Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2022
Energy Bills Support Scheme and Energy Price Guarantee Pass-through Requirement (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2022
Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2022
Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022
Energy Bill Relief Scheme and Energy Price Guarantee Pass-through Requirement and Miscellaneous Amendments 2022
Kit Malthouse Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I also want to raise a couple of issues about the technicalities of the scheme. I agree with my county colleague, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, that the measures are important and need to be passed through as soon as possible. As somebody who has two sets of park homes in my constituency, I am particularly keen to see them benefit from the subsidies to protect them from an energy point of view.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. These are quite complicated regulations when one ploughs through them—I tried this afternoon. I want to understand what the impact will likely be on individuals who are resident, for example, in a care home and for whom there is a service charge calculation as part of the bill levied on them for their residence in the care home. As I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister knows, in most care homes there are those who are paid for by the state and therefore protected by the state—to a certain extent their charges are supervised by the state—and those who are there on a private basis and might not have families or others who are close to the action and able to see the impact on their bills.
My other questions are about the technicalities. In providing the subsidy at this time to families up and down the land, the Government are recognising that timing matters. Having the money at the point when someone has to pay it out to their energy supplier matters because cash flow for many people is critical. Some of the regulations refer to timing, but the legislation is not as exacting as the obligation it places on what it calls intermediaries—landlords. The best it can come up with is
“as soon as reasonably practicable”.
My hon. Friend the Minister, who I know has a long track record in the property industry, knows that the timing of cash flow, particularly for large landlords such as park home owners, is critical, and it would be possible for them to string out the payment of the subsidies, after having received them themselves for some time, in order to gain a cash flow advantage. As he reviews the operation of the legislation will he consider an absolute requirement that, on receipt, the subsidy should be passed through at the very next billing opportunity, rather than being held for six or nine months? How soon is “reasonably practicable”? “I am terribly sorry, your honour. We were terribly overworked.”
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
It seems that in a case where the intermediary has received the money, interest is payable to the resident if it has not been paid over within 60 days. Does my right hon. Friend think that that is perhaps an indication of what a reasonable period is thought to be?
Kit Malthouse
It may well be, but, as I say, regulation 3, paragraph 2 in part 2, states that an intermediary
“must ensure that as soon as reasonably practicable after a scheme benefit has been provided”.
As interest rates rise, it would be perfectly possible for a landlord to say, “Do you know what? I’m getting 3% on my money, particularly as it is a large amount. My cost in holding it is only 2%. I have a bit of a carry there.” While my right hon. and learned Friend is right that the 60 days indicated in the legislation is “practicable”, that is quite a long time for somebody to shoulder an energy bill, particularly if there are quarterly billings, for example. It would therefore be possible for me to pay my bill in one quarter and not receive the subsidy until the following quarter, which is a three-month carry—or possibly more, if the timing is not right. Will the Minister comment on that timing?
The other issue I want to raise is about enforcement because, as the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, mentioned, enforcement is through the civil courts, which means the small claims court for most people. That carries a minimum charge of £35, takes time and creates delay. It would be perfectly possible for a landlord to say, “Well, I’ll tough it out. The subsidy is only 200 quid. My tenant has to shell out 35 quid and put in a submission to the small claims court. That will take a while to work its way through the system and then, at the last minute, I will agree to pay.” I do not understand why there is not an absolute liability enforceable on the landlord to pay, either by the local authority or others.
Finally, I want to raise the rather strange obligation on the intermediary to show that
“the pass-through it has effected…is just and reasonable, and in so doing it is entitled to take into account the extent to which its charges to end users reflect the increased cost of energy as a result of the energy crisis.”
We are all aware that lots is going on in the world of energy and that prices have risen. If an elderly resident of a park home has that in their mind, to the extent that they have been assiduous about their consumption of energy—they have turned their heating off and tried to drive down their bill as much as possible—it is conceivable that their energy costs this year could be lower than last year. If they had not read the newspapers or did not know about this legislation, it would not necessarily be clear that they would be entitled to a subsidy, notwith-standing that the cost of the energy they had used this year was lower in terms of the cost to the landlord than it was last year.
I am not a lawyer, although there are eminent lawyers in the room, but in those circumstances would the landlord be able to say, “Last year, tenant, you were paying 400 quid; this year, because you have been parsimonious, you are only paying 300 quid. Therefore, you are better off so I will pocket your subsidy.” I would be grateful if the Minister could address those questions.
Sir Oliver Heald
I will not be venturing any legal opinion, but I understand that the three national associations of park home residents already provide a certain amount of legal help and advice to residents and residents’ associations. Have the Minister and his colleagues had the opportunity to be in touch with such associations, with the idea of ensuring that park home residents are aware of their rights under these regulations and that they would be able to take action in the county court—maybe even by producing a simple form to report claims, so that that can be done easily?
Kit Malthouse
I understand the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend and I agree with him. However, anything that goes to court, as he will know because he has made a profession of it, is arguable. Obviously, the legislation is drawn to make it arguable; I do not understand why there is not an absolute liability.
Sir Oliver Heald
I fully understand my right hon. Friend’s point. The problem with this area is the Mobile Homes Act 1983. There have always been criticisms of the relationships involved in park homes, as it is not the same as home ownership or being a tenant. Having said that, the legislation is an attempt to do something in this difficult area to try to ensure that park home residents get their help with energy costs; I wish the regulations well and I would not want to stop them happening. Is there a way of helping some of the residents with the legislation? My right hon. Friend’s point that many of them are vulnerable and elderly is true.
Kevin Hollinrake
I share the hon. Member’s concerns, but I can only reiterate that the energy ombudsman does not cover landlords. Landlords are not regulated by the energy ombudsman, so there is no recourse to the energy ombudsman. There has to be a relationship between the two. As I have said, moves are afoot to deal with the issue, but if the Opposition have ideas on how we do this more effectively they should write to us, and we can write back to them to say why not.
The shadow Minister asked for sanctions for people who do not comply, but we do not see any way to impose sanctions without regulations having been in place before the scheme was brought to bear. For all those reasons, I think it is not possible to do what he wishes, but as I say, if he has some ideas on how we might, he should write to us.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire made some very good points about care homes, and how their residents will benefit from the scheme. If service charges include energy provision, it would be just and reasonable to pass on the benefits of the EPG or EBRS to those residents. Although we do not want to see residents having to take landlords or the people who provide their accommodation to the courts, I think the courts would take a very dim view if the support had not been passed on to those residents.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire made another good point. What about if someone had been parsimonious and reduced their energy use? Would they still see the benefit? The Government support, as he knows, is provided on a per kilowatt-hour basis, so we would expect support to be passed over on that basis. If someone has done the right thing and reduced their energy use, they should see the full benefit of that, both in terms of the reduction— the energy they have not used—and the cost covered by the various schemes that apply.
On the point about “as soon as reasonably practicable”, I would expect the courts to take a dim view of somebody who had pocketed the money for 60 days and let the interest pile up.
Kit Malthouse
Could the Minister explain why there is not an absolute liability to pay? Why is there interpretation that makes it arguable in court? It could be a case of saying, “I have had £400 on your behalf from the Government for your energy, but I am not giving you £400 directly.” Why is there not a straight pass-through?
The Minister has a long and distinguished history in the property industry. He will know that service charges are subject to reams and reams of detailed litigation in the courts and that the crafting of a service charge bill is an art as much as a science. It can be a question of what people can get away with. I do not understand why we would inject the same kind of negotiability and arguability into what should be a straight pass-through.
Kevin Hollinrake
My right hon. Friend raises a good point. The difficulty is the different ways energy can be levied to a resident. The landlord might already have passed on the benefit to that individual. They might have already said, “I am not going to put your rent up, because I see a Government scheme coming down the line that means I can shield you from the costs of energy.” At that point in time, it is not easy to determine whether a tenant has or has not already had the benefit from the scheme. It can be expected that people will get the absolute benefit of the schemes, but how the landlord chooses to pass it on is complicated. It is not possible to have a one-size-fits-all solution.
Kit Malthouse
Just to understand, the Minister is saying that a landlord may charitably say, “I will reduce your rent because I see the energy bill rises coming. I feel sorry for you, and I want to protect you as my tenant. Therefore, I will not pass through the full subsidy I have from the energy scheme, because I have already given you that subsidy, effectively, through a rent reduction”?
Kit Malthouse
Even though the tenant may say, “Actually, rents in our area are plunging anyway, so you have taken advantage of a market dynamic”—in, say, Hartlepool or Andover or wherever—“that means you were going to have to take less rent anyway.”
I do not want to labour the point. This is an important measure that needs to go through quickly, so I will not cause too much fuss, but injecting arguability and negotiability into what, for everybody else who is directly contracted to their energy bills—it just comes straight to us—is not negotiable, seems to me to be making these people’s lives more difficult than they need to be.
Kevin Hollinrake
My right hon. Friend makes the exact point. It may not just be the fact that the rent now charged reflects the increased cost of energy and the Government subsidy. It may also reflect that rents have changed in the area. They may have gone up or down. All these things are subject to market forces. The only way we can practicably deal with this is to require landlords, park home owners, or people who look after care homes to be just and reasonable in passing on the support to the individuals concerned.
Nuclear Safeguards Bill
Kit Malthouse ExcerptsMonday 16th October 2017
(7 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 View all Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Drew Hendry
It is very important that the unanswered questions are dealt with in this insufficient Bill—[Interruption.] Well, a lot of people will be concerned about the implications of what is not covered in this discussion, some of which I intend to cover.
With regard to nuclear safety, it is critical that we continue membership—or, at the very least, associate membership—of Euratom. Falling back on WTO rules could risk the UK breaking international law. It will come as no surprise that we in the SNP believe that the safest nuclear power policy is no nuclear power. We are determined to deliver just that.
Drew Hendry
I am going to make some headway.
In Scotland, we are already showing what can be achieved by renewable energy. New storage solutions for renewables are developing further access to the vast potential from offshore wind and tidal, meaning that an abundance of low-cost, clean energy will be generated. In contrast, this Government continue to chase the folly of new nuclear such as the white elephant that is Hinkley C, leading to exorbitant costs for consumers and leaving yet another burden for future generations to clean up—and that is if there is no more immediate crisis caused by failure or deliberate act leading to nuclear incident. I also wonder what care and attention has been given to people in Wales, as only days ago it came to light that about 300,000 tonnes of “radioactive mud”—a by-product of this Government’s nuclear obsession—is to be dredged and moved to Wales. I will leave that to hon. Members from Wales to debate further.
My constituency is in the highlands, which is not only the natural home of much of our renewable generation and its potential, but home to Dounreay. It is a place where the impact and long-term costs, both financial and environmental, of nuclear are well known. Those costs should not be repeated. The Minister pointed out that the responsibility for domestic nuclear safety resides in the UK, but that does not mean that the UK has a good record, especially prior to EU membership. Indeed, most of us living in the area can recall the various worrying nuclear material scares, and we are well versed on the dangerous radioactive levels recorded on Caithness beaches.
Each scare should remind us of why our membership of Euratom is so important—because while they can never be perfect, agreed EU directives over safety have been essential in ending some of the hair-raising practices in the UK nuclear industry. Who could forget that in 2006 the remains of actual plutonium rods were found on the beach at Sandside, in Caithness? Hon. Members earlier mentioned watertight provisions, but one retired Dounreay worker who was interviewed at the time spoke of a catalogue of errors, accidents and bad procedure, including claims that workers commonly disposed of radioactive material in the sea at night to avoid it having to appear on official documents. He told a reporter that he once saw a man
“using a Wellington boot tied to a piece of string”
to take test samples
“because the proper equipment had rusted”
beyond use. Mr Lyall, the retired worker who spoke out, had been a plant supervisor for many years.
Although the UK Atomic Energy Authority—as it would—denied that Mr Lyall’s claims were true, it did admit:
“There were practices from the 1950s to the 1960s that we would not repeat today.”
Those practices occurred before we were members of Euratom. In the same statement, the UKAEA told reporters:
“Standards have risen in health and safety and environmental protection, and government legislation has also been tightened considerably.”
Our membership of the EU, and especially of Euratom, has had a positive impact on the improvement of the standards that the UKAEA spoke of. In Scotland, although we are working towards a nuclear-free future, we have to maintain safety at existing facilities during that process, and we must plan for a future of decommissioning.
Drew Hendry
It is telling that Conservative Members are willing to ignore all advice from experts in the nuclear industry in order to uphold their position that we must have the hardest possible Brexit.
Drew Hendry
No, I am going to make some progress.
As I have said, the UK does not currently have any reactors capable of producing such isotopes.
Drew Hendry
I do not think that the Minister is reflecting the view of the experts in the industry who are affected, and I will come on to underline that with some quotes.
Euratom supports the secure and safe supply and use of medical radioisotopes. If and when the UK withdraws, it will no longer—this is the critical point—have access to Euratom’s support, ending the certainty of a seamless and continuing supply. The Royal College of Radiologists points out that the supply of radioisotopes would be disrupted by leaving the single market, because transport delays will reduce the amount of useful radioisotopes that can be successfully transported to their destination.
Drew Hendry
No, I am going to make some progress. As I pointed out, radioisotopes decay within hours or days of production. The most common isotope has a half-life of just 66 hours. The consequences of a disrupted radioisotope supply was made clear not only during the incident that the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) mentioned, but during the channel tunnel fire in 2008. That led to a reduction of the availability of radioisotopes, and to cancelled procedures. So, for patients, there can be no no-deal scenario. Such a scenario is a ludicrous proposition with regard to leaving the EU; as practitioners point out, however, in relation to medical isotopes it is a matter of people’s very lives.
Leaving Euratom will increase the difficulty of maintaining nuclear fuel in the longer term and threaten research funding into medical isotopes.
Drew Hendry
No, because I am going to conclude.
Most concerning of all is that leaving Euratom has the potential to reduce standards of protection for workers and the public. Since the UK Government have committed to a nuclear future, it would be pushing their irresponsible actions to critical levels if they were to forsake membership or, at the very least, associate membership of Euratom. Until there is no nuclear in Scotland—on our land, or in our waters—we should have the right to remain a member of it.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I do not think that anybody debated or considered leaving Euratom, or voted to leave it on 23 June 2016—
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”.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I am grateful and very pleased to be here as the first brick is placed into the strong foundation that we will be building for a post-Brexit Britain. This is the first real piece of legislation enabling us to see what it will look like. I congratulate the Minister on the Bill’s brevity and concision. Hopefully that pattern will be repeated.
I welcome the Bill and indeed our leaving Euratom, as I said earlier, although I recognise that many will not. Warm has been the embrace of Euratom for the past 40-odd years. Much has been achieved, in both research and safeguarding standards, but in truth the mourning bell has been tolling for Euratom for some time, because it is clear that the EU is turning its face against civil nuclear power. Germany is phasing it out by 2020, in a decision taken a couple of years ago, while Belgium, in a decision taken by our friend Mr Verhofstadt when he was Prime Minister, has decided to phase it out by 2025. Italy and Denmark have already made nuclear power generation illegal. Greece and Spain are phasing it out. Austria—ironically, as the home of the IAEA—has made it illegal even to transport nuclear material across its territory, such is its antipathy to it.
Given that the aggressively anti-nuclear Green party peppers Parliaments across the continent and has 51 seats in the European Parliament, serious questions need to be asked about the future of Euratom and its funding. When we recognise that much of the Horizon 2020 funding, which will go towards nuclear research, is generated by Germany, which will not be using the technology invented under that programme, we have to ask how long Germany will tolerate the notion that it should be pouring hundreds of millions of euros into nuclear research.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
My hon. Friend clearly knows a lot about this subject, so on a point of information to illuminate the House, what does he think about the French attitude to nuclear power?
Kit Malthouse
As I was about to say, in truth, Euratom is the French. It is anchored around France, with its 58 reactors, and they are the only serious nuclear player among the EU 27. The UK is second and Ukraine, although not a member—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) pointed out, it is now a special associate of Euratom, as it were—is third. Nevertheless, we now have the opportunity to look strategically at where our civil nuclear is going, what global alliances we should have, the direction of Euratom and EU nuclear research, and whether there is a better way.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the future of nuclear is still very uncertain? If the Romans had invented nuclear power, we would still be guarding our nuclear waste sites.
Kit Malthouse
I absolutely think that nuclear waste is important, particularly to us in this country. That is why we should have total control of it ourselves and not be reliant on a series of countries that will perhaps not even be willing to put money into researching how to dispose of, or reprocess or otherwise use nuclear waste.
We have been members of the IAEA since 1957. We have the capability to make the change; indeed, there is a strategic argument that the Office for Nuclear Regulation would be much better served if it had responsibility for all three of the civil nuclear strands—safety, security, and regulation and safeguarding. We lead the world in safety regulation; we can lead the world in the other two.
Mr Vaizey
I am immensely enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech, not least as I have discovered that the one person in the country who went to the polls on 23 June specifically to get us out of Euratom also happens to be a Member of this House. It is a remarkable coincidence. If I may probe his argument, does it not have a weakness, in that if he is saying that so many members of the EU want to undermine civil nuclear power, is this not precisely the wrong time for the Brits to leave the French to themselves? Does he also agree that, regardless of his attitude to Euratom, we will still have to go through an incredible number of hoops to recreate what we have benefited from?
Kit Malthouse
No, I completely disagree with my right hon. Friend. This is not the wrong time; it is exactly the right time for us to recognise that there is a world beyond the EU in terms of nuclear research. There has been much angst in the House already about nuclear scientists being able to travel freely, but I would point out that they do actually exist outside the European Union. There are lots of them in Japan, Korea, China and elsewhere. Indeed, the leading edge of nuclear research and the development of civil nuclear power is elsewhere. As I have said, we are dealing with a community of countries that are turning their back on this technology. Even if we get to the holy grail of fission, and we manage to get fusion going from the great reactor in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, the Germans will not use it. They have said already that it is of no use to them. The idea that they will continue to fund it into the future is fallacious.
Mr Vaizey
I am always further intrigued by the arguments of people such as my hon. Friend, who imply that we could do nothing outside Europe when we were members of Euratom. However, we got the Chinese to invest in Hinkley while remaining members. How did our membership prevent us from co-operating with other nuclear states?
Kit Malthouse
It has not prevented us, but we now have the opportunity to recognise that the nuclear community is global. While Euratom has served its purpose thus far, the point I am trying to make is that the trend of European opinion is very much against nuclear, so those countries are unlikely to continue pumping the money into Euratom that it has hitherto enjoyed. That is why we need to look elsewhere. It is perfectly possible for us to have a bilateral relationship with France. We have one on nuclear defence at the moment, which was signed in 2010; we can do the same on power. There is absolutely no threat to our participation in some of the global research programmes, such as the one at Culham and the ITER in the south of France, which currently includes Korea, China, Japan and Russia. There are lots of ways in which we can be involved.
My message today, I guess, is that people have to learn that Euratom cannot be part of project fear. It must not be part of project fear; it is far too strategically important to us not to reach out to the rest of the world. I am quite happy for us to have an associate membership, if that is what is required, but there is a world beyond the EU, and we have seen that in medical isotopes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) said, no one is pretending that we will not be sent medical isotopes when we come out, but that points to a strategic problem because of our membership of Euratom: we should be manufacturing those isotopes here. Why have we not got a reactor that will create them? We have the largest agglomeration of life sciences research on the planet, yet we do not have this feather in our cap—this piece of the jigsaw. Notwithstanding the SNP’s antipathy to nuclear, perhaps we should build that kind of reactor in Scotland, given that thousands and thousands of Scots benefit from medical isotopes every year.
The argument about Euratom has exposed the strategic nature of nuclear to us, in defence, civil nuclear and medical, and allows us now to think more coherently about which way we go. Civil nuclear is an international effort. Regulation should be at international level, as should partnership, so that we can finally find the holy grail of fusion power, which will solve our power generation problems well into the next century.
Euratom Membership
Kit Malthouse Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The sentence that I think sums up how we got into this mess came from the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who said that we have to start getting answers to some of these questions. How about getting answers to the questions before we had the referendum, or how about Members asking those questions before they trooped through the Lobby to vote for the shortest and most destructive Act that this Parliament will ever pass, and possibly the only Act of Parliament for which the explanatory notes were half a page longer than the Bill? The fact is that the first full day of debate on the triggering of article 50 lasted almost 11 hours, and Euratom was mentioned once by a Conservative Back Bencher—hats off to the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey). His mention of it came nine hours into the debate.
The Government’s entire White Paper on leaving the European Union devoted only eight sentences to Euratom. It is described as an important priority for the Government—so important that it is mentioned on page 44, paragraph 831. Even then, there is no recognition whatsoever of the need for life-saving medical isotopes, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who is no longer in her place. She has had an illustrious career saving lives in the NHS using radioisotopes. Without the Euratom treaty, the United Kingdom will have no—I repeat “no”—reliable source of those radioisotopes.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that plenty of countries outside Euratom have easy access to medical isotopes and that there is no reason why, if we leave, we will suddenly become an international pariah and be denied those treatments?
Peter Grant
I accept that membership is not essential, but this is not the only item on which we need negotiations finalised and ready to implement within a ridiculously short and entirely self-inflicted timetable. If Euratom were the only thing the Government had to negotiate between now and March 2019, there would be no problem. But there are areas that will have an essential long-term impact that the Government will not have time to negotiate properly in order to get the best possible deal. With a bit more candour from the Government about how difficult that process will be, we might all be better off.
Carol Monaghan
Absolutely. I do not know about all the European Court judgments, but that certainly is not something that many of us have heard anything about. Euratom has operated very successfully for 60 years, but now we seem to be taking ourselves out of the regulatory framework.
Carol Monaghan
No, I am going to make some progress.
Any future negotiations on whatever membership of Euratom we might have—I hope that it is full membership, but there could be associate membership—must include the Scottish Government, as they are dealing with the regulation of nuclear facilities in Scotland. Some people have talked about putting our own regulatory framework in place. Of course, we could get our own regulations in place, but the problem is that the clock is ticking, we do not have a lot of time and producing these frameworks takes many years, not 20 months. That is a real issue.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned medical isotopes. The Euratom Supply Agency ensures the security of supply of medical isotopes for all members of Euratom. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) gave us some statistics. She said that 500,000 diagnostic scans and 10,000 cancer treatments are carried out annually as a result of those isotopes. However, we cannot produce our own medical isotopes and must therefore import them. Medical isotopes have very short half-lives, which means they need to be transported quickly, and there are only a few facilities in the world that produce them. A number of the reactors that produce medical isotopes are coming to the end of their useful lifespan, which means that in future there could be real problems with their supply worldwide anyway. This is not the time to take ourselves out of the agency that ensures that we have a supply.
Paul Blomfield
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, which demonstrates her commitment to the Culham facility not only in her current role but in her previous job. She is right on both points. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon made this point forcefully: we need certainty now—not at some stage in the future, but now—because otherwise the facility is at risk.
Kit Malthouse
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that actually the biggest threat to fusion research in Europe generally is the stance of the European Union itself? Given that Germany has decided to phase out nuclear power, the hostility of the Austrians and the fact that the anti-science Greens now pepper the European Parliament and parliaments across the EU, the likelihood of Horizon 2020 funding continuing to go into nuclear research at the same level is very low, and likely to reduce.
Paul Blomfield
Those thoughts are contradicted by the enormous investment that the European Union has put into the Culham facility and is committing to.
Moving back to the benefits of Euratom, it oversees the transport of nuclear fuel across the EU and enables vital co-operation on information, infrastructure and the funding of nuclear energy. It provides safeguarding inspections for all civilian nuclear facilities in the UK—a point made well by the hon. Members for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), who was right to say that if we get this wrong, it will have an economically crushing impact on the UK. Euratom is the legal owner of all nuclear material, and is the legal purchaser, certifier and guarantor of nuclear materials and technologies that the UK purchases. That includes our nuclear trade with the United States.
As has been highlighted this week and by other Members, including the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), Euratom also plays an important role in our NHS. A Conservative Member questioned that point, but I take the judgment of the Royal College of Radiologists, which has expressed genuine concern that cancer patients will face delays in treatments if supply is threatened. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) highlighted the National Audit Office report on the risks to Hinkley Point. In all areas, our membership of Euratom is vital.
Indeed, the Government stated that they want to replicate the arrangements we have with Euratom. They have talked about probably the exact same benefits, in the way that they have about the trade deal they want in place of single market membership and customs union membership. It is an ambition that they have yet to demonstrate how they will achieve.
Outside Euratom, the Government would have to negotiate individual nuclear co-operation agreements with every single country outside the EU with which we currently co-operate on these matters. Those would be complex, lengthy negotiations within a 20-month framework. I am interested to hear from the Minister how far they have progressed on those. The Nuclear Industry Association has been clear that if we left without them in place, it would be a disaster—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), who is a strong champion of these issues.
All this prompts the question: why add this whole other burden to run alongside the negotiations for our withdrawal from the European Union? The bigger issue at play here was summed up very well—I loved the football analogy—by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner): the Prime Minister’s obsession with the European Court of Justice. In that context, it is deeply unfortunate that Ministers from the Department for Exiting the European Union have dodged today’s debate. It is becoming something of a habit. We have had three debates in this and the main Chamber on exiting the European Union since the election. DExEU Ministers have dodged every one. That is an unfortunate habit, because both sides of this House demand a level of accountability that they are not demonstrating they are up for.
Back in February, I challenged the then Minister of State at DExEU, the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), about allegations that it was the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice that had led the Government to issue a notice to withdraw from Euratom alongside the notice to withdraw from the EU. In response he told the House, along much the same lines that he has repeated this morning, that this was not the case. He said:
“it would not be possible for the UK to leave the EU and continue its current membership of Euratom.”—[Official Report, 8 February 2017; Vol. 621, c. 523.]
The right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) and the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) have expressed the view, which many of us share, that legal opinions are never that straightforward. The hon. Member for Henley made that very explicit.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kit Malthouse Excerpts(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Lady makes an important point. As the Prime Minister made clear in her speech the week before last, we greatly value the contribution that EU nationals make in our institutions. The Government have been exceptionally clear that during the negotiations we want to protect the status of EU nationals already living here. The only circumstances in which that would not be possible are if British citizens’ rights in other EU member states were not protected in return.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
We invest £2 billion a year in health life sciences research through our research councils and the National Institute for Health Research. Through funding for the biomedical catalyst, we are helping businesses to bring that research to market. We announced in the new industrial strategy that Sir John Bell will be leading work on a strategy to make the UK the best place in the world to invest in life sciences.
Kit Malthouse
Alongside that welcome support, private investment will be critical to the success of the industry. Will the Minister outline what suggestions he might make in his Budget submission to the Chancellor to stimulate such investment?
Joseph Johnson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Access to finance is key to a dynamic life sciences sector in the UK. In November, the Prime Minister announced a review of patient capital to identify barriers to access to long-term finance for growing firms, looking at all aspects of the financial system. We look forward to the review’s recommendations ahead of the autumn statement.
Industrial Strategy Consultation
Kit Malthouse Excerpts(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity, through a consultation that seeks to establish as much common ground as possible on our priorities for the future, to work with colleges and employers to ensure that the reforms that are needed are put in place so that we can equip his and all our constituents with the skills that they will need to get good jobs in the future.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I applaud the Secretary of State for putting life sciences front and centre of his industrial strategy and point out that the industry’s largest customer is the national health service. Will he therefore confirm that, as part of his review of procurement, the NHS’s inflexible and unimaginative procurement processes will fall within the scope of the review, not least in relation to drugs, devices, therapies and diagnostics?
Greg Clark
It is evident that this is a whole-Government Green Paper; not just my Department but all Departments are joined in it, and the Health Secretary is an enthusiastic participant and will want to be part of those conversations —advised, I am sure, by the expertise that my hon. Friend brings to the subject.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kit Malthouse Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark
I will take that point away. On the immediate impact, I know that the local enterprise partnership is engaged in ensuring that the delays will be overcome.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Many will commend the Secretary of State for putting science, and in particular life sciences, front and centre in his industrial strategy. I wonder whether, as he plans the future of that industry, he could work closely with the Secretary of State for Health, given that the attitude to innovation of the industry’s largest customer, the national health service, will be critical to the industry’s growth in the decades to come?
Greg Clark
I certainly will. I was interested to read my hon. Friend’s article in the newspaper earlier this week, which made that point. It is important that the Government take a collective approach, and I have already had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary about how we can make the most of the NHS in life science.
Fourth Industrial Revolution
Kit Malthouse Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House acknowledges that the UK is in a strong economic position to take advantage of the Fourth Industrial Revolution; welcomes the view of the World Economic Forum that fusing physical, digital and biological technologies can promote further economic growth; notes that small and medium-sized businesses across the country contribute invaluable expertise and market leadership; and calls upon the Government to continue introducing and supporting policies that keep the UK at the forefront of this revolution in the future.
I thank the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) and other Members across the House for supporting my application for the debate, and the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to bring the motion before the House. I believe that this is the first time that the topic has been debated in the Chamber.
Two hundred and fifty years ago, the world’s first industrial revolution began here in Britain. New engines driven by coal and steam made manufactured goods and allowed them to be transported across the country on new railways, roads, bridges and viaducts, heralding a new era of British industrial strength.
Now, 250 years later, after two further industrial ages, driven first by electricity and then by electronics and the internet, we stand on the cusp of a new, fourth, industrial revolution. Since the turn of the century, we have witnessed an unprecedented fusion of technologies that blurs the traditional boundaries between the physical, digital and biological spheres. This fourth industrial revolution is now accelerating, characterised by an exponential increase in automation, digital connectivity and technological innovation. Breakthroughs and new products in fields such as artificial intelligence, advanced robotics, the internet of things, driverless cars, drones, 3D printing and nanotechnology, to name but a few, have captured the imagination of the public and the attention of policymakers.
This revolution offers significant economic growth and productivity advantages to the countries that seize those corresponding opportunities, as well as new jobs, lower prices, more competition and greater product choice for consumers. These technological advances will also disrupt almost every industry in every country and pose profound economic, political and social challenges, especially to countries and communities that are unprepared or unresponsive.
At the global level, the World Economic Forum has taken the lead in exploring this issue. Indeed, the 4IR, as it has become known, was the theme at its annual meeting this year in Davos. At a national level, however, we in this House have a key role to play by leading the debate, understanding the opportunities and challenges, and making the 4IR a success for Britain. The fact that we have a new Government Department and new Minister recently in place, and a new industrial strategy, makes today’s debate all the more timely and relevant.
My view on the issue is clear. Britain is in a global race for economic success and we must actively seize the opportunities presented by the 4IR to drive economic growth, proactively shaping and harnessing the technological and social changes that it brings for the nation’s benefit. Britain can and should develop an early economic comparative advantage to become a world leader in the new 4IR global economy, but to do this, we must take a proactive, free market approach to policy formulation, and prepare for the impact of disruptive technologies, not just react to them. Put simply, we must make mastering the new 4IR a key part of the Government’s industrial strategy. Just as Britain launched the first industrial revolution 250 years ago, it can and must lead the new 4IR in this new century.
To understand the scale of the innovation that is taking place on a practical level, we should consider for a moment some of the new products and services that are already transforming the way we live and work. The 4IR’s key technological advances are pervasive digital connectivity, widespread automation, and advanced computer software based on machine learning and artificial intelligence techniques. All these give rise to a range of economically disruptive products and services, including driverless vehicles, robotic manufacturing and 3D printing. This shift from the simple digitisation of information that is so characteristic of the third industrial revolution to a fusion of technologies that will help businesses, streamline production, lower costs and deliver new products is truly revolutionary.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Well done to my hon. Friend and county colleague for securing the debate. I recognise the technologies that he said underpinned the fourth industrial revolution, but does he agree that other technologies will revolutionise our lives, not least synthetic biology, in which we are a world leader? Will he support me in encouraging the Government and the Minister to revive the vigour that is needed for the eight great technologies policy, which the Government adopted not four years ago?
Mr Mak
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that he has a long record of passionate activity in this field. I certainly support him in his aims, and look forward to working with him on that. I will mention those technologies later in my speech. What he said reflects the transition from the digitisation of information to the real fusion of technologies, whether biological, physical or digital. For example, it is already conceivable that entire factories could become automated, requiring only a constant supply of energy and raw materials in order to operate 24 hours a day. That certainly affects the biotech sector as well.
Similarly, the 4IR is already blurring the lines between manufacturing and the service sector as networked products make life easier for consumers. For example, smart boilers that monitor themselves to detect faults, call an engineer and even pre-order spare parts are already making their way into the consumer market.
This fast-moving and innovative environment to which my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) referred also presents opportunities for Britain’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which are often the most nimble when it comes to job creation and launching new products. An excellent example comes from my Havant constituency, where local start-up Dream 3D is getting a head start in the 4IR economy by selling 3D printers and providing training about how to use them. The founder James Preen and his growing team have seized the opportunities presented by the 4IR to create new jobs in a new industry, selling new products and generating new wealth.