Draft Shipments of Radioactive Substances (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Alan Whitehead

Monday 18th February 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 Shipments of Radioactive Substances (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Usually, for such occasions, Mr Gray, it is written into my speech that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, but with you it is a real pleasure.

Today, according to the news this morning, MPs are quaffing champagne—we always “quaff” it—on the ski slopes, but here we are not. We have quaffed a few confectionary items, if one can quaff those, but I am in Committee to talk about the draft regulations that were laid before the House on 21 January 2019.

This new draft statutory instrument is being made under powers set out in section 8(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The regulations will address specific inoperabilities arising from the UK’s withdrawal from the European Atomic Energy Community, which is known more commonly and colloquially as Euratom, and will only come into force on exit day in the event of no deal between the UK and the EU. The draft instrument corrects deficiencies in retained EU law by revoking and replacing Euratom regulation 1493/93 on shipments of radioactive substances between EU member states.

The new draft regulations demonstrate the UK’s continuing commitment to the highest safety standards in radioactive substances’ control. The instrument will apply to the whole of the UK. The regulations will ensure that prior written declarations must continue for shipments of sealed radioactive sources from the EU into the UK in the event of no deal. They will allow the UK’s competent authorities to check that our importers of sealed radioactive sources comply with the requirements for safe storage, use and disposal of sources before shipments are made from the EU to the UK.

The process of advance declarations maintains the oversight of UK authorities with respect to the destinations and recipients of sealed sources that are shipped into the UK. Therefore, in relation to imports, the draft regulations provide continuity for regulators and operators in a no-deal scenario. The instrument will cover the shipment of the sealed radioactive sources from EU member states to importers. For the record, it is important to point out that a “sealed radioactive source” is a radioactive material encapsulated by another material, usually metal, to prevent exposure. In common language, that would be a box—but not just any box.

Sealed radioactive sources are widely used in industry, agriculture and medicine—for example, in special devices to inspect the quality of welds on gas and water pipelines during construction, to kill harmful bacteria in food or cancer cells in medical patients, or to sterilise medical equipment. About 100 businesses in the UK import sealed radioactive substances, and the vast majority of them are in England. The draft regulations do not delay or restrict our ability to import such sources from the EU, as their primary purpose is simply to provide continuity with existing practices.

Following exit, our importers of sealed radioactive sources from the EU will be required, as now, to make prior written declarations to demonstrate that they comply with national requirements for the safe storage, use and disposal of sealed sources before shipments from the EU to the UK can take place. The declaration is sent to the relevant competent authorities in the UK, which will acknowledge receipt, much as they do now. Those authorities are the Office for Nuclear Regulation for nuclear site licences, it being the regulator of such sites; and the different environment agencies for non-nuclear site licences: the Environment Agency in England, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Natural Resources Wales and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency.

The importer forwards a declaration and acknowledges receipt to the EU-based exporter before the shipment can be made. Declarations can last up to three years and cover more than one shipment, in the same way as under the previous process, and we will continue to recognise all declarations made before exit day following our withdrawal from the EU. Shipments can continue to be made under existing declarations unless and until those declarations reach the end of their life span.

In the event of no deal, as a result of the UK’s no longer being a member state, it will not be possible for the system to continue to operate in exactly the same way, because we will be a third-party state. The instrument will maintain current arrangements in so far as possible, with three areas of operational change. I am sure the shadow Minister will be very interested in those differences, but I have been through them very carefully and I believe they are necessary.

First, the instrument will apply only to imports from the EU into the UK. It will not apply to our exports to the EU, as the Euratom regulation does now, because, unfortunately, it reflects the UK’s position outside the EU. The instrument can cover only the arrival of shipments in the UK, because that would be the only thing within our power in the event of our leaving the European Union without a deal.

Secondly, the obligation for exporters in EU member states to submit a quarterly return of all shipments will no longer apply, because we will not be able to place an obligation on EU exporters to submit such a return to a UK-based competent authority, as the Euratom regulation does.

Thirdly, the instrument places a legal obligation to make a prior written declaration on the UK importer, whereas the Euratom regulation placed a legal obligation to obtain a prior written declaration on the EU exporter. That technical legal change is made for obvious jurisdictional reasons, but it will make no difference to what is required in practice. The practical requirements for obtaining the declaration for UK importers remain the same. The changes do not place any additional practical requirements on industry or regulators.

The shadow Minister normally asks me for an impact assessment. In this case, as the one-off cost to all industry will be between £1,400 and £9,100, the impact will be de minimis and absorbed as part of day-to-day business. It is just about getting used to the new technicalities; the process really is the same.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

indicated assent.

[Richard Harrington]

I do not know whether Hansard can indicate that the shadow Minister nodded, but he did. That happens rarely during my speeches, but in this case it did. He may well have denied it, in which case I would have had to set the record straight.

Subject to Parliament’s approval of the draft regulations, guidance on their operation will be published online in March, alongside targeted operator engagement. Officials have engaged with affected operators and stakeholders through a number of forums and channels, including the Environment Agency’s small users liaison group and the radioactive substances policy group. I am pleased to say that the instrument was drafted in collaboration between officials in my Department and those in the devolved Administrations, as well as the different environment agencies and the ONR.

In conclusion, the draft regulations are essential to demonstrate our commitment to the highest safety standards in the area of radioactive substances control and ensure maximum continuity for UK importers.

[Dr Whitehead]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. The Minister may correct me if I am wrong, but I think the draft regulations are pretty much the last of the various SIs that have been put in place to create a regime in the UK that is as good as the Euratom regime. I did not intend to be quite as kind as this will sound, but I think we have got to a position where pretty much everything is in place. That cannot be said for every area of regulation, but we are almost there as far as the future of Euratom is concerned.

[Richard Harrington]

I can confirm that this is the last Euratom SI for no deal. As usual, the shadow Minister is very well informed.

[Dr Whitehead]

There is the small matter of chasing an agreement with Japan, but that is a different matter.

[Richard Harrington]

A mere technicality.

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed.

It would be remiss of me not to welcome the fact that we have now got to the final point, and therefore today we do not want to stand in the way of the regulations proceeding. However, I ask the Minister for a brief explanation of one particular aspect, which is bound up to some extent with the fact that, as he said himself, what was previously a two-way process in regulations now becomes a one-way process, because we have no means of forcing anybody in an EU country to make declarations in a way that we might like, and we will therefore record receipt, rather than across the board, as far as exchanges are concerned.

That concerns me to the extent that the Minister has talked this afternoon of sealed sources of radiation. He stated that those are in a special box. They are effectively in a box, but they are sealed, to make what can be highly dangerous radiation not impactful on anybody who is dealing with it. So it will be sealed in metal, or glass, or whatever, to make it non-impactful on the outside.

The current regulations cover a second category—unsealed sources. That does not mean unsealed to the extent that they are on a paper doily laid out for everyone’s approval. The safety of those materials should give cause for concern, but they are not in the same category as the materials that have to be sealed so as not to harm anybody outside. They are called unsealed, but they are still protected, and we ought to know about them as far as possible.

The problem is that previously, the transit of both sealed and unsealed material could be traced one way or another, either through the forms that had to be filled in before material was transported, or they would be subject to a three-monthly report of the transit of all materials, which was held within the EU but available to all member states. Now that will not be available to us any more, so in principle we will have no knowledge of what is happening to the transport, both in and out, of unsealed nuclear material.

I do not wish to hold up this particular SI, but I nevertheless invite the Minister to reflect upon whether, for the longer term, that is an entirely satisfactory way to do things. The explanatory memorandum states that that is not a matter of great consequence, but I would have thought that what happens to the transport of these items is important, so that we do not face a possible future scandal of missing material, or material going to the wrong place or into the wrong hands, or performing the wrong role. We ought to have some known record of what is going on.

I may have misunderstood how this SI will work, and perhaps we will in some way have a record, but on the face of it, it looks as though we will have a record only on the basis of voluntary arrangements by the shippers, and not a definite and certain arrangement for those shipments.

On the overall arrangements for sealed goods, I absolutely agree with the Minister, and I also agree with him that there should not be an impact assessment for this SI, because the same things are going backwards and forwards, and it is not a question of there being any serious changes in procedures; it is just a question of how those procedures are being organised. However, there is a question to be answered about sealed and unsealed materials, and I hope the Minister can answer it in a way that puts my mind at rest about the procedures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I am flattered by the compliments from my two hon. Friends, and by the good grace with which the hon. Member for Southampton, Test has responded throughout the progress of the 2018 Act and the statutory instruments that have followed. Every time, we hope that he will be late so that we can start without him and the illustrious Opposition Whip will have to deal with the issues, but he has never let us down—or at least, he has never let the Opposition Whip down.

The hon. Gentleman’s points are interesting. Being who he is, he will be aware that advance declarations have never applied to unsealed sources, so that is not new.

[Dr Whitehead]

Just to clarify, that has always been my understanding. It is a question of what goes into the three-monthly declarations from the EU about all transport—unsealed and sealed. That was previously the source from which one could keep a record of what was going on.

[Richard Harrington]

Perhaps I can answer by saying that that does not pose a concern, because the devolved environmental permitting regime allows the UK environment agencies to require sites that receive sealed and unsealed radioactive sources to record their receipt. Under the EU regulations, as I have explained, the import of unsealed sources was captured only by the quarterly returns. As that is no longer a requirement, unsealed sources are not covered by the regulations, so it is a completely different matter with a completely different system.

To answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds about Sellafield and the Public Accounts Committee report, if he will indulge me, I think it would be better for me to write to him on the subject or for us to meet to discuss it.

Draft Carriage of Dangerous Goods (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Alan Whitehead

Monday 28th January 2019 General Committees

[Richard Harrington]

I am not trying to flatter the shadow Minister, but I work with him a lot and listen very carefully to what he has to say. Usually, the answers to his questions are extremely complex and I have to do my homework to understand them. However, in this case, my recollection of last week—I will ask my officials for clarification—is that the Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 were for the event of no deal only. Therefore, I do not believe his point is relevant; perhaps we will discuss that, but that is my understanding. It is a very constructive and, I am sure, well-researched point, but I think it misses the no-deal point—heaven forbid there is no deal.

[Dr Whitehead]

The citation and commencement of the regulations that we passed last week stated that they will come into force on exit day, whenever that is. Although that is when the SI will come into force, the revocation applies from when it is made, so it carries forward into legislation. That does not alter the fact that, although another SI will come into force on exit day, we are seeking to amend something that does not exist. Both statutory instruments come into force on exit day, regardless of whether there is no deal or a deal, because they have been made properly through the parliamentary process. If we pass these draft regulations, that is what will happen.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse for his intervention. We ought to think very carefully about whether we are able to proceed with these particular draft regulations, in the absence of a definitive view that, given what we know now, they are not defective and can be voted on and put in legislation.

[Richard Harrington]

It seems to me that last week we debated draft regulations, but they have not yet been made. That is why, respectfully, I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s point is valid.

[Richard Harrington]

If I may intervene again, Mr Bailey, I am certain that is the case, but if the shadow Minister wishes to have a meeting I will be very happy to put his mind at rest. It would involve going into details with lawyers and so on; I do not think I can do that now. Irrespective of what happens with the SI, I owe him that courtesy and will be very pleased to do that.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for that offer; I am sure I will take it up. Thank you, too, Mr Bailey, for your guidance on whether we could proceed. I thought we probably could. Nevertheless, what we end up with will not simply fall because it is contingent legislation; when exit day comes upon us, it will be defective because it amends something that no longer exists and therefore has no force. At the very least, it will be necessary to consider whether further legislation needs to be put into place to correct that before exit day. That is the minimum I would expect under the circumstances. It cannot just be brushed under the carpet; it is a serious issue relating to the force of the proposed legislation. Obviously, if we sit together and knowingly make legislation that does not work, we can at some stage be held accountable for that. Therefore, we need to take the matter very seriously.

[Richard Harrington]

If that were the case, it would be my responsibility and that of the Government, and not the responsibility of the hon. Gentleman, who has made his point very clearly.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister. I personally take the view that we are all in this room together making this legislation and we all have an equal responsibility for making sure that it works, regardless of whether we are members of the Opposition or of the Government. My comments are made in that spirit, not in the spirit of opposition, because I want the legislation to work as well as possible.

[Richard Harrington]

rose—

[Dr Whitehead]

I have not yet come to the substance of what I am going to say, but I will give way.

[Richard Harrington]

For the record, I accept that comment in the spirit in which the shadow Minister made it. I did not think for one moment that it was a political point. He has made a very valid point and I hope I have answered it, but I accept the fact and take responsibility for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I thank the hon. Members for Southampton, Test, for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and for Poplar and Limehouse for their contributions. I will try to deal with the majority of their points.

I certainly respect the point made by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse that the Opposition may feel it necessary to vote against the measure because, as the shadow Minister argued, it is invalid because it is contradictory. I fully respect that point, particularly given the Whip’s guidance. As you will know from your long parliamentary experience, Mr Bailey, one tends to do what Whips advise one to do, and that is particularly true in the case of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. I will try my best briefly to dissuade them.

First, I will try to put to bed the point about the impact assessment, which was mentioned in the first version of the draft regulations but not in the second version. I think the difference was between the versions published on 13 December and 20 December. The decision was taken not to carry out an impact assessment simply because it was viewed as de minimis. There is a de minimis threshold of £5 million. The instrument makes no changes that would involve a significant impact on business, charities, voluntary bodies or the public sector, so we decided not to carry out an impact assessment. That was quite within the rules. I apologise for the confusion, but we had to take a decision, and that is what we decided. Hon. Members may disapprove of that, but there is no impact assessment because the impact is de minimis. It is not the case that there was one and we did not like it so we thought it should be hidden.

I think I answered in interventions the point about contradictions in the legislation. That may or may not be acceptable to the Opposition, but there is no point in my repeating it.

I turn to the point about dose limits for emergency workers’ exposure to radiation. I think everyone shares the intention of ensuring that that does not happen, but if it does the rules are very clear. The whole thing really is very complicated. It is certainly true that planning for an emergency scenario is very different from planning for a normal work scenario. The 500 mSv limit applies only in the circumstances set out in paragraph 8(1)(a) and (b) of the schedule. I do not think the IAEA was thinking only of catastrophic scenarios; I think it was generally allowing for lawful exposures with the intention of reducing harm. That is a very relevant point, but it is very complicated.

I am afraid I gave up physics at the age of 16, for the very good reason that I had failed my exams in it, but the dose limits in the Ionising Radiation Regulations 2017 apply generally to work with radiation. Paragraph 8(1) of the schedule disapplies them in the case of an emergency, because they could cause the employer to commit a criminal offence in dealing with such emergencies. That is why it sets a reference level appropriate to emergencies.

[Dr Whitehead]

I have given my speaking notes to Hansard, so I have to do this from memory, but does the Minister consider that the regulations as they stand give effect to what is in the IAEA definition of exposure to radiation—the knowledge and understanding that is required, and the informed consent that must be given if that high level of radiation is to be permitted under those circumstances? I cannot see anything in the regulations that says that, and I would be interested if the Minister could point me to anything in the regulations that requires that informed consent to be provided for under those circumstances, as is set out in the IAEA regulations.

[Richard Harrington]

I consider my response satisfactory and I am prepared to write to the hon. Gentleman on the specific point he brought up. He did very well without his speaking notes.

Returning to the 500 mSv reference level, it transposes an EU directive and brings us into line with international standards. Those might not be the right standards, although we think they are, but it is certainly absolutely in line with them. It is meant as a reference level for planning purposes, and reflects an upper limit. It does not mean that that level is acceptable or normal, but it gives an upper limit. The goal in any emergency plan is, of course, to minimise exposure—that is the whole purpose of the draft regulations—but regulations must set a ceiling, and the definition of an emergency would include doses far below that level.

Repeating the point that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, the SNP spokesman, made, the levels are intended to apply to an emergency situation. Any operator regularly exposing the public to nuclear emergencies would face other sanctions from the appropriate authorities. It is not just these draft regulations that would be relevant in such a case.

I hope that I have explained the points that were brought up by Opposition Members. Despite those points, I certainly in every way commend the draft Carriage of Dangerous Goods (Amendment) Regulations 2019 to the Committee.

Question put.

Draft Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and spent fuel (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Alan Whitehead

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 General Committees

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I will leave it at that, because I am concerned about the spread of so-called “pleasure creep”, where one has to put a number of nouns, adjectives and adverbs in front of the word “pleasure” to indicate that it really is a pleasure. I will be straightforward and stick to what I have just said.

The statutory instrument is essentially a very sensible piece of work to ensure that after exiting the EU we have in place the authorisation, certification and all other necessary arrangements to allow radioactive waste to transit properly—the Minister mentioned some 300 shipments a year. Previously, that was all done essentially under the aegis of Euratom; the question of having those arrangements, certainly as far as transfer to Euratom countries was concerned, did not come before us.

The Euratom arrangements also applied to trans-shipments that were not to Euratom countries but were under the aegis of Euratom as far as such trans-shipment arrangements were concerned. Trans-shipments to Japan, Australia and various other places were effectively covered by the fact that Euratom had an arrangement with those countries; we did not need a separate one. Now, we will have to have separate arrangements under all those circumstances, which is what this SI effectively does. It does so by revoking the 2008 regulations, and then—as is stated in the explanatory memorandum—largely replicates them

“by laying down broadly equivalent procedures”.

My comment to the Minister, which I have made on a number of other occasions when we have had these discussions about similar SIs, is that the broadly equivalent procedures seem to replicate quite well what would have happened under Euratom, given how the regulations are written. I would like the Minister to confirm that he is satisfied that that is the case. Obviously, I have not been able to compare regulation with regulation, but I assume that that is the basis of the “largely replicates” quote.

[Richard Harrington]

I confirm, as the shadow Minister has asked me to, that he is absolutely right: the new regulations broadly replicate the 2008 regulations, and there is no material difference at all.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for that. That is exactly what I had anticipated he would say, and I am grateful that he was able to say it.

The second issue relates to the quantity and concentration of consignments that trigger the need to define a shipment as a transfrontier shipment under the terms of the SI. I am sure that the Minister will have been party to the translation of regulations determining that: those regulations have been changed from a 2008 Euratom Council directive to a more recent directive in order to get those definitions right. In so doing, at least some reference to Euratom Council directives appears to have been preserved, but I assume that reference is only for purposes of definition, not of jurisdiction. I guess that the Minister will be able to put my mind at rest on that point as well.

[Richard Harrington]

I confirm that the hon. Gentleman’s mind should be at rest on that point.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for that. My final brief point follows from the one the Minister made about the total cost of these arrangements, which is indeed very modest: as he has said, it is between £1,700 and £6,000 every three years. Those extra costs arise from the fact that, on occasions, transfrontier shipments will have to accede to both the existing Euratom regime and the new regime being created in this country. If a cost went from Euratom to the new transfrontier shipment arrangements, then there would be no net cost; that additional cost arises only when the cost is being doubled up. That is my understanding of the situation.

[Richard Harrington]

That is my understanding of the situation as well. As usual, the shadow Minister has nailed this. That is exactly the case.

[Dr Whitehead]

That is good. My observation—I think I am still under five minutes—is that the cost could be mitigated were we to make some kind of associate arrangement with Euratom in the future, perhaps in the long term. Obviously, the SI is predicated on the fact that we will have no arrangement with Euratom post 31 March, but if there is a longer associate arrangement—as was discussed a little while ago during the passage of the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018—those costs would presumably not arise and that very modest additional cost would therefore be dissolved. That is just an observation about the future. I hope the Minister will be able to encourage the idea that we might have a future closer arrangement with Euratom, even though we will no longer be members of Euratom. I have just discussed one of the minor things that would be facilitated by such an arrangement.

I think hon. Members will have gathered from those remarks that we do not oppose the draft regulations. Indeed, we wish them success and hope they can be applied in the most expeditious way possible.

Draft Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Alan Whitehead

Tuesday 15th January 2019 General Committees

[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.

Oil and Gas Industry

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Alan Whitehead

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Indeed, I congratulate you on the discipline that you have brought to these proceedings, although curtailing the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), to 10 minutes is a clear infringement of his human rights and of the normal way he behaves. In fact, some would say that it is a crime against humanity that his erudition, which is never known to be brief, was curtailed. I look forward to hearing him, as I did today, on many other occasions.

I genuinely congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) on not just securing the debate, but the thoughtful way in which he made his contribution. That sums up today’s debate. There is general consensus, and I hope hon. Members do not think I am saying this out of complacency, but the fact is that, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said, most things to do with oil and gas are done on the basis of consensus. I wish there was the same attitude towards other debates in which I have the pleasure of speaking.

When I became Energy Minister, one of my first visits, in August of last year, was to Aberdeen—several hon. Members were with me that day—where I met industry leaders and visited Robert Gordon University to see the dynamic advanced response training simulator. That is relevant today because of the comments from the hon. Member for Falkirk about Piper Alpha. I saw a lot of the virtual reality equipment there, and I felt that I was actually on a rig. Everything was about health and safety and preventing the kind of incidents that happened at Piper Alpha. It is a tribute to the area that academia, industry and Government work together. I was most impressed by what I saw.

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s constituency interest because of the Grangemouth industrial site, which I visited as an A-level economics student in 1975—many hon. Members here were not born then, and some of their parents were probably only just born. However, I do remember the industrial site; I remember the scale of it. I think of it when I hear figures such as 8% of Scotland’s manufacturing base and 4% of GDP; I will never forget that visit, so I do understand the issue, and so do the Government.

In a very thoughtful speech, the shadow Minister expressed how important oil and gas are for the UK economy. I am not paid to promote the shadow Minister; I just cannot help but compliment him at various times. He talked about the mutual vision for the future. In fact, I kept looking up at him and seeing him reading from a document with blue print, which I thought was a Conservative party document, as the colour appeared to be the same, but which I then realised was, of course, “Vision 2035”, the authors of which at least had a good idea of which colour it should be in. But it does show no complacency; the serious point is that it does show a vision for the future, from what many people, out of ignorance, believe is a clapped-out former industry—they think that because they remember the boom days. One has only to visit it to realise that that is far from the case.

The upstream industry alone supports more than 250,000 jobs. Then there is the supply chain, supported by the sector, in key clusters all over the country. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has been at every single Westminster Hall debate I have ever spoken in, contributed extremely well. He mentioned the importance for Northern Ireland of the supply chain. I am very pleased to say that it is a United Kingdom supply chain and is not restricted to the specific area that many hon. Members have spoken about today.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North mentioned Brexit, which came up in a few of the contributions. I do not take it lightly, I assure you, Mr Hollobone—none of us does. Many of the good things that have happened in the past couple of years have happened in a time when things have been written off because of Brexit, but I want to say to the hon. Lady and others that the Government fully understand the need for frictionless trade, on which the oil and gas industry has long depended, whether in the movement of goods, services or people. I assure her and other interested Members that my Department has made that matter very clear to other parts of Government—it is our job to do that, and we have. We are fully aware that the sector has paid more than £330 billion in revenue to the Treasury, which is phenomenal. I know of no other single sector that has been as beneficial to the Government over the past half-century.

The end-use facility mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and by the hon. Member for Falkirk relates to customs procedures. I assure Members that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs continues to discuss with the sector the possibility of future mitigations being available, and which ones. The issue is complex, and I cannot claim to understand the full detail.

Since 2014, it is fair to say that the industry has had a torrid time as a result of the collapse in the price of oil. From that point of view, I am pleased that the price has gone up, but what I realised on my visit to Aberdeen was that, despite the decimation of the industry and its contraction—a statement of fact about the number of employees and so on, as was explained to me—good things resulted as well, such as some new technologies.

I remain optimistic for the future. I feel that the tripartite approach between the OGA, industry and Government, which hon. Members mentioned, is particularly important. I am pleased that, since its establishment, an extra 3.7 billion barrels have been forecast, and production has risen by 16% since 2014 figures, with a reduction in the production costs. The issue was forced by what happened to the price, but those cost reductions will remain and be improved on.

Optimism is returning to the North sea. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) mentioned the amount of mergers and acquisition activity over the past couple of years—about $8 billion-worth last year—with some significant investment involving new players to the basin. Divestment by some of the supermajors does not mean that they are losing interest; it is part of the natural order of a mature basin, with newer, smaller companies coming in. Shell is investing in new frontier areas, and BP’s development is moving well. There is huge potential.

To determine the industry’s potential, we obviously need responsibly regulated exploration, and the Government support that. There are a lot of challenges, and we understand that. The Government all realise that exploring and drilling for the upper reaches of the remaining resources is more difficult than doing so for the original resources—that is a statement of fact—and the measures that we have put in place since 2014 will contribute significantly towards that.

The focus of the debate is on the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) asked me to comment on the IPCC report, and our clean growth strategy is clear. We are focused on meeting our Paris agreement climate change targets, and we have asked the Committee on Climate Change for advice on our targets in the light of the new evidence.

Whatever happens, oil and gas will be part of the energy mix for decades to come. We know that we have to reduce demand to meet our climate targets, but this industry has a lot going for it. Gas can play an important role, and so can oil. My Department’s main interest will be to continue the security of the energy supply, which means that we have not seen the end of hydrocarbons.

I am running out of time, and I will do my best to talk briefly about the sector deals mentioned by several hon. Members. One of my responsibilities is the implementation of sector deals. We have had a lot of discussion with the industry, and I am confident that these will proceed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) pointed out, this is an ambitious sector deal to support the industry’s “Vision 2035”. We have not yet reached the final stage of the process, we will do so quite soon. It is a question of assessing the value for money of the amount of contribution expected in the deal from Government, which takes more time than people think.

This is a complex industry with a great future. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan said that it is an industry with a lot going on, and we know that the Government, the industry and the Members who have spoken today will be an important part of its future.

[Dr Whitehead]

On a point of order, Mr Hollobone. I may have misled the Chamber inadvertently by quoting a statistic erroneously. On the estimates for natural gas usage in 2035, the figure should be 59 megatonnes of oil equivalent and not 29, as I believe I said in my speech.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Alan Whitehead

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman: Dounreay has one of the finest reputations. I have not yet had the pleasure and honour of visiting it—although if I were able to visit it, I should be pleased to do so—but I have visited Sellafield, and have discussed matters extensively with all the nuclear decommissioning authorities there. Dounreay is thought of very highly, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing will be done to denude it of its reputation or lower the current non-proliferation standard. I was delighted to hear that the skills to which he has referred are being exported all over the world. The last thing that this or, I hope, any Government would want to do is bring about a reduction from the gold standard that is led by his constituency. [Interruption.] I am sorry if I am nit-picking again. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness is very alert to nit-picking, and I shall try not to do so.

I hope Members will agree that the Government have proceeded with the Bill on a consensual basis. As I have said, we have made several important concessions in both Houses. Although we have not been able to agree to Lords amendment 3, I have listened to the arguments advanced today, and I believe that the compromise amendment goes a long way to achieving what the Opposition want. It preserves the key features of their amendment by requiring the Government to write to the EU seeking support if certain agreements or alternative arrangements are not in place. I therefore hope that Members will join me in agreeing to amendments that provide important reassurance for Members of both Houses.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

This is, I trust, the last occasion on which we will deal with the Bill in the House of Commons. I thank the Minister for the careful, courteous and inclusive way in which he has handled it, which I have found very helpful. We all want the Bill to be enacted, and I think that our discussions about how it should proceed have benefited from the way in which he has conducted himself and presented his side of the argument.

Smart Meters Bill

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Alan Whitehead

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

I totally give that undertaking to the hon. Gentleman, and I apologise for saying that I would take his intervention and then forgetting to do so. I hope he will forgive me.

I said during previous debates that we would update our analysis if there were new and substantive evidence or changes in policy design. As a result of the representations that have been made in Committee and today, I am prepared to go further by committing to publishing an update of the programme cost-benefit analysis in 2019. As hon. Members know, 2018 marks a significant programme transition, with the shift from first to second-generation smart meters, so I think that 2019 really is the time to assess this.

As for new clauses 5 and 6, I do not believe that it is sensible to establish powers that enable the Government to require the provision of information on the costs of the programme in consumers’ energy bills, because I do not understand what benefit such a move would have for consumers. However, it is important that consumers understand the information that smart meters and in-house displays give them, because in that way, they understand the cost of their energy usage in pounds and pence—or as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) would say, pounds, shillings and pence, and probably farthings. She is a lady after my own heart. That will empower them either to change how they use energy, or to get a better tariff.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak has raised concerns, as he did in Committee, about the MAPs—not pictures of the world, but meter asset providers—because he believes that the provider market is not working to deliver the programme objectives. I remain of the view, however, as I have clearly stated to him before—we will have to agree to disagree, I think—that the market is operating competitively and that there is no need for regulatory intervention. There are currently two typical rental arrangements available: churn contracts and deemed contracts, which he mentioned. Churn contracts are often similar to the original rental agreements, including with the presence of an early-repayment charge in the event that a supplier chooses to remove the meter from the wall early. Deemed contracts do not include that charge, but carry the added risk for a MAP that they can involve higher rental charges. The important point is that the DCC has published its detailed plan for the enrolment of SMETS meters from late 2018, and as progress is made, I fully expect energy suppliers’ confidence in choosing churn contracts over deemed rentals to increase. Initial indications support that expectation.

I turn briefly to the amendment on the draft licence modifications envisaged under a power in the Bill to allow the costs of smart meter communication administration to be recouped from the industry, in so far as there is a shortfall. The potential scale of the costs will depend on a number of factors, including the timing and reason for the DCC licensee entering special administration, and costs arising from any legal and technical expertise appointed by the administrator in support of the execution of its duties. As I committed to doing in Committee, we have formally agreed to consult on these licence modifications. We will consider and set out an assessment of the estimated potential costs that need to be recouped from the industry.

I would like to reflect on the points made about the DCC’s parent company, Capita, and to emphasise that Smart DCC Ltd is required to operate at arm’s length from Capita. Provisions in the licence prevent Capita from taking working capital out of Smart DCC Ltd. Furthermore, the DCC’s financial arrangements are constructed so as to make the risk of insolvency low. Putting in place a special administration regime is entirely precautionary and, I believe, the prudent thing to do.

The smart metering programme will secure an overall net benefit to the nation of £5.7 billion. The Bill is important to ensuring that this vital platform for our smart energy future is rolled out effectively, allowing the Government to respond to developments as the roll-out continues. I hope that these arguments will persuade Opposition Members not to press their new clauses and amendments.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am disappointed that the Minister did not give us a better explanation and understanding of what “offer” means as far as smart meter roll-out is concerned. Indeed, that question was raised from the Conservative Benches. It might be that the Secretary of State can better illuminate us on Third Reading. Strictly speaking, however, that does not relate to the new clauses and amendments, on which we have had a good debate. If necessary, there will be further such debate in another place. This evening, however, it would not be wise to divide the House, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Third Reading

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Alan Whitehead

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, this quite amuses me, because last week I was berated for being a mouthpiece for the nuclear industry—something with which I was pleased to agree, by the way. The important point is that the language of whether we can have associate membership or not is not important; the important thing is what we come up with. People inside and outside the House can call it what they want, but effectively we all want the same thing. It is just not correct to call it associate membership, however, because there is no such thing. I have made that clear absolutely beyond doubt, as has the Secretary of State.

[Dr Whitehead]

In the light of what the Minister has just said, will he confirm that in his view an associated status in relation to nuclear safeguards would be distinctly possible?

[Richard Harrington]

I hope and believe that a very close association to do with nuclear safeguards absolutely will be possible, but I do not think it helps just to bandy language between one side and the other. We all know what we want, and I am delighted that everybody—it seems to me—on the Opposition and Government Benches wants exactly the same thing. We have all made our points about the language, but I think we all want the same thing. That is very unusual in this House and it really is a credit to everybody.

It is essential that projects and investments are not adversely affected by our withdrawal from the EU and can continue to operate in the certainty that nuclear safeguards arrangements will be in place. That is why we are putting in place arrangements for a new domestic nuclear safeguards regime, regulated by the Office for Nuclear Regulation, as well as negotiating new bilateral agreements with the IAEA and nuclear co-operation agreements with priority third countries. Those arrangements are not dependent on the EU negotiations and the UK Government’s work is well advanced.

The Bill and the regulations that will be made under its powers are crucial. They will enable us to establish a domestic nuclear safeguards regime to meet international safeguards and nuclear non-proliferation standards when Euratom safeguards arrangements no longer apply in the UK. As Members have noted, it will take time to develop and implement the new regime, so it is absolutely imperative that we maintain the momentum of the work needed to deliver it in the timescale required. However well meaning the new clauses and amendments are—I accept in good faith the reasons why they were tabled—the reality is that they could delay our domestic preparations and lead to uncertainty in our discussions with international partners. There can be no question of our waiting until we know the outcome of negotiations before we put in place our own arrangements. The implications of not having the right systems operating from when Euratom safeguards arrangements no longer apply are too serious for the industry and for our position in the international safeguards regime.

On the implementation period, we intend to ensure continuity for the nuclear industry and to avoid the possibility of a cliff edge for the industry on the date of exit. Members will be aware—if they were not listening at the time, this has been mentioned several times already today, so they will be aware now—that the Prime Minister set out in her Florence speech her desire for an implementation period after the UK ceases to be a member of the EU. If the European Commission agrees to an implementation period of around two years, the UK will not be a member state of the European Union during that period. None the less, the acquis will continue to apply, which means that, for the duration of that implementation period, the UK will expect to continue to pay into the EU, to be bound by its rules and to benefit from access to its market. The European Commission’s draft guidelines are explicit that, in its view, this acquis would include Euratom matters. The implication of that—I accept that it is an implication because it has to be tested in negotiations—is that the current Euratom regime could continue to apply during any transition period.

I have to reiterate that a transition period prior to our withdrawal, as proposed by new clause 1, is not a situation envisaged in the proposals for the implementation period. Both parties to the discussions agree that it would helpful to have the matter agreed as speedily as possible—again, there is no disagreement over that—so as to provide the certainty that we need. Whatever the outcome of the talks about an implementation period, let me emphasise that the UK’s overarching objective remains to maintain as close and effective an association with Euratom for the long term as possible.

New clause 1, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, proposes not an implementation period after exit, but a transitional period before exit. That would delay the UK’s exit from Euratom, but that situation is not envisaged in the proposals for the implementation period, or in the article 50 notification that has already been passed by Parliament.

Let me briefly raise quarterly reporting, which I mentioned in reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for Leeds West. It is very important to give Parliament clarity about the progress that the Government are making. That was why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a commitment in the written statement to provide quarterly updates on progress, which will include updates on the negotiations and progress made by the ONR on establishing the UK’s domestic safeguard regime.

I hope that those arguments will persuade Opposition Members not to press the amendments and new clauses to a Division.

[Dr Whitehead]

We will not be pressing any measure to a vote, except for new clause 1, which has been debated in a very unsatisfactory way this afternoon. We are not convinced by the responses that we have received, so we will be pressing it to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

No. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s version of what I have said. We want a Rolls-Royce standard, the best possible standard we can have.

The negotiations on implementation are due to begin in the spring and, as hon. Members know, we will be reporting to the House regularly on progress.

Let me turn to the Henry VIII power. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) has mentioned his dislike for Henry VIII powers. This is a tiny Henry VIII power—a Henry VIII who has been on a diet for a long time—that is limited to amending references in the Nuclear Safeguards and Electricity (Finance) Act 1978, the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2000 and the Nuclear Safeguards (Notification) Regulations 2004 in order to accommodate safeguards agreements with the IAEA. Those amended references will enable the IAEA to carry out its activities in the UK, including by providing legal cover for the UK activities of its inspectors. We have to be able to update that legislation so that it contains the correct references for new safeguards arrangements with the IAEA, which have not yet been made but will be in the near future. Without amendment, the existing provisions will become ineffective when the current agreements no longer apply, which would leave us in breach of any new international safeguards regime.

The detailed amendments will not be known until the agreements are in place, so the power that we are asking for is essential if we are to ensure that the UK has a safeguards regime that complies with its future international obligations when Euratom’s safeguards arrangements no longer apply. It is a very narrow power and I do not think that it is relevant to the general discussions that the House has had on Henry VIII powers. I hope that Members on both sides of the House are satisfied and that they will not seek to press their amendments.

[Dr Whitehead]

I have listened carefully to the Minister this afternoon and would like to thank him for the constructive way he took the Bill through Committee. My personal view is that that is how we should legislate in practice. He has played a substantial part in making the process as good as it could be. However, just as I do not blame him personally for the fact that his football team recently scored a completely illegal goal—it was hand-balled—against my team and deprived it of two points, I do not blame him for the way the Bill has been constructed. He has attempted to justify parts of it that he is unable to amend, but nevertheless their construction, in my view, remains deeply unsatisfactory.

I am happy to withdraw amendment 1 and not to press the amendments that relate to the staffing and funding of the ONS—the Secretary of State has committed himself to reporting quarterly on progress with Euratom, which was the subject of one of our amendments in Committee, for which I am grateful—but I will press amendment 5 to a vote, because it relates to the Henry VIII clauses, which are a fundamental defect in the structure of the Bill. We wish to put it on the record that we would not wish such arrangements to be proceeded with under other circumstances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 1.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

Power to amend legislation relating to nuclear safeguards

Amendment proposed: 5,  page 4, line 13, at end insert—

‘(1A) The Secretary of State may only exercise powers under this section at the point at which amendment of any of the legislation in subsection (1) becomes necessary in order to complete the process of transposition of responsibility for nuclear safeguarding from EURATOM to the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and for no other purpose.

(1B) Upon exercising the power set out in subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the operation of the power.”—(Dr Whitehead.)

This amendment would limit circumstances under which the Secretary of State may exercise certain powers in this section and requires a report to be laid before Parliament.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Alan Whitehead

Tuesday 12th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

The facts are that the—

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Tell him he is wrong.

[Richard Harrington]

There is a lot of chuntering from a sedentary position, which I will not take any notice of. I would like to answer the question if Opposition Members will allow me.

My hon. Friend should know that the cost of renewable energy is coming down. The cost of electricity from offshore wind farms, for example, has halved in price since they were first introduced. The Opposition may interpret this to mean that my hon. Friend is wrong. I would say that he is not wrong but he needs further education on this subject, and I will be delighted to meet him at any time to discuss it.

Smart Meters Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Alan Whitehead

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 4, page 4, line 9, at end insert—

“(ba) in paragraph 33(3), for “negative” substitute “affirmative”

This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to the use of provisions of Schedule 20 of the Energy Act 2004 under this Act.

The amendment, which I alluded to this morning, relates to a further clause in the Bill to allow regulations to be made by the negative procedure, not the affirmative procedure that I think hon. Members would prefer in most circumstances. Clause 4(1) deals with the possibility that, as smart metering develops, the licence holder of the Data Communications Company could be a non-GB company. The clause sets out what would be the conditions of administration of the future DCC in the event that the company that was the ultimate owner was not a UK company; separate arrangements might have to be made for it. In the memorandum from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which I have mentioned previously, the procedure that is set out in the clause is described thus:

“We consider that the negative resolution procedure is justified for providing for what would be detailed modifications narrowly focused on particular provisions of insolvency legislation and their specific application to a non-GB company. Affirmative resolution procedure or new primary legislation is not considered to be appropriate given the nature of the changes.”

No particular reason is given for the fact that affirmative legislation is not considered to be appropriate. A further consideration that is new in this clause—it was not the case with the previous clause that we discussed in relation to affirmative resolution procedures—is that, as the memorandum states at the beginning of the paragraph, legislation on what would happen if the owner was a non-GB company would be undertaken using a Henry VIII power. We have not yet discussed Henry VIII powers in this Committee, although we discussed them in a previous Committee in which the Minister and I were involved. On that occasion it was generally concluded that the use of Henry VIII powers in legislation was a bad idea. As I am sure hon. Members will know, Henry VIII powers essentially allow primary legislation that is on the statute books to be amended by secondary means. As a general principle in this House, one would have thought that enabling the Government to do that—depending on what bounds have been placed on the procedure—is potentially a worrying development. Without recourse to the Floor of the House and a full debate on the legislation, a Government can, if that legislation contains Henry VIII clauses, use secondary legislation to alter what Parliament had previously discussed during the full process of Second Reading, Committee, Report and so on, through both Houses of Parliament. The Government can amend that legislation through a regulation that substitutes for a piece of the primary legislation that was discussed previously by the House. That seems a bad principle of legislation, and if it is to be used, it should be used extremely sparingly and only in emergency circumstances.

This Bill is generally quite benign and innocuous, but surprisingly it contains a Henry VIII power to amend the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Energy Act 2004 and its schedule by secondary legislation. In this instance, the proposal to allow that is not only suggested in terms of providing detailed modifications on particular aspects of the insolvency rate legislation by secondary legislation, but it enables a Henry VIII power to be put through Parliament on the basis of a negative resolution which, as I said this morning, would give Parliament very little scrutiny of the whole process.

This morning we discussed the difficult conditions that might apply if the DCC became insolvent, and the need for speed and urgency might conceivably justify passing such a measure through the House by negative resolution. We cannot, however, really apply those arguments to this clause because this is not something that will need to be done as a matter of urgency. As the memorandum states:

“The earliest the licence is expected to be re-tendered and could potentially be transferred to a non-GB company would be 23 September 2025.”

What we are considering is not exactly an urgent process, and neither is it in parallel with the ideas put forward when we discussed the previous clause. This is a Henry VIII power that proposes to amend primary legislation by means of a negative procedure where no urgency is envisaged—it is as simple as that. In those circumstances, it seems to me, and even given the Minister’s own words, that there can be little justification for taking through these legislative procedures with a negative resolution. That is why the amendment substitutes the word “affirmative” for “negative”. Bad though we think Henry VIII powers are generally, if there is to be such a power, it should at least be passed by affirmative, rather than negative procedure, and I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Henrys were discussed in the Committee that considered the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, including under the illustrious chairmanship of the then Mr McCabe, whom we must now refer to as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak. It was interesting to hear contributions from the hon. Gentleman not just about Henry VIII, but about Henry VII, the French king, I seem to recall, who I looked up on Wikipedia that very evening.

[Dr Whitehead]

I need to put a correction on the record in that case, Mrs Gillan, because I did mention Henry IX, the French king. It was, in fact, Henry IX of Bavaria. I was mistaken at that point, but there was indeed a Henry IX and he lived in Bavaria.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

The Minister tried quite hard, but did not actually say anything new, other than what is already on the delegated legislation memorandum that I myself read out to the Committee. That was essentially the Minister’s defence of the procedure he is seeking to introduce.

I might have anticipated some other, particular reason—in addition to it not being urgent—for putting this forward as a negative resolution. There apparently is not one, other than that it is fairly narrowly drawn and relates to the Insolvency Act 1986, but nevertheless it amends the Insolvency Act 1986 by secondary legislation and negative procedure. That is the point that I was making: it is not the narrowness of it but the procedure by which the legislation is amended. This is an important principle for legislation in general, and I am therefore afraid that I do not think we can withdraw the amendment this afternoon. We would like to see this an affirmative procedure. In the absence of any good ideas that might arise in the next few minutes—a bit like the EU negotiations on the border—we may have to divide the Committee on this.

[Richard Harrington]

I hope the hon. Gentleman knows that I do try to accommodate wherever I can. To disagree with the argument I have put forward—which is “the other ones are like that”—would be basically to say that the other ones are wrong. I cannot see any rationale—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will enlighten me—why one should be different from the other energy one. To me that is the important point; to him, I do not think that it is.

I would ask him to reconsider. If it is really important to him, rather than put it to a vote—which he is welcome to—he could sit down and discuss it with me before Report, when he would still have the option to do what he wanted. I am very happy to do that, but it seems to me to be an administrative matter and, to him, it does seem to be a point of principle. It if is a point of principle, I cannot really accommodate him because I have to show the precedents, but there may be other things we could explore. If that were a suitable option, I would be very happy to do it.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am afraid that we must press the point.

The fact that there is some bad legislation on the statute book does not mean there should automatically be more. I am afraid that that does not take us much further forward.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I have discussed the clause extensively and will not repeat my points other than to say that the powers are absolutely necessary. Hundreds of pages of things, such as quorums of meetings, have to be dealt with in this way. We propose to extend the application of the existing power, for which there is plenty of precedent, in relation to the energy supply company special administration regime.

[Dr Whitehead]

There is a new clause that refers effectively to what we are considering here, but I am happy for it to be discussed separately, even though it has a substantial bearing on whether a non-GB company might be a successor to the DCC. As far as this stand part debate is concerned, I have no further comments other than that I will save my fire for later when we discuss the new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Modifications of particular or standard conditions

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak made a very good case for this amendment, to which I want to add only the question of what is happening throughout the roll-out process. My point relates to the cost of the process and the cost-benefit analysis. There will be a better opportunity in discussing a later clause to go into that in greater depth. For the purposes of this particular amendment, the act of funding an administration without knowing the amount involved, which will inevitably go on to customers’ bills, could result in a further deterioration of the cost-benefit arrangements in the context of the process as a whole.

We see already a number of areas in the August 2016 cost-benefit analysis. Page 15 of that analysis sets out how a whole series of areas reduced their net present value by substantial amounts, sliding away from the previously positive cost-benefit finding, with an overall reduction in net present value of some £500 million.

We may well be in for further considerations as more cost-benefit issues arise, and as the programme unfolds we could be in the position of considering the statements made about the benefits to the public of smart meters overall. Let us not forget that the initial cost-benefit analyses looked very rosy compared with the programme’s predicted cost. One could argue that although there may be higher consumer bills to cover the programme’s implementation, the benefits to the customer, consumers and the country as a whole would be considerable.

I will quote from an academic paper entitled “Vulnerability and resistance in the United Kingdom smart meter transition”: the authors describe the expected combined total cost of the programme as being “at least £11 billion”, or more than £200 per household. It adds:

“Even the marketing campaign inspires awe, with £100 million committed over a five-year duration of the program, convincing Barnett”—

an academic authority—

“to estimate that it is the biggest advertising campaign in the world in the ‘next five years.’”

All these costs will go on customers’ bills, one way or another, and will be subject to that cost-benefit analysis as it comes through. In the event that administration is required of the DCC, it seems essential for us to know the impact of that administration on total bills to the public, and the impact on the net benefit. There might be circumstances in which the DCC goes into administration, is rescued in the manner suggested in the Bill, is put forward on a different basis and ends up being a net cost benefit to the public. But, apparently, we do not know the likely cost in such circumstances or what the benefit might be, and we do not have any mechanism for appraising that against what else is in the cost-benefit analysis.

The purpose of the amendment, admirably crafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, is to do just that. It would not stop the Minister from doing anything in particular; it is simply saying, “Have a good mind to that overall cost-benefit situation. Make sure you are clear about the costs and benefits of that process. Make sure that that gets reported and sees the light of day as far as the public are concerned.” That seems to me to be a sensible coda to put in the process that does not in any way put a brake on it. I think the whole Committee could support the amendment.

[Richard Harrington]

I thank the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Birmingham, Selly Oak for their contributions. Clause 6 grants the Secretary of State the power to make modifications to licensing conditions when he or she considers it appropriate to do so in connection with the special administration regime for the smart meter communication licensee.

The licence modifications envisaged under the power are already drafted and publicly available. They allow the costs of administration—however unlikely we agree such an event to be—to be recouped from the industry where there is a shortfall in the assets it gets back to meet the costs. As the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Birmingham, Selly Oak have said, it is hard—indeed, almost impossible—to estimate the cost of administration up front, and I fully accept their point that there cannot be a blind process or an open cheque; a firm of accountants should not be able to do what they want, when they want, and then charge for it.

One reads about insolvency operations in the press and sometimes one gets the impression that the costs of the administration are more than the insolvency achieves. However, I think that is very unlikely in this case, simply because of the guaranteed revenue stream and all the things we have been through before. The point made in moving the amendment is right: we should try to understand what the costs would be.

It has been estimated that the DCC has cost billions, and that is basically everything aggregated over the period. To put the issue in perspective, it projects its annual costs to be £67 million in 2019-20. Obviously, a significant part of the administration costs would pay the ongoing costs while the business is kept going to get more revenue and find a buyer. Those are already planned for; they are not new costs. In layman’s terms, new costs would be the fees for accountants and lawyers to deal with the actual physical administration itself. Those new costs are not to do with the actual running of the business, and I believe them to be limited. On the issue of scale, I cannot see the administration costs being disproportionate to the annual costs or the huge amount of set-ups.

The key point of the amendment is that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak and the shadow Minister feel that we should try to estimate the costs and that a lot more knowledge is needed and should be made available to the public. When the Government come to formally consult on the modifications, which they will in due course, the consultation document will provide an assessment of the potential scale of the cost that might need to be recouped from the industry. That can only be an estimate, because no one knows the exact figures, but there must be comparables. I suspect that the accountancy firms and other relevant parties, such as a regulator, will put in their estimates. I am very happy to provide that assessment in the consultation document. The responses that come in should be very helpful.

On the scale of cost, the assessment will need to take a variety of factors into account. Part of that is the running costs of the licensee and an estimate of the special administration cost. We will take advice from relevant parties—including the independent regulator, Ofgem—when providing the estimate of the potential cost. I undertake that the consultation on the licence modifications will be published and that we will invite comments from energy consumers as well as other representative bodies. One of the questions that we will expressly ask is whether the consultees agree with the assessment that we are laying out in the consultation. I undertake that, prior to the licence modifications being made, I am happy to make available to both Houses of Parliament the Government’s response to the consultation, which will report on the conclusions on the estimated potential scale of costs.

Having considered those points, I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

We are overrun with Henrys again this afternoon: there are more Henrys in clause 8. I have not tabled an amendment because the question of amendments to Henry VIII clauses has been tested, but the Committee should be aware that clauses 8 and 9 are substantial Henry VIII clauses. Both seek to make regulations by negative procedure. The clause to which I drew attention earlier is therefore not an accident; it is part of a theme that runs right through this Bill and that theme ought to be looked at.

We could have a debate about the justification for the procedure in clauses 8 and 9. Frankly, I think they have been written to make the Government’s life easier. That is not a sufficient reason to justify the enactment of legislation. I hope that I can recruit the Minister on future occasions for what I might call a crusade—

[Richard Harrington]

Wrong Henry.

[Dr Whitehead]

Different Henrys. I hope to recruit the Minister to drive such arrangements as far as possible out of our legislative procedure. I appreciate that there are circumstances in which they are necessary, but they do not apply to clauses 8 and 9. I want to register my concern about what is in the Bill, but I will not take the matter further at this stage.

[Richard Harrington]

I have carefully noted the shadow Minister’s comments. I would call this a minor piece of Henrying—not a Henrietta but a Henryette. I think we disagree on the scale. The powers are very limited and very necessary. I accept the good spirit in which the shadow Minister made his comments, but the powers are necessary for the reasons I have already given. We disagree, but I thank him for his good grace and his acceptance that I have made the arguments before, albeit unsuccessfully as far as he is concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Short title, commencement and extent

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

Yes, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that there has been widespread consultation. The amendments are very well spoken about in the industry and they will not come as a surprise at all. In fact, the general reaction is that the industry is very pleased that we have managed to introduce them with an act of pure opportunism of getting them through parliamentary scrutiny—assuming that we do—not as a standalone piece of legislation but as an important amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am in some difficulty here, inasmuch as what the Minister said about the content of the Government amendments is sound and clear. Indeed, they make an addition to the Bill and take us forward on getting ready for some of the benefits of smart meters, such as half-hourly settlements. However, as he indicated, this is effectively a separate Bill that has been lowered into the Smart Meters Bill and attached to it as Government amendments. He quite candidly stated that he took his chance—fair enough—to put it in the Bill, but it creates problems, some of which are at the very least technical, and some of which are possibly of a far wider nature.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak pointed out, none of this was mentioned on Second Reading. We went into Second Reading on the basis of the long title of the Bill, which was very restrictive. Indeed, I counselled a number of my colleagues who wanted to table wider amendments to the Bill that the long title prevented that. I said that it is a closely drawn long title, and we are required to stick to what it says. We have done that in this Committee. We have had a good debate about a number of issues within the terms of the long title, but there is a range of issues that hon. Members would very much have liked to discuss, and for perfectly proper reasons relating to the long title it has not been possible to discuss them in this Committee.

Once we got through Second Reading, we found that a procedure had been used that I am not aware has been used regularly—if at all in recent years—for a piece of legislation: changing the long title of a Bill during its passage. That is a very rare procedure in this House. I refer to the authority of Wikipedia—I say that for what it is worth. The Wikipedia people say:

“In the United Kingdom, the long title is important since, under the procedures of Parliament, a Bill cannot be amended to go outside the scope of its long title. For that reason, modern long titles tend to be rather vague”.

This one was not vague, but amendments have clearly been introduced that are outside the scope of the long title.

There are some precedents, albeit not from this Parliament but from associated Parliaments whose precedents nevertheless have some relevance to this Parliament through the processes of the Privy Council. In Australia, a Department wished to amend a Bill whose title was “A Bill to amend the XX Act, and for related purposes”. My note, which is a drafting direction from Parliamentary Counsel, states that:

“The proposed amendments were not related to the subject matter of the Bill, but would have amended an Act administered by the relevant Minister. The Deputy Clerk advised that if proposed amendments fall a long way outside the subject matter of the Bill, it could be considered a misuse of the House’s powers for a motion to be moved to suspend the standing orders. Accordingly, the amendments were not able to be included in the Bill.”

A version of suspending the Standing Orders has been undertaken in this House. Amendments 18 and 19 actually add some new words to the long title of the Bill, so apparently, by magic, things that were outside the scope of the Bill are now inside the scope of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I must confess that I am a little bit confused by that ruling. I take your point, Mrs Gillan, but my understanding is that we did have a long title of the Bill and that was the long title that we have been speaking to until this moment, and that was the long title that we spoke to on Second Reading. That was the basis on which all amendments to date, except these amendments, have been drafted into the Bill. So it does create a different series of circumstances, and one that I believe merits at least some kind of review for the future. Although I take your concerns very strongly on board, Mrs Gillan, I think it would be remiss of me not to express those points on the position we find ourselves in as far as the Bill is concerned. [Interruption.] I can see that I am not necessarily gaining the full acclaim of all members of the Committee in pursuing this particular point, but it is important procedurally to put it on the record. I hope we can have some further thoughts on that at a future date.

I turn to the substance of the amendments. What they do is a good idea and, had the Minister been able to bring the amendments on board by slightly different means, we would have had no concerns at all about what they say, what they add to the Bill, and why they are important in taking us to the next stage in terms of some of the benefits that smart meters may bring in the future. We would be happy to give those amendments, therefore, our wholehearted support. We are not going to press any of the amendments to a vote this afternoon, but I am pleased that our concerns are now on the record, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak suggested. It may well be the case that we have not heard the last of the matter.

[Richard Harrington]

I thank the shadow Minister for his comments. I am quite a simple person. When I was looking at this bit of the legislation, I asked a very simple question of the experts in the Department—the parliamentary advisers and lawyers: is it acceptable, is it within the rules and within the scope of the Bill, to include the half-hourly settlement? The answer was, “It is the decision—many things are—of the House authorities and the Chair, but it seems to us that it is very much within scope.”

I would like to make it clear that the scope of the Bill has not changed with this Government amendment. It remains about smart metering and data from smart meters. As Mrs Gillan has confirmed, the House authorities have said that. As such, the amendments in scope would have been in scope then. Half-hourly settlements are not possible without smart metering.

I promise I am not making light of the comments of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. He means to get them on the record and he has explained that very reasonably. I thank him for his general support for the amendments, but at the same time I hope that he gives me the credit that this was not some charlatan move to slip something round the corner that was marginal in nature.

[Dr Whitehead]

Forgive me, but the Minister cannot proceed in this manner. The long title makes it evident to all those sitting here. It is to

“Extend the period for the Secretary of State to exercise powers relating to smart metering and to provide for a special administration regime for a smart meter communication licensee.”

It clearly and narrowly states two things. It does not even say “for related purposes.” It refers to extending the period for smart meter licensing arrangements, and to a special administration regime. That is it. As the Minister himself acknowledges, it has been necessary to move two amendments to change the scope of the Bill, essentially in order to omit those elements. So that is the basis on which we should discuss this, whatever the rights and wrongs of the amendments otherwise are.

[Richard Harrington]

I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s right to discuss the matter, and I did not suggest for a moment that he was doing wrong in bringing this forward, or placing it on the record—far from it. I am just saying that, from my point of view, this was acting upon advice, that it was perfectly proper to get something that I felt was very important. I believe that it has the support of—I hope—most Members in the House generally, because we all think that it is a very good thing. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels as he does, but I thank him for accepting that it was done for the right reason. I believe, as he does, that parliamentary procedure is important.

These rules have evolved over centuries for reasons, and—quite rightly—neither I nor anyone else on behalf of the Government can get things in round the side, or bring in things that should never be. When we decided to introduce the amendment, I did have a meeting with the hon. Gentleman to explain it to him, I suppose in an official capacity but obviously not within a Bill Committee capacity, and he did explain his support generally for it. His points have been noted on the record. I hope that my response—which I do not think he found satisfactory—is also on the record.

The amendments support the move to a smarter, more flexible energy system. Half-hourly settlement billed directly on a smart metering platform is a central aspect of the smart systems and flexibility plan that was published in July. The proposals will allow Ofgem to take forward the reforms in a more streamlined way, and I thank the shadow Minister for his support for the substance of the amendments.

Amendment 17 agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 8

MODIFICATION OF ELECTRICITY CODES ETC: SETTLEMENT USING SMART METER INFORMATION

“‘(1) The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority (“the Authority”) may—

(a) modify a document maintained in accordance with an electricity licence, and

(b) modify an agreement that gives effect to such a document,

if the condition in subsection (2) is satisfied.

(2) The condition is that the Authority considers the modification necessary or desirable for the purposes of enabling or requiring half-hourly electricity imbalances to be calculated using information about customers’ actual consumption of electricity on a half-hourly basis.

(3) The power to make modifications under this section includes—

(a) power to make provision about the determination of amounts payable in connection with half-hourly electricity imbalances;

(b) power to remove or replace all of the provisions of a document or agreement;

(c) power to make different provision for different purposes;

(d) power to make incidental, supplementary, consequential or transitional modifications.

(4) A modification may not be made under this section after the end of the period of 5 years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.

(5) In this section—

“balancing arrangements” means arrangements made by the transmission system operator for the purposes of balancing the national transmission system for Great Britain;

“electricity licence” means a licence under section 6(1) of the Electricity Act 1989;

“half-hourly electricity imbalance” means the difference between the amount of electricity consumed by an electricity supplier’s customers during a half-hour period and the amount of electricity purchased by the electricity supplier for delivery during that period, after taking into account any adjustments in connection with the supplier’s participation in balancing arrangements;

“supply”, in relation to electricity, has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989 (see section 4(4) of that Act);

“transmission system” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989 (see section 4(4) of that Act);

“transmission system operator” means the person operating the national transmission system for Great Britain.”—(Richard Harrington.)

This new clause gives Ofgem power to modify documents maintained in accordance with an electricity licence, or agreements giving effect to such documents, so as to enable half-hourly electricity imbalances to be calculated using information obtained from smart meters.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

Modification under section(Modification of electricity codes etc: settlement using smart meter information)

“(1) Before making a modification under section(Modification of electricity codes etc: settlement using smart meter information), the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority (“the Authority”) must—

(a) publish a notice about the proposed modification,

(b) send a copy of the notice to the persons listed in subsection (2), and

(c) consider any representations made within the period specified in the notice about the proposed modification or the date from which it would take effect.

(2) The persons mentioned in subsection (1)(b) are—

(a) each relevant licence holder,

(b) the Secretary of State,

(c) Citizens Advice,

(d) Citizens Advice Scotland, and

(e) such other persons as the Authority considers appropriate.

(3) The period specified under subsection (1)(c) must be a period of not less than 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is published.

(4) A notice under subsection (1) must—

(a) state that the Authority proposes to make a modification,

(b) set out the proposed modification and its effect,

(c) specify the date from which the Authority proposes that the modification will have effect, and

(d) state the reasons why the Authority proposes to make the modification.

(5) If, after complying with subsections (1) to (4) in relation to a modification, the Authority decides to make a modification, it must publish a notice about the decision.

(6) A notice under subsection (5) must—

(a) state that the Authority has decided to make the modification,

(b) set out the modification and its effect,

(c) specify the date from which the modification has effect,

(d) state how the Authority has taken account of any representations made in the period specified in the notice under subsection (1), and

(e) state the reason for any differences between the modification set out in the notice and the proposed modification.

(7) A notice under this section about a modification or decision must be published in such manner as the Authority considers appropriate for bringing it to the attention of those likely to be affected by the making of the modification or decision.

(8) Sections 3A to 3D of the Electricity Act 1989 (principal objective and general duties) apply in relation to the functions of the Authority under section (Modification of electricity codes etc: settlement using smart meter information) and this section with respect to modifications of documents maintained in accordance with electricity licences, and agreements giving effect to such documents, as they apply in relation to functions of the Authority under Part 1 of that Act.

(9) For the purposes of subsections (1) to (10) of section 5A of the Utilities Act 2000 (duty of Authority to carry out impact assessment), a function exercisable by the Authority under section (Modification of electricity codes etc: settlement using smart meter information) is to be treated as if it were a function exercisable by it under or by virtue of Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989.

(10) The reference in subsection (8) to the functions of the Authority under section(Modification of electricity codes etc: settlement using smart meter information) includes a reference to the Authority’s functions under subsections (1) to (10) of section 5A of the Utilities Act 2000 as applied by subsection (9).

(11) In this section—

“electricity licence” has the meaning given in section (Modification of electricity codes etc: settlement using smart meter information);

“relevant licence holder” means, in relation to the modification of a document maintained under an electricity licence or an agreement that gives effect to such a document, the holder of a licence under which the document is maintained.”—(Richard Harrington.)

This new clause sets out the procedural requirements that apply to the exercise of the power under NC8.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

Date from which modifications of electricity licence conditions may have effect

“(1) The Electricity Act 1989 is amended in accordance with this section.

(2) In section 11A(9) (modifications of electricity licence conditions not to have effect less than 56 days from publication of decision to modify), at the end insert “, except as provided in section 11AA”.

(3) After that section insert—

“11AA Modification of conditions under section 11A: early effective date

(1) The date specified by virtue of section 11A(8) in relation to a modification under that section may be less than 56 days from the publication of the decision to proceed with the making of the modification if—

(a) the Authority considers it necessary or expedient for the modification to have effect before the 56 days expire,

(b) the purpose condition is satisfied,

(c) the consultation condition is satisfied, and

(d) the time limit condition is satisfied.

(2) The purpose condition is that the Authority considers the modification necessary or desirable for purposes described in section (Modification of electricity codes etc: settlement using smart meter information)(2) of the Smart Meters Act 2017 (enabling or requiring half-hourly electricity imbalances to be calculated using information about customers’ actual consumption of electricity on a half-hourly basis).

(3) The consultation condition is that the notice under section 11A(2) relating to the modification—

(a) stated the date from which the Authority proposed that the modification should have effect,

(b) stated the Authority’s reasons for proposing that the modification should have effect from a date less than 56 days from the publication of the decision to modify, and

(c) explained why, in the Authority’s view, that would not have a material adverse effect on any licence holder.

(4) The time limit condition is that the specified date mentioned in subsection (1) falls within the period of 5 years beginning on the day on which section (Modification of electricity codes etc: settlement using smart meter information) of the Smart Meters Act 2017 comes into force.”

(4) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 5A (procedure for appeals under section 11C: suspension of decision), after sub-paragraph (1) insert—

‘(1A) In the case of an appeal against a decision of the Authority which already has effect by virtue of section 11AA, the CMA may direct that the modification that is the subject of the decision—

(a) ceases to have effect entirely or to such extent as may be specified in the direction, and

(b) does not have effect, or does not have effect to the specified extent, pending the determination of the appeal.’”—(Richard Harrington.)

This new clause allows licence modifications under NC8 to become effective before 56 days have elapsed.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

Review of smart meter rollout targets

“(1) Within 3 months of this Act coming in to force, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on the progress of the smart meter rollout and lay a copy of the report before Parliament.

(2) The report under subsection (1) shall consider—

(a) progress towards the 2020 completion target;

(b) smart meter installation cost;

(c) the number of meters operating in dummy mode;

(d) the overall cost to date of the DCC;

(e) the projected cost of the DCC; and

(f) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.” —(Steve McCabe.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish details about the cost and progress of the smart meter roll out, with reference to the 2020 deadline.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause, as I flagged up to the Committee earlier, relates to clause 4(1) and to the circumstances in which a successor to a company that has gone into administration might be brought about, and the safeguards concerning the identity of that successor company should it take over the reins. My understanding of those circumstances is that, should there be a period of administration, a successor company would take over prior to 2025 when administration is determined. There could then be a retendering, as it were, of the process by which a company runs the DCC in 2025. At both of those points, there would potentially be a question about the identity of that company. We know the identity of the company at present: Capita is running the DCC, and the DCC as an organisation is a fully owned subsidiary of Capita.

I must say for the record that my ideal way of running the DCC would be for it to be a public body and not responsible to a company. The formation of the DCC, maybe at a future date should the circumstances be different, as a not-for-profit public interest body concerned with the proper administration of the whole smart meter arrangement, in the public interest and for the public good, would be the best way to organise things. That is not the position now, however, and it may not be for some while.

The amendment would look at how one might align the public interest and public good with circumstances under which a successor company might be called on, in the event of administration procedures. On this occasion it would give a power to the Secretary of State, since it would give the Secretary of State discretion to look at the circumstances of a tender or a post-administration arrangement—presumably also by tender—in circumstances where a non-GB company were to become the successor or putative successor company running the DCC.

Without entering into any great conspiracy theories, we have to have some regard for the ownership and running of an organisation that holds a huge amount of information about what we do, who we are and how we work. That is vital information concerning not just our activities but our aggregate activities. Ensuring that the company running the DCC is working appropriately in the national interest with that information and that crucial role seems to me quite an important thing, which we ought to consider.

As things appear to stand at the moment—I do not wish to name any companies for fear that, outside the privilege of the House, they decide to deal with me appropriately—

[Richard Harrington]

You might need protection.

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed. I was going to say to the Minister, who has gone on the record as having nudged people in his previous post, that I cannot offer him full protection if he carries on nudging people, particularly in pubs. My protection is conditional.

We ought to consider the issue seriously. I appreciate that under the present circumstances of our membership of the EU it would be difficult for the Secretary of State to exercise the sort of powers I am suggesting he might have. However, by the time 2025 comes around, one way or another we will not be a member of the EU. The Secretary of State could therefore exercise that power in the public and the national interest, unfettered by other considerations.

It would be prudent for the Secretary of State to have that power available to him or her so that we can put our affairs in order concerning what I agree continues to be an unlikely sequence of events. We ought to have it on our minds, however, in case those events occur. In that way, we can rescue not only the position of the administrator but what the company subsequently does in the national interest as far as keeping control of all this data and running a smart meter programme are concerned.

[Richard Harrington]

I thank the shadow Minister for his comments. The important part of the amendment is valid. Again, it is “what if”, and we have to consider that. I have tried to assess those points. The new clause would give the Secretary of State a non-time-limited power to impose conditions on future smart meter communication licences as appropriate, which could include restricting future licensees to being British-owned companies.

The licences that are valid at the moment were granted to Smart DCC Ltd in 2013 for a period of 12 years, which is why 2025 has been mentioned quite a few times. That would be the earliest time at which they could be re-tendered. It is the intention that any competition to grant a new smart meter communication licence carried out after November 2018 would be conducted by Ofgem, the first one being appointed by the Secretary of State. That reflects our policy of transferring responsibility from the Government to the smart metering programme, from the Government to the regulator, and recognising that smart metering will eventually become business as usual for the energy industry after this period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for his explanation. Perhaps I could seek a slight amount of further clarification on his confidence that, in these particular circumstances, he would be able, in principle, to intervene using the powers he has set out that exist elsewhere in Government. He appears to be saying that powers already exist that would allow him to address the issue, and that new clause 3 is therefore not necessary. Is he confident that in the specialised circumstances pertaining to administration and subsequent events, those powers would be fully applicable in terms of the concerns that I have raised?

[Richard Harrington]

Yes, I am satisfied, but subject to the fact that the legislation on the security aspect of it is evolving and currently under consultation. From what I have read in the Green Paper and all the work that has gone into it, it is precisely the security aspects of the circumstances the hon. Gentleman is describing that would be covered.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

Review: Use of powers to support technical development

‘(1) Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission a review which shall consider how the extended use of powers provided for in section 1 will support the technical development of smart meters, with reference to—

(a) alternative solutions for Home Area Network connections where premises are not able to access the HAN using existing connection arrangements,

(b) hard to reach premises.

(2) The Secretary shall lay the report of the review in subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review how the extension of powers support technical development of smart meters.—(Dr Whitehead.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am afraid, Mrs Gillan, that you have got me for the rest of the running. New clause 5 relates back to clause 1 and deals with the extent to which, as a result of the extension of time for the exercise of powers, the Minister may consider what licensing may be necessary over the period in respect of particular aspects of the roll-out: in this instance, the use of the home area network and wider area network. Hon. Members will know the distinction: the home area network is the communications that happen between the meter, the house and the immediate external data receiver. The second, the wide area network, relates to the extent to which data receivers can operate in certain areas where population is sparse, there are geophysical difficulties in getting coverage and so on.

In those circumstances, the Government reported in the documents that went before the regulatory committee:

“Smart meters make use of a home area network to link the smart meter to consumer devices such as the in-home display or smart appliances. The technical solutions already being delivered currently apply to approximately 96.5% of premises. In some premises such as apartments in high-rise buildings where there is a long distance between the smart meter and the premises, these solutions are not viable.”

Essentially, the Government are saying that they know that under the present comms arrangements, all but 3.5% of properties can reasonably reliably be considered as covered, but there are certain circumstances, such as some basement buildings or high-rise flats, in which the home area network cannot easily communicate its data properly and safely back to the external devices. The Government state:

“It is necessary to provide a technical solution to ensure that all devices in these premises are linked to the smart meter using the home area network. This work is currently being progressed through the Alternative HAN Forum”.

I am not sure whether anybody would get very far at parties by saying they were a member of the Alternative HAN Forum, but such a body exists and it brings together suppliers to develop and procure new solutions for those premises.

The Department then states:

“It might be considered appropriate to separately license these activities to provide a greater degree of regulatory control over them.”

It is considering whether there is a need for a separate licence arrangement, so far as those activities are concerned, to ensure that, when solutions for that 3.5% of premises come about, they should be properly controlled by licensing within the terms of the roll-out. Similarly, the Department considers that a little over

“99% of premises in Great Britain are capable of connecting to the DCC through the wide area network”.

That is the WAN. I do not know if there is an alternative WAN forum as well as an Alternative HAN Forum, but under those circumstances it would clearly be thinking about that 1% of premises that look unlikely to be able to connect through that wide area network. The Department states:

“A different solution may be necessary to provide coverage to smart meters in the remaining hard to reach premises which the wide area network does not cover. It might be considered appropriate to create a licensable activity that relates to arranging the establishment of communications to these properties.”

The Department has in mind two licensable activities that may arise when those solutions are under way. I certainly understand, so far as the wide area network is concerned, that technical solutions such as patching—essentially patching in areas that are not available to the wide area network to what is available—are in a reasonably advanced state.

The new clause essentially asks the Minister to consider these two particular issues relating to the licensing of those activities and asks the Secretary of State to commission a specific review to look at how the extended use of powers provided for in proposed new section 1 will support those two areas of development—alternative solutions to the home area network and hard-to-reach premises that the wide area network cannot reach. Rather than there being a feeling that it might be appropriate to create a licensable activity, the new clause will make it rather more formalised by requiring the Secretary of State to actually produce a report on those particular issues and how they can be sorted out as the roll-out progresses.

Clearly, the extension of time for the roll-out gives the Secretary of State the ability to consider the issue in more detail and get, at a reasonably early stage, licensable arrangements, or would-be licensing arrangements, in such a report that would cover those activities in those particular areas. That would also be a sensible addition to the Bill—either securely in the Bill or, alternatively, through an acknowledgement and understanding that this is an issue for the future that needs to be considered and which should come under licensing arrangements, and that work will be undertaken to ensure that that happens.

[Richard Harrington]

The new clause has two points, as I see it. First, the smart meter system establishes a wireless home area network—HAN—in a consumer’s home that links the gas and electricity meters’ in-home display and the communications hub; and the communications hub establishes the network and manages the data across it. As with any wireless technology, various physical factors affect the performance of the HAN, such as what the building is made of or the thickness of the walls, as indeed we find with mobile phones in parts of the Palace of Westminster—in some places it works and in some it does not.

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Lady has been to my office. She is welcome again any time.

Those things do affect the signal strength in exactly the way that we are joking about—it is actually true. The distance between the various pieces of smart meter equipment will also affect the performance of the HAN—for example, where a meter is located away from the main residence or in the basement of a block of flats—but it is important that the HAN works, to deliver the benefits for consumers, such as the in-home display.

For the vast majority of premises the communications hub provides the necessary home network. In the small number of premises that it does not, some form of alternative will be needed to ensure there is a working HAN. If there is not, how can we ask people to take on smart meters? We have already used our section 88 powers to place obligations on energy suppliers to develop and deliver an alternative to this, which—to continue the use of expressions and abbreviations by the shadow Minister—I would call “Alt HAN.” The Alt HAN Forum, the Alternative Home Area Network Forum—believe me, there is one—has been established along with the Alt HAN Company and its board. This gives suppliers the framework to get on and develop the solutions they will need. The forum has developed a commercial strategy, which is being implemented, and a procurement exercise is currently under way, and we expect the pace of delivery to pick up next year. It is an important part of the roll-out and the Department has worked closely with the forum throughout the early stage of its setup, and we are continuing to do so. We are tracking progress through the smart metering implementation programme’s governance, and we will monitor on an ongoing basis and determine whether further regulation is needed—so it is ongoing work.

The second point mentioned in the new clause was the arrangement for the so-called “hard-to-reach” premises. Here we are talking about communication of data to and from the premises through the Wide Area Network—referred to so gracefully by the shadow Minster as the WAN—to energy suppliers via the DCC. There are some premises that it may be difficult for WAN communications to reach, due to the location’s surroundings, for example in built-up areas with tall buildings, but also in remote and mountainous areas. By the end of 2020, on the basis of existing solutions, we expect that 0.75% of premises will be without DCC WAN and reaching these will be disproportionately expensive, with costs likely to exceed benefits, but it is not a static solution. Through its licence we placed obligations on the DCC to take steps to explore other solutions, which could be used to fill any coverage gap. We have to look for ways to ensure that these premises are serviced, because otherwise they will never get full access to smart services, and we are pushing suppliers to innovate to find solutions that work for them and their customers. We have facilitated an industry-led group for this purpose, to consider possible solutions. Finally, customers without DCC WAN can still benefit from some smart services, such as consumption data shown on the in-home display.

Those are important areas, and I know they are quite technical and not of interest to many people, but I felt it was necessary to take the opportunity to explore them. As I have outlined, we are closely monitoring activity and development—we really are. That is very important and is part of the whole development. I do not consider it necessary to add a separate review process on top of the existing working arrangements, which are all very comprehensive. I hope the shadow Minister finds my explanation reassuring and on that basis will agree to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

I do find that reassuring and it is good to know that these processes are under way, albeit under circumstances where we are a little way from where we want to go. I hope that those processes can lead to a good result for what I appreciate are fairly small proportions of the population that one way or another cannot access the HAN or the WAN. Hopefully, we will be able to provide that reassurance that the roll-out really will be the roll-out that we want it to be in terms of the full connectivity of everyone who is being offered a smart meter for the future. That is an important consideration that we have on the table in the latter stages of the roll-out, and I hope that the current developments can reach that happy conclusion. Under those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

Review: Use of powers to support rollout of smart meters

“(1) Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission a review which shall consider how the extended use of powers provided for in section 1 will support the rollout of smart meters, with reference to—

(a) providing for efficient removal and disposal of old meters,

(b) reviewing the exemptions for smaller suppliers from a legally binding requirement to roll out smart meters.

(2) The Secretary of State shall lay the report of the review in subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review how the extension of powers supports the rollout of smart meters.—(Dr Whitehead.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I think that the Minister’s defence may be that the new clause is not properly drafted and therefore he cannot accept it. It is not the case that it is not properly drafted in terms of being in order or making sense, but it states something about smaller suppliers that is not quite right. Nevertheless, I want to set out the sentiment of the paragraph that refers to smaller suppliers and seek the Minister’s view on what might be done. We have already had a substantial debate on the subject of paragraph (a)—the efficient removal and disposal of old meters—so I want to concentrate my thoughts and remarks on the second part of the clause.

Although it is the case that smaller suppliers—non-obligated suppliers that have fewer than 250,000 customers, including dual-fuel customers—are not as obligated as companies that have more than 250,000 customers in the smart meter roll-out, it is true that all suppliers eventually are obligated to get meters into homes by the end of the roll-out period. Smaller suppliers are not legally obligated in the way that larger suppliers are to reach the milestones and the attainment agreements in place, which I mentioned earlier and which are undertaken through a legal directive from Ofgem. Therefore, it would be quite possible for those suppliers not to install smart meters until the last quarter of the last year of the roll-out, and then rush and install them all, while still meeting their final obligations, because they are not subject to milestones in the way larger suppliers are.

It can be suggested that that non-obligation means that smaller suppliers, by and large, are not very advanced in smart meter installation programmes. Obviously, there is a question about arrangements that smaller suppliers have to make when dealing with their often dispersed group of customers—if, for example, they are responsible for installing five smart meters in Congleton, three smart meters in Biggleswade and six smart meters in Clacton, depending on the distribution of their customers. In those circumstances, they will clearly factor out the installation of those smart meters to a third party. We have already discussed what happens with third-party meter installation arrangements on occasions in this Committee.

Overall, there are a number of not exactly worrying incidents but incidents in which it appears that smaller suppliers are slow off the mark in getting smart meters installed. Clearly, as we approach the point at which we have to get those smart meters in—towards the end of the 2020 period—that could become a significant factor, even though small suppliers of fewer than 250,000 represent about 6.5% of the total market. That is not an insignificant amount, particularly towards the end of the smart meter roll-out period.

The new clause, or certainly its sentiment, indicates that the particular circumstances might be reviewed as the roll-out progresses. The smaller suppliers should be more closely bound into the milestones than is the case at the moment so that we can have reasonable certainty that we are progressing across the board so that, by the time we get towards the end of 2020, we will not have a bit of the roll-out jigsaw that is not in place, possibly to the detriment of the roll-out as a whole. Will the Minister assure me that he is actively considering how that particular problem might be resolved? That would in turn be very helpful in my considerations about the new clause.

[Richard Harrington]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. His new clause would require the Secretary of State to review how the extended use of powers will support the efficient removal and disposal of the old meters that are replaced by smart meters, as well as to review the roll-out obligations applicable to smaller energy suppliers.

As the shadow Minister said, we have discussed the first one at some length. A meeting is being convened with officials from BEIS and DEFRA and, I believe, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak. I hope that the shadow Minister will also be available—I hope both Members will be because the purpose is to discuss fully the valid points that they made.

On the exemptions for small energy suppliers, it is true that the pressure is not on them as it is on the larger suppliers, for reasons that have been explained formally and informally. At the moment, the smaller suppliers are growing but they have a very fragmented customer base, as the shadow Minister explained well. That does not mean that they are being let off. In fact, Ofgem asked smaller suppliers for annual reports on progress and, ultimately, will take a view on it and whether it needs to be speeded up, noting that the progress has still to be consistent with taking all reasonable steps to comply with the 2020 regulations. They are not exempt; practically, however, the regulator has gone for the suppliers with the larger consumer bases first, to give the smaller ones a chance to get a mass of membership. In my area, I keep speaking to people who have basically followed the same thought process as me and gone for my smaller supplier, just on the internet. I can see that happening in practice.

In developing the regulations, the Government have been cognisant of the fact that the resources of smaller suppliers and big ones are different. That is a question—a point I have made—not only of the bulk of customers being concentrated but of the necessary IT systems and completion of the requisite security assessment to become a DCC user, which they can do six months later than large suppliers, for good reason.

We have also taken steps to manage the financial burden on small energy suppliers. The policy is to get as many smaller companies into the market as possible, for reasons of competition. The charges—the costs of the DCC data and communications services—are proportionate to an energy supplier’s market share. The larger suppliers pay the most and the smallest the least; it is not a flat rate at all. The Government have also made explicit provisions to facilitate an active market for a number of IT service businesses to provide the connection between the DCC and small energy suppliers, rather than allowing large companies to have a monopoly of it.

In conclusion, the design of the smart metering infrastructure means that, regardless of size, an energy supplier can access any smart meter enrolled on the DCC system and can therefore operate on a level playing field with all other energy suppliers. That is constantly under review by Ofgem. I repeat that their progress and their obligations are exactly the same, it is just a question of when and how. I hope the hon. Member for Southampton, Test finds my explanation reassuring and will agree to withdraw the new clause on that basis.

[Dr Whitehead]

I do find the Minister’s explanation reassuring. I hope, however, that what those smaller suppliers are doing is kept closely under review as the roll-out progresses. They are an integral part of the roll-out process, and they should not be able easily to evade their responsibilities to ensure that the roll-out is a success due to their circumstances. The Minister has reassured me that light that will be shone on that progress so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Title

Amendments made: 18, title, line 2, leave out “and”.

See the note to amendment 19.

19, title, line 3, at end insert “and to make provision enabling half-hourly electricity imbalances to be calculated using information obtained from smart meters”.—(Richard Harrington.)

This amends the Bill’s long title so that it covers the provision about smart meters made by NC8 to NC10.

[The Chair]

Before I put the final question, on behalf of the Committee I would like to thank everybody who has looked after us, particularly the members of the Committee, but also the Clerks, Hansard, the doorkeeper and the officials who have supported the Government Front Bench team.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Richard Harrington]

I would like to thank you, Mrs Gillan, and Mr Gapes for chairing so well and for having such patience with the shadow Minister, me and others. I reinforce what you said about the Clerks and the House authorities who have equally behaved in an exemplary manner. I also take this chance to thank my Bill team, who have lived and breathed this Bill. I commend them for everything that they have done. I thank members of the Committee on both sides for their patience and for all their good intentions to try to make something of the Bill and to improve it.

[Dr Whitehead]

I add my thanks to the members of the Committee for the positive way in which our debate has been conducted and for the conclusions that we have reached at the end of the Bill, and to you, Mrs Gillan, for your superb chairing of our proceedings and for your patience with me when I no doubt tested you to some considerable extent on matters of arcane constitutional interest. You conducted proceedings with complete impartiality, fairness and concern for the welfare of all members of the Committee. I pay specific thanks to our outstanding Committee Clerks, who have been of tremendous assistance to Opposition Members in getting our material together for the Committee, and who went way beyond the call of duty in ensuring that that happened. I thank them for that considerably.

Smart Meters Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Alan Whitehead

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

I am not quite sure what that meant. I understand that at present, as the memorandum indicates, there is only one licensable activity that could be removed, and that is indeed the DCC service. The Minister rightly puts it to us that it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which the Government would decide to remove that licensable activity, but that is not what legislation is about. Legislation is not about whether, on the balance of probability and taking all things into account, including the bona fides of the Government, something that one might legislate on should not be legislated on because it is unlikely to happen; legislation is supposed to ensure that, in all circumstances we can think of, those things that we do not want to happen should not happen.

Although I take on board what the Minister has said—I do not doubt for one moment his bona fides—I do not think that he has added anything to the debate this morning, other than to repeat what was in the Department’s memorandum.

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Gentleman has been gracious in his comments about me personally, about the Secretary of State and, I hope, about most people who would do the job, but should there one day be an evil Secretary of State who, in the middle of the night, while plotting the destruction of society, realised that they could use this power, which in the scale of things is pretty tiny, how would they use it in so destructive a way that a future Parliament might think, “Oh, I wish we had been stronger in this Bill and that we had the power suggested by the then hon. Gentleman”? I hasten to add that I am not hoping that he will have gone to the great energy supplier in the sky, as we all will at some stage. The serious point is this: were that to happen, what is the bad way in which this power could be used?

[Dr Whitehead]

A future Secretary of State does not necessarily have to have quite the intents suggested by the Members making non-verbal interventions. I can easily envisage such circumstances. For example, bearing in mind that the present DCC is set up as the subsidiary of a private company—

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I was going to thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I will not now. I am grateful that I am not abusing the system, which I was going to.

I think we have to agree to disagree on this point, because I believe that, given the restrictions in the Bill and everything else, it is a minor point. I accept that the hon. Gentleman is not doing it to bring down the Government or anything like that, because opposition is opposition. I respect him not just for his position but, much more than that, for the person he is. If he wishes to press the amendment to a vote, then I understand that I have not persuaded him. If he wishes me to ponder the matter further, or even to meet him and talk about it, I am perfectly prepared to do so. I think it is making a mountain out of a molehill.

He thinks changing the licensable activity is quite an important thing that needs to be brought before Parliament. Any decision to remove a licensable activity would still be subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the affirmative procedure, but it is ultimately a question of what discretion a Secretary of State should have in the consumer’s interest. We could politely agree to disagree on that, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to discuss this further and withdraw his amendment for that purpose, I would respect both things. At the moment, I disagree with him not because we are the Government and he is the Opposition but because I do not see the significance of the points he is making.

[Dr Whitehead]

This is not a cosmically important thing, and I agree with the Minister that it is unlikely to change the course of the roll-out, but I say gently that that is not necessarily what we are supposed to do in Committee. We are not supposed just to grade the importance of the things in the Bill and then decide to act on them according to their relative importance; we are supposed to examine the Bill line by line and, between us, suggest ways that it can be strengthened so that it is as good as we can make it when it returns on Report and Third Reading. That means that things may be added to the Bill that are not in themselves important but could be regarded, in the context of the work we are supposed to do in Committee, as a result of our discharging our responsibilities properly.

I am in a bit of a dilemma. I agree with the Minister that this is not a really important thing, but I cannot see for the life of me why it cannot be placed in the Bill so that at the end of its passage it is as good as we, between us, can make it and that it contains things that, although they may not be that important, add to its overall strength. I simply have not heard any reason why that cannot be done. I have heard reasons why the amendment is not that important. The Minister might suggest—and he might be right—that if we put it to a vote we would over-emphasise its importance. However, I am—“annoyed” is not quite the right word—a little concerned that something that can be seen as reasonably obvious, if not as significantly strengthening the Bill, regardless of our party positions or of the position we take on the Bill overall, is rejected in this way. For that reason, I seek to divide the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

There is not too much more to say on clause 1 stand part, inasmuch as we have undertaken a good examination of the clause. We have made a number of suggestions to strengthen it. Although we had a little fall-out just recently, in general the discussion has proceeded in such a way that we are satisfied that the points we have raised have either been taken into account, explained properly, or given rise to some undertakings about how matters might proceed not within the context of the clause, but perhaps administratively in backing up the clause. Therefore we would not want to oppose clause 1 stand part.

New clause 4 has been grouped with the clause 1 stand part debate. That is sort of the wrong way around, because the Minister has given his assurances about new clause 4 before I had the opportunity to say what I wished to have assurances about, but we will let that one pass and proceed as if it was the other way around. Just to explain to the Committee, new clause 4 is drafted very specifically, again, in the context of the memorandum in which the Department set out the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, where the Department states its justification for taking powers in clause 1. It says:

“We consider this extension was necessary so that the Government can remove any barriers to the roll-out of smart meters which emerged and ensure that benefits for consumers are maximised in the continuing operating of smart meters following completion of the roll-out”.

It then states:

“The Government has made public commitments to undertake reviews in the following areas of the smart meter roll-out…data access and privacy to ensure the regulatory framework remains fit for purpose in 2018…benefits realised during the roll-out to assess whether we can do anything to encourage greater benefits in 2019…overall effectiveness of the policy framework post-implementation for future smart metering operations in 2021”.

As hon. Members will observe, that is exactly what has been set out in subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c) of our new clause. The commitments to reviews that the Department has already undertaken in principle for the extended period of the roll-out are transferred to the Bill. The Minister has already mentioned this morning his commitment to undertake an annual review that, I assume, would incorporate these particular concerns and considerations.

[Richard Harrington]

That is a perfectly fair assumption —that is our intention.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. A commitment to an annual report to be laid before both Houses goes a long way towards satisfying our concerns about whether these particular wider commitments should be placed in the Bill. I thank the Minister for his commitment and will not press new clause 4 to a vote.

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

I want briefly to add my voice and that of my party on new clause 4. I know that the Minister will agree that we need continually to reassure consumers that their data are securely and robustly protected in the course of this roll-out. I know that he will agree how important it is to ensure that meters currently installed are always to the highest specification of function and data security.

The Minister will also be concerned—like, I am sure, everybody else in the room—about the evidence that was taken that the smart meter network is being installed before its requirements as an internet-connected energy system have been fully determined. We would expect—I know that the Minister will feel this—that the Minister would do everything in his power to ensure that consumers are best protected amid this roll-out.

I impress on the Minister and remind him of the concerns raised in March 2016 in the Financial Times that GCHQ had intervened in smart meter security, claiming that the agency had discovered glaring loopholes in meter design. As we move forward with these considerations, I want to impress those concerns on the Minister.

[Richard Harrington]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and am very pleased that GCHQ did that, because it shows how it was included in the process of getting to the security stage that we are at today.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Smart meter communication licensee administration orders

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Dr Whitehead]

We have talked about the extension period; the second part of the Bill is about administration orders. These might be made in the context of the DCC’s failure to operate either because it has gone bankrupt or because its supply of funds dries up or is diluted for any reason and it can no longer continue—it is entirely dependent on the resources it receives from suppliers to operate. A number of clauses in the Bill relate to setting up a procedure to enable the roll-out to continue by recovering the DCC’s procedures, if and when in administration, in such a way that the flow of the roll-out is not interrupted. At this stage of the legislation, therefore, we need to concentrate on whether the things put forward—what can and should be done by Government to make that change while at the same time continuing with the roll-out in the unlikely event of administration—are good enough to ensure the roll-out continues and we achieve the purpose of ensuring a smooth passage.

I want to make two brief points, to which the Minister may want to respond. The first is about provisions in the Bill relating to what are unlikely events that probably will not happen, but conceivably could. It might be prudent to legislate to ensure that we are in a position to do something in the unlikely event of that happening. We had a debate about that recently in this Committee. What we are doing in considering the second part of the legislation is roughly what we were doing in the first part to try and strengthen the Bill. We did not succeed in doing that, but we will not be churlish or childish about that. We will go along with the idea that this is an unlikely event, for which we have to make prudent legislation to ensure that catastrophe does not take place as far as the roll-out is concerned.

The second point is that we are legislating this morning for an event that could occur to an organisation that has been in operation for several years already without this legislation being on the statute book. One might ask, therefore, what was happening in the meantime. Were we operating over a period of time where there was no protection for the smart meter roll-out programme from the possible bankruptcy or administration of the organisation that was essential to the running of the whole operation? That seems to me to be a considerable omission on the Government’s part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend is right. That is the situation at the moment, and that is what the Bill, very late in the day, seeks to rectify. I am not saying that one should not take part in the rectification of that problem. Clearly it should be rectified, and we need legislation that protects us in those circumstances.

I wonder if, as a gateway into this part of the Bill, the Minister might share some thoughts with the Committee on why this has not happened before and why we have had these circumstances for several years. I appreciate that it was before the DCC went live, which was only relatively recently, but the DCC was set up and a lot of money was put into it. All the various arrangements went through, and it was by no means impossible for that problem to arise to date. I am pleased that we are taking this step, but slightly alarmed that we have not done it previously. Can the Minister shed any light on why that was the case? Did the Government simply forget? Was the legislation so difficult to undertake that it has not been drafted until now, or was it not thought necessary to have this protection prior to the DCC being in its present position? It would be useful to have some guidance on what thinking went on before the legislation appeared.

[Richard Harrington]

Before making a few brief comments, I will try to answer the two very reasonable questions raised by the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Birmingham, Selly Oak.

I will deal with the unlikely event point first. The Government have to try to gauge how unlikely an unlikely event is. I hope the hon. Member for Southampton, Test accepts that it is a question of judgment. We have to draw the line somewhere on the level of unlikeliness, and we drew it on the wrong side of what he thinks is unlikely.

[Dr Whitehead]

The theory of relative unlikeliness.

[Richard Harrington]

Yes, that is very good. I wondered what the hon. Gentleman did his doctoral thesis on, and now I have discovered it.

It is a judgment call. I hope I made it clear in my previous comments that I do not think his amendment is unreasonable, mad or anything like that; it is just that we have to try to make a judgment, and it is on a different side of the line to his.

The question of why we have not done this before is, like many of the hon. Gentleman’s points, very valid. It is one of the first questions I asked officials when considering this. I have been given a note, which I have not read; I will answer from what I think, rather than what I have been told. I asked that very question. I understand that this was consulted on in 2011 by the Department. The official reason—genuinely—is that there is a lot of competition for parliamentary time, and this is the first opportunity we have had to deal with something that is reasonable, but at the highest level of unlikeliness on the unlikely-o-meter, if there were such a thing. There must be an unlikeliness app to gauge the level of unlikeliness.

I personally think this should have been done before. It was probably less important than it is now and going forward, simply because of the scale of use and the containability of unlikeliness. This was the first opportunity I had to introduce the clause on what to do in the event of these unlikely circumstances, and it is important. It is to stop other interested parties putting in administrators. There are always commercial administrators—for example, companies that have not been paid. There is a normal system to do this that still exists, but it does not have the level of control that the Department or Ofgem would have.

This is important. I could spend 10, 15 or 20 minutes of the Committee’s time going through the reasons why it is important, but those reasons will be debated later on in the Bill’s passage. I hope I have answered the points raised to the best of my ability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend underlines the importance of putting the word “transparently” somewhere in clause 3. An event may happen that the public would properly be interested in; they may be concerned about what might happen to them as far as administrative processes are concerned or about the effect on their bills of an event that caused substantial additional money to be spent over and above what had already been set aside. We must emphasise that all the costs that have been set out for the smart meter roll-out—be that the cost of the smart meter, the cost of the advertising campaign or the cost of the DCC itself—will, one way or another, be recovered from customers’ bills.

With that in mind, putting in the Bill a requirement for processes to be fully transparent would serve the consumer positively. I support the addition of that single word—“transparently”—to the Bill. I cannot see any downsides to that. It would not in any way impede the process of administration. All the objectives and procedures in clause 3 to ensure that the DCC runs as effectively as possible and protects the roll-out are sound. Inserting the word “transparently” would add to that protection and do nothing to undermine it, so I hope that the Minister will seriously consider doing so.

[Richard Harrington]

I understand the purpose of the amendment well. On the surface, it seems to be a good thing. Transparency is good anyway, and I will argue that the provision would lead to transparency. It is reasonable to argue that this is an important matter and that we want everyone to know what is going on. We are all here because we are part of a democratic process; I do not think anyone could disagree with that principle.

However, I cannot agree with the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Birmingham, Selly Oak because of what the amendment would mean in practice for the administration. Thankfully, none of us have experience of this kind of public, as opposed to commercial, administration—I know that is not quite the technical word—and I accept that. By the way, there will be plenty of legal requirements on the administration, which I will come to in a minute. It is just totally unrealistic for an administrator, given those requirements and all the complexities that it will have to deal with, unlikely though it might be, to spend hours ensuring that the public—I think this is what the amendment would mean—are kept informed of all the administrator’s moves, given that administrators have to meet plenty of requirements. I ask the Committee to bear that in mind; I cannot accept what the hon. Gentlemen said. That is not because we are secretly against transparency or anything like that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

As with the last amendment, I perfectly understand this amendment’s purpose: to require that any regulations that the Secretary of State lays down about prioritisation of DCC activities following administration

“would have to take into account the context of the full services offered by the DCC.”

I understand the purpose, but I will do my best in the next few minutes to argue that there would be no effect on the policy. The precise intention of the proposed regulations is to specify the activities carried out by the DCC to which the smart meter communication administrator must give priority, and how that should be done, taking account of the full range of activities that the DCC is carrying out under its licences at that time. That is exactly what we are trying to do; we are just trying to ensure that the functions of the DCC under its licences are performed efficiently and economically, as I said before.

The administrator may face a judgment on which DCC services to prioritise; it is quite normal for an administrator to do that. The most appropriate judgment will depend on the circumstances, but that may not be clear to the administrator on the day that they take over the administration, and there may be a trade-off, as there are in administrations, between prioritising different services.

The clause to which the amendment relates gives the Secretary of State the power to make the regulations specifying which activities carried out by the DCC under its licences must be prioritised by the administrator, and how that should be done. As the smart metering programme develops beyond the foundation stage—the stage we are fundamentally preoccupied with as the purpose of the roll-out—we expect the number of services provided by the licensee to increase. The licensee can, for example, offer bespoke services for suppliers and others, building on the smart metering programme. I know that is what we all want. As part of that, consumers may be able to choose to give third parties permission to access their data, allowing a much wider range of energy-related services to be developed: products, advice, switching suppliers, tariff choices and all that sort of thing.

Smart metering data may also be used, where the consumer so chooses, as part of taking that service—for example, in supporting home energy management services and even for non-energy-related services, such as smart washing machines that do the laundry at different times so it costs less. That is not directly to do with the supply of energy but with the consequences that matter to most people: “How much will it cost and how can I save money?” I suppose it could be used to identify faulty or inefficient appliances, or to support carers, through a service that allows family members to be updated about changes in routine. That sounds futuristic, but there are many interesting things that could come from the programme if we take the big picture for the future.

It might be in the interests of consumers and the wider energy market for the administrator, if that day comes—I do not think it will—to prioritise core services. If we keep smart metering working, the other stuff is all very nice, but for a time it could not be a priority, in order to keep the core system going. I believe it must be the role of Government to guide the administrator in that respect, because of the speed that must be taken into consideration within an administration. The precise aim of the regulations is to provide future flexibility to ensure the full range of activities carried out by the DCC at that point can be taken into account. That prioritisation will support the continuation of services in the overall interests of the public.

I believe the Bill delivers the noble aims of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. I hope he will consider what I have said and the explanations I have given, and will agree to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

In the context of the fact that what is set out in Hansard has some legal bearing, the Minister has this morning set out in terms fairly similar to the amendment the scope of clause 3 and the Government’s intention in regulations made under subsection (6). I do not want to press the amendment. I think it is agreed that we aim to ensure that the DCC’s circumstances prior to administration should be repeated as closely as possible post-administration for the general good of the roll-out. That is what I understood the Minister to say, and I hope he will confirm that.

[Richard Harrington]

I confirm that what the hon. Gentleman just said is precisely the case. I tried to be as clear as possible, and I am glad that he, like me, respects that things in Hansard are meant to be as they are said. I can clear that one up.

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I am happy to talk to the hon. Lady about her consumer concerns, but I agree with your ruling, Mr Gapes, that what she has said is not relevant to this amendment, which is about technical considerations, and parliamentary scrutiny of those, in the event of the demise of the DCC and a special administration regime being put in. The point is not relevant to the amendment, but it is a valid concern. I am happy to discuss it with her informally, if not formally now.

[Dr Whitehead]

The Minister has alluded to a particular point about regulations under this clause, which relates to the speed that would be necessary to act under the circumstances of administration. That is a defence of the idea that there should be a negative resolution; presumably, the fact that Parliament at that time did not want to proceed to an annulment would allow things to be done speedily. I understand that, so on that narrow point we will not press the amendment to a vote this afternoon.

I draw the Minister’s attention to our next debate about a similar set of circumstances that concern a negative resolution, and to which that defence cannot be mounted. I hope that he will take his own words from this morning into account when we return this afternoon to debate the relevant clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mike Freer.)

Smart Meters Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Alan Whitehead

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 23rd November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Gentleman makes a lot of sense, but not in a technical way. I cannot answer him in a technical way, other than to say that my understanding is that the software is remotely operated—in our day we might have called it via the lines—through the air to the meter, so it is not a question of people coming out to revisit them to make them nearly as good as SMETS 2s. The SIM card on the dumb ones is reactivated remotely.

One of the good points about SMETS 2s is that they allow energy suppliers to roll out smart meters to premises that just have gas customers. They allow distribution network operators to view maximum electricity demand for a premises in order to plan their network investments. There are a number of specialist types of smart meters, for example, polyphase meters for large electricity users, and smart meters that can be used to replace traditional Economy 7 and 10 teleswitches, which we may have come across in our constituencies, and they can only be SMETS 2. But when upgraded—if I may call it that—with the DCC software, SMETS 1s do most of the smart things that SMETS 2s do. It is just how things move on. We must accept the fact that the foundation stage of the programme was based on SMETS 1, which was infinitely better than the previous option of different companies manufacturing different types of meters for their own customers, perfectly properly, with the technology that there was. This system has replaced that anarchy—although it was legal anarchy—in terms of national organisation.

I accept the point about timing, but the foundation stage was always intended to be different from the main installation phase. We have to see this transition from SMETS 1 to SMETS 2, because it is the latest technology and we want as many people as possible to have it. I feel it is fair to say that the foundation stage has provided real benefits. We are seeing savings. Mr Bullen, in particular, spoke about his 600,000 prepayment customers with the key system, which is very old fashioned and difficult for elderly people and vulnerable people. Anyone can recognise objectively that that has been a very good thing; had we waited for SMETS 2 to be developed, those people would not have had the benefit of smart meters. It is fair to say, like with any new technology, that we want to see the industry move from SMETS 1 to SMETS 2 as soon as possible, for the reasons I have explained.

The witness from the supplier company, Secure Meters Ltd, was basically arguing very much for SMETS 1, presumably because that company is a big supplier of SMETS 1 meters. I do not mean that in any sarcastic or improper way; that is what the company does. It was said very clearly that at the moment 250 SMETS 2 meters have been connected. I hope that in the two days since then, it is a lot more than that, but it is a small number. [Interruption.] Well, at least 251, if I may say so to the shadow Minister. Anyway, they are being installed.

[Dr Whitehead]

They have not been tested yet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I will try to come on to that.

Secure Meters was saying that its kit can offer interoperability; why do we need the DCC? I state again that via the DCC network operators can access meters to provide a lot of system benefits. All suppliers are required to use DCC for SMETS 2 meters, which allows full interoperability for enrolled meters; we are not talking about just one company. Several hon. Members have mentioned fear about the DCC’s price control. DCC offers opportunities to enhance security arrangements. The main point is that the DCC systems have been future-proofed. This is not one company providing a system that, with the best intentions, works but is not part of a national system and is not future-proofed in the same way as we expect DCC to be.

In answer to the question that was asked, DCC has published an approved plan, which was agreed by BEIS, for this system to begin in late 2018, so that consumers can keep their smart services when they switch supplier. That will be done. There is, if I may say so, some cynicism—I mean that in a polite way—about whether it will work or work quickly. It has been suggested that it is untested and so on, but it is being done in phases, batch by batch. We heard evidence from the chief executive officer of DCC that this is a very serious operation. Some could say that it is a very expensive operation, but it is not a wing-and-a-prayer type of thing, as much as any software roll-out is not—I am perfectly prepared to accept that. From big Government projects all the way through, I accept that recent history is littered with disappointments in the efficiency of these roll-outs, but the DCC was very carefully appointed and has very carefully been tested. BEIS is monitoring very successfully, and we are happy with what we have produced. Subject to a cost and security assessment, we expect all SMETS 1 meters to be enrolled in DCC. As I have said, that will make them similar but not exactly the same as the SMETS 2 meters.

I say this in the spirit in which the amendment was meant—I say it in good faith; it is not some political point. I believe that the amendment could undermine delivery of this project, for example where changes to the regulatory framework are needed after the current expiry date of October 2018 to ensure that the process for enrolling the meters into DCC runs smoothly. Were the amendment to apply, such changes could not be made. That would risk delaying or even preventing the benefits of an interoperable service for energy consumers. I state again that I know that that is not the intention of the amendment. That would be irresponsible, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak is anything but irresponsible about this project; he cares for it as much as me or anyone in the Committee or, indeed, in the House generally.

In addition, the amendment would mean that any new consumer protections or other obligations on suppliers introduced after our powers’ current expiry date would not be applicable to SMETS 1 meters or consumers with those meters. Again, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not intend that. I know he wants to ensure that relevant consumer protections extend to consumers, whatever type of smart meter they happen to have.

I hope that my explanation reassures hon. Members that we recognise the benefits of moving to SMETS 2 as soon as possible and have established a clear end-date for SMETS 1. We are delivering a solution to resolve the interoperability issues that may be experienced when a consumer with a SMETS 1 meter switches energy supplier. We have thought about this issue, and I am very happy to discuss it with individual Members if they feel that I have missed something out. I hope that on that basis, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

Will the Minister say something briefly about the consultation that is under way on extending the period after which SMETS 1 meters cannot be installed? Will he perhaps inform us of the intention behind the consultation, and whether it has any bearing on our discussion today about the interface between SMETS 1 and SMETS 2?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

That is because the WEEE directive operated properly, but before it was implemented there were a number of small alps of electrical goods around the country. It will reflect badly on the smart meter roll-out if we end up with Dolomites of old meters as a memorial to it.

We must sort this problem out. Amendment 6 gives the Minister a golden legislative opportunity to do so; we may not get another, so he should be anxious to grasp this one with both hands. I hope he will.

[Richard Harrington]

I will try to deal separately with supply and disposal, just as the hon. Members who spoke to the amendments did. The Government are clear that we support free markets and the benefits of competition generally. However, we have also shown that we are quite prepared to regulate where necessary to protect consumers.

We have done a lot to regulate energy suppliers. Their licence conditions require them to use smart electricity and gas meters that meet the SMETS standard. All energy suppliers must install smart meters that conform to minimum common standards, including ensuring that they are, or can become, interoperable and can be used by competing energy suppliers.

The supply of the meters themselves is a competitive market. There are quite a few suppliers, and they compete with each other; some manufacture both SMETS 1 and 2 meters. The Government set the technical standards, but it is up to the market and the suppliers to compete for the best price. Competition from other energy suppliers would mean that if smart meters supplied were unreliable, incompatible or unduly costly, suppliers would risk losing customers. I do not mean risking losing consumer customers—the wholesale supplier of the product rather than the end user. There is strong competition. Energy suppliers and meter asset providers have plenty of choice.

Smart Meters Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Alan Whitehead

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 23rd November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed. I hope the Minister will say something reassuring about that, and I am sure he is fully ready to do so.

The final important issue to do with the date is the number of appointments that energy suppliers are making—due to expressions of interest or otherwise—to put a smart meter up on a wall. We heard in evidence from Smart Energy GB about what it calls a pan-supplier customer funnel. That is a fancy way of saying that there is an enormous difference between people who say they would like a smart meter and people who actually get a smart meter at any stage of the installation proceedings. The number of installation appointments booked by energy companies looks very different from the position at the point of interest being expressed and people saying, “I would like a smart meter in my home. When are you coming to install it?” It is not a question of whether people want a smart meter, but whether they get the smart meter on the wall after they have said they want one. That appears to be a continuing problem in the roll-out.

Indeed, if hon. Members look at page 19 of the cost-benefit analysis from the end of 2016, they will see how considerations are changing with regard to the installation profile of smart meters up to the end of 2020. We may need another cost-benefit analysis in the not-too-distant future. As new cost-benefit analyses emerge, and as more information on the ground comes to light, the profile changes. I do not wish to repeat the theory of the four cups on the table from our evidence session, but hon. Members can see from a graph in the cost-benefit analysis the change between the profile of the roll-out and the profile in the cost-benefit analyses of 2014 and 2016: the mountain gets steeper and steeper as we come to the end of 2018 and the beginning of 2019.

It is suggested that a roll-out of some 15 million a year will be necessary in 2019 to get the programme on track in the way we all want and hope. A number of people think that that roll-out profile—a roll-out by the end of 2020—verges on the improbable. That is the fourth—and last, you will be pleased to hear, Mr Gapes—reason that I put forward for why 2023 has been decided on. The question is how that reflects on the roll-out, the communications, the offer and the ability of the whole system to work properly as far as future energy systems are concerned.

As the Minister is itching to tell us which one of the four is the actual reason—or perhaps it is all four or something else; I do not know—I will give him the opportunity to do that, but I hope that we can start the Bill with a very clear idea of what we are talking about as regards the 2023 date, because that will inform the rest of our discussions.

[Richard Harrington]

The shadow Minister took my “itch” comment correctly. I was, as Mr Speaker would call it, mumbling from a sedentary position.

Mr Gapes, I understand fully your rulings on scope. There are points from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, and particularly Opposition Members, that I would like to speak about, but the issues raised are not within the Bill. If they would like to meet me separately, either formally or informally over a cup of tea, I would be very happy to do that, because I am absolutely obsessed with smart meters, and that is my job; the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, who spoke so eloquently, and I have met to discuss the subject. I took on this project quite recently, and I am determined to make a success of it, as are the officials. In my admittedly short and less than illustrious ministerial career, I have never come across people with such enthusiasm and energy for the project. We want to get it right, and I accept fully hon. Members’ statements that the amendments are not designed to wreck the Bill. The expression used is “probing”. We have heard very genuine comments and questions, and I will do my best to answer them.

I was going to make a longer speech. I thought that in the first bit of it, it would be better to put on record what the whole Bill and smart meter programme is about, but in the spirit of your ruling that Members’ contributions have been outside the scope of the Bill, Mr Gapes, I think I would be pushing it, but I would have liked to have done that; I would like to put that on record, anyway.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

Actually, concentrating the mind in the Nixonian way, the next couple of years will surely lead to reduced costs because of economies of scale, but we can discuss that another time. I will be happy to.

The shadow Minister said that small suppliers have a weaker obligation in relation to 2020. That is not quite true, although he did not intend to mislead us with the wording he used. It is exactly the same obligation. The only flexibility the small suppliers have been given is that they can deliver their programmes in line with their broader corporate strategy. We are allowing the smaller ones to be later in the programme because, unlike British Gas and others that have been mentioned, they have not got the bulk.

[Dr Whitehead]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Gentleman will have to excuse me. I am being told to make progress.

Amendment 1 relates to the Secretary of State’s power to modify the relevant electricity licence conditions and industry codes, which relate to the detailed regulatory framework, covering the activities of energy suppliers and network operators, and the data and communications licensee. It would cause those powers to expire at the end of 2020, which, again, has nothing to do with the target. I do not think anyone would argue that they should just disappear. I oppose amendment 1 because it removes the Department’s ability to conduct an effective post-implementation review, which, as I said earlier, we will need to do. The aim is for that to happen in 2021. The extension of powers until 2023 allows us to complete that exercise and implement the recommendations.

I know that this is a probing amendment, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said, but I do not think he took those things into consideration. He concentrated his comments on whether to extend the target, which I hope I have covered. In contrast, in the absence of the power we are asking for to modify the energy licence conditions and industry codes beyond 2020, we would have to bring the review forward. For it to be consulted on properly, and to provide the appropriate parliamentary process, it would be necessary to conclude the evidence gathering the year after next at the absolute latest, which as far as I can see would completely reduce the robustness of the assessment and exclude valuable evidence from the final stages of the roll-out. It would also prevent the consideration of longitudinal research exploring the impact of smart metering on consumer behaviour, which is what this is all about, and energy saving over the course of several years. If it were carried out before 2020, there would not be enough evidence. I believe smart meters will be absolutely revolutionary, and will change the way people use their energy bills. If hon. Members believe in smart metering—I am sure you have been persuaded, as the rest of us have, Mr Gapes, that this is a really good thing to do—and think it is not just a short-term thing, it is right that the Government can ensure that the regulatory framework is there and is fit for purpose for decades to come.

Amendments 2 and 4 would limit the period to which the Secretary of State can veto Ofgem’s proposal to give consent to the transfer of the whole or of any part of the communication licence. Again, if the amendments were passed, the Secretary of State could prevent the transfer only up to the end of 2020. DCC’s smart meter licences were awarded in 2013 for 12 years. The curtailment of that power would create an imbalance in the Government’s arrangements of the smart metering programme, undermining our leadership role within it.

I know it sounds like we want it both ways, but the Government’s role is absolutely central to this. We have to provide the leadership that we have been asked for. I do not want to risk having a situation in which a smart meter communication licence was transferred in a manner that conflicts with activities undertaken by the programme as part of its post-implementation review. It is necessary to extend the power to 1 November 2023 to retain coherence in the Government relating to the smart metering programme and to ensure that these activities are appropriately co-ordinated.

Amendments 3 and 5 would limit the Secretary of State’s ability to introduce new licensable activities in relation to the smart metering roll-out. The power we are talking about was used to set up the provision of the smart meter communications service, which led to the granting of the DCC’s licences. I want to make it clear that we have no specified or defined plans to use the power. Perhaps the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak will still argue that if the scenarios change, primary legislation will be needed to go through it again, and I understand that. However, I can see scenarios that could develop where we will need the ability to introduce new, licensable activities quickly, in order to overcome barriers and to ensure that the benefits are realised. Such situations can arrive relatively late in the roll-out or in the immediate post-implementation period.

Smart Meters Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Alan Whitehead

Committee Debate: 2nd Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Public Bill Committees

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

Q 46 Thank you, Mrs Gillan, and welcome to the Chair. It is very nice to see you. I will ask just a brief question to give plenty of people a chance.

Thank you for coming today, gentlemen, and helping us. As you probably know, the evidence you are giving today is the beginning of the Committee stage of the Bill. May I ask you both to comment on the interop—I cannot pronounce it—on how the Data Communications Company system will help the SMETS 1 meters to be operable throughout the whole system? We keep hearing about it and my shadow and I have discussed it at different times, but I would be very interested in your comments.

Derek Lickorish: I think that interoperability for SMETS 1 meters will come about in two ways. But first, what is interoperability? At the moment, SMETS 1 meters have their own mini data communications company. They have their own communications infrastructure, and it is generally all made by the manufacturer who supplies the meters. There are several of those systems out there. The initial interoperability can come about by making SMETS 1 meters interoperable through their communication systems. That is already available technically, but it requires the participation of the big six to make it happen.

You asked specifically about how the DCC deals with enrolment and adoption—those are the terms used. In the case of Secure Meters, it will take the output from its smart meter service operator system and plug it into the DCC. That, on the current timeline, is due to take place next October. That is based on a whole range of assumptions, and I think it is more likely to come about at some time during 2019, subject to all things here on in going very smoothly for the DCC. So there are two options to make interoperability work.

Richard Wiles: Likewise, at Trilliant, with our meters we offer integration into third-party systems that allow interoperability and for the devices to remain smart. We do that through one of our clients. We also offer a cloud-based smart meter systems operator—SMSO—solution ourselves, and we can provide that interoperability for people who take up our service. That enables them to put meters on the wall pretty quickly, using a similar platform to that of our larger suppliers from the big six energy companies.

We also provide that service through an aggregator that can do secure file transfers that allow even quicker adoptability and the ability to get meters on the wall, but we adhere to the same standards as the DCC for enrolment and adoption as to how we would build that development interface to communicate to our existing infrastructure and make sure that the service requests that come through the DCC path meet the criteria of the DCC, similarly to what happens with SMETS 2.

Derek Lickorish: So SMSO interoperability could be achieved now.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Q The Government have indicated that SMETS 1 meters will no longer be installable after a particular date and have given guidance about what can be installed up to that date. There is a consultation at the moment about whether that date might be changed slightly to arrange for a smoother handover from SMETS 1 meters to SMETS 2 meters. What effect will that arrangement have on the overall passage of the roll-out, and what do you think about the present availability of SMETS 2 meters to ensure that that roll-out proceeds?

Derek Lickorish: We are kidding ourselves if we think that we are about to have a mass roll-out of SMETS 2 meters any time soon. As we heard this morning from the gentleman responsible for DCC, there are 250 SMETS 2 meters connected to DCC, and they are electricity-only; that is 200 more than I thought were connected to DCC. If we were about to have a mass roll-out, we would have at least 200,000 fully interoperable SMETS 2 meters connected to DCC to facilitate end-to-end testing of that system. That is currently not the situation.

The July 2018 date is predicated on the fact that SMETS 2 meters are going to roll out very soon. For that to happen, those meters need to be declared interoperable. Interoperability is essential not only now but in the future. What does that mean for people who do not follow all this stuff at the molecular level? We decided at the outset of the smart meter programme that we would have many world firsts. There are about seven or eight first-in-the-world developments in this programme, one of which is that every meter must be interoperable with other meter manufacturers’ meters so that, should a meter fail, it can be replaced by another meter manufacturer’s meter without the in-home display being replaced. That is a key tenet of the programme.

A process known as smart meter design assurance is supposed to be up and running to prove that SMETS 2 meters are interoperable. That is not up and running, and it has some technical difficulties. Yesterday, a letter arrived to say that one SMETS 2 meter manufacturer has a problem with compatibility of the hub. That is not to say that that will not be solved, but that was only yesterday. Is it just that manufacturer’s SMETS 2 meter or is it all of them? In theory, it should be all of them, because they have all been made to precisely the same specification.

This programme is the first in the world for device-level interoperability, it is the first in the world to separate out the communications system and it is the first in the world to get all the people involved in the SMETS 2 roll-out designing to a 6,000-plus page specification. I hope you can see from that that I do not think we are going to be going very quickly very soon. Having said that, I do not think that the 2020 date should be changed. I believe that the industry should be galvanised into action to solve the problems and then there should be a reflection on what the 2020 date should be. We should not have a date that nobody believes is possible.

Richard Wiles: Trilliant’s view is that there needs to be some coexistence between SMETS 1 and SMETS 2 beyond 14 July next year. Our response to the consultation is that we are concerned that smaller suppliers, which may not have done any SMETS 2 installations to date, may be in a position where they are not first in the supply chain for meters, communications hubs or other parts of the end-to-end system testing. We believe there should be coexistence and that SMETS 1 should run with SMETS 2 until SMETS 2 deployment has been proven at scale and can take over the quantity of SMETS 1 meters that will be deployed.

From our supply chain, we are concerned that if we are forced to turn off our supply manufacturing chain and then we get the go-ahead to recommence production, we will then have to ramp up. For the products that we develop, we have specialist components to ensure that the security is maintained. We need to ensure that other key, core aspects of the supply chain are readily available so that, should the call come to bring SMETS 1 up again at a date beyond 14 July, we can serve and make a credible difference to the actual roll-out and then achieve the 2020 planned deadline.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

Q Thank you very much for coming, Doctors, as it were. I thank you for the efforts that you have made professionally to get the programme to the stage it is at now. Although difficult, I would like to ask a broad question that will encompass both your areas. In my Government job, I view the smart meter programme as just the very beginning of a future smart grid for people. I have seen prototypes in America and elsewhere, which you will know much better than I do. What change in human behaviour patterns have you seen up to now for people who have what we could call a very prototype smart grid with smart meters? From both the building and the consumer point of view, what is the vision for the future?

Dr Sarah Darby: I am not sure we can yet say that there is a prototype smart grid. The beginnings of smart energy tend to be different in every country and smart metering in this country is different from smart metering anywhere else. In fact, more attention has been paid to the consumer engagement side of smart metering in this country than anywhere else. This is the only country where a fairly intensive effort is put into customer engagement at the time of roll-out of the smart meter, when everyone is offered an in-home display, and all the installers are trained in communication skills to explain what is going on, what can be done with the display, what the smart meter is about and how customers can use it as a tool, if they wish to. This country is a bit special in that way, and we are seeing, on average, modest positive effects.

In the US, where smart metering is widespread, the emphasis has been very much on using it to try to control peak demand, and as an instrument to introduce time-of-use pricing and whack up the prices at peak times to keep peak demand down. They have special problems there, particularly in the hotter states, with air-conditioning in the summertime and very high peak loads, which is an expensive problem for them to manage. The earliest roll-out of smart meters was mostly, in my understanding, to overcome serious problems with fraud.

Dr Richard Fitton: I agree with Sarah, the UK is very strong on smart meters. If you speak to anyone in Europe, a lot of them are envious of the technical standards of the smart meters that are being rolled out. As we have heard from all the sessions, it is a very complicated issue and it is not getting any less complicated, certainly for the consumer.

Our research group’s angle is everything from the consumer side of the meter. We are looking at how to diagnose problems with buildings using the data and systems that are available. We are also developing appliances that will work with smart meters. A big piece of the puzzle that is missing from some of the discussions is the fact that the consumer should be able to engage with the smart meters. As it stands now, they cannot engage with the smart meters. We can log on to the energy supplier’s portal and get a half-hourly reading. But a magic black box called the consumer access device is the gateway to the occupiers having access to their real-time data. This is not a box on the wall that tells them how much energy is costing. It is a consumer access device that streams real-time data to things such as smart appliances and smart heating systems for homes.

That is the whole aim, as far as I can see, of the smart and flexible grid that we constantly talk about. To attach one of these devices is exceptionally difficult and I have never had one successfully connected personally, nor have colleagues or associates. So a big piece of the puzzle is missing in using this data for something that is really smart, rather than just for billing. Billing is clearly important, but the use of the best-value data for the consumer appears to be the missing part of the puzzle. I think that would also push some buttons to help develop the interest in smart meters and get them into people’s homes.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q We have been talking about the other end of the process—the extent to which it will be possible to use smart meter data in aggregate for all sorts of purposes in smartening the grid; developing different tariffs and different resiliencies in grids with knowledge of real-time flows and so on. What sort of penetration of the system do you think is necessary for that data to be usable? Is it a full roll-out, a partial roll-out, 60%, part of the country covered, not other parts? What would be the optimal pattern?

Dr Richard Fitton: I think it is the same with any technology. The greater the penetration geographically across different types of people and property and heating systems, and the greater the spread the better. It is a very difficult question to answer. My thought has always been, when is the roll-out complete; when do we say it is complete? Is it at 90%, or 80%? It may be that 10% of people—I have just made that figure up—will not let you through the door. When is it complete; when do we rubber stamp it?

Dr Sarah Darby: Yes, I think there will always be a section of the population who do not stand to gain very much from having a smart meter; the demand is perhaps very low and there would not seem to them to be a great deal of point. Their impact on the system would also be very small, so I would say yes, we are probably talking in the region of 80%. You would have garnered pretty much all the benefit by then.

Smart Meters Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Alan Whitehead

Committee Debate: 1st Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

Q Why do you think that the 2020 deadline is not realistic?

Bill Bullen: I just do not think that the programme is anywhere near the level of completion that it needs to be. The DCC was originally intended to be up and running in 2014, at which point 2020 was perhaps a realistic timeframe. We are now nearly at the end of 2017, and the DCC is clearly not up and running at anything like full capacity. It will just not be possible to deliver the remaining 40 million–plus meters in three years. It is logistically impossible.

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

Q Good morning to both of you. Would you care to comment on how you feel that smart meters are transforming the experience for prepayment customers?

Bill Bullen: Business is completely focused on the prepay market. We have nearly 600,000 prepay customers now, and more than 85% of those already have smart meters installed. The prepay market in total is something like 20% of the market—5 million households in the UK use prepay, and about 20% of those already have smart meters installed. There is a very simple reason for that: it completely transforms that product and service for those customers. It has huge value benefits for prepay households, which is why they have adopted the technology more quickly. Until the price cap came in, there were also significant price reductions because prepay smart meters allow people to cut their cost to serve ratio, and therefore they deliver a better price as well as a better product. It is a bit of a no-brainer, to be honest.

Audrey Gallacher: I echo that. We know from a lot of early research done on the Government’s smart meter programme that the customer service benefits go beyond improvements and engagement in reducing consumption. The sheer customer service benefits have been massive. Right now, people have to go outside the house to top up their meter, but with a smart meter they can do that in their home. As Bill says, that has proved massively popular.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Alan Whitehead

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 4, page 5, line 6, at end add—

“(5) Regulations under subsection (2) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would prevent the commencement of clauses 1 and 2 without the regulations made under this section being subject to the affirmative procedure.

This is a simple amendment that repeats the requirement suggested in other amendments for secondary legislation to be subject to the affirmative, rather than negative, procedure. I made the case this morning for the power of the affirmative procedure. As hon. Members can see, the amendment would ensure that regulations under subsection (2) could not be made unless a draft instrument were laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House—that means an affirmative resolution.

I do not think we need go over the difference between an affirmative and a negative resolution and why we think affirmative resolutions are always better. Through the amendment, we simply seek to ensure that regulations made under subsection (2) are subject to the affirmative procedure. I do not think we need to detain the Committee too much further with detailed discussion. We think this is important and consider that it should be included in the Bill, to ensure that matters properly come before the House when these issues are discussed.

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

Good afternoon, everybody. I thank the hon. Gentleman for not repeating what he said about affirmative and negative procedure, because those points were well made this morning. I have sympathy, of course, with his broad aims of strengthening parliamentary scrutiny, but I argue that this is not an appropriate process to put in place. Parliament will have already passed the Bill and approved the legislation. I am confident that there are appropriate processes in place to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of the substantive powers in the Bill.

Clause 4 contains a commencement power. It is entirely conventional for the commencement power not to be subject to any parliamentary procedure because, as I say, it brings into force law that Parliament has already enacted. Clauses 1 and 2 contain delegated powers that must—I know “must” is one of the hon. Gentleman’s favourite words in the English language—be exercised before the UK’s new nuclear safeguards regime can be brought into effect. The regulations necessary to do so will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. It would serve no useful purpose, in the Government’s view, to make the power to commence those delegated powers subject to the draft affirmative procedure.

I would like to reassure hon. Members that draft nuclear safeguard regulations are currently being worked on in close collaboration with the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and we will provide drafts during the passage of the legislation. The precise arrangements for the future safeguards regime and the details of the regulations will be subject to further consideration and detailed consultation with the regulator, industry and other interested parties.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am grateful to the Minister for mentioning that detailed regulations will be available during the Bill’s passage. Would he perhaps be more specific about that and say when those draft regulations might appear? I assume it will not be in Committee, but it should certainly be before Report.

[Richard Harrington]

As I said, my hope is that that will happen soon. I cannot confirm that it will be before Report, because I do not know when that will be—unless the hon. Gentleman has any information. I certainly hope that it will happen by the end of this year or very early in January, but that is allowing myself a bit of wiggle room. There is no great secret going on; we are just ensuring that all the detail and everything is in place. With that in mind, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the circumstances under which commencement would take place, and what regulations would proceed under that. Although I am not completely convinced that it provides exactly the safeguards that we require, it does go a long way towards reassuring us on the status of the Bill, so we will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

Thank you, Mr Gray. I note that, in accordance with provisions in the Bill, an international agreement may be defined as a relevant international agreement for the purpose of Bill only if the Secretary of State specifies that agreement in regulations. The Bill provides that such regulations will always be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, providing the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of whether an agreement should be a relevant international agreements as defined by the Bill.

As I have established, relevant international agreements are already subject to an open and transparent process. My fear is that imposing an additional reporting requirement would provide little added value and might hinder negotiations, which I know the hon. Gentleman would not want. Indeed, requiring such frequent updates on negotiations could risk weakening our position and might compromise our ability to build rapport and trust with our negotiating partners. I am concerned that that should not happen, but I recognise fully the importance of transparency and the need for Parliament to be able to provide input into the negotiations, so I am sympathetic to the sentiment underpinning the new clause. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared not to press this to a vote—in fact, even if he does—I would like to give the matter some further thought, because I think I can come up with a proposal that strikes the right balance and maximises the transparency that he wants and that I am not afraid of at all. I do not want to impede the progress of these time-sensitive and vital negotiations, which of course involve other parties.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for giving a constructive response to the new clause without going quite as far as saying that he agrees with it. I hope that he will be able to come up with something that, while not necessarily this proposal, maximises the transparency of the process. We are not only talking about the outcome and a report of the outcome that will come to Parliament. Because of the unique circumstances in which we are legislating while the treaty is being discussed and legislating for something that is quite central to that treaty coming about, it is important we have transparency on the journey as well as the conclusion. If the Minister can work out a device that allows that to happen, which I think he indicated he wishes to think about seriously, we would be happy not to press this. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

International agreements: devolved authorities

“(1) The Secretary of State must consult the persons or bodies listed in subsection (2) before concluding—

(a) a relevant international agreement, or

(b) any agreement with EU Member States relating to nuclear safeguarding.

(2) The persons or bodies are—

(a) Scottish Ministers,

(b) Welsh Ministers, and

(c) a Northern Ireland devolved authority.”—(Drew Hendry.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

On a point of order, Mr Gray—it is the first point of order I have ever raised. I want to thank you as Chair, and Mr McCabe, who is not here today. I would like to thank the Clerks. I would like to thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for their patience, time and valuable contributions. I look forward to seeing the Bill progress in terms of the discussions we shall have before Report and then on Report and beyond. I hope the Bill’s progress continues to be characterised by the spirit of co-operation and conciliation that we have enjoyed. I particularly thank the shadow Minister for that, but also everybody else who contributed.

[Dr Whitehead]

On a point of order, Mr Gray. I join the Minister in thanking you for your exemplary chairing of our sessions. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I thank Mr McCabe, too, for his assistance with chairing.

I would also like to thank all Committee members for the constructive and helpful way that we managed to proceed. We had our disagreements. We put those squarely in the open and discussed them, and as a result of those discussions we had a number of exchanges that look to be constructive for the future. I am grateful for the spirit in which Committee stage has been conducted, and I look forward to Report and to the stages that follow with some optimism for the Bill. I am pleased to have taken part in such a constructive endeavour on all our parts.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Alan Whitehead

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend makes an important point: the affirmative procedure is actually fairly limited. What we discuss in Committee is unamendable and our scrutiny is often pretty perfunctory. Nevertheless, it at least guarantees that something will be brought to somewhere in Parliament, and the opportunity to discuss it is not dependent on the Government’s largesse. It is at least a minimal protection, as far as Parliament is concerned, and it guarantees that something will be brought to the Floor of the House. Importantly, the negative procedure does not do that.

I hope the Minister will reflect on the fact that, because we are introducing such a wide-ranging enabling Bill, it is important that the regulations have proper scrutiny subsequently. We must not simply sign a blank cheque for the future and allow anyone making the regulations to do what they want. It is an important principle in this House that we do not do that under anything but the most minimal circumstances, and in this instance I suggest that those minimal circumstances do not exist.

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

Good morning, everybody. I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for his contribution relating to amendments 9, 10 and 11. I have spent quite a lot of time thinking about them and about how practical his suggestion is.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee as I do not have the draft regulations for the Committee. We discussed them the week before last, but I was eager to secure this slot so that the Bill could progress. Discussions with the Office for Nuclear Regulation are well advanced, and I hope that, before we discuss the Bill further—definitely by January—they will be published for all hon. Members and a wider audience to see. They are not secret regulations or anything particularly devious. It is simply because of the logistics of organising them along with the Bill that we have not published them in time.

I should set out this provision in the same way as the hon. Gentleman did. Clause 1(2) creates new powers to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations for the purpose of ensuring that qualifying nuclear material, facilities or equipment are available only for the use for civil activities. To do that, clause 1(2) inserts new section 76A into the Energy Act 2013. Section 76A provides the Secretary of State with new regulation-making powers relating to nuclear safeguards. The regulations will set out the detail of the domestic regime for civil nuclear safeguards.

It is appropriate to make provision for a nuclear safeguards regime in delegated legislation, simply because the subject matter is highly technical and the substantive provisions necessary to give effect to the regime will be very detailed. That is why we believe that it has to be in secondary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Whitehead]

Perhaps I could deal with my hon. Friend’s intervention, and then I am happy to give way again.

[Dr Whitehead]

Of course, Mr Gray. Within the context of the Bill, an associated issue is the extent to which Parliament has a hand in ensuring that the regulations are as good as they should be. In taking this grave step by reinventing a complete set of regulations, a complete regime and a complete landscape, parliamentary sovereignty has to be respected. It is important that we get that right in the legislation, and it is important that we get the regulations right subsequently.

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly at liberty, as he knows, to press this to a vote. I have tried, as he has, to find common ground, but obviously he feels that I have not done so in this case. It is true that our positions are much the same as they were before we stood up to speak today. Although he has the ability to press this to a vote, I wonder if he would be interested instead in talking about this in other discussions before Report to see if there is common ground. I feel that the majority of the regulations are technical, and the affirmative procedure is perfectly acceptable, but if there were a way of separating the two issues so that he and I could discuss it with colleagues, I would be very happy to.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for that intervention and for what I think—I am reading the tea leaves a little bit here—is a slight softening of the position that it is all okay and there is nothing to worry about.

[Richard Harrington]

This is not a softening of the position. I am genuinely trying to explore whether there is a way of separating the vast majority of technical regulations, for which it would be very impractical to do what the hon. Gentleman wants, from things he has mentioned that may be of a different nature. My position remains the same. As I say, he is perfectly at liberty to press this to a vote, but I am happy to talk with him at one of the meetings we are having on other matters so that he can explain further his position and we can see if we can reach an agreement.

[Dr Whitehead]

Well, let us see whether we can talk about a mellowing of the position rather than a softening of the position.

What the Minister has importantly alluded to is the fact that if subsequent amendments to the regulations that we have highlighted are really just issues of a wholly technical nature and are, as I have described them, part of the bread and butter machinery of this House in terms of undertaking things by negative resolution, Members can simply say, “Yes, that is fine. Provided they are published and one sees them, one has the opportunity, perhaps informally, to say, ‘Well, actually, maybe these are not drafted as well as they should be, but in general there is no controversy attached to those technical changes.’”

However, if subsequent changes to these regulations are clearly not of a wholly technical nature, perhaps they could be flagged in the Bill as being an exception to those arrangements of a purely technical nature, as indeed there already are in the Bill two instances where negative resolution procedure does not apply. So, it is not the case that there is no precedent for this change, because it has already been envisaged that there are circumstances under which the negative resolution procedure will not apply.

If, let us say, on Report it might be possible to add a line to those particular exceptions, then we might have the basis for something we could discuss further. If that is the sort of thing that is possibly in the Minister’s mind, I would be happy to discuss it further with him, to see whether something could be drafted in the Bill that is able to make the distinction that he quite rightly and properly made between what is technical and what is not technical, subsequent to the first regulations being laid.

[Richard Harrington]

I would like to confirm to the hon. Gentleman that I do not want to make him an undertaking that I cannot carry through, because I would like to discuss this matter further with him, but in good faith I am perfectly prepared to—I would not really use the word “mellowing”. I cannot think of another word at this time of the morning. However, in the spirit that he knows, I am happy to fully explore the matter. Perhaps lawyers might say, “without prejudice” or “subject to contract”, but it just seems to me that there might be a way in which we could be in agreement.

[Dr Whitehead]

On that basis—and clearly we need a lexicographer here this morning as we discuss these circumstances—I am happy not to press the amendment to a vote, and I hope that we can discuss these issues during the passage of the Bill, to see whether we can make any progress.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

It has not, actually, Mr Gray. Because I was listening so carefully to you, I did not entirely get my reference sorted out. I have now found it, so I am grateful for your admonition. I am hopeful that we will make speedy progress in Committee today.

However, I am sure we need to pay attention to this section because it is important in getting the regime right for the wholesale change that we are making to how the provisions for nuclear inspection will be carried out.

The deflection that the Government make in their amending of the 2013 Act relates to section 74(9). I would be pleased if anyone could clarify this for me.

“Nuclear regulations which include any provisions to which any paragraph of subsection (10) applies must identify those provisions as such.”

As in the honoured Marx Brothers “tootsie-frootsie ice cream” sketch, with different form guides and various other things, one must now look at subsection (10).

“This subsection applies to any provisions of nuclear regulations which are made for—

(a) the nuclear security purposes,

(b) the nuclear safeguards purposes, or

(c) both of those purposes,

and for no other purpose.”

They appear to half switch off the prohibition of inspectors from undertaking activities for nuclear safeguarding as well as for non-nuclear safeguarding. They apparently refer not to regulations but to provisions of nuclear regulations. I am not sure whether, by deflecting to that paragraph, the responsibilities of nuclear inspectors are wholly translated into what is in the Energy Act 2013. I would appreciate clarification about whether, in the Minister’s opinion, the Government’s proposed amendment to the 2013 Act actually does that. Is there a clear line that shows that everything that is there is what a nuclear safeguards inspector has the power to do as a result of the deflection to that clause? It is by no means clear that that is the case.

With our amendment, we are trying to do that by means of a much simpler procedure. Instead of deflecting it to another clause, the amendment simply states that the inspectors’ powers relate to any of the relevant statutory provisions, and excises the rest of the paragraph. The relevant statutory provisions include nuclear safeguards, and therefore what was there previously would be fully translated into what a nuclear inspector pursuing nuclear safeguards can do. My view is that that is a simpler, more straightforward and clearer way of ensuring that the powers are fully translated.

The second point I alluded to is the question whether, even if one did that, there would be a complete transfer of powers and authorities from what was previously done under Euratom to what is done under ONR. The current Euratom treaty—the 2005 regulations—which I am sorry to admit I have actually looked at, appears to talk about more extensive powers and responsibilities than those in the 2013 Act. Although they are not set out in the same way, there appear to be various things in the Commission regulation that are not mentioned in the powers of inspectors in the 2013 Act, such as the requirement for inspectors to install and maintain equipment, an offence of interfering with equipment, special reports on unusual circumstances and special reports on inventory change.

I am very keen to hear from the Minister—I am sure he has had a good look at the Euratom regulations, too—whether he thinks that, even if he were minded to accept our amendment, the process of translating what is in the 2013 Act to ONR-supervised inspection really does the job, in respect of giving inspectors the safeguarding powers and responsibilities they had under Euratom and those that they need under ONR supervision. I am sure that the Department has looked at that closely. Is he completely satisfied that that is the case, or might he look at that again to see whether the moment of transmission set out in the Bill really does the business in respect of both making the nuclear safeguarding regime secure and the powers of inspectors for the future?

[Richard Harrington]

I shall do my best to implement the wise advice you gave us, Mr Gray.

In summary, I believe that the intentions behind amendment 14 are entirely good, but I would argue that it is defective because it would turn on the improvement notice power for nuclear security. That does not need to be turned on because there are existing, stronger direction-making powers. I shall briefly try to make that argument—hopefully with some success—to the Committee. Of course, I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern to ensure that the ONR inspectors have the right powers to fulfil their responsibilities. That is the whole purpose of the Bill.

This issue was raised by the Prospect union. As a result of its evidence, I asked it for a meeting, which I have arranged for the next couple of weeks, to discuss all the issues it raised, together with the other union that gave evidence at the same time.

Paragraph 11(2) of the schedule to the Bill amends paragraph 3(5) of schedule 8 to the Energy Act 2013, extending the power to inspectors who are appointed. That is important so that inspectors can issue improvement notices for non-compliance in relation to nuclear safeguards. Therefore, I would argue that the Bill already achieves the purpose of the amendment.

Paragraph 4 of the schedule amends section 82 of the 2013 Act such that relevant statutory provisions will include nuclear safeguards. That is the key to switching on the ONR power. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman, and colleagues on both sides of the Committee, that the Bill achieves the purpose of the amendment.

I shall leave it at that, Mr Gray, in keeping with the advice you gave. I would like to discuss this matter in greater detail, but that was the sentiment of your instructions to us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I was seeking to tempt the Minister into standing up and saying a few more things.

[Richard Harrington]

I was not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman had finished his comments. I stick to my point that this is obviously a complex area and I think that the Bill does exactly what he wants. I will consider his points carefully and, if further drafting is necessary, will bring forward proposals on that subject.

[Dr Whitehead]

This is going quite well. I thank the Minister for that consideration and it meets our concerns that, although I have not yet been able to spell them out, additional powers may be needed. If the Minister looked at that I would be very grateful. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Clause 2

Power to amend legislation relating to nuclear safeguards

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right because we are in the dark as far as what is going to come out and the IAEA are concerned. We think that an agreement will be reached and that there will be a new voluntary treaty arrangement. We think that when that new arrangement has been reached, it will be suitable for the purposes for which we have made all these legislative changes. Indeed, the legislative changes will be scrutinised effectively by the IAEA before that treaty can come about. The IAEA wants to be sure that we have put a regime in place that does the job in changing the relationship of this country as far as nuclear safeguarding is concerned from Euratom to ONR.

[Richard Harrington]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree—and I am also trying to answer the Scottish National party’s spokesman about the principle and the way it might be changed—in practical terms, forgetting principle for the moment, that we cannot be sure exactly when the agreements with the IAEA will be finalised? Certainly, it is in our gift but it is also with the IAEA. We may well be under great time pressure to make sure that the new inspectors—who might even be the same inspectors—have the legal cover to maintain the safeguards we all want. There are times when some things have to be delegated and moved very quickly to deal with an expediency. I felt that was an example.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I accept that in cases of dire emergency, where the enemy is about to invade or some such, action needs to be taken that may not necessarily carry out the full intent of the parliamentary procedure. We are not in that position. As the Minister has said—he put it very well—there could be time constraints, that’s all. The limited time available for us to get this done could be problematic.

[Richard Harrington]

I do not want to be dramatic, but not having a nuclear safeguards regime because of the lack of an inspector’s legal power to inspect, as far as we are concerned, would be pretty much a national emergency.

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed, the Minister is right, in principle. That may be something we might address with one of the amendments we may discuss this afternoon.

The fact of the matter is that putting something in this legislation simply because it might be a little inconvenient to have it any other way, given time constraints, is not a justification for using Henry VIII clauses. As I have mentioned, it is not beyond the wit of Government under those circumstances to introduce primary legislation that can be carried through this House very quickly indeed. If the Minister is so concerned about time constraints, he should also understand that other people will be concerned about time constraints as well and would be willing to make sure that that kind of legislation went through speedily.

This morning, he is giving assurances that this will all be done in the proper way and that it will be okay. We can give assurances on the other side that yes, if he did it in a proper way, we would make sure that this was done properly. Those assurances are of about equal weight. He simply has not made the case that the arrangements are necessary for the purpose of translating all the stuff in question into UK law. I remind the Committee that the Department, setting out the context and purpose of the clauses, has emphasised that it is necessary to take the action in question, but there is no mention in the document of the necessity to do it in time that is not otherwise available to Parliament. The document does not make that argument.

Because we have tried to be so reasonable and careful in our approach, but have not received anything coming the other way—

[Richard Harrington]

I remind the Committee that the changes under the Henry VIII power are about changing references to specific articles in the existing legislation. They are not changes to substance or principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed, which is why it would be easy to take a new Bill through the House, to make that evident with respect to the relevant provisions. Everyone would agree that that Bill should move through the House quickly. I think I could get an absolute assurance of that from the Opposition. For that reason, it is not necessary to cast the measure in its present form.

[Richard Harrington]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would rather there was a brief period with no safeguards regime because there were no inspectors with the legal cover to inspect, so that the Bill could be brought through the House under an emergency procedure?

[Dr Whitehead]

No. I should rather that the Government organised their business so that it could be done properly in the time available, and that we could then carry out proper parliamentary procedure, to make sure that the power of Parliament was behind whatever was agreed.

[Richard Harrington]

But the hon. Gentleman would accept that, as it takes two to tango, a lot depends on timing with the IAEA, which is another organisation.

[Dr Whitehead]

Yes, indeed. The Minister is straying slightly, I think, into concerns that we may well address this afternoon: it is true that there are time constraints, and there are ways to sort that out.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Alan Whitehead

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 2nd November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr McCabe. I am obliged to you for your kind thoughts in that respect. I guess it is a good thing, as it transpires, that I did not tear up my notes at lunchtime after all.

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

You do not need notes.

[Dr Whitehead]

We will see.

I want to draw briefish attention to the three amendments that are in this group, in addition to new clause 1, which I have already spoken about and which would be a purpose clause at the front of the Bill. The three amendments effectively follow on from that purpose clause. Amendment 1 would require the Secretary of State, before regulations are made under clause 1—what is done under secondary legislation after we pass the Bill through the House—to produce a statement certifying that, in his opinion, it is no longer possible either to retain membership of Euratom or to establish an association with Euratom that permits the operation of nuclear safeguarding activity in the way that I described in my remarks on the purpose clause.

The amendment is important because we are in such uncharted waters as far as the demise of our arrangements with Euratom and what we will put in to replace them are concerned. Assuming the Bill comes to pass as a contingency, it is important that we know between us what has been done in respect of possible continued Euratom membership, and what has been done in respect of possible association with Euratom. Even after those things have been done, it will perhaps turn out that no progress has been possible on those particular areas. The Secretary of State should report to the House that that is the case—that the time for negotiations and discussions is over, that there is no prospect of going down that route and that therefore this Bill, as a contingency, comes into operation.

Were it to be passed today, the amendment would mark an important juncture in the Bill coming into play. Essentially, it would draw the line and, publicly by reference to Parliament through a report from the Secretary of State, show that matters have been explored and avenues gone down but those avenues have now closed to us. That may be just because the time for making those arrangements has run out, or it may be because it is difficult to secure associated status with Euratom similar to that of Ukraine or to that envisaged by the Spaak report in 1956.

If the amendment is passed, such a certification would be put before the House so it can see that efforts have been made, what the situation is and what we can expect, as far as the legislation is concerned. That should be in the Bill because, as everyone agrees, this is contingent legislation. It is contingent on certain actions. The legislation will either be placed aside or work fully as an alternative to the Euratom safeguarding regime.

Amendment 3 follows on from that. It requires the Secretary of State, before that process, to place before Parliament his or her strategy for seeking associate membership or another form of association with Euratom. That is important. There is a number of possible routes by which an association with Euratom could be achieved. Clearly, as we said this morning, the ideal route is to seek full membership of Euratom after the UK leaves the EU. As the Minister said previously, and I am sure will say today, there is a considerable difference of opinion about whether a full membership arrangement is possible or whether our notification to leave the EU has already closed that door. A strategy for seeking associate membership—or, indeed, full membership—would securely lay that argument to rest one way or the other. If the advice the Government receive suggests that certain doors are closed, I anticipate that the strategy would reflect that and the kind of associate status the country might expect to undertake. The Government would report on what strategy would be used to achieve that and whether that kind of status would be sufficient to cover the question of nuclear safeguards. In Switzerland, that appears not to be the case, but in Ukraine it appears possible.

I am sure that the Minister agrees that any such associated status would have to be stitched carefully to reflect the particular circumstances of the relationship between the UK and Euratom. It would probably not be taken off a shelf. That is an additional reason for some kind of report—outlining the strategy, the possible arrangements, and the kind of outcome envisaged were the strategy to succeed—being laid before Parliament. That is what we seek to achieve with the amendment. It is not in any way intended to delay or alter how the Bill works; it is simply to achieve greater clarity about what we are doing, given the contingent nature of the Bill.

Amendment 8 concerns the fact that today we are only discussing one of Euratom’s many functions in relation to UK nuclear activity. Euratom has a range of functions, concerning nuclear research and development, transport of nuclear and fissile materials, arrangements for making sure that nuclear materials are in the right place and in the right hands, and arrangements regarding who owns what when Euratom is or is not involved. Those are all essential functions of Euratom—functions in which the UK has participated wholeheartedly over many years. They will all have to be brought into national arrangements, but are not subject to the provisions of the Bill.

We are saying that we are in circumstances where we think that we have to leave Euratom as a whole and not just part of it, as part of the process of leaving the EU, so it is right that the Government should have available to it and indeed should publish a strategy regarding how Euratom’s other functions will be properly incorporated into the UK’s activities after we have left. The amendment is essentially about laying a strategy before Parliament for maintaining the wider range of protections and facilitations that are within our present Euratom arrangements.

As the Minister himself has made clear, the Bill is about nuclear safeguarding—not nuclear safety, the transport of nuclear materials or any of those other things. Nevertheless, those things are an essential element of Euratom activity. We think it is important to take that into account—not to delay the Bill, but to ensure that a strategy for maintaining those elements is laid before Parliament and is considered by both Houses of Parliament before the regulations are made under this clause.

I commend those amendments. I think they are sensible additions to the Bill, not only in terms of Parliament considering these issues, but in terms of considering all the circumstances under which we will potentially leave Euratom and what kind of regime will be in place once we have left it and replicated, as well as we can, what happens now, for the future of the country. I hope that the Minister will, by acclamation, be able to accept the amendments or, at the very least, accept their bona fide purpose, which is to strengthen the Bill as it goes through the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I could not have put it better myself. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union will be delighted to have been quoted. But it is a serious point and I would confirm seriously that it is our intention to achieve exactly the same terms and conditions in this sector as we have enjoyed with the benefits of Euratom. I will make that clear tomorrow to the industry, as I have done before; I do not think that the industry would say otherwise.

We have to ensure that we are committed to nuclear co-operation. I would never joke about North Korea, but I cannot imagine that any responsible person in this Committee Room or in the whole Palace of Westminster could ever think that we could leave ourselves without nuclear safeguards, because then we would be like North Korea. We must be able to compete internationally and do the things that decent countries do in this field. Euratom has provided that ability, and it is our full intention to ensure that that continues.

I hope that the hon. Members for Southampton, Test, for Sheffield Central and for Bristol West will withdraw their amendments. To summarise my argument, I would say that each of them would complicate or delay—in my view, to no good effect—the vital process of preparation that we are now embarking on. We are already committed to the path down which the amendments are trying to push us, so although I am sympathetic to them, I argue that they are not necessary.

New clause 1 would undermine our position in our negotiations with international partners beyond the EU. It would change the purpose of the Bill to permit arrangements for a safeguards regime to be put in place only in the wake of failure of the discussions with the EU. We need to pursue discussions bilaterally and with the IAEA now, while we await the start of negotiations with the EU on our future relationship. In fact, as I said, those discussions are well advanced. Over the past few days, several hon. Members from various parties have asked the Government in various forums how confident we are that new bilateral arrangements can be put in place in time. Our answer is that we are indeed confident, but only as long as we can continue to push at full speed; we cannot afford to await the outcome of our discussions in Brussels.

Amendments 1, 3 and 8 would risk delaying the legislation necessary to implement the domestic safeguards regime; I do not believe that that is their intention, but that would be their effect. I will address the transition period when we consider new clause 2.

The Government’s strategy is to progress the Bill; to continue to negotiate with the EU to achieve the closest possible future association with Euratom; to continue to negotiate an agreement with the IAEA, the importance of which I cannot overstate; to continue to negotiate nuclear co-operation agreements with our key trading partners; to increase the capabilities of the Office for Nuclear Regulation to deliver a robust domestic civil nuclear safeguards regime; and to push for research and training partnership, having committed to delivering the UK share of the Joint European Torus project after withdrawal from Euratom. I hope that after hearing those arguments, Opposition Members will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am sorry if what I am about to say brings forth an uncomfortable image in hon. Members’ heads, but I cannot help thinking that the Minister has been dancing adroitly on the head of a very small pin. I say that because it is extremely difficult to conceive of circumstances where we would have the closest possible relationship with Euratom after we have left it or “the exact same benefits” as we would have as members but where that would not consist of an association with Euratom that one might call associate membership.

That association could not be the same as existing associations with Euratom; it would have to be a close association that was tailor-made for UK circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central made the important point that our circumstances are not moving us towards Euratom, so the association might be a preliminary status that could be added to later. That association carries on from a helpful, mutually satisfactory, long-term working relationship with Euratom that has served the UK, Euratom and the wider international community tremendously well over a long period.

The circumstances of the closest possible relationship, as set out by the Minister, and of the “exact same benefits”, as the Minister set out in agreement with my hon. Friend’s statement, almost have to be—I cannot think how they could not, in fact—a close associate membership of Euratom that would enable the nuclear safeguarding part of Euratom that we are talking about to be undertaken. The Minister, in dancing so well on the head of this particular pin, has underlined why the close relationship would manifest itself in that way. If the Minister is saying that we must have the closest possible relationship but that we cannot or will not define what that should be because—I am not quite sure of the line of logic here—that might in some way impede the progress of our future negotiations, I should have thought that the opposite would be the case. It would be rather good for future negotiations if we had an idea of what we wanted to negotiate about at an early stage.

[Richard Harrington]

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. For the sake of this question, let us say that our negotiating ploy was to go to Euratom and say that we want full membership—the same as before. Its answer would surely be either yes or no. The Government want to replicate the five areas that Euratom covers and for those to be as close as possible to membership.

The hon. Gentleman accuses me of dancing on the head of a pin. The thought of me dancing on anything is a dreadful one, which I ask hon. Members to put out of their minds.

[Dr Whitehead]

You will be on “Strictly” next year.

[Richard Harrington]

Heaven forbid—although think about some of the people who have done it.

I am afraid that such a restriction invites a yes or no answer. The Government are saying, “We want the closest possible relationship on these different headings,” which may amount to what the hon. Gentleman says, but everything is in the negotiations. This is not a yes or no matter; these are complex negotiations. I cannot speak for him, but I believe that by using the wording we have—what I have put on the record about how close we want everything to be—we may well be asking for a series of arrangements that amount to what he wants.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for that clarification, which takes us a little further to the centre of the pin. The point is that the Bill clearly is not considered, has not been worked on and does not have its full set of secondary legislation attached, but it will practically come into force when the results of the discussion about the closest possible relationship are known. Let us say that, despite the Minister’s best endeavours to get the closest possible relationship, Euratom says no to everything—“You’re on your own; you’re out.” The provisions of the Bill must then come into place to get us a fully functioning nuclear safeguards regime that seamlessly takes over from the point at which Euratom says no. That is my understanding of the contingent nature of the Bill.

That does not mean—and it should not be taken to mean—that the Opposition are in any way trying to impede the work that needs to be done to get the Bill in place in order to fulfil that function. Of course that work needs to be done now and not at a future date. However, it would be really good, for the purposes of framing the Bill properly—in the way I have described—to know what the Government will seek as far as associate membership or the closest possible working relationship are concerned. I am considerably reassured by what the Minister says about the Government’s intentions in that respect, but it would be really useful to have that clear and in front of us.

I do not think that would in any way cause Euratom to say yes or no. Indeed, I would have thought that having a strategy in front of us that says what we want to achieve would be positive as far as Euratom is concerned, because it would then know exactly where we stood and exactly the limits of the closest possible working relationship we wanted, and it would be reassured to negotiate accordingly.

[Richard Harrington]

I worry that the shadow Minister and I are doing a duet on the head of this pin, because we are more or less in agreement about what we want. I thank him for his reassurances that he understands the need for the safeguards regime, which is the entire purpose of the Bill—it says so in the title. The Bill is not vague; it is deliberately precise, because we need to set up a safeguards regime.

I hope that I have made our strategy very clear, as I have on other occasions. Given that we have exactly the same intention, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to invite the answer yes or no, and to leave our negotiators to achieve the closest possible arrangement. That is what they are doing now, as confirmed at the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee yesterday.

This was supposed to be an intervention and it has turned into a speech, so I apologise for that, Mr McCabe. We need the Bill, and we need the Bill as it is, because in the doomsday scenario that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, where Euratom turns around and says, “Non,” or, “Nein,” we would still have a safeguards regime—not that any of us think that scenario will happen.

[Dr Whitehead]

That is absolutely right; that is the process by which the Bill comes into place, and that is the whole intent behind the trajectory of the Bill and the discussions ahead of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I was brought up in Sheffield so it is all the south of England to me. Maybe I misunderstood the question asked by the hon. Member for Nottingham North, but I thought he was asking whether there would be enough staff in place, as opposed to whether we would have a suitable regime ready by the end of it. If I misunderstood him, I did not mean to. That is why I made the point that it is impossible to tell—because it is a recruitment programme.

When I said the word “hope” to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the Chair of the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, she said that when she buys a lottery ticket she hopes she will win. I had to point out that it was not that kind of hope but an informed hope based on a proper recruitment and resources plan, which will be in the assessment that is wanted. However, that has to be based on assumptions. Everything has to be based on assumptions.

Although I do not make light of the number of people involved—be it 15, 30 or whatever—it is not hundreds or thousands of people. It is in the ONR’s sphere of what it estimates. To return to the example from my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland about Sellafield, it could be that a lot of people apply for these jobs and they are partly qualified because of their degrees and other experiences, so the recruitment could go more quickly than expected. Like in any forecast, we need to make assessments, but I have no reason to believe that there will be a problem with recruitment. The first phase has already started. In January 2018 it goes on to the next phase, and that has been planned for properly.

[Dr Whitehead]

Does the Minister not agree that because we are in a position where not enormous numbers but unprecedented recruitment will be going on in the ONR, as he has said, we cannot be absolutely certain that everything will go right and we cannot predict the future with certainty? Surely that is why we need some kind of report and statement towards the end of the process—whether it is in the form of the amendment or another form that the Minister might like to offer—to see we really are in a position where our hope has been realised, things can happen as hoped, and they are going well and will do so subsequently. It may not be necessary for that to be in the Bill, but some kind of assurance that the Minister would bring such a report to the House in particular to allow us to examine the proposition would be helpful.

[Richard Harrington]

That is a typically sensible suggestion from the hon. Gentleman. I will give that some consideration as to form or whatever, if he will bear with me. I remind hon. Members that the Bill already requires the Government to consult with the ONR and other persons that the Secretary of State considers appropriate. I know it may or must seem appropriate, but the intention is to consult widely.

On ONR capacity, which is the core of many of the amendments, I recognise the importance of transparency and the need for Parliament to be assured that the ONR is adequately resourced to set up the absolutely critical domestic civil nuclear safeguards regime. I have continually stated that we will allocate to the ONR the funding necessary to set up the regime. We have been transparent about the costs and resources of setting up the regime. Current estimates of the set-up costs are set out in the explanatory notes to the Bill. They are under my file, but from memory they are about £10 million in set-up costs and about that annually, which is roughly the cost of Euratom at the moment to perform the same function. I know the figures are approximate, but they give hon. Members a perception of the scale.

The relevant section is “Financial implications of the Bill”, which I will read now, in case hon. Members do not have it in front of them—they will not have to scurry around for it. It says:

“The public expenditure resulting from the Bill are the cost of the establishment and operation of the new regime by the ONR in line with the regulations that will be made under the powers in the Bill.”

That is the £10 million. It continues:

“The costs to set up a UK domestic safeguards regime (which remain subject to further analysis) are potentially up to £10m. This would include procurement of a new IT system, recruitment and training of…inspectors and strengthening institutional capacity to deliver the project. This cost can be met from within BEIS’s Spending Review allocations. The cost of any equipment currently in the United Kingdom but belonging to Euratom is a matter currently under negotiation with the European Union.”

Ideally, we will want to purchase the kit: the cameras, recording equipment and other electronic surveillance equipment and so on. It continues:

“The regime is also likely to involve an ongoing cost of around £10m a year—

sorry, I have said this before, but just to confirm—

“which is in line with the United Kingdom’s current cost of Euratom safeguards activity in the United Kingdom.”

The Office for Nuclear Regulation has also been clear, in evidence to the Committee, and to the Department, about the resources required. The amount has not just come out of the blue. We are working closely together to ensure that the needs of the ONR are met. My Department has already agreed to provide funding for initial work undertaken by the ONR on scoping and additional recruitment.

The ONR currently anticipates that the next tranche of recruitment will be in 2017. To correct myself, when I previously referred to the beginning of 2017 I was mixing it up with the current round; it will be at the end of 2017. That is what it has asked us for; it is not the Government imposing anything or saying we think it is how it should proceed. It is committed to doing whatever recruitment is necessary for what it knows it has to do. I hope that I have assured hon. Members that we are working closely with ONR to ensure that sufficient resource and capacity will be in place to carry out the work needed. It is unnecessary to add to the Bill the level of detail in the amendment. It would not make any difference to a programme that is already costed and proceeding.

On amendments 12 and 13 and the issue of consultation more broadly, the Opposition made some valid points, and I agree wholeheartedly that, as was said on Second Reading as well as today in Committee, consultation is vital in the development of any regulatory system—and even more so when it concerns something of such national importance. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North said, what is important may not be the thing that makes newspaper headlines; the general public may not realise something is important, but here we can all agree that this matter is critical.

I hope that Members on both sides of the Committee will agree that there have been great improvements in recent history in the working relationship between all Governments—I am not making a point just about the present Government—and the nuclear industry regulator, as well as with a wide range of stakeholders across the industry. Probably the main stakeholder, of course, is Lord Hutton, the former Secretary of State in the precursor Department to mine—and, in fact, nearly every other Department; it is very much a cross-party kind of industry. People listening to our proceedings might have felt that the Government had a disagreement with the two unions that gave evidence, but in reality there is far more in common between us—as there is in Committee today—than there are differences.

A good relationship is important, but I accept that that does not stand in the place of appropriate legislative mechanisms for consultation: I do not think that it is just a question of a few people getting around a table and having a meeting. I accept that consultation must be statutory; and, quite properly, it is. Future regimes or Governments, and future stakeholders, might have different views about each other. A Government who did not want a nuclear industry might behave differently, and so might a nuclear industry that did not want such a Government. I accept that things must be formalised.

The Bill therefore places clear requirements on the Government to consult. We have already made it clear that the development of the regulations that underpin the Bill will be subject to detailed consultation with the regulator and industry. Hon. Members will be aware that it is policy for such consultations to be made public, and we intend to do so in this case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

The Minister is such a reasonable chap that it is fairly difficult to get too excited about some of the potentially contentious issues before us. This afternoon, we have made our points as strongly as we can about our concerns about what one might call the do-ability of the process over the next period.

The Minister said to me this afternoon that he is willing to consider a method by which it would be possible to report to the House what is happening towards the end of the process of recruitment and the shaping up of the ONR to put itself in a position to be able to undertake the duties that we hope it will undertake. If the Minister can devise a method whereby some kind of report to the House may be made, or an opportunity provided to examine the process in front of the House, as far as we are concerned it need not necessarily be on the face of the Bill. For that reason, we do not want to divide the Committee on the amendment.

[Richard Harrington]

I am perfectly prepared to give that undertaking. I cannot think quite how to do that at the moment, but I will give it a bit of thought. What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is very reasonable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for that statement.

On the other amendments and the publication of the results of the consultation, I am almost a little disappointed that such an extremely modest suggestion could not be taken on board by the Government, but I hear what the Minister says about the intention to ensure that there is full publication and knowledge of the matters to do with the consultation. Therefore, we will not proceed to a vote on those amendments.

I have, however, one note not of complete concord to strike. An impact assessment should really have been available to the Committee before we started proceedings on the Bill. The Minister said that one will be available before Report, but that means that a lot of the information will not be available to us while we are undertaking our deliberations in Committee. I am glad that an impact assessment will come out, and I appreciate that the Bill was introduced considerably ahead of its anticipated time, but it is essential that impact assessments are available in Committee to inform the decision making of the members. I am sorry that one was not available on this occasion, although I understand the position in which the Minister found himself.

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Gentleman’s explanation for the lack of an impact assessment is correct. I would have liked to have had it in Committee, but I am much more happy to have made the progress we have. When I say “before Report”, I do not mean the day before Report or something like that. I hope the impact assessment will be more imminently available than that and I fully intend it to be so, but Government procedures have to be gone through. My priority was to get the Bill through, not to stop any form of discussion of the impact assessment or anything like that. I thank him for his good grace and understanding—the position he stated was correct.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for that.

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That assessment would inform this Committee considerably and, since we are not meeting for a few days now, it might be possible for it to be available to us when we come back from the recess. If the Minister can use his good offices to make that available, that would be considerably appreciated by Members on both sides of the Committee.

[Richard Harrington]

I cannot comment on that—not because I do not want to, but simply because it is not within my Department’s regime. I will obviously look into the subject, and we are happy to provide whatever information we have. I was not present in Parliament at the time of the debate—I think it clashed with my Select Committee evidence—so I do not know what was said. The impact assessment, which is directly in my control, will be ready imminently for the hon. Gentleman’s reading. It will not be this weekend—I know he enjoys reading such things over the weekend—but I am sure I can fill one of his weekends very soon.

[Dr Whitehead]

So that we do not finish on an intervention, that is my lot. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Alan Whitehead

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 2nd November 2017 Public Bill Committees

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

I beg to move a manuscript amendment,

That the Order of the Committee of 31 October be varied, by leaving out line 6.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe—Mr Gray is a hard act to follow, but I am sure that you will do it well. Perhaps I could take the liberty of explaining the amendment. If accepted, it will mean that the Committee will not sit on 7 November. Everything else will remain the same.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. My function at this point is merely to concur with the Minister’s suggestion that we leave out line 6.

Manuscript amendment agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I hope to respond to the Minister with the same collaborative approach he has tried to set for the Committee, and I hope all our discussions will be along those lines.

It is worth saying at the outset that I do not doubt for one moment—I do not think any Opposition Members do—the Minister’s good intent in seeking to reassure us on this issue. However, it is also important to recognise in not only this discussion but the wider discussions we will have in our remaining sittings just what is at stake. On a number of issues relating to our negotiations on exiting the European Union, Departments have shown good intention, but because there has been insufficient follow-through, that intention has not necessarily produced the outcomes to reassure other sectors.

It might be in some other areas possible to blur things a little bit at the edges, but we need to remind ourselves of the evidence we had from Professor Matthews on Tuesday. Nothing can be left to chance here. Professor Matthews outlined that if we do not get the safeguarding regime right, the consequences are that,

“Springfields, which produces nuclear fuel, will stop working. The Urenco plant at Capenhurst…will stop working because it will not be able to move uranium around.”

He went on to say:

“It would be difficult for Sellafield and other decommissioning sites, such as the old research sites at Dounreay, Harwell or Winfrith; some of the work there would grind to a halt as well.”––[Official Report, Nuclear Safeguards Public Bill Committee, 31 October 2017; c. 43, Q88.]

There is a lot at stake in ensuring we get this not just more or less right, but precisely right. That is one of the key factors behind our amendment. We must not simply be reassured in the Committee; Parliament needs to be reassured and to have the opportunity to express its view on this before we face the sort of consequences that Professor Matthews talked about.

The Minister has reassured us—again, I do not doubt his intention—on the full parliamentary scrutiny through the affirmative process. My reading of the clauses suggests that there is a bit more ambiguity. New paragraph (1B), which he referred to, says that the Secretary of State will not necessarily provide regulations but “may by regulations”, which gives quite a significant grey area. If the Minister is as sure as he indicated that there will be full parliamentary scrutiny by the affirmative process, the simplest thing to do would be to accept our amendment, which seeks nothing less.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out in some detail the path by which he considers Parliament would have some scrutiny of the arrangements with the IAEA when they come about. However, I am concerned, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), about whether what the Minister points to in the Bill actually does the job he thinks it does.

In new subsection (1)(1A) and (1B), inserted by clause 1(3), there is a curious circularity. I will not go through the whole thing, but new paragraph (1B) states:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations specify agreements for the purposes of subsection (1A)(b).”

If we then look at paragraph (1A)(b), it says:

“is specified in regulations under subsection (1B)”.

We then go back to paragraph (1B), and the regulations specified there are the regulations that the Secretary of State may make—that is it. We do not get very far in what I consider real parliamentary scrutiny by that semi-circular argument.

It appears that a relevant international agreement is as specified under new paragraph (1B), and a relevant agreement can be specified by regulations that the Secretary of State may make. If the Secretary of State does not pass regulations specifying those agreements, that is not the case, and the relevant international agreement then does not apply for the purposes of the legislation.

I suggest it would be far simpler to accept our amendment in view of the unique circumstances we are in at the moment. We are having to make treaties anew, and we need to be satisfied that they fully replace what we previously had for a number of years through Euratom. I appreciate that that is a voluntary agreement that has been entered into, and I appreciate that that agreement will undoubtedly be pursued in the light of co-operation, because of the voluntary nature of the agreements being entered into by the IAEA.

The central fact of the matter is that that is being undertaken not only while the Committee considers what it is going to do, but is actually tucked into the legislation as something that will remain outside what the Committee considers, because we have to take decisions about what we want to make our safeguarding regime look like when we do not know what those agreements will consist of. Having this particular system in place, which I accept is not the case for all international treaties, as far as the Bill is concerned, appears to close the circle, as far as the relationship between what the Committee is doing and what the treaty will look like when it comes out is concerned.

As I said, unless someone explains to me that I have completely misread new paragraphs (1A) and (1B), and that there is something else there that does not actually do what I think it says it does, I cannot take full reassurance from those clauses in the way the Minister suggests.

[Richard Harrington]

I have a suggestion for how we can progress, but I will just say that new paragraph (1B) provides the power to specify agreements for the purpose of the definition but the regulations are always subject to the affirmative procedure, so I argue that the hon. Gentleman’s object has already been achieved.

My suggestion, if it is acceptable—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intends to press his amendment to a vote—is that I am happy to sit down with him and discuss this in detail before Report. He has made quite technical, legal points, so I offer to meet him, if that is acceptable. Obviously, it is up to him to decide whether he wishes to press his amendment to a vote. I would have to oppose the vote, simply because I believe we want the same object, but my view is that the Government have clearly covered his rightful concerns about parliamentary scrutiny in our drafting of this.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification and for that kind offer, which is quite important for the way that we proceed. I think that the Minister, while he indicates that everything will be done under the affirmative procedure, has still not overcome the circularity in this particular part of the legislation, where the word “may” could derail the whole process of getting us to a position where those international agreements can be determined to be relevant.

[Richard Harrington]

Any piece of any statute is capable of being changed by Parliament in a new Bill anyway, but on the “may” and “must” argument, the hon. Gentleman will find that “may” is generally the terminology used in these things. There “may” be—oh dear; there might be reasons where a Secretary of State might quite rationally decide not to do something. A purely speculative and hypothetical example would be if something changed and this piece of legislation was genuinely not needed. I do not quite know what could happen, but hon. Members might speculate. The shadow Minister is nodding and smiling; I think he knows what I mean. There may, or must, be other reasons why. It would be strange to impose on a Secretary of State, saying that he or she “must” do something, if it was not necessary. If the Secretary of State did not do it, there could easily be an Act of Parliament or something else to reverse it. It is very normal procedure to say “may” in most Bills. The wording is not meant as a possible way of trapping a mad Secretary of State—I hope no one in this Room or anywhere else would suggest such a thing of the current one—who lost their head and said, “Oh, I’ve got the power; it doesn’t say I must, so I won’t do it, because it says I may.”

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for that further clarification and of course accept that the usual procedure in such circumstances is for the word “may” to be placed before the power of the Secretary of State to cast secondary legislation, whether affirmative or negative. Of course, the Bill is not being dealt with in normal circumstances because, as we shall argue on a later amendment, the normal circumstances for secondary legislation are that there is a change—positive, one would hope—to the previous situation, but that it is built on something pre-existing that will continue to take place even if the regulations are not laid.

As I am sure the Minister is aware, this place is littered with cases where a power to enact secondary legislation has simply not been used. He suggested that there might be circumstances in which it would be perfectly rational not to do so. There are instances in the history of the House where Governments have decided to put new measures before the House, eclipsing previous legislation. That previous legislation, including its secondary provisions, stays on the statute book, but the secondary legislation is not enacted, as it has been superseded.

At either end, that means that “may” is protected either because a new measure has come along, making it redundant to enact secondary legislation; or because, if the Minister decides not to enact the secondary legislation, the status quo ante prevails. However, that is not so in this case, because there will be no status quo ante should we exit Euratom without an associate arrangement. There would be nothing, and the circumstances attached to “may” take on a different colour, under that new and unique circumstance. That is why I am concerned that if we legislate using the wording that we often use in different circumstances, we may fall short of our duty, given that there is no status quo ante, to get things right in relation to subsequent proceedings.

[Richard Harrington]

I am trying, as always, to think carefully about what the hon. Gentleman is saying; but let us say there was a Secretary of State who was misguided or mad enough to say, “Actually, I am not going to do this because I do not want a nuclear safeguards regime. I want this country to be like North Korea”—or wherever. I think North Korea is the only country without a nuclear safeguards regime. If the Secretary of State desired to take that approach, there would be a lot more tools available for not having a nuclear safeguards regime than the interpretation of “may” or “must”. I am not making light of the point—it is dead serious.

No one has suggested any possibility that we should not have a nuclear safeguards regime, and wrong interpretation of the “may” or “must” point would mean that someone—a Secretary of State or a Government—had decided to do that. If a Government had decided to do that—I know it would not be the Opposition or anyone in any normal form of politics—such a change of policy would not just rely on an interpretation of “may” or “must”.

[Dr Whitehead]

I understand that point well. Of course we have to squeeze our brains enormously to think about the circumstances under which that set of events would come to pass, but that is not what we are talking about in this clause of the Bill. We are talking about relevant—or otherwise—international agreements. As far as I understand it, in this clause the Secretary of State effectively has the power to declare something a relevant international agreement or not, and to set down what is and what is not relevant in secondary legislation. That does not affect the agreement, but it affects whether that international agreement is deemed to be relevant, and hence whether it comes under the purview of the arrangements that the Minister said were in place to ensure parliamentary scrutiny on those agreements. It is not about whether we design a nuclear safeguards regime, but whether an agreement reached subsequent to our setting out our safeguarding procedure is deemed to be relevant for the purposes of parliamentary discussion when that treaty has come about. That is what I understand this clause to be about. I am grateful to the Minister for his kind offer to lay this clause on the table, although there is not procedure to do that exactly, and discuss what may or may not happen on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

It must happen.

[Dr Whitehead]

It must happen—well, we must consider the Bill on Report, but things may or may not take place on Report that we would be entirely happy with. I take that offer as suggesting that if there is confusion in Committee about what the wording means, our minds can be put at rest at that point, and if not it may be necessary to produce some kind of wording, perhaps on Report, that gets us to the position we both want to be in, so that we are in the same place on this legislation. That is my understanding of what the Minister has said. If that is the case, I am happy to take up that offer—provided a cup of coffee is involved as well—and we will not press for a Division on this clause.

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Gentleman is being a little modest about his beverage requirements, as I happen to know that he does not have caffeine in his coffee.

[Dr Whitehead]

Decaffeinated coffee.

[Richard Harrington]

Otherwise, I would put extra caffeine in the coffee. The serious point is that I do not accept the fundamental point of the amendments and I do not want the hon. Gentleman to think that I do. He has brought up some serious points, some of which are legal and technical. I would like to take the opportunity to sit down in a non-confrontational way with him and any colleagues who wish to come to drill down on those points. I do not want him to think that I suddenly agree that we do not have enough scrutiny in the Bill, but he made some good and technical points about the interpretation of clauses. I hope we can do exactly as he said: sit down and reach a wording that is acceptable to us all, given that we have the same objective. If not, we can always consider it on Report. That would be the correct way to progress, if that is satisfactory.

[Dr Whitehead]

In that case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Alan Whitehead

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 31st October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Richard Harrington]

Why not? I am quite happy to. That function, currently done by Euratom, will be done by the new safeguards regime. It will be responsible for examination and testing and making sure there are suitably qualified inspectors, in the same way that Euratom does now.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q I think you were in the session when we heard evidence from our previous witnesses this afternoon concerning what is in the Energy Act 2013 and in other Acts concerning the responsibilities and powers of and prohibitions on nuclear inspectors in general. You have made the very precise point that the role of an inspector relating to nuclear safeguarding is certainly not the same as the role of an inspector relating to nuclear safety: they will have different skills and responsibilities. Is it your understanding, however, that what is in the legislation at the moment concerning the overall powers and responsibilities of inspectors is sufficient for the purpose of bringing under the regulation of ONR a number of inspectors who previously would not have been covered by that area of responsibility but would have been reporting to Euratom and covered by whatever Euratom decided was necessary as far as that inspection and safeguarding is concerned?

Professor Matthews: Clearly, the operation of the Office for Nuclear Regulation requires a range of different roles. I would see no problem with adding an additional role to the range of roles that are already in the organisation. It is just the physical people are different people who do these different things. Indeed, nuclear inspectors themselves have different backgrounds and specialisations, and diverse education as well. I suppose it is extending the range of what the Office for Nuclear Regulation does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

Thank you for that, Professor Matthews. You are of course using my argument for why we need the Bill; thank you for supporting it. Dr Mina Golshan, whose organisation is responsible for recruiting the 15 people we are talking about, said that recruitment had already started. Once the Bill proceeded beyond Second Reading—I thank everyone, including Opposition Members, for voting for that—it meant that the financial resources needed for the IT and recruitment are provided. We are very well aware of that.

I thank you for your de facto support for the Bill. I have of course noted the points you have made, and I will be very happy to chat about them on another occasion. The purpose of the Bill is precisely to get over some of the obstacles that you are talking about and prevent what you have explained would happen—as we accept would happen—if we did not have a safeguards regime in place.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q May I come back briefly on the question of finance? I think we all know that, as a contingency, we need the safeguarding regime that is set out in the Bill. What I think we do not know is what will happen with the various finances involved in the whole process. I characterise that in two ways. First, what will happen to what we previously paid to Euratom, and presumably would have to pay and then recover —as is mentioned in the Bill—via ONR, for the cost of the inspectors, who would previously have been part of our contribution to Euratom but will now be a UK contribution?

Secondly, I understand that the Torus fusion project at Culham will be a subject of safeguarding inspection. Will that be financed, subsequent to our leaving Euratom, in a way that is commensurate with its present level of assistance, which largely comes, as you are aware, from EU funding? Do you have any comment on that?

Professor Matthews: There is a difficulty here and I do not know if it is recognised in the Bill; it perhaps needs scrutinising. The only mention in the Bill and in these discussions is of our fissile materials. We are talking about uranium, plutonium and other axinite isotopes, and precursors such as thorium, which can be converted into fissile materials. In the case of Culham and the fusion programme, they use tritium. Tritium is a material that comes under safeguards, which is not a fissile material. It is a material that is a component in hydrogen bombs, and it is controlled. I remember getting into trouble as a young scientist. I was asked to assess the use of lithium-6 as an absorber for a fast reactor project. I phoned up a French supplier of lithium-6, and next thing I had security down on me, because tritium is produced from lithium-6 and is a controlled material. I do not know whether any consideration is being made of the control of tritium with respect to Culham and nuclear safeguards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

That is beyond the scope of the Bill, but perhaps we could discuss it, although not necessarily now, in the evidence session. I am happy to discuss it, but I suspect that your interpretation is correct, Mr Gray, and it is beyond the narrower scope of the Bill. I am happy to discuss it with the Shadow Minister.

[Dr Whitehead]

One might argue that the scope of the Bill is too narrow for the safeguarding that we need to undertake.

Draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Alan Whitehead

Thursday 19th October 2017 General Committees

[Richard Harrington]

I believe that is extremely unlikely, but we all have our views on that subject; certainly, if this measure is voted down today, I am sure the Prime Minister will have no choice. In all seriousness, the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but if it were left only to the shorter, one-year cycle, I cannot see people taking the kind of investment decisions needed. Of course, it is arguable—some might say they want 10 years. When the rest of the electricity supply market—not the capacity market but the normal supply market—starts to build huge wind turbine farms and gets planning permission to build nuclear power stations and all those other things, those are all judged on 20 to 30-year cycles, so it is difficult.

The officials think that four years and one year are right, but it is always up for review, and if the market changed completely we would want the flexibility to be able to act. For the moment, it works. It sounds arrogant for Government to say it, but I think most people think the capacity market is working. Self-evidently, it is working.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

[Richard Harrington]

I notice with fear and trepidation the shadow Minister shaking his head. I will try to make some progress, then keep quiet while he makes his comments, and then I will do my best to counter them.

The capacity market is working and there is fierce competition. We have the required capacity at prices significantly lower than many detractors of the scheme expected. I hope the shadow Minister agrees that it is working from a competitive point of view. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield said, that is good for consumers because it has translated to lower costs on bills. Whatever one’s view of bills generally, this is not a big chunk of bills.

The capacity market is driving investment in new and flexible capacity. The most recent four-years-ahead auction secured more than 3.4 GW of new build generating capacity, including combined-cycle gas turbines, open-cycle gas turbines, small flexible engines and battery storage, as well as 1.4 GW of demand-side response. The clear message from industry and investors is that the mechanism retains their confidence and is the best available approach for ensuring our long-term security of supply.

Industry and investors stress that regulatory stability is crucial, but also that the scheme, which is operating in a rapidly changing environment, must be reviewed regularly to ensure it remains fit for purpose. That goes back to the four year, one year point. The changes set out in the instrument are the latest in a series of amendments that ensure the scheme is kept relevant and workable. If the Committee bears with me, I will briefly expand on the amendments made by the draft regulations.

First, the instrument amends the method by which the costs of the capacity market are recouped from suppliers. It was felt that the current supplier charge arrangements potentially gave an unfair advantage to embedded generators—the smaller generators connected to the lower voltage distribution network—and could distort the outcome of the capacity auctions. I had better explain what that means. That arises because, under the current arrangements, suppliers are charged according to their share of demand at peak times, measured by the demand they place on the transmission grid. That is called the net demand.

By contracting with embedded generators to run over winter peaks, some suppliers are able to reduce their net demand and therefore their share of capacity market costs, which means others have to pay more. With some of the savings inevitably being passed on to the embedded generators, such arrangements unintentionally risk giving them a double payment for what is essentially only one contribution to security of supply. Nobody is operating illegally, but it is basically a loophole that needs shutting off. As my great hero Basil Fawlty said in another context,

“that particular avenue of pleasure has been closed off.”

We need to shut that off.

The instrument addresses the issue by amending the basis of the capacity market supplier charge and settlement cost levy from net to gross demand. That is a fairer way of sharing costs between suppliers. It ensures that suppliers’ costs reflect their overall demand and helps to ensure a level playing field between different generators in the auction. That is the first of what I hope are non-contentious amendments—although, looking at my shadow, perhaps that is a victory of hope over logic.

Secondly—I will be as quick I can—the instrument seeks to prevent new and refurbishing plants from being overcompensated within the capacity market when they are also in receipt of aid through risk finance schemes such as the enterprise investment scheme, the seed enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts. We do not want to have a double subsidy, whereby plants can get this payment and tax breaks as well, because that would distort the outcome of capacity auctions.

To ensure fair competition and value for money for consumers, the regulations assert that where a capacity provider has accessed investment through one of these risk finance schemes to provide or help to fund their capital expenditure, their capacity payments must be reduced until that has been offset. They can switch systems, but only after they have used up the original tax breaks. These offsetting arrangements ensure that the total amount of aid is capped at the amount awarded in the capacity market auction.

Thirdly, the regulations will remove an inconsistency between how demand-side response capacity and other capacity types are de-rated. For hon. Members who are less familiar with de-rating than we are in the Department, I should explain that it is the process by which the volume of a provider’s capacity is adjusted to reflect the reliability of the technologies being used. Unlike other participants, demand-side response providers can nominate a lower amount of capacity to bid in an auction than the capacity that they estimated at the pre-qualification stage, but that nominated amount is not currently subject to de-rating. The regulations will address that inconsistency by ensuring that the nominated value is de-rated, thus improving the overall reliability of the capacity procured and enabling us to know more exactly what we are getting. Again, it is about closing a loophole.

Fourthly, the regulations clarify the requirement for capacity market participants to maintain credit cover until they have fully discharged all the requirements against which it has been lodged. Additionally, they put it beyond doubt that a party’s credit cover will not be drawn down where a termination fee is due, unless the termination fee is unpaid.

Finally, the regulations will amend the name, though not the substance, of the capacity market warning—the statutory notification that has to be issued under the scheme in specific circumstances. We believe that “capacity market notice” will better reflect the nature of the notification and be clearer for all participants.

My Department published two consultations on our proposals in September and October 2016 and received 38 responses. Significant support was expressed for the majority of the proposals. I look forward to hearing what hon. Members have to say about them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I am extremely grateful to the shadow Minister for his speech. He has provided food for thought on a lot of points. I thank him for his support for most of these technical tweaks or arrangements. I greatly appreciate it.

I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s views on the capacity market. You, Mr Davies, and others may get rather impatient if I go into great detail about the market itself, but I am happy to meet the hon. Member for Southampton, Test—I think I am seeing him on Monday anyway—to talk about it in the detail it deserves, rather than occupying the Committee now. If it is acceptable, I will stick to talking about the technical arrangements themselves.

The hon. Gentleman raised some specific issues that I should mention to get them on the record, if Members will bear with me. I did not actually mention the 15-year agreement in my opening remarks, but what he said was correct. The capacity market selects plant at auction simply by price. It is a safe assumption that an existing plant, because it has probably written off its investment, will be cheaper than a new plant, which faces significant up-front investment costs.

Some of the nuclear plants that the hon. Gentleman referred to are near the end of their life. They could be turned off, and in fact that was the intention with many of them, subject to the great safety requirements necessary. The operator, EDF, is extending the life of those plants, but for a short period. He is right about turn-on and turn-off—it cannot be done instantly—but the plants can be kept going within a safe limit for comparatively short periods, compared with their full life.

The majority of resources are able to access only one-year agreements. An exception was made for new and refurbished plant because investors required more certainty to invest in large capital projects. Where not necessary, longer-term agreements risk needlessly locking consumers into paying a long-term price. That goes against the valid point that was made about things moving quickly in the energy market. What seems like a good deal in year one could seem absolutely ridiculous in four years. The Government, as usual, have to try to strike a balance. The hon. Gentleman may feel and is perfectly entitled to feel that the balance has not been struck properly, and I look forward to discussing that with him.

The capacity market is technology-neutral. The types of energy or technology are not decided in advance, because all types are eligible to participate. That is correct, and it includes coal and other fossil fuels. Broadly, those get Government subsidies in the same way so as to comply with state aid rules. Value for money is very important for energy. For those less familiar with the energy market, there are other auctions, such as contracts for difference and other systems. We could discuss those at length. Members will be delighted to hear that I will not do that now, but those systems take care of the point that the hon. Gentleman raised.

Should we pay to keep new and existing plant going through the capacity market? The Government think there are good reasons to do so, but there are arguments to the contrary. I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that the Government have a popular policy—popular in most parts of the country—of removing fossil fuels as soon as possible. We are doing that, as hon. Members know, but it does means that there might be some fossil fuel use in the short term, because fossil fuels can be turned on and off quite easily. I suppose that gas is the easiest to turn on and off, with coal just behind, but that is nothing to do with the Government’s strategy, which we are sticking to, of removing fossil fuels in the next few years. It is a well publicised strategy, and the owners of the power stations know about it and are on track for it.

Rather than going into more detail now, I would love to debate the more technical points that the hon. Gentleman has made with him later. Having worn the patience of the Committee significantly by going into more detail than some Members on both sides might have wanted, I am happy to speak to anybody individually. Obviously, I have regular meetings with the shadow Minister and the Scottish nationalist party spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, and if they would like me to put this matter at the top of the agenda, I will happily do so, in a meeting with officials if they would prefer to go into those details.

[Dr Whitehead]

Before the Minister resumes his seat, would he say for the record whether a further view will be taken on the question of embedded generation and gross payments and, secondly, whether the review of the capacity market might be expedited over the coming period?

[Richard Harrington]

I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s points on that subject. He asked me to give some thought to those options before we decided that we were not going to pursue them. I am giving thought to them both, and I look forward to discussing them with him.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment) Regulations 2017.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Alan Whitehead

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for effectively congratulating the Government on the results of the recent auction for energy prices—I, too, was delighted that the cost of offshore wind effectively dropped by half. I also remind him, however, that energy has to remain a mix. Nuclear is part of that mix, and as with all mixes aimed at maintaining continuity of supply, some are more expensive and some are cheaper. What matters is the average price paid, and I think that Hinkley will turn out to be a really good deal for the taxpayer, as it involves no public funds upfront, which is very unusual for this kind of massive development.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I am a little concerned by the Minister’s reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle). The Secretary of State specifically told the BEIS Select Committee in the spring that it was very much in Britain’s energy security interest to continue to participate in the internal energy market. Does the Minister agree with his own Secretary of State on this matter? If so, what action has he been taking to ensure that we can participate in that market after Brexit?

[Richard Harrington]

It is the job of the hon. Gentleman—the Opposition spokesman—to be concerned about everything that the Minister says. I fully accept that. In this particular case, however, I can but reiterate that maintaining continuity of supply is our first priority. That is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says we must do, and that is what we shall do.