunities to increase sales of the C Series across the globe. Those commitments still hold true.

The announcement yesterday is part of a five-year transformation plan that covers the global business. It is a long-term strategy designed to increase the competitiveness of the company. It is, of course, deeply unsettling for the workers at the Belfast facility, and the Government will work closely with Bombardier to minimise the uncertainty and help them prepare for the future. The Government are also working closely with the Belfast facility on its longer-term competitiveness. In the global aerospace market, this is driven by embracing new technology. This year, the Government invested more than £20 million of research and development activity at the Belfast plant to develop new products and improve efficiency.

The Government will continue to work closely with the company, the unions and the devolved Administration to support the company, and support manufacturing sectors we can be proud of. In Northern Ireland, the Department for Communities redundancy service offers to support employers, workers and those impacted during a redundancy situation.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. I would like to say, “And for advance sight of it”, but, as he will know, that was hardly the case. Indeed, when it was emailed to me less than 25 minutes before the end of business questions, I texted back to my office to ask whether it did indeed end at that point. I was advised, “Yes, that’s it.” That most certainly is not it. Bombardier’s presence is vital to the economy in Northern Ireland, representing 8% of Northern Ireland’s GDP and about 40% of the Province’s manufacturing output. The company employs 4,000 people across Northern Ireland as a whole, so this announcement will be a devastating blow, and not only to the 490 families who will be directly affected by it in the run-up to Christmas, because this involves an estimated 20,000 indirect jobs throughout the UK supply chains and many of those families may also be affected by the company’s decision. Downsizing its UK operations has significant implications for the whole of the UK and this matter is therefore of national public policy importance. For the Minister to say that the Government have no role here is simply unacceptable.

I visited the plant in Belfast last year when the company was under attack from President Trump in his attempt to impose tariffs of 292% on Bombardier aircraft exported to the US. I spoke to the unions there and I know what a relief it was when those unfair tariffs were not applied as a result of a ruling by the International Trade Commission and Commissioner Meredith Broadbent, whom I also met when I visited Washington to argue Bombardier’s case. I pay tribute to the way in which both Unite and GMB worked with Michael Ryan and Bombardier’s management at that time to fight those job losses, but I am sure the whole House will be disappointed that the same spirit of co-operation appears not to have been the case here and that Jackie Pollock, the Unite regional secretary, has indicated that the unions were not made aware of the extent and scale of the job losses that the management were contemplating. The trust and co-operation that was built up last year should have been respected and maintained, particularly when the company reported a 57% rise in its profits only nine months ago.

The industry is not unused to coping with fluctuations in the workforce. In May 2015, at least 220 jobs were lost. In February 2016, it was announced that about 20% of the Northern Ireland workforce would go, with 580 jobs lost in 2016 and 500 in 2017. In April 2016, those job cuts were revised up from 580 to 630. In September and October 2017, another 375 job cuts were announced. These 490 proposed job losses are just the latest in a long line of redundancies at Bombardier. There have been more than 1,700 since May 2015. Such huge cuts to the workforce, so highly concentrated in one area, will have devastating consequences for entire communities. The company has said that the job cuts are part of a global drive to cut costs, but a disproportionate number of the 5,000 Bombardier jobs to be cut globally are in Northern Ireland, representing more than 10% of the workforce there. Bombardier represents 8% of Northern Ireland’s GDP and 40% of its manufacturing output.

What recent discussions has the Minister had with Bombardier regarding the global restructuring plans? Has he received any suggestion from the company that its restructuring plans have been influenced in any way by Brexit? When will he be travelling to Northern Ireland to meet the unions and the families affected? What discussions has he had with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about securing alternative inward investment into Northern Ireland? What provision will be put in place for advice and support for the affected families? Has he spoken yet to Invest Northern Ireland and the officials at the Department for the Economy about the future of manufacturing in the Province? Finally, many ordinary people in Northern Ireland wish to know when the Government will make serious efforts to get the Northern Ireland Assembly back up and running so that issues such as these can be properly responded to at a local level.

[Richard Harrington]

I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman, and I have many private conversations with him. I know that he is generally a positive person, so I feel disappointed at the way in which he has talked down Northern Ireland and its economy in his response to the statement. There is a lot of good news coming from Northern Ireland. For example, the recent significant investment by Artemis Technologies has shown that the economy of Northern Ireland is expanding. A lot of the expansion is technology-based around aerospace, and Bombardier—we usually call it Shorts, as that is what it was originally—is very much part of that. We have also had the announcement of the Belfast city deal, which is worth about £350 million, so I do not write off what is happening in Northern Ireland at all.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned tariffs. I have broad shoulders—just as you said you had, Mr Speaker—but I disagree with his implication that the Government did not do a huge amount in dealing with the United States authorities. This was not just a trip to Washington with a press release; we had continual meetings with the State Department, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the Commerce Secretary several times. The outcome was the result of all of us—Bombardier, the Government, the Northern Ireland Office and the unions, as the hon. Gentleman correctly said—pulling together. That was an example of the trust between all of us.

I have jotted down the hon. Gentleman’s questions and I shall try to answer some of them. This is not a Brexit issue. That was confirmed to me this morning in my discussions with Mr Michael Ryan. The hon. Gentleman asked about my discussions with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I have many such discussions, including from a sedentary position today as I am pleased to say that she is sitting beside me on the Front Bench. We discuss Bombardier a lot. The hon. Gentleman also asked what dealings the Government had had with the company, and I can tell him that they are regular and ongoing. Only this week, a team of officials from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy visited the company. On the question of whether they discussed what was announced yesterday, I can tell him that that was not the case. Clearly, the company has to deal commercially, and it discussed this matter with us—and, I presume, with the trade unions—when it put out its statutory notice yesterday. As soon as I heard about it, I contacted the company, as did my officials. I spoke to Michael Ryan on the phone this morning and I have arranged to meet him in London this afternoon. This is not something that we take lightly, because we know that—as the hon. Gentleman fairly pointed out—the impact in Belfast of anything that happens to Shorts can be very serious.

I am always delighted to see the unions. In fact, I met them on my first visit, when I had just taken over this job, to Bombardier in Belfast. Although they might not agree with me on some things, I hope they would agree that my door is always open to them—not just in respect of Bombardier, but for aerospace generally and for the automotive sector and all the other sectors that I deal with. I have benefited from the knowledge I have got from speaking directly to unions, not only nationally but at plants when I visit them.

I am not in any way implying or insinuating that this is good news—it is not very good news at all—but I accept the fact, and hope the hon. Gentleman does, that Bombardier’s main concern is that it is dealing in a very competitive international market. It has competition coming up in Russia, China and elsewhere and is fighting hard for every contract it gets, so it has to make sure that the company is efficient.

I am pleased that the technology that I saw is absolutely first class and that the Government are part of that work. We have support from the local MPs, and I was delighted to deal regularly with the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), whom I see in his place. I commend him on his work to help with everything that we have done on Bombardier. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker is getting impatient, so I shall sit down.

[Mr Speaker]

No, no, it is always a pleasure to listen to the Minister’s mellifluous tones, which are equalled only by those of the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes).

[Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Political theorists and practitioners from Benjamin Disraeli to Ernie Bevin understood the relationship between the national interest and the common good, but the Government’s procurement policy, and particularly the policies of their agencies, frequently subsumes both those noble things in all kinds of extraneous qualifications, usually under the title “state aid”. The excellent Minister has said that he will work with Bombardier, and the Government in their industrial strategy have committed £4 billion to the aerospace sector. Will the Minister ensure—perhaps he can tell the House now that he will do so—that the procurement policy of the Government and all their agencies will be amended, reformed and in tune with that support and investment?

[Richard Harrington]

As ever, my right hon. Friend is right and as erudite as he always is in explaining the significance of the Government’s procurement role. That is also true for many other sectors in which I am involved, including construction. I think my right hon. Friend was asking me whether state aid policies will change in relation to the procurement of Government contracts and so on. I cannot answer that question, because we will have to see what happens in future, but I can say that my Department is regularly in touch with other Departments that are responsible for procurement, to push continually the advantages of Bombardier and many other companies in the supply chain, in all the areas that we deal with.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement.

In the light of the 57% increase in profits announced earlier this year, the announcement of job losses is clearly a real kick in the teeth for the workforce. Our sympathies obviously go out to the 490 employees and their families. The latest news follows a longer-term pattern, with the 220 jobs lost in 2015, 630 lost in 2016, nearly 400 lost in 2017, and close to 500 lost now. Given that pattern, what discussions have the UK Government had with Bombardier over this period about stemming job losses and about the plant’s long-term future? What money can be made available either to protect these jobs or to help with redeployment? It is not good enough for the Government to say that it is a private company and a commercial decision, because they need to do everything to protect jobs from being lost.

We hear from the Government statistics about record employment and record low unemployment, but such statistics hide serious issues such as this one at Bombardier and the recent announcement of 850 job losses at Michelin in Dundee. What steps are the Government taking to make sure that the industrial strategy is fit for purpose and will protect manufacturing jobs?

One of the Brexit dividends so far has been the plummeting of the pound, which is actually supposed to help manufacturing exports. What assessment has the Minister made of future currency fluctuations and inflationary pressures in the sector and what that can mean for jobs?

Finally, the Minister’s statement confirms that the UK Government provided £20 million of research and development grants to the plant in Belfast, and this was to be used to bring in efficiency measures. Can he confirm that, when the Government give R&D grants for efficiency measures, they do an impact assessment to see what that means for jobs and that the grants are only for protecting jobs? Any job losses must come with transitional arrangements and plans for workforce redeployment.

[Richard Harrington]

I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions as best I can. I was jotting them down quickly as he said them.

First, I did say that this is a commercial decision, and it is a commercial decision. The last time I looked, Bombardier was not a nationalised industry, so it is not at all a question of the Government making people redundant. The Government’s support for Bombardier and for aerospace generally is unmatched by any time in history. Bombardier is an important part of the Aerospace Growth Partnership, which I chair jointly with Colin Smith, an industry veteran and former president of Rolls-Royce. We have channelled about £1.95 billion to support R&D, of which Bombardier is the beneficiary.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the £20 million that was announced. This is for a number of projects including a reverse thrust project. [Interruption.] It is a reverse thrust for an engine. I know, Mr Speaker, that you will be personally interested in reverse thrusts. I have learned quite a lot about it and would be delighted to brief you personally on the subject if you require it. The serious point is that the whole of the aerospace industry, particularly in passenger jets, is changing. We must make sure that the Government funds that we have help to change our aerospace industry, which has a turnover of £42 billion, of which £38 billion is exported, and shape the business for the future. I am very pleased about the projects that are going on, and I have visited them with the hon. Member for Belfast East to see what was happening. The project itself—the factory that I visited—was opened by Arlene Foster when she was the Minister responsible for that area, so this is very much a cross-party thing.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the ups and downs of the currency. He is right that it has changed significantly, but businesses such as Bombardier are used to dealing with changes in currencies. It has happened in cycles throughout history, and when companies such as Bombardier—I cannot speak for them, but this is what happens in my experience—get an order, they take hedging positions on the currency so that they do not face currency risk.

The most serious and significant point that the hon. Gentleman made, among the many points—[Interruption.] I will try. There has been a lot of chuntering about me going on too much, Mr Speaker, but the hon. Gentleman made a very important point about industrial strategy. Aerospace is a critical part of it. It is really about place, which is ideal for Bombardier because it is in Northern Ireland. It is about skills. Again, these are very highly skilled and very highly paid jobs, I am pleased to say. It is about channelling the partnership between the Government and the industry to produce a business for the future, and I am certain that Bombardier in Belfast will be part of that.

[Mr Speaker]

I say to the Minister: my cup runneth over with excitement. Little did I know that service as Speaker entailed a personal briefing on reverse thrust, but one learns something new every day.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

If we are in the business of reverse thrusts, may I suggest that a bit of reverse thrusting be done in the direction of Bombardier? Although my hon. Friend the Minister is absolutely right in that it is a private company and he has no power over it, he should not underrate his own degree of influence. He will meet the company, as he says. Let him do a bit of thrusting and let him thrust it in the right direction.

[Richard Harrington]

Mr Speaker, I think you will soon consider declaring “thrusting” comments completely out of order and unparliamentary language. As you might imagine, the sentiments of what my right hon. Friend says are absolutely right. We are in continual touch with Bombardier. I am proud of the factory; I am proud of the workers there; and I am proud of the Government’s role.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I recognise the Minister’s sincerity on Bombardier and thank him for his continued sincere efforts over the past three years. It would be very easy to consider this as a solely Northern Ireland issue or a localised Belfast issue, but I have been heartened over the past three years that parliamentarians from across the Chamber have recognised its significance to our economy and to high-level engineering, as well as the future benefits associated with Bombardier’s success. The workforce have been through an incredibly difficult time over those three years, and this is a further disheartening blow for a workforce who saw the clouds shifting from above the plant, in Belfast, in Newtownards and in Newtownabbey. Recognising the constraints of private business but knowing the contribution that the Government have made to date, may I ask the Minister to continue to explore every avenue of financial support and to engage with the Department for International Trade and other Whitehall colleagues to ensure that prospects for future growth, sustainability and security are not only explored but delivered for the workforce in Northern Ireland?

[Richard Harrington]

I am delighted to be able to give the hon. Gentleman the assurances he asks for. This is critical to my Department, and we hope that Bombardier’s model will be part of our future industrial strategy. The political stability that will, I hope, return to Northern Ireland in a field beyond my remit can only help the future of the workforce there. We work closely with trade unions and politicians of all political parties, and I am pleased to say that the aerospace part of my portfolio is to me the most exciting. I look forward to having many more models of wings produced in Belfast on my office desk.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

Having spent three of the past 12 years living in Northern Ireland, I know just how important Bombardier is to the economy there and what brilliant aeroplanes they make. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that there is an opportunity to work with Bombardier on the research and development of a new generation of aircraft using hybrid and electric propulsion, so that Bombardier can be in the vanguard of the future aviation industry and so that we can make a positive out of what is undoubtedly a setback today?

[Richard Harrington]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Hybrid technology is the nirvana for the future of jet engine propulsion and much of the money we have put in with industry for research and development is for hybrid technology. I am sure that Bombardier will be at the centre of that. This is about not just Bombardier but other companies in Northern Ireland that are in the supply chain. Northern Ireland is a significant hub. At the air shows I visit, the Northern Ireland exhibition stand is prominent and visited by companies from all over the world.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Just a few weeks ago, I visited the Bombardier plant in east Belfast with the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), just to see it. There was no indication at that stage that there would be any job losses, so the announcement of 490 will affect my constituents in Newtownards. Northern Ireland has 10% of the cut to the workforce of 5,000 jobs globally, at a time when the company made a 57% increase in profits in February. The Minister will understand our angst. Will he outline the discussions he has had about investment in the Northern Ireland branches of Bombardier, which reflect the importance the Government have placed on Bombardier and on funding it in Belfast, at Newtownabbey and, in my constituency of Strangford, in Newtownards? Has the Minister had discussions with Bombardier about its intentions to bring back from Mexico and Morocco the work on parts that were once made successfully in Belfast to reflect the high level of investment the Government have made?

[Richard Harrington]

I commend the hon. Gentleman—I know Newtownards is part of his constituency—as well as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) for their work and the support they have given to the aerospace industry in their constituencies. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentions the parts that are being made in Mexico, and I was not aware of that but will bring it up at my meeting this afternoon and at every contact between my Department and the management.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we must ensure that all parts of the country can benefit from the industrial strategy? What support is being given to Northern Ireland, in particular, as part of this?

[Richard Harrington]

I can answer my hon. Friend’s question in two ways. On the aerospace sector, I have already explained how much money has been committed—about £1.8 billion in total—but Northern Ireland is also a very important part of this because it is one of our most important aerospace clusters. As regards Northern Ireland itself, I would particularly point to the recently announced Belfast city deal, which involves investment, again on a partnership basis, of about £350 million, of which aerospace will be a significant beneficiary—not just big companies but many small companies are involved. There is also the multiplier effect of those companies for the economy of Northern Ireland.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Not one single constituency is not impacted by this. The supply chain in terms of engineering and advanced engineering in Northern Ireland relies on Bombardier. To put this into perspective for Members in this part of our nation, this would be the equivalent of the Minister standing at the Dispatch Box and announcing more than 15,000 redundancies. That is the sobering reality of what we are facing. Will the Minister speak to the Northern Ireland Administration with regard to the monitoring round and release some of that money into the manufacturing side of business, and will he have an impact assessment carried out with regard to the supply chain in Northern Ireland?

[Richard Harrington]

The real answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that we really do need devolved government enabled to distribute this money with the specific targeting that he refers to. Generally speaking, our policy is very much to support the supply chain. Obviously, manufacturing is very much part of that because it is where the high-quality, skilled jobs that are part of our industrial strategy come from. I will absolutely make sure that that is the case. I will do my best, in my dealings not just with Bombardier but with many of the other companies involved, to reflect the admirable sentiments that he has expressed.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

I understand that the aerospace industry supports over 200,000 jobs across the whole UK. What more can the Government do to help us increase our share of the global market?

[Richard Harrington]

As I said, the aerospace growth partnership that I jointly chair is responsible for precisely what my hon. Friend asks for—the development of the industry in a high-tech manner using the skills in research and development that we have. We are very supportive of the industry, because apart from the high-level employment, the exports are very significant. As I say, out of £42 billion in turnover, the industry has £38 billion of exports, so it is absolutely critical to us.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), I was appalled by the Minister’s statement that as Bombardier is a private company the Government have no role in its commercial decisions—the “not me, guv” approach to government. It mirrors the blinkered approach of the Ministry of Defence, which has been shovelling contracts towards Boeing, often without competition, while Boeing is trying to crash Bombardier. What sort of message does the Minister think that that sends? Is it really too much to hope for a whole-of-government, active approach to back an industrial strategy, and back British industry and British workers?

[Richard Harrington]

I rarely disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I must remind him that what I said about this being a commercial decision is a question of fact. It is not subjective; it is not a value judgment. This is a private, independent company that is quoted on the Canadian stock exchange. He is very well aware of that, being very experienced. [Interruption.] The Government can influence it, as I heard in a typically erudite chunter from the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). We influence it by the investment we put into research and development, as he quite correctly said. That is very important. I know from my discussions with Bombardier management centrally that they do regard Northern Ireland as a central part of their developments in future. As I said in my statement, the company gave us various undertakings. The future of the plant in Northern Ireland—in Belfast—is absolutely critical to them.

[Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)]

Bombardier employs many people across many constituencies in Northern Ireland, and I know that those employees and their families will be deeply worried today. In trying to support them and in the absence of devolved government in Northern Ireland, how will the Department work with others, including the likes of Invest Northern Ireland, to ensure for those employees a quick transition into good jobs elsewhere?

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Lady cares deeply for her constituents, and so do I. On the intricacies of devolved government in Northern Ireland, the relevance to my Department is that it makes it more difficult for us to communicate. We have to communicate directly with companies, which is a pleasure, but it is important that we ensure a democratic element to the process as well. We do all we can, however, and have to make the best of the situation. There is certainly no lack of effort or will from my Department. We want more skilled jobs in Northern Ireland, and Bombardier is very much a part of that, so we are not writing the company off because of these redundancies, although I accept that they are significant and a serious issue for her constituents.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

More than 30% of the Bombardier workforce has been cut since 2015. In my experience working with Scottish Enterprise, first-tier aerospace companies, particularly Bombardier, have quite a shallow penetration into second and third-tier supply chain companies in the UK. Will the Minister redouble his efforts and ensure a proper industrial strategy that maximises the inputs from first-tier companies such as Bombardier into second and third-tier companies so that we can mop up some of the jobs that have been lost?

[Richard Harrington]

I cannot speak for the hon. Gentleman’s experience in his constituency, but it is my impression, from my dealings with Bombardier and other companies in the Northern Ireland cluster, that they are well integrated and co-ordinated with each other. He asks me to redouble my efforts, however, and I certainly will do. I will bear in mind his point in every visit I make and every conversation I have.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is a decent man sent to the House to do a dirty job. I say in the nicest way that he should not try to bamboozle the House. Michael Ryan is a good chief executive—indeed, he is a “Make it in Great Britain” industry champion for the Government—and Bombardier is a damned good company. We know it. I have just been to Northern Ireland, and I know how proud Northern Ireland is of it, but the reality is that it is an integrated global business, and the disturbance created by our leaving the EU is having a deep effect, including on Airbus and supply chains. Michael Ryan and his team are very unsettled by what the Government are doing in coming out of Europe and upsetting the supply chains. Behind all this is our leaving Europe. The Minister should take that on board.

[Richard Harrington]

I hope you would agree, Mr Speaker, that I am not a bamboozler by nature, and it is certainly not my intention to bamboozle the House or the hon. Gentleman. On the serious point, the company has said this is not a Brexit-related decision.

[Mr Sheerman]

It would do.

[Richard Harrington]

It has said that very clearly. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, aerospace is a truly international business and frictionless trade is an important part of it, and I believe that the deal the Prime Minister has been negotiating, which will provide for frictionless trade to help manufacturing industry in the future, will help Bombardier and all other companies remain strong. The Irish trade unions have issued a statement urging the deal to happen.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I have worked in the aerospace industry, so I have a rough idea of what is happening. It was mentioned that direct jobs are being affected, but hon. Members have mentioned the supply chain. In my experience, for every direct job lost, three indirect jobs could be lost. Can the Minister give us the actual figures and set out the impact on the supply chain?

[Richard Harrington]

I think the hon. Gentleman is correct about the multiplier effect. I cannot say exactly, but it is about three to four indirect jobs for every one direct job.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I visited Bombardier last month, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), in a visit organised and paid for by the Industry and Parliament Trust. Bombardier is making fantastic products. The danger is that these cuts upon cuts will lead to the loss of the critical mass of skills, meaning that the next set of products cannot be made there. Does the Minister share that concern, and if so, what is he doing to protect skills?

[Richard Harrington]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern, which is common to industry generally, including steel and other sectors. The Northern Ireland aerospace hub is very solid. Although orders will not come through until 2020, the deal that Bombardier did with Airbus means that the company can plan for the future, and it is very aware of the need to maintain skills.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

One area where Government can help is retraining. Will the Minister consider an endowment or individual learning account for workers who have been made redundant, to enable them to get training and secure positions elsewhere?

[Richard Harrington]

That is very interesting. I believe that it is a devolved matter, but I will look into it with interest.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

17. What steps his Department is taking to safeguard manufacturing jobs after the UK leaves the EU.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

The declaration on the future relationship with the EU sets out a joint ambition for zero tariffs and restrictions in goods trade, and an ambitious customs arrangement. Our industrial strategy will ensure that the UK remains one of the most competitive locations in the world for manufacturing. We have committed £140 million to the “Made Smarter” industrial digitalisation programme, which will help our manufacturing sector adopt new technologies and skills.

[Sarah Jones]

The Minister mentions the declaration, but of course it is seven pages long and offers no reassurance to businesses in Croydon. Recently I visited a Croydon business that is currently looking to move to Amsterdam. What more can the Government provide to ensure that that business and many more stay in the UK?

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Lady’s constituency must contain businesses different from those I heard at the CBI yesterday, where the Prime Minister was applauded for precisely this approach; different from businesses in my constituency; and different from all the business leaders who have supported the Government’s proposed deal with the European Union.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

Manufacturing accounts for 11% of jobs in the west midlands, one of the highest percentages for any region, and the region has one of the highest shares of goods imports and exports— 47% of its goods go to the EU. Does the Minister agree that Labour’s plan for Brexit, guaranteeing a new, comprehensive and permanent customs union and a strong single market relationship that allows British business continued access to European markets for both goods and services, is the deal that UK manufacturers need to thrive?

[Richard Harrington]

As far as I am aware, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation, and all other organisations representing those industries in the midlands, in the hon. Lady’s constituency and surrounding constituencies, are very much in support of the Government’s policy for frictionless trade in the future.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is aware of the threat to 190 skilled engineering jobs at GE Energy in Rugby. This has nothing to do with Brexit; rather, it is to do with a downturn in activity of the company’s traditional base. What advice can the Minister provide to the workforce and the local management team to secure this manufacturing activity in Rugby?

[Richard Harrington]

As ever, my hon. Friend is fully in support of so many businesses in his constituency. As he knows, my door is open to him and the company, to discuss any possibilities of helping them. I have seen many very good businesses in his constituency and I am excited about the prospects there for high-quality employment for his constituents.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The question is really whether we leave the EU at all. Yesterday, on the “Today” programme, the Secretary of State was arguing in favour of a proposal by the EU to extend the implementation period to the end of 2022. Was the Secretary of State doing his usual EU freelancing, or is that now the official policy of the UK Government?

[Richard Harrington]

The Government want to finalise the future trading relationship with the EU as quickly as possible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned one alternative to achieve that.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

In addition to the threat that leaving the EU poses to skilled manufacturing jobs, the Minister will be aware of the devastating news that Michelin plans to close its factory in Dundee, threatening 850 such jobs. Will the Minister work closely with the Scottish Government to ensure a future for that plant?

[Richard Harrington]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have spoken to the company and I have sought assurances about support available to staff. The Secretary of State and I have spoken with the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work and with the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Department is playing an active role in the Dundee action group.

[Drew Hendry]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but his Government can do one thing right away to give immediate and future help. The UK Government are currently £50 million short on matching the Scottish Government on the Tay cities deal. Is this to be, like Aberdeen, Inverness and Stirling, part of a near £400 million shortage of match funding and a failure of the UK Government on city deals, or will he do the right thing and fight for match funding to support Dundee at this challenging time?

[Richard Harrington]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, each deal with each city is an individual one based on the circumstances of that city. I see him regularly, and it would be a pleasure to meet him to discuss his constituency and the proposed city deal.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

18. [R] In terms of leaving the EU and our manufacturing sector, does the Minister not accept that staying in the customs union and in a form of single market is absolutely what is demanded in the long term—not “xx”—by our manufacturing sector?

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the EEF has warmly accepted the Government’s proposals for a future trading relationship that will provide the kind of frictionless trade essential for his constituents and everyone else who works in the motor vehicle industry and the manufacturing sector.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

“High tech manufacturing in every part of the country”—the Secretary of State’s words. General Electric is closing in Rugby and Michelin is closing in Dundee. From Swansea to Copeland to Lowestoft, his energy policies destroy more jobs than they create. By ending the enhanced capital allowance, the Budget took hundreds of millions of pounds from manufacturers, while doling out billions in corporate tax cuts. Manufacturing demand is now dropping at its fastest rate since 2015, yet the Cabinet is in meltdown over whether to walk out on the customs union in four months with no deal or in 24 months with the Prime Minister’s plan. Does the Minister agree that a permanent customs union is essential for British manufacturing and British jobs?

[Richard Harrington]

It will come as no surprise to you, Mr Speaker, that I disagree with a lot of what the hon. Lady has said. She says the Cabinet is in meltdown. It is not. [Interruption.] The Cabinet is not in meltdown. On her substantive question about energy, to the best of my knowledge, offshore energy is producing a lot of jobs, including in Tyneside. [Interruption.] It very much is. She must be aware, as far as the customs union part of her question is concerned, of the importance of the Government’s proposals, which provide the benefit of a very close relationship with all the countries in the EU. They also mean that this country will be able to enter into negotiations to sign free trade agreements with countries all over the world.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

5. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the merger of Asda and Sainsbury’s on (a) workers, (b) supply chains and (c) consumers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)]

7. What the timetable is for bringing forward a tourism sector deal under the industrial strategy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

Sector deals are part of our industrial strategy and vital in building strategic partnerships with the Government and mutual commitments to boost productivity in specific sectors. We have already concluded seven and we are working on more. Under the auspices of Steve Ridgway, whom I thank for his leadership, we have a lot of interest from the tourism sector in exploring a sector deal and we are doing so.

[Damien Moore]

Could my hon. Friend elaborate on whether there will be a similar deal for the hospitality industry in the new year?

[Richard Harrington]

Before I saw the light and went into politics, I spent 25 years in the tourism and hospitality industry, and there is nothing I would like more than to conclude a sector deal with it. I have met with officials and industry leaders, have the full support of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and look forward to concluding a deal in the new year.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

Tourists spend a lot of money in this country in tips, yet it is two years since the Government said they would act to stop rogue bosses swiping tips. I raised this at Business questions last week, and it was suggested that I come here, raise it with the Minister and ask when the Government will bring forward primary legislation to stop bosses swiping tips that should be going to hard-working staff.

[Richard Harrington]

I am delighted to confirm to the hon. Lady that we are definitely introducing legislation on this subject. We will do so as soon as we possibly can within the parliamentary timetable.

[Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

In his first answer, the Minister said that seven sector deals had been concluded. How many are still under negotiation and why are they taking so long?

[Richard Harrington]

Actually, I correct my right hon. Friend. I said that six sector deals had been concluded and more are in the pipeline. They are very complex. They involve a lot of industry money and many industrial partners who have never been involved in deals with the Government before. I would be delighted to meet him at any time to discuss how I am pushing these on as quickly as I can.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the Minister aware that tourism, just like the manufacturing sector, particularly in Yorkshire, is finding it very difficult to get skilled people, especially as more Europeans go back to their home countries in fear of Brexit? What is he going to do about attracting and retaining skilled workers in tourism and manufacturing?

[Richard Harrington]

I am very aware of the hon. Gentleman’s point. Only last week, I met with Hilton Hotels and Resorts, a big employer in this sector, while the Grove, in my own constituency, has raised exactly the same point. The industry has a high turnover of labour and, as he says, has depended for some time on labour from abroad. I hope that more UK people will enter the hotel and hospitality industry, but the fact is that in many areas there is almost full employment.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

8. What discussions his Department has had with representatives of the Post Office on its plans to close 74 Crown offices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

9. What steps he is taking to ensure that value for money is achieved from energy generated from proposed new nuclear power stations.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

As the Secretary of State said in his statement to the House on 4 June, in our negotiations with nuclear developers, a key focus of discussions will be achieving value for money and lower electricity costs for consumers.

[Alan Brown]

The National Audit Office has already confirmed that Hinkley Point C was a bad deal. Half the existing nuclear power stations will have closed by 2024 and the rest by 2028, and no nuclear power stations can be built in time to replace them. Why are the UK Government tying up energy policy for the next 50 years in deals that are poor value for money?

[Richard Harrington]

As far as I know, the hon. Gentleman and his party are against nuclear power altogether, so his is an interesting question. The Government, on the other hand, are committed to a diverse energy mix in which nuclear power plays a crucial part. Nuclear power is critical to our transmission to a low-carbon society, providing continuous, reliable, low-carbon electricity. We are also leaders in cutting emissions by renewables, and nearly 30% of our electricity comes from renewable sources.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

10. What steps he is taking to help reduce the incidence of seismic activity caused by hydraulic fracturing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

Lithium extraction has the potential to make a significant contribution to the aims of our industrial strategy, as well as being a huge boost to the Cornish economy. May I invite the Secretary of State to meet businesses that are seeking to exploit this new opportunity? If he would like to come to Cornwall to do that, he would be very welcome.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

My hon. Friend should know that I would be delighted to meet him, and anybody he thinks is suitable, in order to achieve the exploitation of the luxurious resources deep in his constituency.

[James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

T7. After the capital shortfall warnings issued by Interserve this week, what assurances can the Secretary of State give the House that Interserve will not go the way of Carillion? Will he commit to press Interserve to make sure that subcontractors are paid up to date and are not at risk of carrying the can for another outsourcing collapse?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

T8. Cammell Laird has won £619 million of RAF contracts, but almost 300 of its workforce, some of whom are my constituents, are at risk of redundancy. Will the Secretary of State speak to Defence Ministers to make sure that the Government will step in to fill any gap?

[Richard Harrington]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have met the chief executive of Cammell Laird, and I am in discussions with the Ministry of Defence and all other interested parties.

[Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s Green Paper “Modernising consumer markets”. When is a Government response expected? Does he agree that, from mobile phone bills to foreign currency exchange, we should use transparency and competition to end consumer rip-offs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)]

We recently heard the disappointing news of the closure of the Michelin factory in Dundee, with the company citing cheaper imports as the reason. It will cause the loss of 845 jobs, many of which will be in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the industrial strategy will look into ways to support traditional industries as well as new technologies?

[Richard Harrington]

I can assure my hon. Friend of that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

Will the Minister update the House on recent progress towards a steel sector deal?

[Richard Harrington]

I have regular discussions with the steel sector and hope in future to have news that will please my hon. Friend.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

It was good to see the Secretary of State in South Yorkshire, where we have a strong advanced manufacturing offer. Will he continue to work with us in future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

What action is the Minister taking to promote the development of small-scale modular nuclear reactors so that we can diversify the energy supply?

[Richard Harrington]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Small-scale modular?

[Richard Harrington]

Nuclear reactors, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Well done!

[Richard Harrington]

Not that small, though. I am sure that you could do with a personal one sometimes, Mr Speaker.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that the Government are treating the development of small modular reactors very seriously. A successful conference on the subject was held recently. I am happy to inform the House of future progress.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does the Minister think that it would be a good idea to incorporate into the tourism sector deal a fantastic one-off event that occurs next year, after 68 years’ absence, when the Open championship returns to the Royal Portrush golf club?

[Richard Harrington]

What a tempting idea!

[Several hon. Members rose—]