Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Albert Owen Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 16th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

There is no difference in the arrangements. As I say, the Bill makes provisions for a safeguarding regime. It is not about safety or security; it is about making sure it can be verified that nuclear material that is used in the civil sector does not cross to other uses. The robust arrangements supervised by the ONR that we have in place for decommissioning continue.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), the Secretary of State said that Ministers regularly meet various industry experts and bodies. Will he go further and say that by the time the Bill is enacted it will contain a clause that says it is necessary to consult the industry as widely as possible? The trade unions and the trade bodies currently feel left out.

[Greg Clark]

Such consultation is the universal practice in the nuclear sector. The hon. Gentleman might serve on the Bill Committee, so perhaps he will be able to interrogate the issues he raises, but at every point the nuclear sector proceeds not through the unilateral fiat of Governments but appropriately, on the basis of expert advice. That is the culture of the nuclear industry and it will continue.

As I set out for the House in my written statement in September, our intention is for the new domestic regime to exceed the standard that the international community would expect from the UK as a member of the IAEA. The objective is for it to be as robust and comprehensive as that currently provided by Euratom. We are perfectly satisfied with the high standards that have prevailed under Euratom, so we do not want to take the opportunity to weaken them. As I have mentioned, we will also be agreeing new safeguards agreements with the IAEA. My officials have had meetings with officials from the IAEA at their headquarters in Vienna to take the discussions forward, and I am pleased to report that they are progressing extremely well.

On other aspects of the Euratom relationship, we have made it clear that we want to continue the successful co-operation. In June, I announced the Government’s commitment to underwrite the UK’s fair share of the costs for the Joint European Torus—the leading nuclear fusion facility in Oxfordshire—which supports 1,300 jobs, and we will continue to do that.

Let me briefly take the House through the clauses of the Bill. It is not a long Bill, as the House knows. Clause 1 amends the Energy Act 2013 to replace the Office for Nuclear Regulation’s existing nuclear safeguards purposes with a new definition. The ONR will regulate the new nuclear safeguards regime using its existing relevant functions and powers, so the measure is about clarifying its purposes. Clause 1 will also amend the Act by creating new powers so that we can set out in regulations the detail of the domestic safeguards regime, such as on accounting, reporting, and control and inspection arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

Clearly, the Secretary of State was not listening to what I was saying. If he displays some patience, he will hear a bit more about my thoughts on the Bill’s contents.

Euratom was agreed to as a body and a treaty before the EU treaty came about, and to that extent it is, arguably, separate from the actual formation and operation of the EU. That of course is the subject of fierce legal debate. It is true that its disputes mechanism does involve the European Court of Justice, and its terms include the free movement of scientists but those are specifically applied to civil nuclear activities and do not stray on to a wider canvas. Subject to legal debate, it certainly may have been possible—

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right that it is debateable whether, legally, we have to leave Euratom. Would it not be helpful if the Secretary of State published the legal advice that he has obtained? As a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, I have heard a number of experts saying a number of things about this very matter.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

It certainly would be helpful for the House to hear about the discussions that have been taking place between the Government’s legal advisers and the Government. The Library has helpfully provided a number of solicitors who have disputed the point that the Secretary of State puts forward. There is legal discourse going on that disputes the fact that Euratom and the EU are intrinsically linked.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

It is abundantly clear, especially from the Westminster Hall debate secured by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), that Euratom is intrinsically entwined with our membership of the European Union. Legal advice says that, as does the Commission itself. That has been abundantly expressed during this debate, and no doubt it will be expressed again on many other occasions.

The tone of the Westminster Hall debate, and the contribution it made, was fantastic. Unfortunately, some aspects of the issue, as we have heard today, are actually a little more disturbing. The way the debate is going on medical isotopes—radioactive isotopes for cancer and other medical treatments—has been extraordinary, given that it is absolutely clear that this does not form part of the Bill. The impact of leaving Euratom will not be to stop people receiving such cancer treatments.

[Albert Owen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for referring to the debate I led on 12 July. There was consensus in that debate in the Grand Committee Room that we should have associate membership of Euratom. That was the general theme of what was said by Members from both sides of the House, and we need to move towards it. In particular, I do not think that the Bill provides the lifeboat necessary for us to leave Euratom. Many of us are arguing for a transition period so that we will remain in Euratom until we get either associate membership or third-party agreements.

[Chris Green]

I appreciate the broad consensus in the Grand Committee Room, but not everyone had an opportunity to speak in that debate. No doubt there will be a transition period of some sort, but whether we have an associate membership or just a very close association at the end of it—like the association we will have with the European Union—we will look at what the EU does and how it goes about things, and we of course want similar standards. We are not looking to leave the European Union and then to reduce and cut all kinds of standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

Except the hon. Gentleman. However, we are where we are, and the Government have made their decision. I urge them not to abandon what I and many hon. Members regard as a sensible approach: to pursue a transition period during which we stay under Euratom’s auspices, and then seek some sort of associate membership so that we do not have to recreate everything that the Minister and others have said that we value from our membership.

I understand the need for the Bill. There is a risk that we could crash out of the EU and Euratom, and we need a back-up, given that the Office for Nuclear Regulation will take on the responsibilities that Euratom has today. Unlike trade, there is no fall-back option for nuclear. With trade, we have the World Trade Organisation, but with nuclear, if we do not have an arrangement with the IAEA, we will not be able to trade or move nuclear materials around the EU. The Bill is an important belt-and-braces measure in case we crash out, which I hope does not happen, but is a risk.

The Bill does part of one thing—pass the remit for safeguarding inspections from Euratom to our regulator, the ONR. As hon. Members know, the ONR is not new, but there are serious pressures on its capacity. It is currently recruiting a new chief nuclear inspector, and only last week the Government had to put aside more money for it as part of the clean growth strategy. We therefore know that the ONR is under pressure even before taking on the new responsibilities that the Government may pass on to it. As a senior ONR official was forced to admit to a Select Committee in the other place, the timescale for adding safeguarding responsibilities is “very challenging”.

[Albert Owen]

My hon. Friend is making an important point about the ONR’s resources. Indeed, it takes about seven years to train the experts to ensure that they are competent enough to do the work. The lack of resources means that we really need a transitional period.

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge. He led the Westminster Hall debate and has a constituency interest. He is absolutely right, and some of the questions I will pose later are about how we can be sure that the ONR has the capacity and the capability to take on the responsibility that the Government will pass on to it.

The Bill does not resolve all the safeguarding issues. It does not solve the difficulties associated with the common nuclear market that exists as part of the Euratom framework, and it does not put in place the nuclear co-operation agreements with other countries that we would require to enable trading and even the exchange of information between nuclear states. It does nothing to resolve the arrangements to continue the world-leading fusion research, funded by Euratom but located in Oxfordshire, as the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) pointed out. I know that Members who represent those communities have real concerns about the impact. When I visited Culham a couple of weeks ago, it was made clear to me that those working there would prefer to stay in Euratom and had serious concerns about our exit.

Despite what some hon. Members think and say, the Bill does not provide the assurance that radiographers and others have sought for months from the Government that medical radioisotopes, again not made here, can be seamlessly transported to the UK for diagnostics and treatment. No one in this Chamber can say with certainty what will happen in March 2019, and whether agreements will be put in place for the frictionless movement of goods and services. Without that, we cannot be certain that those radioisotopes can come into this country easily and without hindrance.

Given that list, it should not be a surprise to Ministers or the House that my Committee—the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—has launched an inquiry into the impact of the Government’s decision to leave Euratom. The House will also not be surprised to learn that a lot of detailed and concerning evidence has been submitted to us. As well as my visit to Culham and the Joint European Torus—JET—I was at Hinkley Point today, meeting representatives from Hinkley Point C. Again, concerns were expressed to us about ensuring that nuclear fuel can get into the country once we have left Euratom. Ministers should be mindful of that.

Let us be clear: the process of ceasing to be part of Euratom, if that is what we end up doing, is complex, time consuming, and relies on good will, negotiation and agreement with third parties. Ministers cannot simply say that we will get those arrangements—they are up for negotiation. The Bill is just one small part of that complex picture, and as Ministers know, there is a very limited timeframe to get a series of agreements with a range of third party states to replicate what already exists as part of the Euratom framework.

My biggest concern about the Bill as it stands is that although it provides for permission to transfer the responsibility for safeguarding, it leaves to a later date all the arrangements that need to be made to ensure that the ONR can carry out those new functions. It leaves it to Ministers to determine them, at an undetermined time—increasingly a feature of the Government’s attitude to this as well as other aspects of the process of disentangling the UK from the EU. That is worrying, and should concern every Member of this House. Parliament should be involved because the decisions made here will affect all our constituents.

If we consent to the Bill as it stands, and transfer authority from Euratom to the ONR, it is important that we are confident in the arrangements to effect that change. We must be confident that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) said, the ONR has enough qualified and relevantly experienced personnel, because this is a specialist and skilled task, to do the job. Given that it is currently done and has been done for decades by another organisation, we must be confident that those people have had the right training, that the equipment required for monitoring special fissile material—by inspection in person and remotely—is in place, and that we know that the IAEA, the international body responsible for safeguarding standards, is satisfied and confident that this can be done effectively.

However collegiate or conciliatory Ministers are during the Bill’s passage, and I know that they will be, they cannot provide those assurances to Parliament today, or any time soon, and they have no way of knowing whether the conditions will be met. It is a very big gamble, and frankly, it is unacceptable to say, “Don’t worry, it will all happen through regulation and we will deal with it later; we have a very good relationship”. It is Ministers’ and the Government’s responsibility to provide Parliament with the assurances, detailed information and confidence on this matter, and all those aspects of replicating what we currently benefit from as part of Euratom.

In the context of the Bill and what needs to happen in addition to it, there are several questions that need answers before Members can be convinced that the Government’s course of action—their choice that we go our own way rather than negotiate for a transition period and associate membership—is correct. When can Ministers tell the House more about the terms of any agreement with the IAEA? It has been suggested that standards will be broadly equivalent to those from which we benefit now. What does “broadly equivalent” mean? What is the difference between what we currently have and what the Government are seeking to get from the IAEA? When will the voluntary offer be agreed, ratified and confirmed by the IAEA? What measures do the Government have in mind to ensure that the Office for Nuclear Regulation has the right skills and resources in place, given how long it takes to train a nuclear safeguards inspector and the skills shortages that already exist in the sector?

The Minister knows well that many experts in the field are concerned about the decision to leave Euratom. Since its inception, Euratom has helped to facilitate trade, promoted key research and development programmes, allowed for the movement of skills and maintained high safeguarding standards. While nobody in this House would demur from the absolute requirement that safeguarding inspections happen, or from the need for the ONR to have powers from this House if it is to undertake that role, the Minister must realise too that, notwithstanding that position, many questions remain unanswered. I hope a better way forward can be found—transition and associate membership, not a risky and costly process of transferring powers to the ONR for something that by its very nature relies on international co-operation, agreement and trust.

Retail Energy

Albert Owen Excerpts

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

As my right hon. Friend will know, there is a vigorous competitive market for deals that are available through a great many new entrants, and we want to expand that market. The CMA has established that at present there is insufficient competition in the standard variable tariffs. Our aim is to expand the competitive part of the market and in the meantime provide some protection for those who are paying too much on those tariffs.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s intervention on the road to Marxism. I think that—apart from one—we are all Marxists now. I want to make a serious point, but I have been banging on about this for a long time, and I have been accused of lots of things, which is why I make that statement.

Speaking as a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, I think it is realistic to assume that the pre-legislative scrutiny will take some time. When does the Secretary of State expect the Bill to receive Royal Assent? Will that happen at the earliest opportunity, so that we can help the vulnerable people who are being ripped off? On the issue of competition, the Secretary of State mentioned a review. The energy companies said recently that the price hikes were due to transmission costs. Can we look into the uncompetitive nature of this broken energy market?

[Greg Clark]

As I said earlier, that is being considered as a separate exercise.

The hon. Gentleman referred to pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee. I think that that is necessary so that we can establish a consensus and allow the technical scrutiny that is needed, so that once the Bill has passed that scrutiny and been introduced to the House, it can proceed with the strongest possible consensus.

Oral Answers to Questions

Albert Owen Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We await the hon. Lady’s oration on that occasion with eager anticipation.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

The Minister’s response is simply not good enough. We have waited for report after report, and these carbon budgets have been delayed time and again. I know that we have had an unnecessary and uncosted election, but even the United Nations is saying that our air is not clean. It is time that the Government took this seriously, acted and told the House the exact figures.

[Claire Perry]

I think the hon. Gentleman is showing the effect of our late sitting hours with his grumpiness. He should be celebrating the fact that Britain has led the world in decarbonising our economy, while growing the economy at a greater rate than any other G7 country. If he wants more affirmation, he should read the PwC report on that. What we have to do now is set out a very difficult and long-term plan to meet the fourth and fifth carbon budgets and to go beyond. As always, that requires all of us to support this difficult progress right across the economy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have a cup of coffee and cheer up.

Euratom Membership

Albert Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Members will have noticed that there are a large number of people here, and a large number of them have put in to speak. I do not feel inclined to apply a formal time limit yet, but roughly speaking there will be two or three minutes per Back Bencher. It would help if Members kept themselves to that limit; I reserve the option of bringing in a formal time limit later if they do not.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered negotiations on future Euratom membership.

I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear energy. I want to make it clear from the outset that this debate is not a rerun of the EU referendum debate or of the article 50 debate. This debate is about getting it right and ensuring that the UK remains a world leader in civil nuclear and in research and development.

We achieved world leader status by co-operating with others across the world under the umbrella of Euratom—or, to give it its full name, the European Atomic Energy Community. Euratom was established in the 1950s as part of the creation of the European Community. It provides the basis for the regulation of civil nuclear safeguards and control and supply of fissile material, and funds international research. The Culham Centre for Fusion Energy is one of the leading research centres in the world. The Government have indicated that Euratom and the EU are legally joined. Some say that we have to give the same notice to exit Euratom as we did to exit the EU through article 50. I disagree.

I was a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which held a comprehensive inquiry into how Brexit will affect energy. We looked at the single internal energy market, Euratom and meeting our climate change commitments. We heard evidence from across the board. Euratom was raised by many experts who work in the civil nuclear field and in research and development, as well as by academics. We received hard evidence that there is contradictory legal advice on the matter. In fact, the advice is diametrically opposed. Many believe that just because we are a member of the same institution, we must have the same jurisdiction. That is in dispute, and I put it to the Government that there are ways forward that would mean there did not have to be a cliff edge when the article 50 negotiations are complete. I sought this debate to ensure that we get the best deal possible, that we get some transitional arrangements, and that the industry is happy.

In the light of the new consensual politics that the Prime Minister has announced, will the Minister—I ask him to make a note of this—set up a working group with industry and academics, and consult Parliament, to ensure that we have the appropriate arrangements in place so that the nuclear industry and those involved in research and development can plan for the future?

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

I understand that this debate will focus largely on the nuclear industry, but I am concerned about the impact on medicine. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the concern of the Royal College of Radiologists that an inability easily to bring isotopes into the country could affect half a million scans and 10,000 cancer treatments? Isotopes cannot be stored, because they have a short half-life, so we need Euratom.

[Albert Owen]

I absolutely agree. I have had a lot of correspondence from experts across the field, including the Royal Marsden Hospital, where cancer research is vital. As the hon. Lady says, it is absolutely essential that we get that right. This is not about the dogma that we must leave an institution; it is about ensuring that medical research continues, that we maintain high standards, and that we have the framework to move isotopes and do the things that she mentions.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman not just on obtaining the debate but on his constructive tone, but why should the case for staying in Euratom not apply to every other agency that we will leave when we leave the European Union? As we leave those other agencies and regulatory bodies, we will set up our own, under international standards. Why can that not also be done with Euratom? Who would want to frustrate that?

[Albert Owen]

No one wants to frustrate anything—quite the contrary. I am trying to set the tone by saying that we need a long-term plan. I am worried that there will be a cliff edge, and that we will have to leave an organisation that has served us and the whole global community well for many years just because we leave the European Union. I repeat that experts have said that we can legally decouple Euratom and the EU. I think that doing so would improve our chances of getting a better agreement. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that we would have to deal with every other agency. In a sense, Euratom is pretty unique, and the industry and experts—not politicians, but people who understand the industry—are worried about it.

[Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)]

Since the problem is that Euratom is legally joined to the European Union, can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many European Court of Justice cases Euratom, in its long history, has been involved in?

[Albert Owen]

The honest answer is very few. I do not know the exact figure—I am sure that the Minister, whose civil servants are here, has it at his fingertips—but there have been very few. My point, with which I think the right hon. Gentleman agrees, is that it is not legally essential for us to leave Euratom just because we leave the European Union. I am not a lawyer, and others argue that it is, but when I was on the Select Committee I heard contradictory evidence from the experts. I do not want this uncertainty to continue; I want to create certainty for future investment in civil nuclear and in research and development.

Let us be frank: as I think the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) alluded to, our reason for leaving Euratom is that No. 10 has red lines, one of which is ending the jurisdiction of the ECJ. That is one of the reasons—it is a political reason, not a legal reason, and it was made almost as an excuse—that was given for us leaving the EU and Euratom together. That is the argument that the Select Committee heard in evidence.

Politically, we need to move forward, and we must have frameworks in place for doing so. Three options have been put to us: just remaining in Euratom, extending our period of membership and getting a transitional arrangement; having associate membership; or having third-country membership. If people read the detailed Library note, they will see that those options are very doable. I am trying to base this debate on actual facts that the Committee heard in evidence, rather than emotional arguments about whether we should leave or remain a member of Euratom.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I represent the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority’s Culham establishment. He mentions associate membership, which is considered a valid compromise by the management of Euratom, but there are two models: the Swiss model and the Ukrainian model. Does he have a feeling about which way the decision will go? Will he join me in encouraging the Minister to make a decision pretty quickly?

[Albert Owen]

What is important for future investment is not what I think but what the industry thinks and what the experts have told me. I am looking forward to the Minister’s reply, but I will outline in detail those three options: remaining in Euratom, associate membership, and third-country membership. The hon. Gentleman’s description of the Swiss and Ukrainian models is a bit crude, because different countries are involved. The Swiss enjoy associate membership, but other countries, such as Japan, the United States and Canada, have a different relationship. I want the best relationship for the United Kingdom. If it ain’t broke, why start fixing it? That is where I start from.

Those options do exist. Alternative membership under article 206 of the European treaty allows the UK to leave but to continue co-operation, as the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) argued, and establish an association involving reciprocal rights and obligations, common actions and special procedures. However, that will take time, and I do not think that the timeframe set out by triggering article 50 is helpful; it will hinder rather than help, and put at risk many new build projects.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. Does he agree that exactly because of the exposure that the French Government have to our new nuclear programme, and indeed to EDF’s business in the UK generally, we have an excellent ally in Paris in trying to ensure that whatever our new arrangement with Euratom is, it comes about quickly, because that is in the French interest as much as in ours?

[Albert Owen]

It is in everybody’s interest because this is a global industry, but we must put the UK interest first and argue from a UK perspective, because we are making the decision to leave and we do not expect everyone else to do our bargaining for us. We need to have a strong position, which is why I am arguing today that we need transitional arrangements in place that suit us. We cannot rely on French investment going forward, but we can create and maintain the high levels of skills that we have in this country, and the high level of investment.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

rose—

[Albert Owen]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and then to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). However, I am conscious of time.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. I think he is about to touch on the heart of the issue. If we leave Euratom—and the uncertainty about that in the meantime—that risks high-paid, high-skilled jobs going overseas, which we cannot afford right now. Our membership of Euratom is key for the future of our civil nuclear defence industry.

[Albert Owen]

I totally agree. That argument was made to the Select Committee by a representative of workers, because they are concerned about training, skilling and upskilling.

[Robert Neill]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for us not to have a cliff edge to preserve the benefits of membership. The associate membership he mentions might be one such way, and France might be a supporter of that. Is he aware that Austria has objected specifically to the support that the Government have given to Hinkley Point on state aid grounds and has generally been hostile to powers in the EU with nuclear programmes? Would an associate arrangement require unanimity among the EU 27, or a qualified majority?

[Albert Owen]

Alternative membership under article 206 is important. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about Austria, which is hostile to nuclear per se and will be taking over the presidency of the European Union. That could put other things in jeopardy as well as these arrangements. That is all the more reason to have a long-term plan, rather than exiting in two years and linking ourselves to article 50. I think he strengthened my case in many ways.

I am talking about the alternative arrangements for membership, enjoyed by Switzerland and others, which importantly would allow access to moneys to fund nuclear research to be maintained. However, I want the whole package: I want research and civil nuclear to have certainty going forward. The other option I talked about was third-country membership under article 101 of the Euratom treaty. That is more limiting in scope, with regard to power and jurisdiction, than the alternative memberships. However, it does allow agreements and contracts with international organisations and states. Those with third-country membership include, as I mentioned, Japan, the United States and Canada—big players in the nuclear world. However, we would need bilateral agreements with them, which again will take time to negotiate. Many people have raised with me concern about the timeframe. Of course, third-country membership would not automatically give us the right for international contracts for research under the international thermonuclear experimental reactor project. That is therefore probably more risky than alternative membership. It is an option, but it brings risks with it.

Those options are better than the cliff edge. It is not politicians who are raising that; it is a broad section of the nuclear industry and a broad section of cancer research and development as well as various other issues, such as those raised by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and mentioned by me. This is not just about new nuclear, existing nuclear and the movement of nuclear materials; it is far more wide-ranging than that.

The three options are: remaining in Euratom, associate membership, and third-country membership. However, whatever the model and the negotiations of the Minister and his team, we need proper transitional arrangements to be in place. That is the crux of my argument, and I feel that the Members who have intervened share my anxiety that we must have a proper framework.

The Minister is new to his job, and I welcome him to it, but he and his Department have yet to allay the fears of industry or of those in research and development. He has a job of work to do, and I am trying to help him to become firmer in saying that he will work in partnership with industry. A working group is the right way forward, because that would allow for consultation with the experts and for the industry to look seriously at the pitfalls and advantages to allow us to have a world-class leading industry going forward.

I am sure that the Minister will grasp this new consensual politics and listen to me and to hon. Members across the House. We want to help him get it right. We are not here just to criticise; we are here to assist. The industry is waiting to assist as well, so that we get a full and comprehensive consultation and timescales that suit the industry in the UK and UK plc. In the nuclear industry we are about all the research and development that has been talked about, but we are also about producing low-carbon energy and high-quality jobs.

Very few industries have jobs for life like the nuclear industry does. Many people go to the industry and are there for life and get that continuity and those high-skilled jobs. We need to maintain that if we are to meet the criteria that the Department set out in its industrial strategy on nuclear and how those link to a broader industrial strategy. We need to improve and upscale jobs. The nuclear industry is one such area, and if we are not careful we could take a step that takes us backwards, not forwards.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend—Mr Energy Island—on securing the debate. Will he comment on how many jobs in the nuclear industry are distributed around the periphery of the country and how important those jobs are to areas such as the north of Scotland, the north-west, north Wales and the south-west? There are concerns from across the United Kingdom on this issue.

[Albert Owen]

I agree that many of the existing and potential new nuclear sites are on the periphery, but we also have in Oxfordshire and many other counties of the United Kingdom huge investment that we need to improve and move forward. I also mentioned the Royal Marsden, which has given me a briefing on nuclear’s importance to the city of London. It is the whole United Kingdom. The industrial strategy talks about spreading wealth across the whole United Kingdom, and here is a good example of where that works, so we should continue that and not take risks.

I mentioned nuclear’s importance to low-carbon and to skills, but we are also at the forefront of research and development. We need to maintain that, but I believe that we could hinder that if we were to have a cliff edge or to exit Euratom just because of a timetable and legal reasons.

[James Heappey]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Albert Owen]

Yes, but this will be the last intervention I will take.

[James Heappey]

The hon. Gentleman has been generous, especially in indulging me twice. He mentions our technical edge. Before he sits down, can I encourage him to mention our position as a world leader in fusion power generation? That is the Elysian fields of future low-carbon generation. I know that he will want to remind the Minister of just how successful we have been in leading that research and how important it is that we remain in the vanguard.

[Albert Owen]

I know that other right hon. and hon. Members want to make their pitch, so I will not repeat my opening remarks, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and has made the point for me, and the Minister has heard it.

I have based my speech on evidence that I heard as a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, and I pay tribute to its previous Chair. I am making a bid for that position today, so I may as well take advantage of being on my feet for 20 minutes in this debate. The Committee did a serious piece of work on the pros and cons of exiting the European Union, whether for internal markets or supply.

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Albert Owen]

Yes I will, because I am standing for election.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I am grateful. The UK has been awarded £500 million of contracts in the nuclear fusion supply chain. Is not all of that put at risk if we leave Euratom?

[Albert Owen]

Absolutely. The hon. Lady was also a member of the Committee, and she knows the written and oral evidence we received that highlighted that point. It is important for a Select Committee to hold the Government to account, but it is also important to shape the framework and work with the Government. I urge the Minister to work with Parliament, the industry and all relevant sectors, so that we can go forwards, not backwards, and maintain the status of which we are all proud. The UK is a world leader. Let us put politics to one side and get the transitional arrangements right. Let us work together to ensure that the UK stays at the top.

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. My suggestion of self-restraint to two or three minutes per speech, until 10.30, when I intend to call the speakers who will wind up, starts now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I really cannot, but only because of time; I normally would. Instead, let me say a little about what my Department has been doing to advance the UK’s interests.

We are pleased that engagement with the EU is about to begin in earnest. EU directives note that a suitable agreement will need to be reached in relation to the ownership of special fissile materials and safeguards equipment in the UK that are currently Euratom’s property—I note the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) on that issue. The outcome of such an agreement, like the rest of the UK’s future relationship with Euratom, will be subject to negotiations with the EU and Euratom, throughout which our primary aim will be to maintain our mutually successful civil nuclear co-operation with Euratom and the rest of the world. I reiterate that we are strong supporters of Euratom, and that is not going to change. The first phase of negotiations will commence next week, on 17 July, following the publication of the European Commission’s position paper on Euratom. Our own position paper will be published imminently.

[Albert Owen]

Will that be before the recess? Will it be a written statement, or will it come to the House?

[Richard Harrington]

Imminently means imminently. [Interruption.]

That was quite a good line, actually.

We are ready and confident that we can find common ground as officials enter the first phase of negotiations, because there is a clear mutual interest in maintaining close and effective co-operation.

We are also keen to ensure minimal disruption to civil nuclear trade and co-operation with non-European partners. To that end, we are negotiating with the US, Canada, Australia and Japan so that we have the appropriate co-operation agreements in place. I reinforce that point because hon. Members may have read or heard that everything has to be done in a painfully long sequence that takes years and years. I can tell them not only that it is possible to do these things in parallel, but that we are doing so.

We will avoid the cliff edge feared by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn. We are preparing the domestic Nuclear Safeguards Bill, we are opening negotiations with the EU, we are talking to third countries about bilateral agreements, and we are talking to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nobody doubts the UK’s credentials as a responsible nuclear state, and everyone in the UK and elsewhere is keen to see that continue. The UK has been in the forefront of nuclear non-proliferation for 60 years. I have no doubt that we can bring these discussions to a satisfactory conclusion.

I am sure hon. Members will be quick to remind me that I have not yet mentioned nuclear research and development. I will have to cover this quickly, but I want them to know that it is another strand of work that we are taking seriously and acting on swiftly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 27 June that we would underwrite the UK’s share of the EU joint European torus fusion project. We are totally committed to R and D collaboration, in particular to Oxfordshire’s world-leading Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) mentioned. The Secretary of State described JET in his announcement as a “prized facility”. I assure all hon. Members that this is a top priority for us.

There is no question of lack of support for Euratom. There has been discussion today of whether we need to leave it at all. There was clear advice at the time about the unique nature of the legal relationship between the separate treaties and about their inseparability. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was asked by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee whether it would be possible to leave the EU but remain in Euratom. He said:

“Essentially, the interleaving of various aspects of the treaties in practice could have meant that it was defective. The article 50 notification would have been defective had we not served it for Euratom as well. Therefore, we served it, but at the outset we said that we want to have continuity of co-operation and collaboration, and that is what we intend to achieve.”

[Albert Owen]

Thank you for chairing the debate in such a splendid fashion, Mr Gray. I thank each of the 15 Members who participated.

I set out in this debate to create consensus so that we can get the best deal for Britain. The Minister has been slightly helpful, but only slightly. He would have done better to have said that before the recess we would have a debate on the Floor of the House on how we can move this matter forward. We need to hold the Government to account—not with a statement just before recess, but with a proper and open debate like this one, so that we can be constructive and move forward together as one. That is what I set out to do today, and that is what we have done.

The Government’s rhetoric needs to turn into action. Demanding that has been the responsibility of Back Benchers in this debate, and it will be the responsibility of the Opposition and the Government, working together, to get the best deal for the United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered negotiations on future Euratom membership.

Oral Answers to Questions

Albert Owen Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

I thank my hon. Friend for that valuable question. I was delighted to be sent, on almost the first day in the job, to Luxembourg to meet our EU counterparts to discuss the fact that we are all very disappointed with Mr Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the Paris agreement, and accept that more work needs to be done by the remaining countries to emphasise that Paris is non-negotiable, although we would like him to come back to the agreement. I was also personally able to increase the level of UK funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change trust fund, across the board with other European friends and neighbours, to ensure that any reduction of USA funding can be met.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

May I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position and, indeed, Front-Bench Members, new and old, to their roles? Can we have proper local accountability and ownership of local community grids, so that we break the monopolies of the distribution companies, which make masses of money and do not always reinvest?

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly valuable point about how we start to move ourselves away from generating emissions in the heating and lighting sector. He will be pleased to know that I was able to put more innovation funding into trials that are doing exactly that.

[Albert Owen]

Already!

[Claire Perry]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I like to do these things seriously. We are already funding pilots to see how peer-to-peer exchange of power can work, and how further to improve community generation and storage of energy.

Post Office Closures

Albert Owen Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who moved the motion, was absolutely right in his thoughtful speech when he said that there would be repetition of many issues, but that we would concentrate on our local areas. Post offices are the heart of our communities and are vital for businesses and local communities.

The beautiful isle of Anglesey, Ynys Môn, is well known to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). In 2014, the Post Office tried to close down the branch in the market town and put it out to franchise. There were no suitable premises and nothing has changed, yet the Post Office has come back, repeating exactly the same measures to close it down. The branch is purpose-built in the centre of town. It has access outside for buses and elderly people. It is perfect.

When there were sub-post office closures in rural areas in my constituency, we were told that the Crown post office was the hub of the whole area. Now the Post Office wants to close down the hub. The Post Office is not listening, but it needs to start listening to local communities and local businesses, because across the country we are seeing not only local post office closures, but mass bank closures as well. Local businesses are finding it difficult to do cash handling and run their businesses. When the Post Office closes down Crown post offices, we get empty buildings where lots of money has been spent on regeneration. That will be the legacy of the Post Office, and it is counterproductive. I know that the Minister is as anxious as we are that that should not happen, but we need a proactive Government and a proactive Post Office. We need to look at innovation. We need to look at the brand, to improve it and Post Office products. There are great opportunities.

We are going through a period of mass bank closures. I suggest that the Minister listen to the Communication Workers Union, which is proposing a Post Office bank, which would help with loans for local businesses. We have just been through global financial difficulty, where local banks were not facilitating local businesses in the way that they should have been. I believe in a mixed economy. When the Government have a stake in the Post Office, as they do, they should intervene in a sensible way through the Post Office with a Post Office bank.

People regularly go to do their business and their trade in Llangefni. It is an historic market town, but it is modern too. People do things in a more digital way these days, but as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, broadband facilities can be poor. We need to improve our infrastructure and our post offices. We need to begin listening to local businesses and local communities, because post office and bank closures are ripping the heart out of our local communities.

The Government rightly talk about localism, but local people and local businesses do not want this closure programme. They oppose it firmly. As representatives—this is not the first time I have stood up here for my constituents—we are making coherent points. We want the Post Office to work for our communities, our businesses and the future. I urge the Minister to look closely at the CWU proposals. Let us have the Post Office doing what it used to do when I was a kid: having savings banks and helping businesses in communities. That is the way forward, and I hope the Minister will take it on, on behalf of the people of Ynys Môn.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for securing this incredibly important debate. I was the shadow Minister for postal services for most of the last Parliament and was told by many Ministers that this closure programme would be the last, in order to make the Post Office sustainable. It appears that that is not to be the case. I remember the phrase in the Conservative party manifesto of 2010—that dusty tome now on the shelves of political history—that said that the Government would make the Post Office the front office of Government. They have done little to do that, which has led to the situation today, where we have a number of post office and Crown office closures, including the incredibly popular Morningside post office in my constituency.

Having been in this place for seven years, I may be cynical, but I do not see the Morningside post office franchising system as being about franchising—it is about closing the post office. I remember doing a public meeting in Alloa when the first Crown post office franchising policies were going through. The Post Office was pressed on what would happen if a franchisee did not come forward to take on one of those post offices. The answer was, “We would probably have to invest in it.” I would suggest to the Government that they have perhaps got this a little bit round the wrong way. They should be investing in our post offices to make them places on our high streets that people can use, enjoy and access the services they need.

We have a crisis on our shopping streets and high streets. Clearing banks are closing their branches—incidentally, if a clearing bank closes its branch on a local high street, people get a letter to tell them they can use the post office for the services that it will no longer supply. Local shops are in trouble. Pubs are in trouble. The post office is the iconic place on the high street that drives footfall, drives pride in the high street and gives stability to the operations of retail units. As an aside, it is not just the franchising and potential closure of Morningside post office that is not helping in terms of the high streets in my constituency; the rates for some retailers in some of those shopping districts have just gone up by more than 100%. That is surely unacceptable if we want our high streets to thrive.

[Albert Owen]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ian Murray]

I would love to, but we are going to struggle to have enough time to get everyone else in.

I have seen the financial figures for the Morningside Crown post office. It is financially viable for the Post Office to run it, but it is financially unviable for anyone else to go in, given the capital and rental payments required to make it a sustainable business, which makes me suspicious that it is just a vehicle for closing the post office.

It is time to make the post office the front office of Government. The Minister has to abide by that phrase and do something that the previous 2010 to 2015 Government did not, and invest in our Crown post offices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

No; I have very little time.

I want to reassure the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows); I listened to her heartfelt concerns about an accessible post office in the town centre in Motherwell, and I will ask the Post Office to meet her again to discuss the most sustainable option for a service there.

Many hon. Members talked about banking, and I agree that that is an opportunity for the Post Office. However, the Post Office bank idea was looked at closely in 2010-11, and it was decided at that time that the money that the Government had would be better invested in the transformation of networks to secure sustainable access to services.

[Albert Owen]

Will the Minister give way, on that very point?

[Margot James]

I cannot give way now; I have no more time.

The Post Office banking services are increasing now. They have grown 6% in the past 12 months. Credit unions are also being looked at.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

They are. I will write to the hon. Lady, if I am returned, and tell her what the Post Office plans on credit unions are.

[Albert Owen]

On a point of order, Sir Edward. As we are at the end of term, and as many of us have raised issues, which the Minister is refusing to give way to answer, can you give me some guidance as to whether the Department will be able to give us the information as quickly as possible?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

That, I am afraid, is not a matter for me. I am sure that in the remaining 30 seconds of her speech the Minister will do her best to answer any points.

Nuclear Decommissioning Industry: Pensions

Albert Owen Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson]

Absolutely, and I will discuss that later in my speech. There is indeed a chilling wider pattern and a broader narrative becoming increasingly apparent as each day passes.

Those workers are classed as public sector workers, but their terms and conditions are not devolved to the Scottish Parliament as they are for other public sector workers. Indeed, Scottish nuclear workers still have their severance and early retirement terms dictated by the UK Government. The goalposts are clearly being moved when it is deemed financially beneficial for the Government or the industry, while the pensions interests of the workers are a secondary consideration.

The Office for National Statistics classified Magnox as a public sector organisation, which means that the pensions of its workers are in scope of reform by the UK Government, despite the fact that they work on sites that have been privatised. The UK Government have proposed to reform IR35 tax arrangements for contractors working in the public sector or for public authorities. Draft guidance from the Government uses the definition of a public authority contained in the Freedom of Information Acts, which includes bodies specifically listed in schedules to the Acts, publicly owned companies and any other body designated as a public authority by the Secretary of State. Interestingly, Magnox is not listed in the schedules, and that is because it is a privately and not publicly owned company. Consequently, the Freedom of Information Acts do not apply to Magnox except where stipulated in employee contracts with the NDA, and so neither do the IR35 reforms.

Nothing but confusion and concern can be caused by the use of different definitions of the public sector in different legislation and UK Government proposals. That is a matter of concern to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority as well as to nuclear decommissioning workers. The reason it matters so much to the workers at Hunterston A and other sites throughout the United Kingdom is the adverse financial impact such definitions will have on the employees of Magnox. The goalposts must not be moved and definitions must not be manipulated by the powers that be to the financial detriment of those who work on such sites day in, day out.

I wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on that very issue, asking for the apparent confusion to be clarified. I sent my letter on 7 February but, to date, I have had no response—presumably the Secretary of State himself is trying to work out the apparent contradiction. I hope he is able to do so soon, because the workers in Hunterston A and the rest of the industry are waiting on tenterhooks for him to dispense his wisdom about such a bewildering state of affairs.

All of that comes hard on the heels of the punitive exit payments cap, which will have a hugely detrimental impact on the pensions and redundancy payments of over-55s made redundant after years of service. As I have pointed out, those workers are caught up in the problem because they have been classified as public sector workers, even though they are employed in the private sector. The only fair and reasonable thing to do would be for the UK Government to announce that those workers are to be exempt from the exit payments cap under the Enterprise Act 2016.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She is right to talk about the double whammy faced by nuclear workers. During the passage of the said Act, reference was made to their pensions not being touched. The Government, however, broke their word, which had been given not only at the time of privatisation but last year as well. I hope that the Minister will take note of that and respond, because it is unfair to those dedicated workers and their dedicated communities.

[Patricia Gibson]

Absolutely. My only disagreement with the hon. Gentleman is that, taking into account the reforms to those pensions in the mid-2000s, as well as the new exit payments cap reforms, we are actually talking about a triple whammy. I very much hope that the Minister will have something to tell us about the cap.

The exit payments cap for nuclear decommissioning workers was pressed to a vote in the Commons during the passage of the Act, but the Government voted us down. I hope—perhaps blindly optimistically—that the UK Government will be willing to reconsider. Talks have led to a new Nuclear Decommissioning Authority proposal, but the trade union consensus is that more must be done to put pension provision on a par with the public sector, including improvements for new starters in the defined-contribution scheme so that their pension is protected on any outsourcing.

Clearly, despite significant pension guarantees in the 1980s, the major pension reform in the mid-2000s and the exit payments cap, workers in the nuclear decommissioning industry are in the firing line. As has been mentioned, the fact is that this is part of a broader narrative from the UK Government, who are taking action to reduce public sector pensions across the board. We saw it with the way the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—women had their feet cut from under them as they approached what they thought was their retirement age, and we now see it with this catalogue of broken promises and betrayal of nuclear decommissioning workers, as everyone who is present would acknowledge.

It is clear that this Government, despite protestations to the contrary, see a pension not as a contract but as a benefit. To be clear, a pension is a contract, not a benefit. It is paid into, and people have reasonable expectations that what they can expect at the end of their working life should be clear and that they can depend upon it. Public sector workers, the WASPI women and now workers in the nuclear decommissioning industry have discovered to their cost that that is no longer the case. Those contracts can be torn up at will—or so it would seem. Assurances apparently mean nothing. Years of service and paying in mean nothing. If that is the case, what does it say about the relationship between the governing and the governed? What can one put faith in if not a contract with one’s Government?

These moves have to be resisted. Workers in the nuclear decommissioning industry are currently considering an offer from the Government. I do not know the details of that offer, but sadly, I am pretty sure that it will mean a further erosion—to some degree—of those workers’ pensions. That is simply not acceptable, for all the reasons that we have heard. I say to workers who are not directly affected by this measure, “Next it may well be your pension.” That is why this issue should matter to us all. Who knows what group of workers will be next in the firing line? I urge the Minister and this Government to think again.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing this important debate and her passionate and informative speech. The Government understand the concerns of the workforce across the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority estate, including employees working at the Hunterston A power station in her constituency, about public sector pension reform. It is good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) in her place, representing the interests of her constituents who work at Sellafield.

We recognise the vital decommissioning work that the NDA and the wider workforce across the estate deliver, while prioritising safe and secure operations in a difficult environment, and we remain firmly committed to supporting the nuclear decommissioning programme. The NDA was allocated £11 billion of taxpayer funding for the 2015 spending review period. However, in line with the challenges that the UK faces to balance the deficit, the NDA was set a proportionate programme of efficiencies and savings for that period of around £1 billion, and it was agreed in the spending review that some of those savings would come from reform of the two defined-benefit final salary pension schemes in the NDA estate.

Approximately 10,800 employees are members of those final salary pension schemes, which, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned, closed in the 2000s. The aim of the NDA consultation is to reform those schemes into career average revalued earnings schemes, in the spirit of the recommendations made by Lord Hutton in his 2011 review of pensions. Since 2006, new starters have been offered membership of a high-quality defined-contribution pension scheme, which is out of scope for reform.

The Government acknowledge that CARE reform would require amendments to statutory pension protections that were put in place at the time of the privatisation of the electricity sector in the 1980s and by the Energy Act 2004, when the NDA was established. Those protections sought to provide pension benefits for existing scheme members that were at least as good as those they received prior to those reforms. That is why the Government have worked with the NDA to consider how best to implement pension reform.

As a first step, the NDA held discussions with the trade unions about the potential for non-legislative options as an alternative to CARE to realise the required savings. As a result of those discussions, the NDA launched a consultation document on 9 February setting out details of two options—the CARE option and a non-legislative pensionable pay cap option. The consultation was due to end on 10 March.[Official Report, 23 March 2017, Vol. 623, c. 12MC.]

During those discussions, several concerns were raised, which the Government and the NDA actively listened to and sought to address. Following a meeting in February between the NDA, national trade union representatives and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who has responsibility for energy, the NDA and trade unions reached agreement to table a third option for consultation with the workforce that better reflected the circumstances they face—a revised CARE pension reform proposal.

That option was announced by the NDA and the trade unions in a joint statement on 2 March. The consultation period has therefore been extended until 21 April to allow the NDA workforce to consider that new option. The trade unions have committed to hold consultative ballots on the proposal, described as the best achievable through negotiation, and support implementation if their members accept the proposal. Those ballots are due to take place in April and conclude by early May.

[Albert Owen]

The Minister is making an important point. I, too, welcome the progress that has been made on the pension, but will she deal with the exit payments cap? No discussions were held about that. An exemption was given to the Royal Bank of Scotland, to give one example. She is a reasonable person. Nuclear workers have been caught up in this. Will she agree to look into this serious issue and come up with a reasonable response?

[Margot James]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point, which was also raised by the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran and for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). My Department and the NDA will continue to meet trade union representatives regarding the cap on exit payments. My hon. Friend the Energy Minister is listening to the important concerns of workers in the NDA estate about that cap and is in discussion with the Treasury.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone. I am sorry, I thought the proposer of the motion had two minutes at the end. The hon. Lady may take advantage of your offer of further interventions; I would be delighted to give way. While I am on my feet, however, I will continue.

I reiterate that the Government recognise the concerns that the hon. Lady and other hon. Members have raised about the workforce across the NDA estate and pension reform. I emphasise that the aim of pension reform is to balance the legitimate concerns of taxpayers about the present and future costs of pension commitments with the workforce’s concern about maintaining decent levels of retirement income, to which they have contributed and which they have earned. It is right that we debate that important issue and I thank all Members for their views.

[Albert Owen]

I heard what the Minister said and appreciate that she will take this issue back to the appropriate Minister. Will she or the Energy Minister agree to meet a delegation of cross-party representatives from the nuclear workers’ areas? She will know about early-day motion 915, to which there are 120-plus signatories. This is an issue across the country. Can we meet to have further discussions? This debate is helpful, but we need further discussions.

[Margot James]

I will certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman’s kind invitation to meet to my hon. Friend the Energy Minister. He is gainfully employed at the moment, meeting the Treasury, with the interests of the NDA workforce very much near his heart. I am sure that he will consider the invitation proffered.

Oral Answers to Questions

Albert Owen Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

As my hon. Friend knows, we are spending a great deal of time working with developers, with new investment, alongside the plans that are already being executed at Hinkley. Small modular reactors could be part of that conversation. However, there are many possible storage technologies that might come on stream over the next decade or two; undoubtedly, they will also be an important part of the picture.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

The country needs 21st century systems such as smart metering. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of the roll-out, and will he have a word with the energy companies to stop them blaming the Government for smart metering being part of the hike in energy prices that is ripping off the consumer?

[Jesse Norman]

We are in no doubt at all about the need for energy companies to bear down on prices. As they will be aware, the costs of policy are a relatively small part of those prices.

Green Investment Bank

Albert Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

As a result of the vote, I remind Members that the debate is an hour long and will finish at 5.41 pm. I shall call the Front-Bench speakers, beginning with the Scottish National party—I believe it is Ms Cherry—at 5.21 pm, for five minutes only, followed by Dr Whitehead, the Labour spokesperson, at 5.26 pm. At 5.31 pm, I shall call the Minister, who may want to give Ms Thomson a couple of minutes to finish.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. Three Back Benchers have indicated that they wish to speak; I remind them that I will call the Front Benchers to speak at 5.21 pm, so that works out at about seven minutes each. I call Peter Aldous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was not aware of that, but as he has now put it on the table, I find yet another reason to be deeply concerned about the Government’s proposals. I thank him for adding that piece to the jigsaw.

There were plenty of options for the Government other than going down the route of flogging the GIB off to Macquarie. I mentioned the other bidder, but the Government could also allow citizens to buy into the Green Investment Bank through green bonds—allowing people up and down the country to own part of this important and dynamic institution. Indeed, there were press reports over the weekend, as the hon. Gentleman will know, about the possibility of an initial public offering. That would at least offer greater protection to the aims of the GIB than the Government’s current plan. Any sense that the sale is the only option on the table must be challenged. There is a range of options on the table. The overriding question has to be why the Government would choose such a damaging option when there are clearly much better ones available.

The launch of the Government’s industrial strategy on Monday gives Ministers another reason to halt the sale. This was the point made very clearly by the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). With the UK set to miss its climate targets from the mid-2020s onwards, and renewables investment in the UK set to fall by a dramatic 95% over the next three years, the low-carbon economy should be at the heart of the industrial strategy.

The Department’s welcome new focus on battery technology, energy storage and grid technology could all be supported through finance from the Green Investment Bank. That finance is more important now than ever. We have already discussed briefly how the likely loss of access to funds from the European Investment Bank makes that an even more important role that the GIB can play.

Together, the emissions reduction plan due later this year and the Government’s more active approach to supporting the UK economy mean that it is time for Ministers to ditch the sale and embrace the Green Investment Bank as an important ally in a green industrial strategy. Ministers have rightly been applauded for passing into law the fifth carbon budget and for ratifying the Paris agreement. They would be similarly congratulated and applauded for putting an end to the flogging off of the Green Investment Bank.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

We are in the unusual position of having run out of Back Benchers when I thought that we were going to run over our time. That gives the—

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

rose—

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. That would be really pushing it. I say to the Front Benchers that they can divvy up the time and, if they wish to take an intervention from the hon. Lady, I will allow that.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Opposition’s position on the sale of the Green Investment Bank is that it should not be sold. The reason for that is at the heart of what the Green Investment Bank is. It is, of course, not a bank. It does not have the full lending and borrowing facilities we would expect in a bank. Indeed, hon. Members may remember that after it was formed the Chancellor imposed conditions on when it might become a bank. It is not a bank: it can be better described as a public policy instrument. That is what it has always been. It is a public policy instrument that, as hon. Members have said, has a particular purpose of using state-backed intervention to overcome market failure, particularly in green investment.

We know that the market failure issue has not been resolved and that green investment, particularly because of the requirement for patient capital and long-term investment as it attempts to ride a number of waves at the same time, continues to be difficult as we hear from reports coming into this country. We also know that investment is essential if we are to move to the next stage of low-carbon investment. The Green Investment Bank, as the public policy instrument to ensure that happens, has been a remarkable success. It continues to be a remarkable success and to do very well what it originally set out to do, which, as hon. Members have said, is not to give grants out to anybody or take companies over but to pull capital in from elsewhere with the back-up of capital from the Green Investment Bank, which is backed in the first place by Government, to immensely enhance the value of the investments that have been secured. In so doing, the Green Investment Bank has, as we know, secured more than £10 billion of capital investment with an input of just over £2 billion of Government-backed money via the Green Investment Bank’s instruments. It does not seem a very wise course of action to sell that public policy instrument, with all the consequences that may arise from that now and for the strategy that we need to adopt for green investment.

The Government have not only decided to sell the Green Investment Bank, but they have decided to make the preferred bidder for the bank a company that does not have anything like that model in its investment arrangements. As hon. Members have mentioned, that particular company appears to have been involved in specific amendments to the arrangements of the Green Investment Bank so that it would be possible to make that bank work in an entirely different way—setting up, in November and December, 10 companies, which would fit neatly in at least four of the major investments that the Green Investment Bank has been involved in—the Galloper, Rampion and Westermost Rough fields, and GIB offshore wind collectively, amounting to a Green Investment Bank total investment of about £1 billion. It would not be a bad start—to be able to take the Green Investment Bank over, flog off half of the assets that have been taken over, get £1 billion back and then move on to the next stage. To the casual observer, that has the potential to be a pretty scandalous forward move to do to the Green Investment Bank exactly what we fear would happen were it to be privatised in that way.

I personally do not go along with Donald Trump’s view of the press, particularly the quality press and the Financial Times and The Sunday Times. This weekend, the statement in The Sunday Times was simply this:

“Ministers are poised to scrap a planned sale of the Green Investment Bank…to Australian investment firm Macquarie, pushing instead for a £3.8bn stock market listing.”

I understand that the Minister cannot and will not mention the word Macquarie, but I wonder whether he would enlighten us by using a different formulation, such as, “No, the Government are not poised to scrap a planned sale of the Green Investment Bank to a preferred bidder, and no, they are not pushing instead for a £3.8 billion stock market listing.” That would be a suitable statement for the Minister to make this afternoon in response to speculation in the press. I would take silence on that formulation as an indication that the Government may be having second thoughts. If they are, I would fully support them, because they would start to be coming into line with the issues that hon. Members have raised this afternoon and at other times.

If those second thoughts included, for example, an initial public offering that was a minority sale of shares, or even a majority sale of shares with a controlling share retained by Government, that would easily overcome the issue that hon. Members have also raised—the arrangements that we know will be inadequate to stop asset-stripping in the way that appears to be lined up for the bank at the moment. Those arrangements are very narrowly based on the memorandum and articles of association of the company, not on the asset possessions of the company, and would have no real effect in the way that I think hon. Members would want.

If the Government were to decide to float shares in an IPO, I guess that would take about two years. That would give the bank a substantial amount of time to do its work, particularly in view of the likely withdrawal of the European Investment Bank, which other hon. Members have mentioned. We ought to remember that the European Investment Bank has actually invested twice as much as the Green Investment Bank over the past few years in green projects that are difficult to invest in. Upon Brexit, the EIB’s investment is likely to fall to between 10% and 0% of its current investment. That is a further reason why the Green Investment Bank is so important to making investments right now.

I have on previous occasions asked the Minister to wink in the Opposition’s direction if he has had a change of heart. Perhaps nothing as flamboyant as that is necessary today, but it would be helpful if he could indicate whether a different route is being considered for the Green Investment Bank so we can discuss its future in a rather less negative way.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

The Minister has a little extra time to respond to the debate. I remind him that if he wishes, he can leave Ms Thomson a couple of minutes to sum up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Thomson]

I thank the Minister for his comments, but I need to press him on my specific comment about the risk appetite and the nature and type of projects. I fully accept and understand increased access to capital, but I made a specific point about the risk appetite that I hope the Minister will move on to.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the Minister responds, I should say that we only have a few minutes remaining. If interventions are long, we will not get as much as we want out of the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

I am confused about what story the hon. Gentleman is referring to; there have been so many stories. I can say that the Government continue to evaluate a proposal from a preferred bidder and that no decision has been taken.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Michelle Thomson) has one minute to sum up.

Industrial Strategy Consultation

Albert Owen Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the proposals on which we are consulting is to have much better connections between local employers and further education to make sure that the skills that are being provided are those that can be taken up immediately in these industries.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the statement by the Secretary of State and his indication that he will work across the country, including with the devolved Administrations. On skills and low carbon, he and I both want to see a successful lower-carbon energy sector; in particular, he mentions nuclear. One of the concerns that nuclear workers have is that their conditions are being undermined by this Government. Will he agree to work with me and meet me to discuss this issue, because we need those skills bases to build on for the future?

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s welcome. I should mention that I did not say to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) that as part of our proposals we will work very closely with the devolved Administrations in all parts of the United Kingdom, and I look forward to doing so. I am always happy to meet the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen).