Smart Meters Bill (Fifth sitting)

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. A commitment to an annual report to be laid before both Houses goes a long way towards satisfying our concerns about whether these particular wider commitments should be placed in the Bill. I thank the Minister for his commitment and will not press new clause 4 to a vote.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I want briefly to add my voice and that of my party on new clause 4. I know that the Minister will agree that we need continually to reassure consumers that their data are securely and robustly protected in the course of this roll-out. I know that he will agree how important it is to ensure that meters currently installed are always to the highest specification of function and data security.

The Minister will also be concerned—like, I am sure, everybody else in the room—about the evidence that was taken that the smart meter network is being installed before its requirements as an internet-connected energy system have been fully determined. We would expect—I know that the Minister will feel this—that the Minister would do everything in his power to ensure that consumers are best protected amid this roll-out.

I impress on the Minister and remind him of the concerns raised in March 2016 in the Financial Times that GCHQ had intervened in smart meter security, claiming that the agency had discovered glaring loopholes in meter design. As we move forward with these considerations, I want to impress those concerns on the Minister.

[Richard Harrington]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and am very pleased that GCHQ did that, because it shows how it was included in the process of getting to the security stage that we are at today.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Smart meter communication licensee administration orders

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

Thank you, Mr Gapes. I am sure Opposition and Government alike will take your warning on a Division. I hope it is not necessary because I hope to explain in the time allowed, as I have done with other amendments—some successfully and some less than successfully.

I can see clearly that this amendment would mean that in the unlikely event of insolvency—we all agree it is unlikely—any regulations that we will need to bring forward about the administrator’s priorities, which we have discussed before, would need to be approved by a resolution of both Houses. I can see the principle behind that, and it is a noble one, but I would argue that because of the speed required and the technical nature of these regulations, it is appropriate to use the negative procedure, which the hon. Member for Southampton, Test does not like.

I made points in the debates on the previous amendments about the choices that the administrator has to make and the speed with which they have to make them. It is considered reasonable—and I know the hon. Gentleman would agree—that the Government should guide the administrator in respect of this. That is why we are asking for these powers, so that the Secretary of State can make regulations specifying which activities carried out by DCC must be prioritised by the administrator and how this should be done. The question boils down to the nature of these provisions, which I argue are technical and therefore suitable for this kind of procedure.

The DCC has core services that provide energy suppliers and others with around 110 service requests. Again, I would ask both Mr Gapes and the Committee to consider the practicality of the affirmative system. This covers a range of areas, for example the provision of pre-payment services, the management of security credentials, changes of supplier events, the technical configuration of devices, access to network—I could go on, there are 110 of them. It would be necessary to review these services and prioritise them against new services, which I have mentioned before and which may be offered.

I argue that the regulations made under clause 2 would be largely administrative and technical in nature, focused on the specifics of implementation and acting to narrow rather than add to policy scope, entirely to protect consumers’ interests. We need to act promptly to achieve this, so that the administrator has appropriate direction. I believe that the procedure proposed will provide Parliament with sufficient oversight for supporting this ambition. I hope, not just because of time constraints but because I think it is the right thing, that the hon. Gentleman will understand our concerns and agree to withdraw his amendment.

[Patricia Gibson]

I want to speak to this amendment in relation to parliamentary scrutiny. In my party, we would welcome any enhancement of parliamentary scrutiny, but I need to draw the Minister’s attention to a number of concerns, and I am worried about time.

I am speaking about the need for enhanced scrutiny because I do not believe that the amendments allow for sufficient scrutiny, for reasons I will go on to discuss. Energy UK and Ofcom both state that aggressive selling is wrong. I am sure we would all concur with that, but that is little comfort until aggressive selling is properly addressed. That is going on and that is why more and enhanced scrutiny is so important.

It is my understanding that Ofgem has the power to fine energy companies up to 10% of their annual turnover if they fail to meet their licence conditions.

[Stephen Kerr]

I am a little confused about the hon. Lady’s line of approach because I cannot see the relevance of what she is saying. It no doubt has lots of merit—I do not dispute that—but I cannot see its relevance to the amendment.

[Patricia Gibson]

I draw attention to these points because the amendment is about enhanced parliamentary scrutiny. I am simply pointing out the need for further enhancement of such scrutiny, and I wonder what the Minister thinks about that—he is looking at me bewildered.

[The Chair]

Order. I do not want us to go too far from the amendment. The hon. Lady is focusing on the specific amendment, but I hope we do not go too far in interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

I am simply pointing out that Ofgem has the power to fine energy companies up to 10% of their annual turnover if they fail to meet their licence conditions. One relevant licence condition is for each energy company to install smart meters in consumers’ homes by the end of 2020, and failure to do so incurs a financial penalty for those energy companies. In respect of parliamentary scrutiny, perhaps that is what gives rise to the aggressive selling about which I and many others are concerned. What does the Minister think about that?

[The Chair]

Order. The hon. Lady needs to get back to the specific terms of amendment 20.

[Patricia Gibson]

I simply say that there are a number of concerns about how smart meters are being rolled out.

[The Chair]

Order. Those concerns can be addressed later in the debate. I wish to focus specifically on amendment 20.

[Patricia Gibson]

I will raise my concerns at another time.

[Richard Harrington]

I am happy to talk to the hon. Lady about her consumer concerns, but I agree with your ruling, Mr Gapes, that what she has said is not relevant to this amendment, which is about technical considerations, and parliamentary scrutiny of those, in the event of the demise of the DCC and a special administration regime being put in. The point is not relevant to the amendment, but it is a valid concern. I am happy to discuss it with her informally, if not formally now.

Smart Meters Bill (First sitting)

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kerr]

No, it does.

Bill Bullen: As I said, there is interoperability between SMETS 1 meters. In fact, there are only two or three types of meter out there, so actually the same headings are operating all of those meters. The interoperability problems of SMETS 1 is an issue that has been massively overplayed. Frankly, it is also giving some suppliers an easy excuse not to support a SMETS 1 product, saying that interoperability is difficult. It is not difficult. At the end of the day, you are talking about very few electronic messages that you need to exchange with a smart meter system, and it is not difficult. It really is not.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Q Like probably most people in this room, I can see that there are benefits to smart meters, but I wonder whether I could put to you a number of concerns that have been raised specifically with me about the roll-out. Perhaps they might explain the difficulty in penetrating the market as quickly and deeply as we would like at this stage, and indeed by 2020.

Would you like to comment on concerns, raised by trading standards, that not enough of the energy companies are making it clear to consumers that they can refuse a smart meter if they wish? There are real concerns that some energy companies may be guilty of breaching the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

What do you think about the idea that consumers are being sold the meters—by “sold” I am talking about the idea—as free, when we all know that in fact they are not free? The other thing is that, as far as I am aware, some of the models rely quite heavily on a wi-fi signal, which may or may not be available to all consumers. I may have got that wrong, because I am not terribly technically minded.

One of my concerns is what we do with the information when we have it. If we imagine a future where everybody has a smart meter, will that be used to charge a higher rate for electricity usage during peak times, when families cannot avoid using it? Will the need to use electricity at specific times be used to increase the price in the market?

I realise I am throwing a list at you, and I apologise for that. The idea that you pay for what you use is attractive to consumers, but the fact is that when a smart meter is installed on your property, as I know from my own experience, your direct debit bill stays exactly the same, because they spread it over the year. Yes, you are paying for what you use, but when you reduce your usage, your monthly or quarterly bill does not necessarily go down. What are your thoughts on that, given that it is sold comprehensively as, “You only pay for what you use”? You do, but not necessarily at the time when you use it. You will also know that there are concerns about the security of the data. I know that I have given you a long list, but I would be very interested to hear your thoughts.

Audrey Gallacher: I will run through it as quickly as possible. The questions you have raised are all legitimate ones, which are discussed on an ongoing basis through the programme. There is a lot of scrutiny and oversight of the programme, and everybody is working hard to get it right, so your questions are the right ones.

Loads of stuff has been done on security. This will not be happening over the internet, and GCHQ has been all over it. There are really strict security protocols; you will probably have experts in later today who will know more about it than I do, but if there is anything that we should be worried about in the programme, it is not security. A lot has been done there, for obvious reasons. It is a critical national infrastructure, not to mention the impact on individual consumers in their own home if something goes wrong. I would take some comfort that we have that.

The question of deemed appointments is a tricky one. This is an opt-in programme. The Government’s manifesto commitment is that customers should be offered a smart meter, but suppliers have an obligation to install them by 2020, so it is already quite a complex policy environment. Companies have to go out there and sell the benefits of smart meters and encourage consumers to take them. We are working hard to do that. We have also had some feedback from Ofgem, the regulator, that companies should be taking a much more assertive approach, because we have heard reports that they are really struggling to get people to take a day off work to stay in the house and get the smart meter installed.

We need to sell the benefits and we also have to try to encourage people. Clearly, there is a line there that should not be crossed, because it is not currently a mandatory programme. At some point in the future, we might want to think about the policy framework to ensure that we get as many meters out there as possible, and not just for the individual consumer benefits they would bring—a whole business case around the programme is predicated on as many people as possible having meters. We need to be really careful on communications: sell the benefits and encourage people to get meters, but do not cross that line. That is really important.

Thirdly, you currently pay for metering equipment. It is free at the point of installation, so there should be no charge. Let us be quite clear that nobody will be charged up front, but, like everything else in the energy system, there is an associated cost, whether it is the pipes and wires getting the gas and electricity to users or the metering equipment, right down to the customer service. The key is to make sure that it is done as efficiently as possible. It is a competitive market and it is really important that costs are kept down.

I have a lot of sympathy with the point about direct debits and budgets, but we know from research that people like to spread the cost of their energy over the year. They do not want to see big spikes on their bills—high bills in the winter when they are using loads and nothing in the summer when the gas central heating is off. Smart meters should allow customers to move to an option where they can pay monthly as they go, but for a lot of people direct debit is a budgeting tool and has been very popular.

As for the future, Bill spoke about what he is doing for prepayment meter customers. Some analysis suggests that when everybody has smart meters, up to 50% will not be paying by direct debit, but on a pay-as-you-go basis, as with mobile phones. You will probably see the market and how people engage with their energy supply and pay for it radically changing as we roll this out. That will be good, if there are innovations and benefits. Obviously, we need to make sure that people are adequately protected and know what they are doing from a trading standards perspective.

Finally, on data, a lot of protocols are in place to make sure that we are quite clear that it is customers’ data coming out of the meters. People can opt out of more granular data collection. If you do not want information to be taken daily, you can opt out of that. Right now, it is taken monthly. If the supplier wants to take data from the smart meter every half hour, the customer has to provide consent. A lot of rules have been put in place to ensure that data use and privacy are at the forefront of the programme.

Bill Bullen: A couple of points are relevant to us. First, on customers accepting meters, until the prepay price cap came in we were typically saving customers something like £100 compared with the big six, if they switched to a prepay meter. Whether that counts as being free or not, I do not know, but they were clearly making significant financial savings from switching to smart prepay. That is one of the reasons customers do it, in addition to the other benefits.

Clearly, we are a competitive company. Customers could always refuse to take our product; if they want to stick with a dumb meter, they are entitled to. Something like 80% of the prepay market still has not switched to smart, but 20% has, so more and more are doing so.

Audrey has already answered the point about direct debits. People are going to switch more to pay-as-you-go and be totally in control of the balance. We think that is going to be much more important going forward. Basically, people can take total control over their budget.

[Steve McCabe]

Q I have three quick questions. If I have this right, the programme is behind schedule, the cost is escalating and the Minister now wants to increase the timescale and take extra powers. What needs to be done to ensure that this thing stays on track and within cost and does not become an albatross for the consumer?

Bill Bullen: That is difficult. We are already a long way down the track of delays and cost escalations. Consumers already pay a significant chunk of their bill towards the Government’s smart meter programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe]

Q But it is wrong for anyone to phone up and say, “You are legally obliged to have one.” That person is clearly breaching the code of practice.

Rob Salter-Church: That is right. We gather data on a regular basis on suppliers’ compliance with the code of practice. If we saw a systematic problem, then we would take action against a supplier.

[Patricia Gibson]

Q I want to probe this a little further; I raised it with the previous witness and I would be interested in your thoughts, given that you are in charge of the code of practice. Trading standards have raised concerns that there are potential offences being committed under the misleading actions provision of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations Act 2008. They have said that these infractions may be being committed because some energy suppliers are giving the impression that smart meter installation is compulsory. What are your thoughts on that? Have you had any contact or dialogue with trading standards on their very serious concerns?

Rob Salter-Church: The first thing I would do is to reiterate what I said earlier: we expect suppliers to be very clear that there is no compulsion on consumers to have a smart meter. We are driving suppliers to be as clear as they can on what the benefits are, so that customers want to have a smart meter.

In answer to your point about trading standards, we engage with a range of organisations, including Citizen’s Advice, and we do from time to time talk to trading standards to gather information about where there are potential licence breaches. We would take action. I do not believe that I have had a discussion with trading standards, but I can check whether there has been one between the organisations and write in, if that is helpful.

[Patricia Gibson]

Q I think, like you, that there are lots of benefits to smart meter installation. Can you, in your position, understand that people are naturally suspicious? Some consumers are aware that they do not in fact have to have smart meters, despite having been told that they must have them. Others, however, have been told that they need to have them, and they accept that at face value. Some consumers are concerned about what this collective energy information is going to be used for. Is it going to be used to hike prices up at certain times of the day of peak usage? Some people are concerned about the security of the data.

We can all appreciate that there are benefits to smart meters, but can you understand those real concerns of consumers? In addition, there is the fact that the idea of a smart meter has been sold as something free, when it is clearly not.

Rob Salter-Church: Absolutely. I understand that certain consumers would have concerns. What the Government have done in designing a regulatory framework—and what we do in enforcing that regulatory framework—is very important in making sure that the protections are in place and that suppliers adhere to them in order to protect consumers. You referred to data access and security: there is a framework in place, referred to earlier by Audrey, around protections for consumers to make sure that if they do not want to give their data to suppliers, they do not have to. Those rules are important, to give consumers confidence in having a smart meter to make sure that they are in control.

[Patricia Gibson]

Q Do you think that consumers are aware that they can protect their data in the way that you suggest?

Rob Salter-Church: Yes, I believe they are. Suppliers have clear obligations. What the smart metering installation code of practice does is require those to be explained. There is a quarterly survey that suppliers have to undertake to check compliance with the smart metering installation code of practice. That gathers data to check whether suppliers are indeed being clear to their customers in explaining what options they have got around giving access to data. I believe that that is happening in practice.

[Grahame Morris]

Q Just quickly, given that time is short—Rob, your opening remarks were really helpful about the terms of reference as the regulator. However, we are being asked, here, to extend the powers of the Secretary of State. Are any of the powers that we are proposing to change through the Bill related to smart meters, and if so, which ones? Angus, the Bill proposes that costs should be recouped from customers in the event of an administration, rather than from the insolvent company. What is your view on that?

Rob Salter-Church: The powers are solely around smart metering. They are an extension of the Government’s existing powers in relation to smart metering and, then, the special administration regime for the DCC.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill (Fourth sitting)

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 2nd November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I want to speak in support of amendments 1, 3 and 8 and new clause 1. The Minister knows, as certainly it is no secret, that the Scottish National party absolutely does not support the decision to leave Euratom. We have been told that it is essential and a requirement that we do so, and that we are where we are, but I urge the Minister—as I have before—to explore to the fullest possible extent the legal advice that is, at best, differing and conflicting, as that may be the best way to go.

The Prime Minister has told us, and the Minister has reiterated it, that the UK Government seek a close relationship with Euratom. I suggest that the closest relationship would be to remain a member, but if we cannot and if the Minister stretches every sinew, explores every avenue and finds that we cannot remain a member of Euratom, we want to remain an associate member, as has been pointed out. We have heard that Switzerland became an associate member of Euratom in 2014, under article 206. That arrangement could be a way in which we can continue to access funding for nuclear research.

Although safeguard regulations are certainly reserved to the UK Parliament, the Minister will know that there are areas of regulation that are devolved to the Scottish Government, for example the regulation of waste and emissions from nuclear sites. When talking about nuclear safeguards I do not feel that we can properly and safely artificially separate those areas, so I hope that the Minister will involve the Scottish Government at every stage of the Euratom negotiation process to ensure, whatever the deal, outcome or final situation, that the deal also works for Scotland.

With regard to amendment 8, we must be mindful—I am sure that the Minister is—that critical pillars of scientific research and medicine must be considered as an important part of the Bill. Following our departure from Euratom—if that happens—the UK will have to strike new regulatory agreements with the EU and other trading partners, to continue to import nuclear materials. That will only be possible with a new regulatory system. I am tempted to quote the expert advice from Tom Greatrex, the chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, and of course a former Member of Parliament. He points out that:

“While medical isotopes are not classed as special fissile material and so not subject to safeguarding provisions, it is not accurate to say that Euratom has no impact. They are subject”

to the treaty.

He is echoed by the president-elect of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine, who tells us:

“The transport of isotopes across borders is regulated so it is not something you can send in a package”.

There is room for question and to search for more clarity, which I hope the Minister can provide. We need to know the strategy for the trading and transportation of nuclear materials, such as fuel for reactors and isotopes. EU officials and independent experts have stated that

“these isotopes would be subject to wider Euratom rules on the trade and transportation of nuclear materials after Brexit.”

I hope that the Minister will take the concerns addressed in the amendments on board. I am very interested to hear what he has to say.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I said earlier that I do not think there is public energy behind us not participating in Euratom in some way. Similarly, in our discussions, neither the experts we had in front of us nor hon. Members said that leaving Euratom is desirable and that we should actively choose to do it. Rather, it is a necessity of circumstance, and this Bill is a contingency to cover such an event.

I am in favour of this cluster of amendments and the new clause, because it is important that we provide evidence that we have taken every step to try to maintain what is currently a successful relationship. In doing so, we will resolve the debilitating difference of legal opinion on this matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test characterised it.

The Minister said clearly that we are leaving Euratom, but on Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), who at that point was a member of the ministerial team for the Department for Exiting the European Union, said:

“Triggering article 50 therefore also entails giving notice to leave Euratom.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2017; Vol. 620, c. 1131.]

I believe there is a difference between saying we are leaving and saying we have to leave, as, in effect, the right hon. Gentleman said. The Minister may say that that is a distinction without a difference. However, in the first sitting of this Committee, we took evidence from two senior lawyers in this area—Jonathan Leech and Rupert Cowan from Prospect Law—and I asked them whether triggering article 50 necessitated, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, leaving Euratom as well. Jonathan Leech said, “No”, and Rupert Cowan said, “Absolutely not.” Jonathan Leech continued to say:

“The advice would be that you do not have to accept this and it may not be in your interests to do so.”––[Official Report, Nuclear Safeguards Public Bill Committee, 31 October 2017; c. 12, Q23.]

This is clearly contested space.

We subsequently heard, as my hon. Friend said, that perhaps it is something to do with the Government’s preferred future approach to the European Court of Justice. Perhaps they think we ought to escape immediately anything that seems to have some sort of tie to the ECJ. That may well be the view of the Prime Minister and No. 10, but it is considerably different from what was said on Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which is that we have to do it.

Leaving Euratom is a political choice and, as such, ought to be debated in the usual way. We should make a democratic decision about it. The best way for us to do that, as Members across the Committee have said, is to carry on with this contingency Bill, but in doing so prove the case either way. I am perfectly willing to accept that there will be conflicting legal advice. A Minister has been very clear in this place that he believes it to be absolutely one way, and this Committee has heard evidence to the complete contrary. The best way to resolve that is for us to see the information and talk about it. Critically, as these amendments require, future Ministers should lay before both Houses of Parliament what advice they have taken, what course they have chosen and why they have had to do that. If they do that, I believe that both the House and the public will have confidence that that very difficult, possibly traumatic, decision is the only one that could have been taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions on amendments 4, 12 and 13. I accept that the amendments try to address consultation on the implementation of the nuclear safeguards regime that the Bill will establish. I will come to that shortly.

I would like to address the consultation in respect of the ONR’s capacity, raised in amendment 4. I understand that hon. Members seek confirmation that the ONR, which will be the regulator, has the resources necessary to take on extra responsibility for civil nuclear safeguards in addition to all its other functions, and that sufficient assessments have been made of the impact of the new regime.

In response to the original question put by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, I can put his mind at rest and confirm that a full impact assessment is being undertaken and will be published in the coming weeks, certainly well before Report stage. I accept everything that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West said, with her interesting comparisons to her previous occupation. I remind her that we are not talking about safety—that does not make it less important—as that is covered by a completely different regime, but her points are well taken; particularly about the impact assessment.

The impact assessment will assess the main options for implementation of a domestic nuclear safeguards regime, which would happen after withdrawal from Euratom.

[Patricia Gibson]

Does the Minister have any concerns that nuclear regulation in the United Kingdom will face a post-Brexit skills crisis, as it prepares to take on extra responsibilities that it currently shares with its European partners at the same time that many of its current inspectors are ageing and approaching retirement?

[Richard Harrington]

The retirement of current inspectors—obviously not in safeguards—happens all the time and it is part of the general recruitment process. As for new inspectors for the new safeguards regime, the Department has regular and extensive discussions with the ONR, as one might imagine given the context. The recruitment process is initially for about 15 people; I accept that including other staff that comes to 32. I cannot quite remember the shadow Minister’s words, but I accept the fact that recruitment does not happen by just saying, “You, you and you.” That may be done in certain political parties’ recruitment process for prospective candidates, but I accept the fact that something like this requires a very serious, qualified person.

I am pleased to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland that she believes there is a pool of people that is, at least partially, already working in the nuclear industry, but the Office for Nuclear Regulation are far from fools when it comes to this sort of thing. They have started phase one of their recruitment process and will continue that process. They needed the financial clearance, which came according to the rules after Second Reading, and I thank all hon. Members here and in the House generally for their support for that. The budget and everything is agreed with the ONR. As has been mentioned, it is not simply a question of recruitment, although that is important, but IT, premises and all the other infrastructure that goes with that.

I hope I have dealt with the impact assessment question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

That is a typically sensible suggestion from the hon. Gentleman. I will give that some consideration as to form or whatever, if he will bear with me. I remind hon. Members that the Bill already requires the Government to consult with the ONR and other persons that the Secretary of State considers appropriate. I know it may or must seem appropriate, but the intention is to consult widely.

On ONR capacity, which is the core of many of the amendments, I recognise the importance of transparency and the need for Parliament to be assured that the ONR is adequately resourced to set up the absolutely critical domestic civil nuclear safeguards regime. I have continually stated that we will allocate to the ONR the funding necessary to set up the regime. We have been transparent about the costs and resources of setting up the regime. Current estimates of the set-up costs are set out in the explanatory notes to the Bill. They are under my file, but from memory they are about £10 million in set-up costs and about that annually, which is roughly the cost of Euratom at the moment to perform the same function. I know the figures are approximate, but they give hon. Members a perception of the scale.

The relevant section is “Financial implications of the Bill”, which I will read now, in case hon. Members do not have it in front of them—they will not have to scurry around for it. It says:

“The public expenditure resulting from the Bill are the cost of the establishment and operation of the new regime by the ONR in line with the regulations that will be made under the powers in the Bill.”

That is the £10 million. It continues:

“The costs to set up a UK domestic safeguards regime (which remain subject to further analysis) are potentially up to £10m. This would include procurement of a new IT system, recruitment and training of…inspectors and strengthening institutional capacity to deliver the project. This cost can be met from within BEIS’s Spending Review allocations. The cost of any equipment currently in the United Kingdom but belonging to Euratom is a matter currently under negotiation with the European Union.”

Ideally, we will want to purchase the kit: the cameras, recording equipment and other electronic surveillance equipment and so on. It continues:

“The regime is also likely to involve an ongoing cost of around £10m a year—

sorry, I have said this before, but just to confirm—

“which is in line with the United Kingdom’s current cost of Euratom safeguards activity in the United Kingdom.”

The Office for Nuclear Regulation has also been clear, in evidence to the Committee, and to the Department, about the resources required. The amount has not just come out of the blue. We are working closely together to ensure that the needs of the ONR are met. My Department has already agreed to provide funding for initial work undertaken by the ONR on scoping and additional recruitment.

The ONR currently anticipates that the next tranche of recruitment will be in 2017. To correct myself, when I previously referred to the beginning of 2017 I was mixing it up with the current round; it will be at the end of 2017. That is what it has asked us for; it is not the Government imposing anything or saying we think it is how it should proceed. It is committed to doing whatever recruitment is necessary for what it knows it has to do. I hope that I have assured hon. Members that we are working closely with ONR to ensure that sufficient resource and capacity will be in place to carry out the work needed. It is unnecessary to add to the Bill the level of detail in the amendment. It would not make any difference to a programme that is already costed and proceeding.

On amendments 12 and 13 and the issue of consultation more broadly, the Opposition made some valid points, and I agree wholeheartedly that, as was said on Second Reading as well as today in Committee, consultation is vital in the development of any regulatory system—and even more so when it concerns something of such national importance. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North said, what is important may not be the thing that makes newspaper headlines; the general public may not realise something is important, but here we can all agree that this matter is critical.

I hope that Members on both sides of the Committee will agree that there have been great improvements in recent history in the working relationship between all Governments—I am not making a point just about the present Government—and the nuclear industry regulator, as well as with a wide range of stakeholders across the industry. Probably the main stakeholder, of course, is Lord Hutton, the former Secretary of State in the precursor Department to mine—and, in fact, nearly every other Department; it is very much a cross-party kind of industry. People listening to our proceedings might have felt that the Government had a disagreement with the two unions that gave evidence, but in reality there is far more in common between us—as there is in Committee today—than there are differences.

A good relationship is important, but I accept that that does not stand in the place of appropriate legislative mechanisms for consultation: I do not think that it is just a question of a few people getting around a table and having a meeting. I accept that consultation must be statutory; and, quite properly, it is. Future regimes or Governments, and future stakeholders, might have different views about each other. A Government who did not want a nuclear industry might behave differently, and so might a nuclear industry that did not want such a Government. I accept that things must be formalised.

The Bill therefore places clear requirements on the Government to consult. We have already made it clear that the development of the regulations that underpin the Bill will be subject to detailed consultation with the regulator and industry. Hon. Members will be aware that it is policy for such consultations to be made public, and we intend to do so in this case.

[Patricia Gibson]

What kind of consultation will the Minister undertake with the Scottish Government, and how inclusive will the process be, given that, as I have said before, with regard to regulation, waste and emissions are the responsibility of the Scottish Government?

[Richard Harrington]

If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I would much rather write to her on that subject, because the point is very specific and I do not have the answer to hand. It is a valid question, and she is perfectly entitled to ask it. If the Committee will bear with me, I can perhaps drop her a line or, if she would prefer, have a meeting with her on it. I know the point is important, but it is one point of many. It is not unreasonable, and I am sure she will chase me up on it if I have not responded by Monday, but I promise to do my best.

Residential Premises: Product Safety and Fire Risk

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am very pleased to speak in this important debate on product safety and fire risk in residential premises. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) for bringing it to the House.

There is a clearly a problem, as we have heard. Electrical faults and accidents cause three quarters of all house fires in Scotland alone, according to Electrical Safety First. In England, more than five fires a day are caused by faulty white goods. We certainly need a better recall system for faulty or potentially faulty products. Currently, it would seem that the system is not working. The success rate for recalls is rarely more than 10% to 20%, despite the huge risks of electric shock, fire or even death that faulty electrical items can present. That suggests that thousands of dangerous items remain in unsuspecting people’s homes across the UK. The recall system across the UK must be improved. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) pointed out, the debate is about much more than one product or company; it is a much wider issue. I am sure that the Minister was listening carefully to the well-made points about cabling that were put by the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth).

From what I have heard in this debate, we can all agree that there must be a single, publicly accessible register of product recalls, which will allow consumers to be aware of products in their homes that could put them at risk. If people can find that important information all in one place—independently produced, full, clear and transparent—I am sure that it will be trusted. A one-stop shop for recalls and safety notices, where consumers can check their products, report incidents and seek advice will, over time, save lives. The UK Government launched such a one-stop shop last year, but it has been criticised as difficult to navigate, and it does not contain all product recall information in one place. I understand that there has been confusion when consumers are directed to other sites listing recalls, none of which is comprehensive. I know that the fire service has been pressing for a one-stop shop that is easy for consumers to use, clear and comprehensive.

Which? has campaigned for an end to the current fragmented system. It has called for a national body to be established, with responsibility for ensuring that manufacturers keep households safe and ensure that dangerous products are not in people’s homes, in the light of the risk that they clearly pose. That idea was mooted by Lynn Faulds Wood in 2016. She was commissioned to undertake a review of consumer product recalls, but her findings were dismissed by the UK Government on the grounds of cost. Since then, many of us have feared that the Government have failed to comprehend the scale of reform required for a reliable product safety system. I am sure that the Minister will reassure us on that.

We also need more education about the risks associated with faulty electrical items. Electrical Safety First has revealed that nearly 2 million adults have knowingly ignored a recall notice, citing reasons such as inconvenience, reluctance to manage without the product and a real underestimation of the risks associated with continuing to use it. It should be noted—I think this was mentioned earlier in the debate—that there seems to be a reluctance among some consumers to register products, as they do not wish to hand over their personal data in case those are used for marketing purposes. Surely we can tackle that by forbidding companies from using information from product registration for marketing opportunities. That cannot be beyond the wit of this Parliament.

In addition, product recall campaigns must be more innovative and creative about how they attract the public’s attention, so that they can penetrate the public’s consciousness much more deeply. I think we can all agree that the lack of a national body with responsibility for consumer product safety means that the current system is necessarily fragmented. With Brexit on the horizon, overhauling the UK’s consumer enforcement regime is an even greater priority. We must do that before even greater stress is loaded on to an already weak system. Brexit may be an opportune time to review the regulatory regime and address its weaknesses, and I hope the Minister can offer us reassurance on that. The challenges are real. These products are coming from a wider range of countries, with differing levels of product safety regulation and compliance checks. That makes ensuring product safety much more complex in an already weak system. Before Brexit happens, we need a new national body with responsibility for consumer safety.

The number of domestic electrical fires is increasing, sadly, and as we have heard this afternoon the most recent and tragic example of that was the Grenfell Tower fire. The review process has been ongoing for almost three years, but we still wait for substantial and meaningful change that will help protect consumers, as the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) so eloquently pointed out. As the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse said, the working group on product recalls and safety, building on the work started by the recall review steering group, finally published its report in July this year, but its recommendations do not represent the fundamental reform needed to fix the broken system of product recall. I am persuaded that the only meaningful way forward—it is pressing as Brexit looms—is the establishment of a national body with responsibility for consumer product safety. The clamour for that cannot be disregarded any longer.

The hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) might be interested to know that in Scotland, statutory guidance has been given under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2014. It imposes a new duty on landlords to carry out electrical safety inspections of installations, fixtures and fittings. That came into force in December 2015. The Minister will want to look carefully at that, because in England there is only an expectation of safety inspections. She may wish to consider imposing a similar duty on landlords in England. That issue was of concern to the hon. Members for Southend West and for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce).

Before I conclude, I should mention the dangers of counterfeit goods, which were eloquently spelled out by the hon. Member for Swansea East. Those dangers are particularly important as Christmas approaches. Everyone loves a bargain, but counterfeit goods are now easily available across the internet, and those goods are not put through the same vigorous safety checks as legitimate items. Often they are very dangerous. Consumers often have no notion of how much danger electrical counterfeit goods pose to them and their families. We have a job of work to do in highlighting those dangers to the often unsuspecting consumer, who is simply looking for something that may seem like a bargain but which in the end could cost them more than they could possibly imagine. I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say. I am particularly keen to hear her thoughts on plans for a national body with responsibility for consumer product safety.

Smart Meters Bill

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

We in the Scottish National party support the roll-out of smart meters, but it is essential that maximising consumer and environmental protections lies at the heart of any strategy to do so.

It is empowering for consumers to have near real-time information on their energy consumption to help them to control and manage their energy use, and in turn save money and reduce emissions. If roll-out is effective and well managed, there are obvious benefits to consumers. Nearly eight in 10 people with a smart meter would recommend one to others, and the same number with a smart meter say they have taken steps to reduce their energy consumption. Those with an in-home display model in particular feel they have a much better idea of what they are spending on energy and check it regularly. If having new technology in their homes helps consumers feel that they can exercise better control over energy consumption and be better informed about their energy use, with greater control over their bills, then of course that must be welcomed.

In previous speeches, we have heard about switching suppliers. I would like to say, right at the outset, that switching suppliers has a limited effect. Research shows that people who switch tend to be those who are better off. They switch and they save money. However, there is not a sufficient impact on the lowest income households, which are in most danger of fuel poverty. They find it much more difficult to switch suppliers.

We often hear that smart meters are free to consumers. They are not. They are paid for through energy bills. Every household will, ultimately, pay for the new meter roll-out via their bills. It is important that consumers understand that having a smart meter is a choice. Trading Standards has expressed concern that data from citizens advice bureaux suggest that consumers are not being told that they can refuse a smart meter, if they so choose.

[Toby Perkins]

There is a really important point here about consumers from the lowest income households. Given that companies have different tariffs, why do the Government or the companies themselves not say, “We’ll stop you having the responsibility of deciding the best tariff for you. We have all the data. At the end of every quarter, we’ll look at your bill, tell you what would have been the best tariff and put you on it, so you always save the money without having to do all the work yourself”? Companies should have the information to be able to do that.

[Patricia Gibson]

What the hon. Gentleman says sounds eminently sensible. The problem is that the better off and most well-informed people are switching and saving. That is being subsidised by the people who are unable to switch and save because they do not feel up to the task. The poorest households are actually subsidising the most affluent households, which have the ability and the expertise to switch and save. That is a real issue that has to be addressed. Similarly, as mentioned before, those on prepayment meters—the poorest households in our communities—must have access to smart meters if they want them.

It is important, as part of this process, that the Government’s regulatory framework clearly establishes the rights and obligations of all aspects of smart metering design, development, installation and operation, as well as monitoring and reporting. Customers must be reassured, and continue to be reassured, that their data and security are robustly protected in the course of the smart meter roll-out. There is concerning evidence, however, that smart meters are being installed before the programme’s requirements as an internet-connected energy system have been fully determined. The UK Government must do everything in their power to protect consumers during the roll-out. There were disturbing reports last March in the Financial Times of GCHQ intervening in smart meter security, claiming to have discovered glaring loopholes in meter design, and causing some alarm. Such concerns must be fully addressed.

The plan to install smart meters in every home by 2020 must not leave consumers out of pocket. It must be asked whether the cost of the roll-out will be borne by all energy consumers. The successful operation of smart meters can also be a postcode lottery. In areas with a poor mobile signal, there is a real chance that smart meters will not work. If we are applauding the merits of smart meters, this has to be borne in mind, because digital inclusion matters.

Almost 100,000 fewer households were in fuel poverty in 2015 than in the previous year in Scotland, but there is still much more to be done. The Scottish Government have commissioned a review, due to be completed next year, of the definition of fuel poverty in order to inform a new fuel poverty strategy that will be followed up by a warm homes Bill. There has to be a focus on those in most need of help to heat their homes.

[Sir Edward Davey]

The last time the Scottish Government reviewed the definition of fuel poverty, they came up with a definition that I did not think was very good, whereas in England and Wales we reviewed it and came up with a policy that secured cross-party consensus. May I urge the hon. Lady to go back to Edinburgh and look at the fuel poverty definition we produced here in Westminster?

[Patricia Gibson]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, when something is being done well, others should learn from it—I am a great advocate of that approach—and if something is being done well in Westminster, the Scottish Government have no difficulty learning from it. I only wish that that was reciprocal.

We need to be mindful of those most in need of help to heat their homes, and that must involve a joined-up approach, as a wide range of policy areas are encompassed by any attempt to tackle fuel poverty. Citizens Advice has stated that consumers in vulnerable situations could miss out on the potential benefits of the £11 billion smart meter roll-out, which they will be helping to fund through their energy bills. Such risks might relate directly to the installation and/or the ability of these households to benefit from the smart meter system.

Generations of British consumers have been locked into a “risky and expensive” project by the UK’s subsidy deal for a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset. That is not my assessment, but the assessment of the National Audit Office. Under the terms of the 35-year contract, EDF is guaranteed a price of £92.50 per MWh it generates—twice the wholesale price. The subsidy will be paid through energy bills that the Government’s own figures estimate will translate into a £10 to £15 chunk on the average household bill by 2030.

I do not want to revisit last week’s debate, but I should mention at this juncture that the National Audit Office has also pointed out, worryingly, that withdrawal from Euratom

“might be interpreted as a change of law”,

resulting in an adjustment of the £92.50 price promised to EDF, or might even trigger a one-off payment to EDF through a compensation clause in the contract. I shall leave that for the Minister to consider in his own time, but the fact is that EDF has been guaranteed three times today’s price for electricity for 35 years.

Former Conservative Energy Secretary Lord Howell—among many others—has criticised the Hinklev deal, calling it

“one of the worst deals ever”

for British consumers and industry, and has protested against

“endless government guarantees of risk-free returns to the investors”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 2015; Vol. 765, c. 789.]

We now know that when Hinkley has been completed, several renewable alternatives will be cheaper. When it comes to helping consumers to keep their bills down, it is hard to see how the white elephant that is Hinkley will do so. Perhaps, for that reason, it is easy to understand why I am so concerned about the fact that consumer protection has not always necessarily been at the heart of the Government’s thinking. The price cap is, of course, welcome, but there is still a huge subsidy from the taxpayer for the energy from Hinkley Point. It seems that we are giving with one hand and taking with the other.

Every household needs and deserves a safe, affordable energy supply. The Government strategy must be clear, and what is best for consumers must lie at the heart of the entire process. By contrast, in Scotland minimum energy efficiency standards will be developed and announced in the private rented sector, with consultations on how owner-occupiers can improve the energy efficiency of their homes with financial incentives. Ultimately, the Bill must be about empowering consumers and delivering better, smarter and cheaper ways of heating our homes. Smart meters are part of that, but they must deliver for all, especially our vulnerable consumers, and deliver in a way that enables data to be secure and protected. The environmental benefits are, of course, also important.

We support the Bill, but, as I have said to the Minister, we have reservations. We urge the Government to ensure that the important elements to which I have referred lie at the heart of the legislation.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

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

[Drew Hendry]

What we would support is a sensible approach to maintaining either full or associate membership of Euratom.

The European regulator oversees nuclear matters as diverse as plutonium storage and medically vital radiotherapy supplies. For example, our membership of the Fusion for Energy programme allows the UK to receive contracts. So far, the UK supply chain has been awarded contracts worth €500 million, and that would have been expected to rise to at least €1 billion. Leaving Euratom seems to serve no purpose other than to satisfy this Government’s hard Brexit mantra.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there seems to be a rigid consensus among Conservative Members that we cannot stay in Euratom if we leave the EU, and that they refuse to accept that legal opinion on the matter is divided? Does he agree that it is utterly incumbent on the Secretary of State to explore this divided legal opinion to see whether the UK can, indeed, stay in Euratom?

[Drew Hendry]

I agree that there are clearly unanswered questions about the legal position, which has not been challenged, exercised fully or even debated to any degree. Not only are our safety standards, research opportunities and business at risk, but we may see the most dramatic and negative effects of any withdrawal in the medical field.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Patricia Gibson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Green]

I have already given way on this issue.

It is absolutely extraordinary to suggest that these materials will dry up overnight. Clearly, we are going to have a good relationship with the European Union and there are going to be sales of these products.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Chair. I am pleased to be speaking in the debate on the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, but what I have found, Madam Chair, I mean Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Hon. Members]

It’s Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Patricia Gibson]

That is what I said—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. There is no need for hon. Members to contradict the hon. Lady, although I know that they are trying to be helpful. She made a slip of the tongue in referring to me as a Chair rather than as a Deputy Speaker, but I know what she meant.

[Patricia Gibson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I am pleased to be speaking in this debate. Once again, we are in a debate where we are all promised a post-Brexit world that is shinier, better and newer than anything we have witnessed up to this point. Whether we are talking about nuclear safeguards, food safety standards, consumer rights, trade with the EU, the strength of the pound, UK nationals living abroad, EU nationals living in the UK, or 30% being wiped off the bond yields leaving a £1.8 trillion black hole in our public sector pensions bill, we are told that it will be all right on the night and that everything will be wonderful.

The fact is that no state has ever left Euratom before. Despite what we have heard in the Chamber today, some legal experts—I know that we do not always like listening to experts—believe that it would be perfectly possible for the United Kingdom to leave the EU and remain a member of Euratom because, despite sharing the institutions, the two treaties are distinct and have separate legal instruments. I urge the Minister to explore that. The nuclear industry certainly believes that the UK should pursue some form of continuing membership of Euratom. We do not know what form that will take. We have no details or certainty. I think I probably speak for a large chunk of the public across the United Kingdom when I say that the UK Government’s negotiating skills have not inspired confidence.

I remember sitting in a Committee and being told by the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who is now the Leader of the House, that it was necessary and, indeed, essential for us to fly nuclear materials across UK skies so that they could be used in a range of medical treatments at the height of their efficacy. Experts now tell us that leaving Europe’s nuclear regulator will put patients in the UK at risk of losing access to vital medical treatments, but those concerns have been dismissed by Conservative Members,. Despite what we have heard tonight, withdrawal from Euratom as part of Brexit would make it harder for the UK to access the nuclear isotopes used in cancer treatments and medical imaging. It is not me who is saying this—I confess that I do not have the medical or scientific expertise to do so—but the Royal College of Radiologists has told us that this is the case, as has Martin McKee, professor of European public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

I could give the House 20 other examples of people at the top of their game who have told us this, but I fear that I lack the time to do so. Despite all that, those concerns were utterly dismissed by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who is no longer in his place, and the Secretary of State told us that these matters are not within the scope of the Bill. I fear that such a response is not reassuring. I am also alarmed, as I am sure many others will be, that someone who is qualified as an economist sees fit to contradict medical experts.

Euratom is responsible for co-ordinating and regulating the transport, use and disposal of nuclear materials in Europe, including many of the isotopes used in radiotherapy and some kinds of body scans. It seems that some of the most widely used medical isotopes can be produced only in specialised reactors, none of which is located in the United Kingdom. The materials currently used in Britain are mostly manufactured in the Netherlands, Belgium and France. Experts have told us that there is “no excuse” for Government Ministers failing to foresee the problems that leaving Euratom would cause. They have also indicated, given that all these matters are subject to negotiation, that although it might be possible for the UK to remain within the existing arrangements, it would be “exceptionally complicated” and that the UK’s position would “inevitably be weakened”. Those are the words of medical experts at the top of their field. Crucially, no real clarity on how any agreement might be achieved by the UK Government has been forthcoming. The Government’s position paper on Euratom published in July contained little detail even on nuclear power and it did not mention medical isotopes. Perhaps the Minister would care to mention them today. Can he also tell us whether the Secretary of State for Health has been consulted on this matter?

Ministers have absolutely no excuse for failing to anticipate this controversy. The problems were clearly highlighted in an article in the Financial Times way back in February and in briefings by nuclear industry experts. I know that we do not like experts, but occasionally it is useful to listen to them. As with all aspects of Brexit, there is little evidence of any serious planning.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The whole purpose of this Bill is to plan for the contingency where we leave Euratom, so how can the hon. Lady say that?

[Patricia Gibson]

We have heard repeatedly from those on the Conservative Benches about transitional arrangements and avoiding a cliff edge, but everything is subject to negotiation. As I said earlier, the negotiating and diplomatic skills of the UK Government are deeply suspect, and at worst alarming, when it comes to dealing with Europe.

Dame Sue Ion, the honorary president of the National Skills Academy for Nuclear and a former chair of the Nuclear Innovation Research Advisory Board, has pointed out that

“if suitable and robust alternatives to leaving Euratom are not in place, the potential impact”—

may mean that we—

“cannot move material or intellectual property or services or components or medical isotopes.”

That view was echoed by Rupert Cowen, a senior nuclear energy lawyer, who has been critical of Government officials, whom he called “ignorant” of the impact of leaving Euratom because they

“think it’ll be all right on the night. It won’t.”

If he is tired of hearing that it will be all right on the night with regard to Euratom, imagine what he would make of the list at the start of my speech.

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I crave the indulgence of the Chamber for a few more minutes? I cannot let this debate pass without mentioning something that is not strictly within the scope of the Bill. I fear that we cannot talk about nuclear safety and regulation without pointing to another threat that looms large.

[James Cleverly]

I chose not to bring this up when the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman was speaking, but the Bill has nothing to do with nuclear safety. It is about nuclear safeguarding. The words are similar, but they have a fundamentally different meaning.

[Patricia Gibson]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is making a point about a legalistic separation, but when I speak to constituents about nuclear safeguards and nuclear safety—his experience may be different—the two things are entwined. To separate regulation and safety legally may be one thing, but to separate them when discussing them with constituents is another.

[Alan Brown]

My hon. Friend has already made her point perfectly, but for absolute clarity about the overlap between nuclear safeguards and nuclear safety, the House of Commons Library briefing on Euratom states that delays in making reciprocal arrangements

“would have consequences for current operation, waste and decommissioning, and to new builds such as Hinkley Point.”

If there will be an impact on nuclear decommissioning, does my hon. Friend agree that involves safety risks?

[Patricia Gibson]

My hon. Friend makes that point with his usual succinct articulation of the facts.

Before I conclude, it would be remiss of me not to mention something that is outside the scope of the Bill, but very much at home in any debate about nuclear safeguards, nuclear regulation or nuclear safety. Last week, I met the Civil Nuclear Police Federation and was appalled to hear of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary’s concerns. In partnership with the civil nuclear industry, national security agencies and regulatory bodies, the force works to deter any attacker whose intent is the theft or sabotage of nuclear material, whether static or in transit. Should such an attack be made, the CNC will defend that material and access to it. If such material is seized or if high-consequence facilities are compromised, the CNC will recover control of the facility and regain custody of the material. Its officers are therefore heavily armed and have high levels of physical fitness. Their retirement age has been increased to 67 or 68, and I was deeply disappointed that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), has not met those officers, who do such an important job in guarding our safety and often work in harm’s way. I urge him to make the time to meet them.

I also urge the Minister to explore fully all legal avenues and opinions for the UK to remain a member of Euratom, which provides a framework for international nuclear safeguarding compliance and undertakes safeguards, inspections and reporting. Indeed, dispensing with the UK’s international treaty obligations on issues such as non-proliferation that are managed through Euratom will undoubtedly damage the UK’s nuclear industry, jeopardise high-quality jobs in engineering and chemistry and do much to undermine confidence in the UK’s already significantly diminishing international influence.

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend makes a key point about the breadth of issues that are not covered by the Bill’s narrow focus. Government Members would like to separate safety issues and the unanswered questions that are legion here tonight, but that is the real problem.

[Patricia Gibson]

I think all Opposition Members sense the unease with which Government Members are unwilling to talk about the Bill’s narrow scope, which leaves so many uncertainties and questions. We are all rightly concerned about nuclear safety, but in our discussions let us remember to give a break to the brave officers of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, who work day in, day out to maintain nuclear safety across the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

I agree very much with my hon. Friend. It certainly shoots the fox that we will have a bonfire of regulations and a race to the bottom. I find it strange that those who have spoken against the Bill this evening have, in one breath, accused the Government of presiding over a chaotic, shambolic and uncontrolled, if not incontinent, Brexit process and have then chastised the Government for trying to ensure continuity at an early stage, as my hon. Friend and others have said. Such continuity is welcome, and we would be right to chastise the Government were we not to have it.

If the Bill is not a debate about Brexit virility, it is also certainly not about access to isotopes, and I absolutely deplore those who have tried to wave that shroud. One of my hon. Friends—I was going to say it was my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies), but I do not think it was her—said that access to isotopes is important for a large number of our constituents who need them for medical treatment when they are unwell, and it is the worst kind of shroud waving to say that they will not have that access.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman criticises those who have raised concerns about access to medical isotopes, who were echoing the medical experts in the field. Is he dismissing the legitimate concerns raised by those working in the medical field?

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady falls into a classic trap. I am not one who seeks to dismiss experts—as a non-expert, I always turn to experts for advice—but a concern that is wrong in fact does not become legitimate if it is raised by an expert. A person could be concerned about all sorts of things, and they could have as many letters after their name as they like, but they are not always correct. Some Opposition Members started to fan the embers of this flame about three or four months ago, and it does not appear to have caught.

I have received a briefing note, as I am sure have other colleagues, entitled “What about medical radioisotopes?” The import or export of medical radioisotopes is not subject to any Euratom licensing requirements. Let us seek to assure the experts who have concerns—their concerns are legitimate, and the House must address them—that Euratom places no restrictions on the export of medical isotopes to countries outside the EU. These isotopes are not subject to Euratom supply agency contracts or to Euratom safeguards, which means no special arrangements need to be put in place ahead of withdrawal.

Withdrawal from Euratom will have no effect on the UK’s ability to import medical isotopes from Europe and the rest of the world. It is in everyone’s interest not to disrupt patients’ timely access to treatment, and it is in everyone’s interest to ensure that cross-border trade with the EU is as frictionless as possible. I entirely take the point raised by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), that some of these products have a short shelf life, and clearly we cannot have these products sitting in an overheated metal container at the port of Dover or Calais.

Out of common sense I have to ask which country on God’s earth will set a tariff barrier regime and seek to take beyond its useful lifespan a vital component in the delivery of medical care. In the French Government, the German Government and the Belgian Government, we are not dealing with countries that have no interest in public health and healthcare, because of course they do, as do our Government. The idea that those countries will deliberately set up barriers that cause these products to pass their sell-by date, like a piece of chicken that has been sat too long on a supermarket shelf, is fanciful and compounds the allegation that I and several of my hon. Friends have made, that the Bill can be criticised for other reasons, but it is cruel, callous and unnecessary to criticise it at the expense of unsettling people who require medical interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

I apologise for seeking to remake this point for the convenience of the hon. Gentleman, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am simply saying this: irrespective of how we might have campaigned and voted in the referendum, this is a time when we have a responsibility, as parliamentarians, to make sure that on certain key things—something as sensitive as this is a key thing—we set aside our personal beefs on whether it is a good or bad idea, in order to make sure our constituents are not alarmed. We have heard from the Secretary of State, read the briefing papers and heard from the Universities Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) has pointed out, and that should now shoot that fox well and truly. What has been suggested is not going to be a by-product of coming out of Euratom.

[Patricia Gibson]

I just want to clarify this point, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will not try to intervene again, because I am sure he will answer it well, and I hope he understands that I have enormous respect for him. I understand that he has a background in public relations, so given his background and level of expertise in his field, is he comfortable with contradicting and dismissing as “scaremongering”, “overreacting” or whatever word he wants to use, the legitimate concerns raised by the Royal College of Radiologists?

[Simon Hoare]

I am not contradicting. I am seeking to answer—

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend gets the point, because he takes a Conservative approach to the operation of the economy. People in Britain want to buy something. We do not make it, but some countries overseas do. But we have also heard this, “We make too much for our domestic market and we want to sell it overseas. We have been doing this for years, but, do you know what? Just to bite off our nose to spite our face, we’ll stop doing it.” That is the crux of the argument we have heard from the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). I would say it was bizarre if it were not so careless.

Let me conclude my remarks by returning to the point about the value—soft as well as hard—to UK plc of the collaborative opportunities for research that membership of an organisation such as Euratom presents. We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) and the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) about the supply chain, the jobs and the offshoots of economic activity that flow from this. If we are talking about background research, I understand that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran has a nuclear facility in her constituency. One can only presume that she has constituents who work in it, but she said precious little about them in her speech—

[Patricia Gibson]

That was not in the scope of the Bill.

[Simon Hoare]

Well, that did not stop the hon. Lady dilating on lots of other things that were not in the Bill. This sudden stricture of rectitude and probity that she cloaks herself in as the winter months approach is a little hard to take. We should never underestimate what that collaborative research does to advance the sum of human knowledge, and to benefit our country in hard currency terms and profile terms as a centre of excellence, expertise, professionalism and world leadership. I see this Bill as very much taking a belt-and-braces approach. I just hope that if we have to default to this, because we find that the lawyers are right or we are not allowed to remain part of Euratom as there is some conflict with the European Court of Justice or whatever, the regimes we put in place and the culture we create tell the rest of the world interested in this sector that we, too, are open for business and committed to research, and we are not turning our back on academic and, yes, medical collaboration.

Royal Mail Delivery Office Closures

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing this important debate.

Any uncertainty that affects our postal services causes alarm, because our post offices and Royal Mail are institutions that are still held in much affection and esteem, despite the politics that sadly so often swallows them up. Royal Mail is special, because it has a unique position in the United Kingdom postal market as the universal service provider and it is by far the largest operator in that market. Consumers want and employees need Royal Mail to give full details of planned closures and the scale of any planned job losses.

Importantly, absolute cast-iron guarantees are needed that any closures will not affect the delivery of the universal service obligation, which we all hold dear. Telling the public that the number of facilities is to reduce is not the same as being clear and open about the overall plans. We need to see a full list of offices and timescales of proposed closures. We are all concerned about piecemeal reductions in this key network, as a major public service provider. We need to know what we are dealing with and to have a detailed plan in front of us.

These measures could be particularly alarming for Scotland. I urge Royal Mail to factor the geographical spread of delivery offices, not just the volumes of mail, into any analysis of proposals to close delivery offices.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; this has been a disjointed debate and I fear that we might have another Division soon, so I want to make this point in case I am not able to return for the closing speeches.

On locations, the Minister will recall that, in the last debate on this issue, I placed particular emphasis on the effect on deprived areas. She said that she would look into that. Does the hon. Lady hope, as I do, that the Minister will refer to the effect on deprived areas across the United Kingdom?

[Patricia Gibson]

Indeed; I would expect socio-economic and geographical factors to feature largely in Royal Mail’s considerations and in the Minister’s response.

The figures that we have heard today show that parcel delivery services are a huge part of our economy and are very important to Royal Mail. Indeed, increased parcel delivery was cited as one of the main reasons that Royal Mail’s annual profit rose by 25% this year. We know that parcels are frequently delivered when recipients are at work or otherwise not at home, so trips to delivery offices need to be manageable and realistic, and those offices need to be accessible, particularly in rural areas.

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Order. We have another Division. If there are two or three, I am afraid we will have to come back later, but I hope that there will be just one, in which case we will return in 15 minutes. If the Front Benchers are here before then, I will start the closing speeches straight away.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Patricia Gibson]

Given the growth in the online parcel economy and the digital economy, and given the importance of parcel delivery in general and to the Royal Mail in particular, it seems odd that Royal Mail delivery offices face cuts and closures. Digital connectivity is very important to our economy and parcel delivery has grown enormously —it is soaring, in fact—due to our increasingly large digital marketplace. According to Ofcom, in 2015-16 almost 2 billion parcels were delivered, which is an average of 30 parcels per head of population in one year. Any closures must not disproportionately affect our rural communities, which could be hit very hard by ill-considered decisions on closures.

However, I cannot help feeling that today we are simply bemoaning and lamenting the symptoms of the ill-judged decision to privatise Royal Mail in the first place. Many of us predicted that such privatisation would lead to a reduction in postal services in rural areas, and over the last four years that certainly seems to have been borne out, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk.

The Tories and Lib Dems, having formed the coalition, were part of the decision-making process to privatise the Royal Mail. I wonder today whether they regret that decision; perhaps the Minister can tell us. Sadly and regrettably, under the last Labour Government we had to endure the rolling programme of post office closures that hit my own constituency very hard indeed. Wiser people than I have stated categorically that the Royal Mail was sold off for far less than it was worth.

Ultimately, the very future of our delivery service is at stake and I fear that the universal service provision is under real threat. I also fear for the future of the entire estate and the public service that it provides. As the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) has pointed out, there is the prospect of the first national strike since Royal Mail was privatised. Royal Mail workers have voted massively in favour of a walkout in a bitter dispute over pensions, pay and jobs. Of course, industrial action was backed by a huge 89% on a turnout of 73% of the 110,000 members of the Communication Workers Union who were balloted, passing even the UK Government’s threshold for strike action under the terms of the Trade Union Act 2017, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens).

Significantly, the unions believe that there has been a

“relentless programme of cost-cutting to maximise short-term profits and shareholder returns”,

creating a climate of fear and insecurity in Royal Mail. As outlined by the hon. Member for Bury North (James Frith), that situation has not been helped by the prospect or threat of legal action to prevent the impending strike from taking place at all.

I hope that we all agree that there is real cause for concern about the future of the entire Royal Mail service, and I urge management and unions to work together to ensure its future. In addition, I urge the Minister to use her good offices to the fullest extent for a positive future for our Royal Mail.

Leaving the EU: Consumer Protection

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I want to echo the thanks that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) expressed to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) for obtaining the debate. We must not underestimate, among the various aspects of Brexit, the importance of consumer protection. That vital matter is so wound around and ingrained into our daily lives that there is a danger that we may take the protections for granted but, as the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) has pointed out, that must not happen.

Currently, the rights of consumers are enshrined in EU law, so naturally there is bound to be concern and uncertainty about what will become of those rights and the responsibilities of businesses post-Brexit. We need clarity. At the moment, the UK has to comply with EU consumer policy and law, which is estimated to affect about 90 pieces of legislation, making a body of EU law designed to protect consumers. However, the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill currently progressing through Parliament would repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and copy all EU legislation into UK law. The concern is that repeals, amendments and revisions could then be made to consumer law by any Government as they saw fit.

The lack of clarity and the uncertainty about Brexit is a cause of great concern, since we simply do not know what leaving the EU will mean for consumers or businesses. Will the UK stay in the single market? It looks as if that will not happen, so the rights of consumers in the UK will not be enhanced or keep pace with the rights of consumers in the EU. That could leave them exposed and lacking protection. Consumers are already feeling the Brexit pinch even though we have not yet left the EU. The devalued pound is pushing up inflation, and that alone has reduced purchasing power. Most consumers do not think too much about consumer protection until they need it. We need only look at the recent cancellation of Ryanair flights to find a good example of why consumers benefit from being part of the EU single market, and from sharing rights and protections across the EU. The personal example given by the hon. Member for Chelmsford brought that point home strongly. The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) also touched on the issue, and outlined various sharp practices indulged in by some airlines.

Fundamentally, a lot of minds would be put at rest by an end to the uncertainty—by the knowledge on the part of consumers that the UK Government are willing absolutely to guarantee that consumer rights and protections will not be watered down post-Brexit, and to provide specific assurances of that in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. We need a cast-iron guarantee that current protections derived from EU legislation will remain in force. I fully understand the Government’s position that they do not want a

“black hole in our statute book”

and that they will convert EU laws into UK laws. However, no one can predict the longer-term impact of Brexit on consumers, since we do not know what the UK’s future relationship with the EU will look like, or even whether the UK will retain any access to the single market.

What can be said is that following our withdrawal from the European Union, EU consumer protection legislation and that of the UK are likely to drift apart over time. I fully concur with the hon. Member for Bristol North West and the hon. Member for Chelmsford, who discussed the evolution of consumer law. Even if the UK adopts autonomously all EU legislation in the field of consumer protection, the interpretation of such legislation will vary, as UK courts will not be subordinate to the European Court of Justice, despite what the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) said. We do not know what kind of divergence will take place.

[Luke Graham]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that the example that I used showed the UK going above and beyond what the EU was putting forward? If she would like to be “Stronger for Scotland”, perhaps she would begin by engaging positively with those details and looking at the opportunities we have, rather than always looking at the negative and trying to do the UK down.

[Patricia Gibson]

I listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, because I had this point in my head. He cannot negate the legitimate concerns that I have raised by simply saying, “We’ll always go one better.” I will give him a concrete example. There are fears in some quarters of a race to the bottom—for example, on food safety. The Secretary of State for International Trade has said that he is completely relaxed about a diminution in food safety. People cannot simply hide all the time behind the notion that the UK will always do something better than anything that is offered by the EU. That is asking us to take too much on trust.

[Luke Graham]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Patricia Gibson]

I will press on if the hon. Gentleman will permit me.

Consumers in the UK spend £1,160 billion each year on goods and services, and about £14.8 billion is the estimated value of consumer detriment that needs to be tackled by consumer protection bodies. That is with the current protections; diminution of any of those protections can only increase consumer detriment and undermine consumer confidence.

With increasingly complex and wide-ranging threats—in particular, a rise in e-commerce and scams—consumer protection needs to be as robust and match-fit for the modern world as it possibly can. The UK consumer cannot be left behind post-Brexit. I contend that remaining a member of the single market would guarantee that UK consumer protection law moved in line with that of the rest of the EU and would certainly reassure consumers and businesses that the current framework would continue to keep pace.

Regardless of what the future relations between the UK and the EU finally look like, the laws governing relations between consumers and businesses are vital to the future success of the UK as a whole. Consumers must have confidence in the purchases that they make, be confident about safety, and be confident of redress if anything goes wrong with the goods that they purchase; they must be confident that their rights as consumers are enforceable. My concern in relation to the uncertainty surrounding those rights, which will be subject to the whim of the Government of the day, is that the rights may be diluted or eroded over time as the EU moves ahead in this area, leaving the UK consumer rights agenda behind the curve, looking outdated and not fit for purpose in the modern world.

I hope that the Minister can provide cast-iron assurances that protecting and maintaining consumer rights is firmly on the Government’s agenda as Brexit unfolds, because consumers have a right to expect nothing less.

Bereavement Leave: Loss of a Child

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Brady.

The loss of a child is of such magnitude, is such a life-shattering experience, that leave for bereaved parents cannot simply be left to the good will of employers but must be put on a statutory footing. I extend my thanks to the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) for initiating this important debate and for his sensitive and consensual approach. I also state for the record, even though the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is no longer in his place, that like everyone else who has participated in the debate, I am extremely supportive of his private Member’s Bill. From what I have heard today, I think that everyone in this Chamber will support it.

Of course, any decent employer would respond to such a tragedy by being understanding, but as I have said, we cannot leave it simply to the good will of employers. The examples given by the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire show why that is the case. The law should—indeed, it must—recognise the effect of such an event on any working parent in any industry or sector and provide them with statutory support and protection.

Today, I stand to speak on behalf of the parents who suffer the devastating loss of a child from the perspective of someone who had to bury her own son. Like the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), I feel a duty and a drive as a Member of Parliament to make things better for those who have the terrible misfortune to go through such an event. Under the law when it happened to me, my leave was protected, as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire pointed out, because my son was stillborn at full term. My maternity leave of six months was still available to me. Leave was not available to my husband and he coped as best he could, taking very little time off work but still stumbling through his grief.

It is time the law recognised, with rights to paid leave, the loss of a child and its effect on bereaved parents at whatever stage in the life of the child the loss takes place. According to Child Bereavement UK, 28 young people under the age of 25 die every day. That is 28 families torn apart. No one can adequately describe what it is like to bury their own child. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, it goes completely against the natural order of things. There is the numbness, the sense that the world has ended, and the inability in the midst of that shock to comprehend how the world can possibly continue to turn and go about its business. The loss of a child cannot be quantified by a set period of time, but the law must do what it can to create some kind of statutory space to grieve.

When you lose a child, the challenge is not whether you can go back to work on Monday; the challenge is how to keep going when breathing requires a conscious effort and getting out of bed in the morning becomes a goal in itself. Even months and years later, you can be doing ordinary, mundane tasks, and quite unexpectedly a wave of grief will wash over you like a tidal wave, taking you completely by surprise. As the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) pointed out, ongoing support in such circumstances would be welcomed by many parents.

I spent months unable to leave the house and lost interest in the world. Eating became a thing that had to be done, not something that I wanted to do. Every morsel that you put in your mouth is a struggle. Many parents who have been through that will identify with it. Yes, the loss of a child can often give way to thoughts of suicide for parents. After all, the entire future that you envisaged for yourself has changed irrevocably and only a gaping shadow of grief that will stay with you forever seems to be left.

About 60% of childhood deaths in the UK occur within the first year of a child’s life. Emotionally such a loss cannot be prepared for, and it can never be truly and fully recovered from, but with support, parents find a way forward. Gradually they find a way to build a semblance—often it is only a semblance—of some kind of life around the shadow that is forever cast over their life. The loss of a child becomes an integral part of your life and lives with you every single day. Of course, all loss is hard to bear, but the loss of a child is the loss of a parent’s investment in the future. Our children are the physical embodiment of our investment, hopes and confidence in the future. When that is gone, what is left? The magnitude of the loss must and should be recognised by society, and protections and support enshrined in employment law—for the self-employed as well, as has been pointed out.

In these terrible circumstances parents go on because there is no alternative. They find a way to cope for the sake of other people in their lives who love them and need them—perhaps their other children or their spouse—but such parents need rights enshrined in the Employment Rights Act, recognising the devastating loss of a child and the awful, horrific effects it can have, and giving them time to grieve, with full pay. This must be a fundamental workplace right for parents in any civilised society. What decent employer could possibly object to that? I urge the Minister to pursue this measure with all due haste, and for all parents who go through this nightmare, to put paid bereavement leave for the loss of a child on a statutory footing.

Nuclear Decommissioning Industry: Pensions

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

All the protagonists are here for our next debate, so we can start a minute and a half early.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered pensions in the nuclear decommissioning industry.

I have been seeking to secure a debate on pensions in the nuclear decommissioning industry for some months, as I am deeply disturbed by the way workers have been treated and betrayed by the UK Government. I speak on behalf of those in my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran who work on the Hunterston A site, but this matter is of material interest to all workers across the United Kingdom who share the sense of betrayal and treachery at the fact that their pensions have been treated as if they were of no account.

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

The betrayal that those workers feel should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed events since the nuclear estate was privatised by the Thatcher Government in the 1980s. Guarantees were made requiring the new private sector employers to continue to provide pension benefits for those employed at the time of privatisation

“at least as good as those they were receiving in the public sector”.

Those guarantees and legal protections have now been abandoned.

That situation was made starkly clear by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and other employers consulting on reforms to two final salary schemes, seeking the views of members on changes such as moving to a career average, revalued earnings arrangement and a cap on pensionable pay. The UK Government decided that because the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is classified as public sector, those schemes should be reformed under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013. Clearly, however, those pensions are not public sector ones, as I shall go on to make clear.

The erosion of decommissioning workers’ pensions is unacceptable. Radical reform of those pensions has already taken place in the mid-2000s, when they were closed to new entrants, who now have inferior defined-contribution pensions. Public sector reform takes no account of the fact that decommissioning sites are now in the private sector, nor that, unlike for other public sector workers, redundancy is an inherent part of decommissioning workers’ employment.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Pension rights in the event of redundancy are particularly important for workers undertaking decommissioning at Trawsfynydd power station in my constituency because of the timescale for closure and the age profile of the workforce. I hope she agrees that we need a commitment from the Minister in her response that a solution will be found for employees of Magnox Ltd and other companies affected by the Enterprise Act 2016.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

I very much concur with the hon. Lady. We are seeking a response from the Minister that will show fairness and an understanding of what such workers have already gone through and of the assurances that were made. All future action should take full account of that.

As I said, redundancy is an inherent part of the employment of decommissioning workers, since cleaning nuclear sites is time-limited. The prospect of redundancy is therefore written into the job in a way that does not apply to any other. The job of a worker at a nuclear decommissioning site is highly technical, skilled and sometimes even dangerous. The prospect of redundancy being in-built in people’s jobs is bad enough, but to have their pension eroded at what increasingly looks like regular intervals is simply unacceptable. It creates disincentives for workers to enter or stay in the industry, and it is extremely bad for morale.

The uncertainty created by that erosion of pensions affects not only the workers, of course, but their families and their financial planning for their retirement, and it shows with crystal clarity that any legal protections offered by Governments to workers mean nothing when they can be ripped up and disregarded when convenient. I raised that very matter at Treasury questions two months ago and was told by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that

“it is necessary to have terms and conditions that reflect the modern situation that applies across the economy as a whole.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2017; Vol. 619, c. 769.]

Will the Minister tell me how that response squares with the cast-iron guarantees made to workers when the nuclear estate was privatised? Were the workers told that those so-called cast-iron guarantees were actually written on water?

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

Is that not a constant theme? People take out pensions in good faith, whether state or private, to plan for something that might happen 20, 30 or 40 years later, but by the time they get there the goalposts have been moved.

[Patricia Gibson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

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

[Patricia Gibson]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

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

[Patricia Gibson]

I wonder whether I may hurry the Minister along and raise the question of the apparent confusion in legislation about whether these workers are public sector workers or private sector workers. Why do the goalposts apparently change when it is convenient that they should—but not to the workers’ advantage?

[Margot James]

I understand that point, which the hon. Lady also made in her speech and which I took note of. I gather that she wrote to the Secretary of State about that very point in early February and is still awaiting a reply. A reply will be forthcoming. I am very sorry that I am not able to be definitive today, but I can assure her that Ministers in my Department take her point and the point made by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn very seriously indeed. We are listening to the concerns of the workforce she represents, and, as I said, my hon. Friend the Energy Minister is in discussion with the Treasury to try to clarify the point, so that the workforce know where they stand. I absolutely sympathise with a workforce who do not know where they stand—it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I assure her that it is one that is approaching a remedy.

We recognise that nuclear decommissioning is a closure industry and many workers have devoted careers to the industry knowing that their sites may close before they retire. We are actively exploring the potential impact of the cap on workforces at sites that are being actively decommissioned and are on the path to closure, such as Hunterston A in the hon. Lady’s constituency. I will pass all hon. Members’ comments on to my hon. Friend the Energy Minister.

Once the consultation period on the pension issue has finished, the NDA will take account of the consultation responses and make proposals for Ministers to consider after that. The Government will not take a final decision before the consultation has concluded. However, we believe that the revised CARE proposal offers a fair and sustainable solution.

As the debate draws to a close—the hon. Lady will have a further say—