All 1 Debates between Lord Harrington of Watford and Eleanor Smith

Thu 2nd Nov 2017
Nuclear Safeguards Bill (Fourth sitting)
Public Bill Committees

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons

Nuclear Safeguards Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Lord Harrington of Watford and Eleanor Smith
Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 2nd November 2017

(6 years, 8 months ago)

Public Bill Committees
Read Full debate Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 View all Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 2 November 2017 - (2 Nov 2017)
Lord Harrington of Watford Portrait Richard Harrington
- Hansard - -

It will not do that, because it is impossible to forecast how the recruitment and everything will go. I am not trying to dodge the hon. Gentleman’s very legitimate question, but in recruitment at its most basic, when placing a job advert, it is unknown how many people are going to reply. I am not dodging his question, but the impact assessment cannot specifically say that.

I accept the quality of Dr Golshan’s evidence. She spoke again yesterday at the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and she meets regularly with all my colleagues in the Department.

Eleanor Smith Portrait Eleanor Smith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Minister said that there will not be enough, but does that not have an effect on the safety? If there are not enough people to do the inspection, does that not compromise the safety?

Lord Harrington of Watford Portrait Richard Harrington
- Hansard - -

I am sorry to be pedantic in front of the hon. Lady. It might affect the safeguards, which are to do with non-proliferation and so on, not the safety. If there were not enough inspectors to do safety, it would have the effect the hon. Lady mentioned, but this particular Bill it is to do with safeguards. I know that sounds like one word against the other, but it is a different regime—albeit a very good one, and it also has skill recruitment issues, just like any other. I am not making light of her comment, but in this case it is not safety in the sense of health and safety— people getting hurt or leaks—important though that is, but it would certainly affect the safeguards regime if the recruitment and other things were not done properly, which is why we have started this straightaway.