Hinkley Point C

Debate between Lord King of Bridgwater and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 15th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I very much agree with my noble friend that we should learn from our experiences. That is something I always try to ensure we do in any area I am involved with. That obviously includes this. The honest truth is that this has been a difficult decision. That is one of the reasons why it was delayed, although we ended up with a decision in September, which was the most recent scheduled date.

My noble friend asks why there will be two reactors instead of one. There are two answers there. There are economies of scale. We have the skills and capability. The second point is that the consortium, led by EDF, came forward with a proposal for two reactors allowing for all of that and bringing many benefits that were weighed against the difficulties. We have made some changes, particularly relating to security protections, but we believe this project represents value for money for 7% of supplies of electricity over 60 years, of a sort that is a secure and reliable baseload, as they call it in the industry.

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords, can I cheer up my noble friend by welcoming this Statement on behalf of the people of Bridgwater, who have helped to ensure that Hinkley A and B have both provided loyal and continuous service over very many years to the nation? If there was to be a new nuclear power station, Hinkley is precisely the right place to put it. It is also a bit of a relief to everybody. My noble friend may know, and other noble Lords who have seen the pictures on television will know, that half the groundworks have already been done in anticipation of what they thought would be a favourable decision. It is a great relief that this has been decided.

I take seriously the points made by the two former Secretaries of State for Energy and by others. There are concerns about the experiences of the two power stations under construction. I hope that the advantage of coming third is that those lessons have all been learned. I hope the Government are fully satisfied in that respect. I do not think it is sufficient to say, “Well, it won’t be our cost if they’re not”, because the problems that would flow from it would be very substantial.

Something that is also very important indeed and is quite different from Hinkley A and B is that we never had cyberwarfare in the times of Hinkley A and B. That will become an ever-growing threat to critical national infrastructure. The need to ensure we protect the critical national infrastructure is enormously important.

As it is, I say to my noble friend that what is now happening is the relaunch of British involvement in the nuclear industry. I welcome the fact there is to be a nuclear college in Bridgwater for the training of nuclear engineers and apprenticeships. Now at last we will see a real chance to rebuild the position we used to have in the nuclear world and which, sadly, we have seriously lost.

I have only one other criticism. When we go back into the nuclear business, one comment in the Statement was that it will put out electricity for 60 years. That will certainly be a great improvement on the length of time that Hinkley Point A and Hinkley Point B managed. Is that a realistic assessment?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his support. I completely agree: this is a good deal for Britain and especially for our nuclear industry, which used to be world-leading and could be again. It is also excellent news for the south-west. I talked this morning to the local MPs and the local council. They are very pleased. They had the sword of Damocles of a loss of a very important project to that area hanging over them and are delighted by the news today.

I agree with my noble friend about the college. It is extremely good that, with the help of EDF, we were able to set up a facility for training in the nuclear industry. That can be of merit right across the UK.

Cyberwarfare is a new reality. It was obviously one thing we took into account in looking at all the different components of this deal. We strengthened the security protections and of course we have a civil nuclear police, who I am looking forward to meeting and talking to shortly in my capacity as the new Energy Minister.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord King of Bridgwater and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble friend say whether I am right in thinking that there has been some change in the order of business? I was under the impression that there would now be an Urgent Question on health. I myself arrived late in the Chamber, and that ought to be taken into account.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

In the circumstances, it would be right to hear the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord King of Bridgwater and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

I am afraid that I have to keep my back to the noble Lord; I am not allowed to turn around and address him, but I say to him that absolutely, in these circumstances—and if I may say so, he is a greatly distinguished public servant—this is a very important role for Parliament. Parliament has to pass this and no Minister is going to stand up and look a fool in front of either House by going through the procedure of making the case for what is an exceptional power, which would be exceptionally used in some extreme case. But in the end for the Minister to say, “I’m terribly sorry, it’s an outrage, it’s an abuse of public money but there is no way we can do anything about it” would be quite unacceptable.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I know this has been an emotional debate but I believe strongly that the power of sunlight needs to be introduced to facility time in the wider public sector. On the back of important manifesto promises, this and the back-up power that we debated in the previous group of amendments was of course accepted without amendment in the other place, despite the modest increase in regulation they represent. As my noble friend Lord King said, to use the power, we would have to carry an affirmative order in both Houses.

I set out in the debate on the previous clauses the reasons why the Bill introduces requirements on public sector employers to publish information on facility time. It will be for public sector employers, not the Government, to manage the amount of time, if efficiencies exist, having had regard to the information that is published under Clause 12. However, it is only fair to the taxpayer that a reserve power exists should employers choose not to limit facility time to a reasonable amount.

Contrary to much of what we have heard, Clause 13 does not seek to ban facility time. That is a misconception that has been repeated, perhaps outside the Chamber, but it is not our intention. I say on the record that it is very much a power of last resort. Only if publication and the proper monitoring and recording that follow do not achieve the aim of having reasonable levels of facility time will it be necessary to consider the imposition of a cap.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord King of Bridgwater and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 8th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I am afraid that we will have to disagree on that point.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

The noble Lord, Lord Oates, ought to have listened more carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who put this point clearly. It is a question of disproportion and whether it is unreasonable. I am very touched by this debate because the Minister is trying to limit the number of occupations that should be subject to this requirement and the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Collins, are pleading for certain other categories to be included as well, which is an extraordinary event.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My noble friend has kindly made the point that I was about to make about the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Perhaps I should say finally that we do not want confusion and conflation of the two terms. In any event, the supervisory bodies of the ILO fulfil an informal advisory role and their decisions are not legally binding on the UK.

I turn to Amendment 18, which proposes that the Government will have only one chance to make subordinate legislation on the services to be covered by the 40% threshold, which I think is what the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, explained. In our skeleton regulations we specified important public services, as I have said, according to the available evidence but we acknowledged that the significance of public services could change in the future. Today’s important services are not the same as those of 50 years ago and they will again be different in 50 years’ time, when the next transformational change—the successor to the internet—has arrived. Moreover, it would not be right for services to remain specified in secondary legislation if reduced service levels and staff absence become less disruptive to the public. Equally, it would not be right if the Government could not capture further public services within the limits set by the Bill, if further evidence was obtained on the impact of strike action in those areas.

My noble friend Lord Leigh does not seem to be here but, to give a curtain raiser, I was not intending to accept the amendment that we were about to discuss next. I hope that is not unparliamentary, but we did discuss this at Second Reading and that amendment, Amendment 4, expands things in a way that is not the Government’s intention.

Finally, Amendment 6 is a good example of the kind of agreement between the Opposition and the Government—in fact, all sides—which is often possible in this House. We initially included ancillary workers because staff who are not on the front line but play a supportive role could be critical to the delivery of important public services. There is a case here, but we have accepted, on reflection, that it would add unwelcome complexity for unions and others involved. We can all agree that the word “ancillary” is open to a number of different interpretations. Having agreed this amendment, the Committee can be assured that only workers who deliver an important public service would be included within the threshold. The regulations would specify, as now proposed, exactly who will be covered. Unions would not have to consider whether there were any additional ancillary workers on top of this. I commend Amendment 6 and hope that the Committee will be able to agree it.