Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Debate between Viscount Hanworth and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

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

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I agree about the importance of consultation, as noble Lords will know, and also about the proper resourcing of the ONR. However, I am nervous about the precedent set by proposed subsection (9)(b) in the amendment. It would be very difficult if this was established as a new approach to SIs. As the Minister knows, resources are sometimes constrained when you bring in new legislation, but that is not a reason not to proceed with regulations. I recall milk quotas, where a vast amount of administrative work was involved—but that did not mean to say that it was not right to proceed with that part of EU policy at that time.

It is also not clear how many people will need to be involved in resourcing work. I accept that this is a problem in the nuclear area, but I would guard against putting that sort of provision into legislation—although it might be that the amendment is purely exploratory. I very much agree that we need comfort on resourcing for the ONR, and I thought that the Minister gave us some comfort when he last spoke.

I have another question for the Minister about transition. The draft withdrawal agreement published yesterday covers Euratom—slightly to my surprise, because I believed and hoped it would be in a separate instrument. But that is as it is; it is in the draft document. I am interested to know, since the document also covers transition, whether that means that Euratom will be part of any transition agreement likely to be agreed in the coming weeks and months. Confirmation of that would be helpful because it bears on some of the other concerns we have had about the process of bringing nuclear safeguards into UK law—and of course the resourcing and the time for the ONR to do a proper job are critical.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, I discern from the letter sent on 20 February by the Minister to the Lords who have participated in the various stages of the Bill so far that the Government intend to impose most of the costs of a nuclear safeguarding regime on the civil nuclear industry. It is clear that the regime will deal mainly with matters that are remote from the everyday concerns of the civil industry. Therefore, it seems inappropriate that it should be asked to bear most of the costs. Be that as it may, it is appropriate that it should be consulted regarding provisions of statutory regulations. This is not what is being called for directly in the amendments. However, unless the Government signal clearly that they intend to consult the industry, this is something they should be enjoined to do by an amendment to be brought forward on Report.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Debate between Viscount Hanworth and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 22nd February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I have some sympathy for the questions raised in this debate and I start by associating myself with support for the nuclear industry and for nuclear R&D. As the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, said, the nuclear industry was founded in this country.

I support the Bill, as I think that we need to plan for the withdrawal from Euratom in a responsible way. The Bill is relatively clear, and we have seen the draft implementing regulations, which are very helpful—I thank the Minister for that. As in other Brexit areas, the Government need to put EU provisions into UK law because many people in this country have told us that that is what they want. I believe that, as a scrutinising Chamber, we need to progress matters technically and that we should provide the powers that the Energy Ministers need to negotiate the necessary nuclear agreements and to strengthen the ONR.

However, I want to make one point which perhaps builds a little on what has been said by my noble friend Lord Trenchard. If we crash out of the EU in March 2019 or, alternatively, at the end of an agreed implementation period, will the Minister consider informing the EU at that point that we would like to reverse the bespoke Article 50 for Euratom and put up with a little bit of potential ECJ involvement—at least until an association agreement with Euratom is arranged or a relevant trade agreement with the EU is finalised? Once the air clears, the two sides will be bound to return to the negotiating table and will no doubt start to agree things on important areas such as nuclear.

I am not sure that my concern calls for an amendment to the Bill but we must avoid any risk of enhanced nuclear non-proliferation and the industry disruption and damage that would go with it. Therefore, if we could find a way of retaining some flexibility in the event of a bad outcome, that could be helpful, and I shall be grateful if the Minister has anything to say by way of reassurance. I had thought that perhaps we should not go ahead with this Bill but, by looking at it carefully, I have been persuaded that we need to get on with it.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments propose an associate membership of Euratom. In effect, they propose a deferment of our severance from Euratom and possibly even an indefinite deferment.

There is a marked contrast between the bland assurances we have received from the Government that everything regarding nuclear safeguards will be in place by March 2019 and the anxieties expressed by other parties, including, in a professionally restrained manner, the ONR, which is due to assume the duties of nuclear safeguarding. It has indicated that it is struggling to meet the deadline. The regime that it might have in place by March will be decidedly understaffed, and surely the danger that the deadline will be missed fully justifies the provisions of these amendments.

There are also anxieties regarding the ability to establish the necessary nuclear co-operation agreements with third parties in a timely manner. Such agreements depend on the existence of a nuclear safeguarding regime that is compliant with the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and it will take some time to achieve this. We are fearful that the requirement that a nuclear co-operation agreement with the USA be ratified by the Senate will give rise to a lengthy hiatus during which our nuclear industry may be deprived of some essential supplies.

There is also the matter of medical isotopes, which it is appropriate to raise at this juncture. The Minister has told us that the Government take their continued availability most seriously and assures us that this issue is quite distinct from nuclear safeguarding. Well, it is not a matter that is separate from our membership of Euratom. Euratom appears to have played a significant role in ensuring their continued and timely availability when they have been extremely scarce. By leaving Euratom prematurely we shall be prejudicing the security of our supplies, and this is a good reason for deferring our departure.

Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [HL]

Debate between Viscount Hanworth and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 9th November 2016 Other Business

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for his clear explanation of these amendments. I liked his example of the Doctor Who birthday cards, which I look forward to researching.

It is true that the internet is growing. It is increasingly international and it is very important, but I am not sure that that necessarily means that we should be changing the Bill. The amendments seek, in various ways, to include the sending of an online infringement notice in the list of permitted purposes, the result being that such notices can be used to communicate with an online secondary actor, without fear of a threats action being brought. Unfortunately, such amendments would completely undermine the protection for secondary actors provided by the Bill. Noble Lords will remember that Mr Justice Birss was clear in his oral evidence that these forms should not be made an automatic exception from the law of threats. He noted that he was aware of the notification process being used in exactly the way the threats provisions aim to prevent. Furthermore, the amendments would distort the policy behind permitted communications, which, of course, is to encourage a conversation to resolve a dispute. If an online form is used, rightly or wrongly, and the product listing is taken down, then the rights holder has prevented further trade in the item, so that closes the door to discussion.

Amendment 11 defines the new permitted purpose in relation to the e-commerce regulations 2002. These regulations do not specify how the notification must be made or what it should contain. There is no conflict, as we see it, between the Bill provisions as they stand and these regulations. It is possible to send a communication which fits within both the requirements of the regulation and the permitted purposes. Given the undefined nature of an e-commerce notice, the range of communications exempted by this amendment would potentially be large. That could create a gap in the protection for secondary actors.

Amendments 9 and 11 in particular would allow malicious and unjustified threats to be made to a secondary actor simply because a particular online form is used. The parties damaged by that threat would have no form of redress. That cannot to my mind be the right outcome. A rights holder facing a threats action as a result of using such a form can take advantage of the defences set out in the Bill. One defence available is that “all reasonable steps” have been taken to find the primary infringer. What is reasonable in the case of high-volume online infringement, to which the noble Viscount referred, is very likely to be a lower hurdle than in other situations. If a step is reasonable, then I see no problem in expecting a rights holder to take it. In light of this, the permitted purpose set out in Amendment 10, with its explicit reference to the impracticality of finding a primary actor, is not necessary. A suitable defence already exists.

The other defence for a rights holder facing a threats action is that the right has in fact been infringed. As the BBC noted in its evidence, it is very well aware, before it makes contact, of who is permitted to use its brand, and therefore whether others are infringing. The provisions as drafted in no way prevent rights holders from legitimately enforcing their rights. Sir Colin Birss says about not including standardised/online letters in his evidence:

“I would not include them in the exemption. That kind of thing can cause real damage. … I would be wary of a draft that went too far the other way and simply excluded that kind of thing altogether. That would be unfortunate. It is a place where SMEs can get damaged”.

Finally, I will try to pick up a couple of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. As I am sure she knows, the list of permitted purposes is based on the current threats provisions where it is permitted to notify a recipient of a right or, for patents only, to give factual information about the right or make inquiries to find out if a right is being infringed and by whom. That is not changing. Also, mere notification, to which she referred, is the first of the permitted purposes, and notification is not a threat to the platform.

These are complex matters. They have obviously been discussed at length with the Law Commission. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Viscount Hanworth]

I shall consider carefully what the Minister has said, as recorded in Hansard. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. I wish to give notice that I may bring it back on Report, in collaboration, I would expect, with the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles.