Environmental Audit Committee

David Drew Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s always excellent and assiduous attendance and contributions. She is a real trailblazer and we are lucky to have her on our Committee.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Overseas Development Institute has stated that our international approach is being undermined by UK Export Finance, and there is a case for this House, perhaps through a joint meeting of Select Committees, to examine where we are investing overseas, because, first, they may not be smart business investments and, secondly, they are undermining our stated international policy commitments.

There is perhaps a role for the Select Committee on International Development. The UK Government are doing brilliant work through the international climate fund and the UN. That work must not be undermined by businesses that are selling old technology, instead of taking this opportunity to leapfrog and, for example, put solar panels on mud huts in South Sudan, which is something I saw at a conference yesterday. There is an opportunity to leapfrog and not to make the same mistakes we made in our electricity generation.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point with which I can only passionately agree.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on another excellent report.

I am a bit surprised there was no contribution by the green investment bank, now the Green Investment Group. The bank was set up by Government to look at sustainable investment. I know it has been privatised, but surely it has some ongoing role in trying to get sustainable investment. Will my hon. Friend comment on what has happened to that organisation?

[Mary Creagh]

I did not have time to go into our examination of the green investment bank. Our previous report in the 2015 Parliament recommended a green share in a special purpose vehicle, and I am pleased that has been taken up by the Government. The green investment bank was set up in 2012 to address market failure in this area. The question is whether that market failure still exists, and the answer is yes. Do we still need an investment vehicle to create confidence and to create that pipeline? The answer, post Brexit, is emphatically yes, which is why I mentioned access to European Investment Bank finance. Had we known Brexit was going to happen, would we have taken the same decision to privatise the green investment bank? Perhaps not.

Macquarie got the green investment bank, which has now been rebadged as the Green Investment Group, and there are still market failures. There is market failure in green transport, and our Committee heard there is no intermediate body to broker between the City of London and locals authorities that want to decarbonise their local housing schemes and council housing through low-carbon combined heat and power plants. The bank could have been that bridge.

We looked at how the process of privatisation was very disrupted and took longer than we expected, and we are concerned the Green Investment Group is investing in less risky projects. Of the four projects it has financed since privatisation, one is in Ireland, one is offshore wind in Sweden, one is in India and, of course, one is in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, for which I can claim absolutely no credit—obviously it was an excellent decision.

The Committee has an anxiety about where the Green Investment Group is going to go and whether it will focus on easier-to-finance, safer and less risky overseas projects now it is part of an international bank and lose its focus on green investment in the UK. It would be a tragedy if it does that.

Retail Sector

David Drew Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The retail sector faces a challenging and testing environment. The high cost of business rates alongside the challenge of online retailing for high street shops, the long-term squeeze on household incomes, the squeeze on pay and loss of retail jobs, and the failure to provide clarity to business on the future of our relationships with the outside world: these are all key factors where the Government should have something to say, but also where the Government could and should take action. They are all areas, however, where this Government have been found wanting.

I thank colleagues on the Opposition Benches for their contributions. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on the high number of her constituents employed in retail—a quarter of the jobs in her constituency. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on the importance of balancing the high-quality, out-of-town shopping centre at Cheshire Oaks with the high street, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), to whom I pay tribute for the fine work she has done in standing up for workers at Sainsbury’s. We also heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), who both spoke of the difficult challenges being faced in our high streets. One of the themes that has come out of this debate is the difficulty created by a two-tier economy, not least in retail, between our cities and our towns, particularly the smaller ones.

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

Would my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems in market towns is that the ownership is often with distant landowners who are more interested in speculative development than in improving retail opportunities?

[Bill Esterson]

That is a very good point, and it has also been made by other Members today. Where is the strategy, not only for retail but for our towns, and for our high streets in particular?

Sainsbury and Asda Merger

David Drew Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I hear what the Minister says about the dairy industry, but this is not just about the small producer; it is about the relationship between the producer, the processer and the retailer—and that has been a poisonous relationship for decades. How will this increased concentration at the retail end help that relationship?

[Andrew Griffiths]

Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has a great deal of experience in this area—I know that his constituency was badly affected by the foot and mouth outbreak and that he did a very good job at the time. The correct formula for finding a resolution for his dairy farmers and the supply chain is through the Groceries Code Adjudicator. She has proved to be incredibly effective in standing up for the supply chain—not just for the small dairy farmers, but for the wider industry. If he has concerns, I know she will take them very seriously, so I urge him to take them up with her.

Higher Education

David Drew Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

This will be a short speech about why I support the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and why the Office for Students is not fit for purpose.

I am a former student union executive officer and NUS full-time elected officer. The Government are excluding student representation on entirely spurious grounds, so it is not an office for students but an office against students. On 20 March, The Guardian reported that university leaders described the Office for Students as the “Office for State Control,” warning that it would prove disastrous for higher education and is “dangerous for democracy.”

The Government’s power grab is not being challenged by people in the sector, as they fear reprisals from Ministers, so it is for us in the Opposition to speak up for them. An anonymous vice-chancellor said:

“It is a huge problem if we feel we cannot criticise government. A lot of VCs feel that if they speak out they risk being ripped apart by the media. If there is a lack of leadership at UUK that is a massive problem.”

How have the Government managed to create both a culture and an institution akin to the Ministry of Love in George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” in which university vice-chancellors, the leaders of this country’s great institutions of learning and research, cannot speak out? In a modern democracy, that is a shameful indictment of the Government. This chapter, on how the state has treated universities in this country, will live long in the history of infamy. This motion is not only necessary but essential if we are to guard universities’ academic freedom. We must think again about how the Office for Students is constructed.

I understand but strongly disagree with the Government’s need to turn higher education into a complete market economy in which students do not fulfil their desire to learn and grow but are consumers there to fulfil a future economic need. There is a drive for deregulation, the free marketeers’ dream.

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

Does my hon. Friend accept that, as one vice-chancellor told me, there is at least a suspicion that we are moving back to the binary divide between the Russell Group and the new universities? That is a worrying development because it will play out in terms of value for money, and it will end up with the Russell Group charging higher fees and new universities having to charge lower fees.

[Alex Sobel]

I have a 1992 university in my constituency and I am a graduate and former student union officer of a Russell Group university, and I agree with my hon. Friend. The rot will set in when we start to have differential fees, which some of us here opposed at the time.

We need to create an institution that supports our bastions of learning, rather than one that tries to sanitise them. We need to transform how students view their institutions and the Office for Students. We need to view these institutions differently from other actors in the free market—they are not a shop or retail outlet but places where people come to learn and grow.

Smart Meters Bill

David Drew Excerpts

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

[Dr Whitehead]

As all the new clauses and amendments are grouped together, I intend to address them in turn. I promise that I will not say anything after this speech, but will instead make all my points in one go.

When the Bill went into Committee, it did two things. However, as the Minister himself agrees, an opportunity was taken in Committee to add to it what is effectively another small Bill, so it now does three things. First, it extends to 2023 the period during which the Secretary of State has powers over the roll-out to organise and command licensable activities. It does so in part because the end date for such control was set out in previous legislation as 2018. It is now apparent that the roll-out will go on until at least 2020 and, depending on progress, perhaps even later. It is therefore not only prudent to change the date but important, because as things stand the power over the roll-out will be lost halfway through its implementation.

Secondly, the Bill provides for the circumstances under which the functioning of the Data Communications Company, which has been set up to manage and co-ordinate all the communications necessary to make smart maters work—the data they are collecting and sending; and the communications within and around the home, and on a wider network—can be maintained in the event that that company goes into administration. That is important because the functioning of the DCC is central to the whole operation of the roll-out and what happens afterwards, and a hiatus in that function while any administration was being processed would be disastrous—so much so that we might question, as we did in Committee, why such a provision was not in the original legislation that set up the procedures for smart meter roll-out, and why it has taken several years of the DCC’s operation, albeit not live, to get around to implementing such a crucial measure.

Thirdly, the Bill now provides for arrangements to bring about the half-hourly settlement of domestic bills, which was hitherto not possible, but has been facilitated by the smart meter roll-out. We welcome this potentially enormous benefit of smart meters, in that it eliminates estimated bills and allows for accurate billing on the basis of what has been supplied each half hour, thereby allowing households to pitch their use at times of best value. The provisions inserted by the Government allow such a system to be organised and regulated.

Altogether, we have a set of proposals relating to the existing smart meter roll-out, which has been under way since 2016, that are uncontentious in the main and, indeed, strengthen the fabric of the roll-out. The Opposition support the objectives of the smart meter roll-out and believe that smart meters will lead to considerable benefits, not only for billing and the use of energy by householders, but for the future operation of the whole system. We share the aim of ensuring that as many as possible of Britain’s 30 million households have a smart meter installed by the end of the roll-out target date, albeit on the clear understanding that this is a voluntary programme and that no one will have a smart meter forced on them if they do not want one to be installed.

Why, then, have we tabled the new clauses and amendments? I assure the House that it is not because we want to derail the roll-out process or to place obstacles in its path. Some real questions are emerging from the roll-out process, and our prime aim is to ensure that those questions are addressed, and that the roll-out takes account of them and their potential solutions.

I have identified six major questions that have appeared as the roll-out has progressed. First, what is the actual progress of the smart meter roll-out, and is it realistically on target to ensure that everyone who wants a smart meter can have one installed by the end of 2020?

Secondly, bearing in mind that the huge cost of installing smart meters now falls on the consumer, what assurances can we have that the cost-benefit ratio of the whole programme remains positive? How can the costs of the programme be properly managed so that it remains positive for consumers in the end?

Thirdly, why have millions of first generation SMETS—smart metering equipment technical specifications—meters been installed to date and virtually no SMETS 2 meters? SMETS 1 meters were supposed to be a small proving mode and SMETS 2 meters were supposed to be the backbone of the roll-out, originally from 2014 onwards.

Fourthly, why has the DCC taken so long to get up and running, and how much of an impediment to the full roll-out of smart meters will that prove to be? If the DCC does go into administration, for whatever reason, what guarantees are there that it will be subsequently owned by a body that has the security and integrity of the programme at its heart?

Fifthly, will everyone be covered by the communications network that is being put in place? Will people who live in blocks of flats, for example, have home-area networks that are fully able to reach them? Will those who live in remote areas enjoy the wide-area coverage that will enable their meters to work reliably?

Finally, what will happen to all the old meters, and indeed to a considerable number of SMETS 1 meters that will be replaced by SMETS 2 meters? Will they be recycled or reused in a suitable way?

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

I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Does my hon. Friend accept that another problem—I have just had a response to a written question on this issue—is that when some people, particularly in rural areas, have a smart meter installed, their boilers are condemned because they are not compatible? There is no scheme or funding to help those people to put heating back into their houses. Does he agree that that is a significant problem?

[Dr Whitehead]

I agree that when that occurs, it is a problem, but I am not sure that it is just related to smart meters, so a combination of issues needs to be addressed. We need to ensure that such occurrences happen as little as possible and can be overcome.

Our new clauses and amendments seek to address the six questions that I have identified in the context of the Bill. By doing so, they would considerably strengthen the Bill. After all, as I am sure that all hon. Members will agree, it is important in such a large project that requires public confidence that questions are properly anticipated and addressed, and that assurances are given, otherwise we will have a roll-out that eventually rolls out to not many people, and that fails to achieve the aggregate coverage that will enable the sort of benefits that we would want from the roll-out as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

As the hon. Gentleman said, I am convinced that consumers will get the benefit from smart meters. In this day and age, it is absurd that people—I include myself—have to read their meters on their hands and knees, with a torch and a duster to remove the cobwebs and everything else. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that that is an intolerable situation and that smart meters are the cure.

Let me respond to the shadow Minister’s comments about progress to date. There are now over 8.6 million smart and advanced meters operating across homes and small businesses across Great Britain. Nearly 400,000 smart meters—obviously they affect a lot more people, because of the number of people per household—are installed every month as suppliers ramp up their delivery, and that figure is increasing significantly every quarter. The Government are committed to ensuring that all homes and small businesses are offered smart meters by the end of 2020.

Let me turn to new clause 1. Future smart meter communication licensees will need to demonstrate that they are a “fit and proper person” to carry out relevant functions. That will include factors such as the ownership of the proposed licensee, but it is not appropriate to judge suitability solely on that basis, nor to exclude non-GB companies by default. Doing so would risk failing to deliver value for money for consumers, which could undermine the effectiveness of the smart meter system. I also emphasise that the Government take the national security implications of foreign control and ownership seriously. We have powers under the Enterprise Act 2002 to intervene in mergers and takeovers that give rise to public interest concerns, including about national security.

New clause 2 is about the technical development of smart meters. Overall, we expect that more than 99.25% of premises will be covered by the national communications network. In homes, the standard wireless network will serve the majority of premises successfully. We want 100% of energy consumers to be able to benefit from smart meters, but it is true—this was raised by the Opposition—that the physical characteristics or location of a consumer’s home can affect connectivity. Challenges for systems include a diverse range of building types, including those in which meters can be a long way from the living space. We are working with the industry to identify innovative solutions and extend regulatory powers, because it is very important to have that flexibility.

[Dr Drew]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Harrington]

I will, but I will make some progress first.

New clause 3 concerns the efficient removal and disposal of old meters. My officials have discussed this in detail with those from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as this falls within their remit. This point was brought up very eloquently by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak. I am satisfied that energy suppliers, installation contractors and meter asset providers are already subject to appropriate regulation for the proper removal, recycling and disposal of redundant meters. However, as I said in Committee, we plan shortly to host a roundtable so that interested Members can hear from representatives from across the meter disposal chain. It is my intention that that will allow us collectively to agree some action. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman and other interested Members being there, because the whole supply chain has to understand fully its responsibilities.

I will briefly focus on concerns raised about the programme costs and benefits.

[Dr Drew]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Harrington]

Yes, I apologise.

[Dr Drew]

I thank the Minister for giving way. What I am concerned about, as always, is the urban-rural divide. We know that many rural areas are still suffering from a lack of access to broadband. Will he assure us that the rural delivery of this project is a priority, given that a lot of people in rural areas suffer because they are off the gas grid anyway?

[Richard Harrington]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fireworks

David Drew Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Susan Elan Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The petitioners refer to the lack of proper statistics as an issue.

Unorganised, spontaneous firework displays are worrying for many children and adults with health concerns. Many of those who care for children know that the loud noises generated by random firework displays can distress children who live with autism, hearing difficulties and certain mental health conditions. Some families can—and do—find it difficult to explain to affected children why the displays occur so often and without warning, especially throughout the winter months and not just on bonfire night and new year’s eve, and during the spring and summer, when it seems that any event can be marked with a sudden loud volley of firework sounds. For some people, that can be very disconcerting.

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

My hon. Friend is probably horrified, as I am, that there is a shop in my constituency that is open virtually every day of the year, which advertises Gloucestershire’s cheapest fireworks. I do not know the limitations on that shop’s selling fireworks, but at the moment it appears that anyone can go in and buy fireworks whenever they want to. Does she agree that that needs to be looked into?

[Susan Elan Jones]

I suspect that trading standards may like to pay them a visit, as that may not be entirely in keeping with current legislation, let alone any future plans that the debate may bring.

There are many concerns about domestic animals. The 2005 report by the RSPCA, “Firework fears and phobias in the domestic dog”, which was based on extensive research, informs us that almost half the owners questioned—49%—reported that their dog was frightened of loud noises. Forty five per cent. of owners reported that their dog showed fearful behaviour when it heard fireworks. It is widely accepted that cats and other domestic animals can be significantly affected by firework noises. The right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) mentioned the issues concerning horses: reported incidents in 2017 rose by 243% compared with 2016, and 15 horses died and 60 were injured according to reported statistics—clearly not all incidents are reported to the British Horse Society.

Let us not forget farm animals. Farm animals and livestock can also suffer from distress injury. That can mean livestock bolting in distress, which may cause danger to humans and vehicles if the livestock are near a public highway. Fowl have been known to smother each other in their attempts to hide from the noise in their environment. Animals have been known to go into premature labour and lose their offspring. Similar distress to animals from jet engine noises has previously been noted, too.

In 2016, just before a parliamentary debate on fireworks, the National Farmers Union issued the following statement:

“Farmers care deeply about the welfare of their animals, and are rightly concerned about anything that could jeopardise their wellbeing. Fireworks, especially when used at unpredictable times of year, have the possibility to frighten livestock, which can lead to lower production and even stock loss. Poultry especially are at risk of a ‘smother’, where birds huddle together which can result in some birds dying. In addition fireworks can pose a fire risk if hot embers land on barns or in fields of standing crops. This is particularly an issue during the summer when crops are more likely to be dry.

While the NFU does not have a position on when it is appropriate for fireworks to be let off we would call on everyone using fireworks to consider the safety and wellbeing of their neighbours and neighbours’ animals.”

The statement continues:

“It is important to let farmers know beforehand that you are planning on letting off fireworks so they can take necessary precautions to protect their animals. Fireworks should always be used safely, and pointed away from buildings, standing crops, and fields with animals in them.”

I know that hon. Members representing rural or semi-rural constituencies will join me in agreeing with every word expressed by the NFU in that statement. Many of us will also have heard local horror stories about fireworks. Last autumn in my constituency, a kitchen was destroyed within minutes when a young child set off a firework. After the incident, which could have been much worse, the child’s mother said:

“We were lucky to escape from the property unharmed this morning and my advice to everyone would be never store fireworks in the house.”

Those words are well worth sharing in our debate today.

On a totally different note, there are also those who feel that, at a time when we are constantly reminded to be more vigilant about the ever-present threat of terrorism, loud explosions from fireworks at random times of the year can be unsettling for a lot of people. One example that comes to mind is from November 2017, when an altercation between two men in Oxford Circus tube station caused a mass panic that resulted in several injuries. There are examples every year that show that bonfire night seems to be an opportunity for a special and criminal night of arson and disorder, with its own very real dangers for emergency service personnel. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who is present, will mention that if she speaks in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate the Petitions Committee and the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) on their roles in securing the debate.

Several constituents have written to me to ask me to participate. Generally I was of the view, beforehand, that the current legislation strikes the right balance, which accords with the Government’s response to the petition. However, in view of the concerns that were put to me, I obtained the views of Suffolk County Council, which is responsible for public safety. The issues that I am going to highlight are the ones that it has brought to my attention, and I want to thank Nigel Howlett, the council’s senior fair trading officer. He leads on fireworks and explosives and is also the east of England trading standards authority’s representative on the fireworks enforcement liaison group.

The sale and use of fireworks is an emotive issue that concerns many people. There are four areas of concern: noise, safety, unsafe storage and sales, which I shall briefly consider in turn. First, as to noise, while there are restrictions on letting off fireworks, the biggest issue is enforcement. It is not a high priority for most police forces, and unless someone is caught in the act, it is probably impossible to identify where and by whom the firework was let off. In tests conducted by the National Trading Standards Board safety at ports and borders team in 2016, 50% of the fireworks tested failed the noise tests. However, those tests are expensive to carry out. They were previously funded by the Health and Safety Executive and Health Service Laboratories, but as no funding was available this year, no tests have been conducted. If there were specific funding for the testing of fireworks, it is possible that some of the noisier ones could be removed from the market.

With safety, the main problem, again, is one of expense, in that the cost of fully testing fireworks can run into several thousand pounds, which makes it impossible for many local authority trading standards departments to carry out tests. With regard to accidents arising from fireworks, while the NHS publishes data on hospital admissions and their nature and cause, it does not appear that there is any other record of accidents in relation to their cause. It is therefore difficult to determine whether accidents are caused by innocent use or misuse. Every year there are reported incidents of injuries attributed to fireworks, many of them leaving permanent scars or involving the loss of limbs. However, since 2010 the UK has not reported any unsafe fireworks to the European RAPEX rapid alert system for non-food products, while during that time there have been 113 reports from the rest of the EU. It is possible that many of the injuries could be down to misuse—particularly those involving animals, and incidents occurring in public places—and there are videos online clearly showing people misusing fireworks, although it is impossible to know whether they were purchased from licensed premises, or whether they were bought by people under 18, the legal age for purchasing fireworks.

There is also potential for injury from not following the instructions printed on the fireworks. One of those instructions relates to the safe distance that spectators should stand from fireworks. It is natural for people to want to buy the biggest and best fireworks in their budget; yet many of those bigger fireworks will be in the F3 category and subject to a safety distance of 25 metres.

[Dr Drew]

The hon. Gentleman obviously has better eyesight than mine. The printing is often very small and sometimes in another language. The idea that people could make sense of it is somewhat arbitrary.

[Peter Aldous]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which I was not going to raise, but it is pertinent, and it is right to make it, so I thank him.

There do not appear to be figures for the average length of the UK garden, but it has been suggested that the typical British garden is 50 feet long. If that is correct, many modern houses will not have gardens of the required size to ensure the safety of spectators when F3 fireworks are let off. Obviously, the consequences, should anything go wrong with the fireworks, are likely to be greater the closer the spectators are to them.

Trading standards and the fire service can have control over the storage arrangements at sites only if they are aware of those sites, which means only if they are licensed. Recent guidance to those bodies has encouraged them to be more proactive about storage conditions and quantities at licensed premises. In Suffolk the number of small independent retailers storing fireworks has dropped considerably in the past 10 years. It is unclear whether that is because of a lack of demand or an increase in the number of major supermarkets selling fireworks. Also in the county, trading standards continues to find minor issues with storage arrangements, with the occasional more serious problem being found on unannounced inspections. However, there have not been any major storage issues resulting in prosecution since 2010. In general, Suffolk County Council believes that the controls and powers that are in place are appropriate and sufficient to ensure that where unsafe storage issues are found they can be rectified without the need to resort to more formal measures.

In recent years the number of allegations about sales via social media such as Facebook has increased nationally and in Suffolk. Such sites are difficult to control as they are often promoted through private selling groups and thus they are not visible to all users. The sites often require investigators to “friend” the seller or join the group to determine how or where the fireworks are being sold. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 requires local authorities to obtain approval from magistrates courts before formal intervention can be contemplated, and that makes investigating allegations difficult, especially given the short time constraints of the firework season. The control of sale is currently limited to restrictions on age and on period of sale—generally between 5 October and 5 November—and controls on the quantity supplied. In the UK we limit the sale of F2 and F3 fireworks to those aged over 18. In many parts of Europe F2 fireworks can be purchased by anyone over 16.

It is also appropriate to raise an issue that links sales, storage and safety. It concerns the current exemptions for the storage of less than 5 kg net explosive content. I am advised that in some places in the north of England it has been reported that some businesses are trying to get round the need to hold a licence by restricting their onsite storage to less than 5 kg NEC while keeping their remaining stocks hidden. There is concern that some fire authorities would therefore not know of the existence of fireworks on a property, which could put both firefighters and the public at risk. Some in the fire service would like to remove that exemption, but that would need careful consideration, because if it were not implemented properly many other businesses that store less than 5 kg NEC perfectly legitimately could be affected.

Suffolk County Council also makes suggestions on how existing regulations could be improved. First, it touches on insurance. The issue of public liability insurance was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) in a debate on 18 November 2016, when he highlighted the case of a fire at SP Plastics in Stafford in 2014. The business suffered financially due to neither the individual business nor the licensee having appropriate cover in place. While health and safety legislation does not require public liability insurance, it is now recommended that those manufacturing or storing fireworks should hold it. That advice has been added to the Health and Safety Executive website and to the “Guidance to Applicants” section on the licence application form.

Suffolk trading standards receives information from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on all firework imports. That information is then disseminated to the relevant district council and the HSE where the consignment is destined. While in theory that allows the council and HSE to monitor the amount of fireworks being stored at their licensed sites, the information provided by HMRC can be sketchy at times and there is little or no enforcement of the requirements. Even where the information is provided, many authorities have suffered cuts to their budgets that restrict their ability to monitor imports adequately.

I sense that I have probably stretched my time a little. I have more to say, but I will come to my conclusion, which is that the Government should adopt a systematic approach to the collection of the statistics. Having considered the extremely helpful information put together by Nigel Howlett at Suffolk trading standards, I believe that, on balance, there is a case for amending the current regulations, although it is vital that a full consultation and regulatory impact assessment take place before any changes are made. That should include all those businesses in the supply network; we must remember that the vast majority of them are responsible, and it is vital that their views are heard. Thank you for bearing with me, Mr Walker.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

David Drew Excerpts

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

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend is right; there is nothing in that at all.

Let me state it another way: the Bill enables the United Kingdom to set up a domestic safeguards regime to enable us to meet international safeguards and nuclear non- proliferation standards after we withdraw from Euratom, no matter what the outcome of the negotiations. So we are being prudent and prepared, taking these steps now, in very good time. The ONR does not currently have this role because, under the Euratom treaty, all members, including the UK, subject their civil nuclear material and facilities to nuclear safeguards inspections and assurance carried out by Euratom. Euratom then provides reporting on member states’ safeguards to the IAEA, which conducts nuclear safeguards globally. The United Kingdom's new regime, established under this Bill, will ensure that the UK has the right regime in place to enable the ONR to regulate nuclear safeguards following withdrawal from Euratom—it could not be more simple. That will ensure that the UK continues to maintain its position as a responsible nuclear state following withdrawal from Euratom.

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

Will the Secretary of State assure me that interested parties in the industry, principally the Nuclear Industry Association and Prospect, the trade union, which represents most workers in the industry, will continue to be consulted, as at the moment neither is convinced that the Bill is better than Euratom?

[Greg Clark]

I will certainly make that commitment. One feature of the nuclear industry is that it is, appropriately, highly consultative. People from across the sector talk to each other. It is a community of experts and they take advice. We will certainly continue to do that.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Nuclear Industry Association, with which I have meetings and with which the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) meets regularly. The NIA has said clearly that the publication of the Bill

“is a necessary legislative step in giving responsibility for safeguards inspections to the UK regulator”.

I have been clear with the House that the Bill is a prudent and timely set of measures that does not prejudge the discussions we will have with Euratom. I regard it as a model of good order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I agree that it is irresponsible language and I am sorry to have heard it from some Conservative Members during this debate.

This is an important issue and the sector is hugely important, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) pointed out in a thoughtful and informed contribution when she said that it is important that we get this right. The Government therefore need to answer some key questions. The ONR cannot exercise these new powers until it has a voluntary offer agreement and additional protocol from the IAEA for a UK safeguards regime. What work has been done on that and when do the Government anticipate that will be ratified? What have the Government done to ensure that the ONR has the necessary skills to take on the safeguarding of nuclear material? Euratom employs 160 people on safeguarding, 25% of whom work on UK installations, whereas the ONR currently employs eight staff. I understand that it takes five years to train a nuclear safeguards inspector. Two years will not be long enough to reskill the necessary number of inspectors. Are plans under way to re-employ the current Euratom officials or do the Government have another contingency up their sleeve?

[Dr Drew]

The problem is that the nuclear industry is not currently able to call on that level of expertise. It already suffers because of a shortage of labour in many parts of the industry, so that can only get worse.

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I am coming straight to. As a number of Members have mentioned, it is planned to halve the current Government grant to the ONR by 2020. I recognise that this is only one part of the ONR’s funding, but can the Minister confirm that that is no longer the Government’s intention? Will he outline what their new funding plans would be, given the additional responsibilities they are seeking to place on the ONR?

An important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), and echoed by some others, was that outside Euratom the Government would have to negotiate individual nuclear collaboration agreements not simply with Euratom, but with every country outside of the EU with which we currently co-operate through our membership, including the US, China, Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan and South Korea. The right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) mentioned the example of the United States. A section 123 agreement with the US—a legal necessity if we are to trade nuclear goods with the US—would have to go through the Senate and the House of Representatives, with final sign-off needed from the President. Does the Minister really believe it is possible to achieve that in the time we have left?

What provisions have been put in place to ensure that normal business in the UK is not disrupted? As the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) pointed out, an important part of that will be ensuring that the UK has the right skills to build, operate and decommission nuclear power stations. What will be the Government’s migration policy for the nuclear worker who previously enjoyed free movement under the provision of the Euratom treaty?

A key benefit of the UK’s involvement in Euratom has been our participation in R and D programmes. The Government have given limited commitments on Culham, but what are their wider intentions on the full Euratom work programme from 2019-20 onward?

Seventeen months does not give us much time to resolve such a huge number of issues. The paralysis at the heart of the negotiations, created by the divisions at the heart of the Government, do not give us much confidence that the issues can be resolved within the time available. One further key question: will the Government seek to continue membership of Euratom—or to come to an arrangement that replicates the benefits and responsibilities of that membership—for a transitional period after we leave the EU in March 2019?

The Bill is inadequate. It fails to address so many of the vital questions that the Government themselves raised in their own position paper. It gives the Secretary of State powers to amend legislation without reference to the House—powers that, although narrower in scope, in many ways go further than those in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. For these reasons, we cannot support it. Nevertheless, we recognise that, if the worst comes to the worst—as some Government Members seem to anticipate—and we crash out without agreement, we would be in breach of our international responsibilities under the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons if we do not have a safeguarding regime in place. For that reason, we will seek to amend the Bill significantly in Committee, but we will not oppose it tonight.

University Vice-Chancellors: Pay

David Drew Excerpts

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to introduce this Adjournment debate and to have two hours and 20 minutes in which to discuss this important matter.

I would like to set out a bit of the context around my request for this debate. During the summer, a league table of vice-chancellors’ pay was published, showing that the average pay of a university vice-chancellor was somewhere in the region of £280,000 a year. That struck me as a large sum of money, particularly in the current atmosphere of relative austerity. I was particularly upset to notice that the vice-chancellor of my own local university, the University of Bath, a non-Russell Group, middle-ranking university, should be right at the top of that league table, in pole position at No. 1, on £451,000 a year, plus a very generous package.

Since being elected in 2001, I have been an ex officio member of Bath University’s court. I confess that it does not involve me in a great deal of hard work, but nevertheless I have been very pleased to be associated with Bath University, which—let me be absolutely clear—is a good institute of higher education that has done exceptionally well over the past several years. However, it seemed to me that I could no longer be part of the governance of Bath university, in however much a titular capacity, while its remuneration committee showed such an error of judgment as it displayed on this occasion, hence my action over the summer.

Since then, I have been inundated with correspondence from all sorts of people—not only constituents, but young people who are burdened with debt, and university lecturers, particularly those working at the University of Bath—in support of the action I took, and in some cases providing me with very long accounts about why it was right that we should look at restraining this part of public sector expenditure. I found those arguments to be compelling.

I very much welcome recent Government interventions on higher education funding, as announced by the Prime Minister recently in Manchester and reiterated by the Minister in his statement earlier today. They are absolutely right, and that will have given a great deal of comfort to those going through higher education, as well as to universities themselves. As the Minister rightly pointed out earlier, the quality of British higher education is of vital importance, and the changes made—to be fair, by the Labour party when in government, and then continued by the coalition and then Conservative Governments—were necessary to safeguard the quality of British universities and higher education in the UK. They are to be wholly welcomed and are absolutely right, but we do need to address the fundamental issue of student debt, which is causing so much grief to young people and, by extension, to the party of government. I hope that in the review the Minister alluded to earlier today we can find a solution that goes some way towards satisfying the concerns of young people in this respect and of course their families, who are usually co-contributors to higher education costs.

Mounting student debt is one of the problems of our time. Currently, young people are leaving university with an average debt of £42,000. Although, theoretically, that debt may never be repaid, and in lots of cases never will be, it is a burden that young people feel acutely. The Minister understands that and is doing what he can to look at that issue. I wish him well in his quest.

This is not simply about tuition fees; it is also about housing costs and the high rates that young people have to pay for university-related accommodation, which is often of an inferior or distinctly mediocre standard. It seems to me that that is sometimes a covert way of universities raising yet more money.

Given that universities are relatively well off, I think we all would agree that they need to be particularly careful about spending money. That comes to the crux of what I want to discuss. This debate is at a time of relative restraint in pay across the public and quasi-public sectors. We have seen, as Members of Parliament, the results of that, with the concerns expressed in our mailbags and the bow wave of pressure to relax restraint that has been in place for some years now. People see that and examples of where it has not applied, and they make adverse comparisons. When people see very high pay leaping up and up, they are entitled to feel aggrieved, particularly when they feel they have some direct involvement in paying for what they see as excess. That certainly is the case here, as my mailbag has demonstrated.

In the past five years, vice-chancellors’ pay has increased by 17.4%. It now averages £278,000 a year. At Bath, it is £451,000 a year. By comparison, the chief executive of the Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust receives £185,000 a year, which most people would think is pretty good. He runs an organisation that is just as complex as, if not more so than, the University of Bath; the university employs 4,800 people against the Royal United’s 3,015.

It is right to compare those salaries with that paid to the Prime Minister, and the reason is that people generally feel it is inappropriate for people in the quasi-public sector and public sector to be paid multiples of the income of the Prime Minister unless there is a very good reason.

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

I was happy to join the hon. Gentleman in resigning from the University of Bath’s court. I never quite understood why I was on the court. I resigned in a previous incarnation, so it was only right and proper that I resigned on this occasion. Does he agree that one problem with university vice-chancellors is that they have other ways in which to supplement their income, such as where they live and their expenses, and that that information should be in the public domain? The University of Bath was very hesitant to share that information.

[Dr Murrison]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I will come on to some of the benefits later on in my remarks, and it will not surprise him to know—I suspect he has read the report, as I have—that the University of Bath features large in the University and College Union’s report on this subject, regrettably, as one of the arguably worst examples of what I certainly represent as excess at the top of higher education in this country, which is the matter we are seeking to resolve.

The Prime Minister is paid £152,000 a year. The Prime Minister, of course, heads the Government, and it is extraordinary therefore that the vice-chancellor of Bath University should be paid £451,000, which is pretty much three times the salary of the Prime Minister. I think most people in this country would have a general sense that that is odd, to put it mildly, and needs quite considerable justification.

Energy Price Cap

David Drew Excerpts

Monday 3rd July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think it is time that we heard again from the good doctor—Dr David Drew.

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

It is my lucky day today, but I am sure it will not continue. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

As much as we welcome the attempt to deal with fuel poverty, the Secretary of State must realise that there is an adverse effect on renewables at the margins, which will now not come forward because of this fairly blunt pricing structure. Will he look into that and ensure that there is still a drive forward for renewables?