Civil Nuclear Constabulary: Pensions

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Lord Harrington of Watford

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Richard Harrington]

I utterly accept that point. I must apologise to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for mixing up Hartlepool and Liverpool; I do not know why I did it. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not too offended. Perhaps it is because I come from Leeds, which is between the two. I got mixed up.

I am not going to say how important the Civil Nuclear Constabulary is to the nuclear industry, because everybody knows that. One of my early visits, and one of the most significant I have had in this job, was to Sellafield, where I saw the training centre. I did not just have a tour; I also saw how heavy the kit is, I spoke to a lot of officers and I heard about the training regimes they undertake. I do not think I could walk around all day and be fully mobile with the kit they have to wear and carry. I fully accept the level of fitness that is required. Chief Constable Mike Griffiths, who is about to leave the force, explained it clearly to me. He transformed the CNC so that it has become the modern force it is today.

The CNC is moving to the new pension scheme on 1 April next year. I have been keen to hear evidence and representations on the effect of the higher pension age on the effectiveness of the force. We engage with the CNC and the Civil Nuclear Police Federation, which I met last year, and I am well aware of their views. As soon as those views were brought to my attention, I contacted the Treasury and others in Government to try to resolve the issue. The least I could do was hear their representations—that is my job, as I am doing today—but I fully accept the importance of getting the matter resolved as quickly as possible.

I have contacted the Cabinet Office, because it administers the civil service pension scheme. The Treasury is responsible for public pensions policy and I have set out the arguments to officials there. It is easy to regard the Government as one collective group—that is perfectly reasonable and I understand that—but it is my job to support the causes within my Department within Government, and this issue is a top priority.

My officials have been working with the constabulary to gather additional evidence of the impact on national security, which the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned, of the higher pension age. I have also facilitated a meeting this week between special advisers from No. 10 and the constabulary, in which these matters were discussed. I am trying to bring all these things together to resolve the problem.

However, like most things in life, the problem is more complex than it would appear on the surface. We know, as I have said, that the tests and weapons are very important; I do not think anyone who visits or sees pictures of them could deny that. On the question of why CNC officers are not treated as police officers in the normal way, a judicial review in 2016 determined that they are employees of the Civil Nuclear Police Authority, so they come under the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and are not defined as police officers for the purposes of the Public Service Pensions Act. That is the legal position.

Fitness standards were rolled out, as the hon. Lady said, in 2015-16, and authorised firearms officers must meet College of Policing mandated standards.

[Patricia Gibson]

The Minister has set out his understanding of the challenging and important job that CNC officers do. I put it to him that perhaps the reason for the dither and delay across Government is because there appears to be, as I know from questions I have asked on the Floor of the House, a real lack of understanding at the heart of Government of what these officers are required to do, the challenges they face and the importance of the role they play.

[Richard Harrington]

I must respectfully disagree with the hon. Lady, if only because I have tried it myself. I have been there and seen that, so my understanding is not just based on representations. I hope she accepts that I understand this; there may be others who do not, but it is my job to make sure that they do. I accept that—it is my responsibility and my job.

The capabilities are very complex. The two tests of fitness and firearms capability determine whether an officer is deployable. It is the officer’s capability, rather than age, that is the determining factor, and I think that must be the right approach. Being in the age range of those who would be in such a position, as I was explaining to the hon. Lady before the debate started, I admit that, although some people are vastly fitter than I am, I would find it very difficult myself at my age of 61. I know it is harder for older officers to attain the fitness standards, but the College of Policing independently determines the standard that authorised firearms officers must achieve to do their job effectively and safely. That is a matter of national security and I accept that it cannot be compromised.

The Public Service Pensions Act legislated to introduce the link between scheme normal pension age and state pension age for most public service pension schemes, to ensure that the cost over the long term remains sustainable. I will not go further into that, because the hon. Lady marked my card that I might, and she does not want platitudes about people getting older. She is quite right, so I will not say it, but we must accept the fact that, in the end, all public service schemes have to be funded and public service employees have to work for longer.

In certain areas—prison officers are another case—there are not a lot of back-office jobs that people who are older can do. In the police force generally, there are plenty of those functions; I do not just mean some back-office clerical function, because there are many things that are less active but still fully contribute to the objectives of a particular police force. I accept that nuclear is one sector where that is less possible, because there just are not many similar functions.

The equality analysis accepted that it is harder for older female officers to attain such high fitness standards. A pension scheme has to be fair to females too, because they have a flatter career trajectory for that reason. The proposed pension scheme, alpha, is a career average earnings scheme rather than a final salary scheme. Changed contribution rates under this scheme will help employees with shallower career trajectories, which historically means women rather than men, although, obviously, male officers in the same position will also benefit.

I will also highlight the ill-health retirement provisions. We recognise that CNC officers have a higher rate of musculoskeletal disorders from carrying the heavy kit. The ill-health retirement provisions in their current pension scheme are quite strict and allow an ill-health retirement only where the officer is not capable of any other work. Consequently, officers who gain an ill-health retirement are not allowed to do any work after their exit from the force.

The alpha scheme, however, gives its members choice and recognises that it is desirable for people to continue working if they are able. It affords a lower tier of benefit to those who are unable to continue working in their role or a comparable one, so an officer could leave the CNC with an ill-health pension but still gain employment elsewhere to supplement their income and have a full working life in a more suitable job.

I am very aware of the current retention issues affecting the constabulary. I have been informed that there have been an unusually high number of resignations—in the last month alone there were 26—and that 19 officers are moving across to the Ministry of Defence Police. I do not think that the evidence presented is strong enough to draw a direct link between the current retention issues facing the CNC and the move to a different pension scheme, since many of the officers resigning are moving to a force that has the same pension scheme that the Civil Nuclear Police Federation is resisting.

I also do not consider the current retention issues facing the CNC to be a national security crisis. The CNC has assured us that it can operate with its current force strength, albeit officers are being asked to do overtime. If that changes, I will reappraise my position, but the CNC is still policing our nuclear sites to its required regulatory strength and our nuclear estate remains secure. I am grateful for the explanation and arguments that the hon. Lady and other colleagues have given today.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the Minister for his response, but can I ask him to explain something? I know that a lot of CNC officers do not understand this, and I do not either: why has a retirement age for CNC officers been set that, realistically, they cannot reach?

[Richard Harrington]

I do not accept the hon. Lady’s premise that realistically those officers cannot reach it. I accept that some of them cannot, but obviously some people can and some cannot; I mentioned myself, but many people are far fitter than me in doing that job and other dangerous jobs in society.

The hon. Lady told me—I know this is not your fault, Mr Stringer—that she had applied for this debate quite some months beforehand. I am glad we have had the debate, but if that happens in the future, she is welcome to contact me directly to discuss issues such as this. That would perhaps not be in such a public forum, but if she finds the system frustrating and she cannot get a debate, she is welcome to contact me.

In summary, I have met everyone concerned in this matter. I am pushing colleagues in the Treasury and the Cabinet Office, and I would like to see it resolved as soon as I possibly can.

Question put and agreed to.

Fuel Poverty

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Lord Harrington of Watford

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

I will indeed mention that. Various groups have lobbied all Members of Parliament to contribute to the debate and I agree with the basis of what they say.

It is also fair to say that fuel poverty is a devolved matter and that the debate originates from the fuel poverty strategy for England.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Harrington]

If the hon. Lady gives me a second, I hope that I will mention the point that she was about to make. Fuel poverty is a problem across the United Kingdom. I am sure that we all have constituents who struggle to keep their homes warm during the winter. The weather has no borders and does not understand devolved legislation. I am sure that the hon. Lady will confirm that.

[Patricia Gibson]

The Minister has said that measures to tackle fuel poverty have been devolved. The real drivers of fuel poverty are the high cost of fuel—the tax on which is reserved, as he knows—and, of course, people simply not having enough money. We know about the hardship that universal credit is causing, so I would say that the real and fundamental causes of fuel poverty are very much in the power of this Government to tackle, beyond energy efficiency measures.

[Richard Harrington]

I agree with the hon. Lady. The Government have many different strategies, and energy efficiency measures are one of them. The importance of working together with the devolved authorities on this issue was never in more evidence than during last winter’s beast from the east—I see the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is not in his seat. As temperatures plunged, many households throughout the UK faced broken boilers and frozen pipes. The sustained cold weather made it even more difficult for those on the lowest incomes and in the worst properties to be able to heat their home.

As has been mentioned, last month the Office for National Statistics reported there were 50,000 excess winter deaths last winter. The figure was said by the ONS to be unusually high because of multiple causes, including the virulent strain of flu, the relative ineffectiveness of the influenza vaccine and the colder than average winter temperatures. However, old, inefficient and cold homes, combined with occupants who are vulnerable to the impact of living in a cold home, certainly have been a factor.

The fabric of our building stock cannot continue to be a source of ill health. We have put in place an ambitious framework to tackle this issue, based on energy efficiency being the best long-term solution to tackle fuel poverty.

Smart Meters Bill

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Lord Harrington of Watford

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

[Patricia Gibson]

It is important to point out that we in the SNP accept that there are some real advantages to the consumer in switching to a smart meter and to smart meters in general. However, that does not mean that I suggest that the roll-out will be trouble-free and that I have no concerns about it, because that would not be true. Before proceeding, however, I would like to point out that I accept that the Minister has been receptive throughout to my concerns and the concerns of others across this House in Committee and beyond, and I thank him for that. I know he is keen to get this right, as we all are, and I thank him for his listening, consensual and constructive approach.

In the past, I pointed out to the Minister that I had concerns about aggressive selling which I believe is, as I have said, a result of Ofgem having the power to fine energy companies up to 10% of their annual turnover if they fail to meet their licence conditions—or certainly not assisted by that fact. One of the licence conditions is that each energy company should install smart meters in consumer homes by the end of 2020. Failure to do so can result in a massive penalty for the company. That being the case, aggressive selling starts to make more sense, given the pressure that energy companies are under to deliver smart meters to consumer homes within a rather tight deadline. I continue to detect a level of suspicion and scepticism about smart meters among far too many consumers. I hope that the Minister will accept that the licence conditions place pressure on the energy companies to roll out smart meters by 2020, and that that can place pressure on consumers in turn.

I am sure that, like me, the Minister will have been disturbed to learn of recent reports of energy companies employing salespeople to go out and proactively sell smart meters to consumers. If the reports are true, those salespeople can earn commissions of more than £1,000 week, which equates to bonuses of twice what the average worker earns in a year. Will the Minister acknowledge that this can lead to overbearing and aggressive doorstep selling, which can put consumers under pressure? Does he share my concerns about this? If so, what steps can he take to address it?

Cold calling is a discredited way of selling that puts undue pressure on consumers, particularly vulnerable ones. Does the Minister think that this is an acceptable way to proceed, given the rewards that sales reps can earn if they “persuade” enough people to install a smart meter? Is sending target-hungry salespeople to chap on the doors of the elderly and vulnerable the most desirable way we can think of to roll out smart meters? I would be extremely disappointed if the Minister—and indeed Ofgem—thought so. We know that doorstep energy selling was left with a very poor reputation after a series of investigations by Ofgem led to suppliers being fined millions of pounds for misleading customers over how much they could save. This resulted, between 2011 and 2012, in all the big six suppliers scrapping face-to-face sales practices, but smaller energy companies are now once again sending staff out to knock on doors. Is the Minister entirely comfortable with that? What reassurances can he offer to consumers and vulnerable members of our communities that they have the protection they need from such companies?

The Minister will also be aware of concerns about misleading letters being sent to consumers suggesting that smart meters are compulsory rather than optional. I want to put on record my thanks to the Minister for sending me samples of letters that have gone out to consumers from various energy companies, in order to reassure me. However, very few of those letters point out that smart meters are optional, and that the customer can refuse to have one. All the power companies in the sample of the largest suppliers say absolutely nothing about smart meters being optional. Does the Minister think that that is acceptable? Is he, like me and the trading standards authorities, concerned about this? If so, what action can Ofgem take to address the situation?

What is going on with the “You have been chosen for a free upgrade to a smart meter” letters that some companies are sending to consumers? I wish all consumers were aware that when a business tells them that they have been “specially selected” for something, it usually means that everyone has been “specially selected” for it and that the term is meaningless. Another old favourite involves the words “You are eligible”, which is also misleading, because everyone is eligible. If we all have the option to have a smart meter, why do some companies feel that it is honest and in order to tell us that we have been “specially selected”, or that we are “eligible” for one? Does the Minister have concerns about this way of misleading customers?

[Richard Harrington]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I was trying to attract her attention while she was mid-speech. The type of sales proposal she has mentioned is totally unacceptable. It is not within the regulations, and if she would like to write to me or see me with specific examples, I will take the matter up with the regulators myself.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the Minister for his response, but the information that I am imparting tonight comes from the sample of letters that the Minister sent to me, so some energy companies are clearly using this sharp practice. I would not say that all of them are, but some are certainly not saying that smart meters are optional, instead using language such as “You are eligible” or “You have been specially selected,” which is unacceptable.

Smart Meters Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Lord Harrington of Watford

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

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Lord Harrington of Watford

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Richard Harrington]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions, particularly the shadow Minister—or should I now call him my protection officer? I have never had one of those before and thought that I was not likely to, but I am very pleased that he has taken it upon himself to appoint himself to that position, which I warmly endorse, I thank him for that.

The new clauses give me the chance to set out the Government’s commitments for reporting on the smart meter roll-out, which is very important and something that I have given a lot of thought to. Before I do, I want to mention a couple of points that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran made, because they are quite different. She said that consumers were being misled by their energy companies and bullied into getting a smart meter—which is really what she was saying. I reiterate that it is not compulsory for anyone to have a smart meter installed. Consumers have a right to decline them.

[Patricia Gibson]

The Minister knows, as do I and everyone in this room, that smart meters are not compulsory, but my concern is that consumers are not always told that.

[Richard Harrington]

They should be, and I will do everything to make sure that they are. Suppliers have to treat their customers fairly, and that means being transparent and accurate in their communications. Ofgem has been in touch with energy suppliers to remind them of their obligations. It has written to all suppliers about deemed appointments—one of the points she made—to make clear that they have to consider whether deemed appointments are appropriate. Ofgem have marked their card on that because they have to take into account the consumers’ circumstances, for example ability to communicate, whether they may have not got the letter, and more. While I know that the hon. Lady is speaking entirely in good faith and that there have been examples of that, Ofgem is on it, and I shall monitor it carefully, as well as the other points she raised.

There is a conflict between us all wanting smart meters to be installed, because we think it is of long-term benefit to everyone, and protecting people’s right not to have one if they do not want one, for whatever reason, and to be informed of that right. We are putting pressure on the energy companies to install more, in keeping with the targets; the hon. Lady is right about that. However, we do not want any of the mis-selling cases that were well publicised some years ago, of people knocking on doors and getting householders to change supplier on false pretences. While the intentions are much more noble in this case, and however much we might think it is a good thing to have smart meters, we certainly do not want any form of pressure or inappropriate behaviour to mislead people. I tell everyone that it is brilliant to have a smart meter, and hopefully most of us will, but it is not for everybody. People should not feel under any pressure, and they should only want to have one for the best reasons.

I can be accused of many things, but lack of enthusiasm is not one of them. This is a really important element of the modernisation of the country’s energy infrastructure. Supplier switching is good, and I have done it myself, but it is not the answer. It is a right and a good thing to do, but the answer lies in what the smart meters will produce. I keep coming back to that in my head. I will not go through the reasons for it again, because hon. Members have been patient all day and on other days.

I understand and welcome the appetite for information on progress. It is right for us, as parliamentarians, to want that, and it is right for the Government and the Department to want to give that. It is right that customers generally should know, from the general public to what one paper calls the chattering classes—in other words, people who write on it, comment on it and study it. The more knowledge they have, the more it is part of the smart meter revolution, and the more people who have smart meters do not think they are alone and do not listen to the stories I have been sent by constituents—scare stories from the United States, conspiracy theories that MI5 is listening through smart meters and that sort of thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

It may not be a bad thing for certain people who are in a position to do that, but when kids come in from school and they need to have their dinner—people cannot really work around that and say “You need to wait until 8 o’clock to get your dinner because energy is cheaper then.” There are people for whom that might yield great benefits, but some are trapped in that peak period and cannot work around it. That is a real concern for a lot of consumers, as I am sure the Minister will understand.

[Richard Harrington]

As per the practice that I started in discussing the previous group of amendments, before addressing the substantive point perhaps I could try to answer the hon. Lady’s questions. The sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling are right—this issue is a double-edged sword. The very people that the hon. Lady described, who have children coming home and need to get the tea on, might also have a choice about when to do their washing and such things. The smart meter and the information that comes from it, can help as well as hinder people in those circumstances.

The choice of which tariffs to accept, even with the smartest of smart meters, will remain entirely with the customer. Smart meters facilitate time-of-use tariffs, which can influence demand and help to shift consumption away from peak times—that is a good thing—but they will also give people a choice that they do not have now. At the moment, if someone does not have the meter to give them the information, they cannot take an informed decision. Based on conversations I have had, I expect that suppliers will develop and offer new, smart, time-of-use tariffs that will be attractive to most consumers and help them to realise their benefits.

I accept the hon. Lady’s core point—people must be aware of the choices available, and they must be the type of customer that can take advantage of that choice. If their only function, apart from basic lighting and heating, is to hugely increase their use of electricity at a certain time because of cooking and children coming home, I accept that such a tariff would not be suitable for them. People must have the information to take that decision. I think I have laboured the point, but the hon. Lady raises an interesting issue that is not at all unreasonable —that is what I would expect, given her other consumer-based questions.

I shall try to deal briefly with the new clause in the spirit in which it was meant. Should the Secretary of State commission an independent review of public awareness and satisfaction of the roll-out? That is what is being asked. In answering, perhaps I should outline our approach to smart meter and consumer engagement in our programme up until now. It is set out formally in the programme’s consumer engagement strategy, which was published in December 2012, and it was based on extensive consultation and evidence gathering, as well as polling and market research. Although energy suppliers are at the forefront of installing smart meters, it was recognised that their consumer engagement would benefit from support by a central body that was independent of them and Government. We heard evidence from a representative of that body—Smart Energy GB—which enables consumers throughout the country to get consistent messages from a single simple campaign, rather than from multiple suppliers who are jumping over one another to get customers.

Both Smart Energy GB and the energy suppliers therefore have a role. The energy suppliers have the primary consumer engagement role, because they have the main contact with customers—they are who customers get their bills from and have their contracts with. Smart Energy GB, which is an independent, not-for-profit organisation, leads a national awareness and advertising programme to drive the behavioural change that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak mentioned and to help consumers to benefit from smart metering.

The energy supply licence conditions require that Smart Energy GB assists consumers on low incomes or with prepayment meters. Bill Bullen explained in our evidence session that that is his main market. That is really good—it is to those consumers’ advantage and I hope it is to his commercial advantage, too. From what he said, he seems to have done a good job of it.

That two-pronged approach has increased awareness of smart metering from 40% to 80% of consumers in three years, and it has driven a lot of demand. A recent survey of 10,000 people from all demographics and all parts of Great Britain showed that 49% of people would like to get a smart meter in six months. The campaign is resonating with people all over the country. Independent audits of Smart Energy GB show that two in three people recall its campaign. That is actually quite a lot in advertising. Findings from the latest “Smart energy outlook”, the independent barometer of national public opinion, show that detailed knowledge of smart metering is high—in some cases higher than in the general population—among groups that we might consider to have vulnerabilities, such as elderly people.

But nobody underestimates the challenge—I absolutely do not. We get a lot of information from Smart Energy GB. Suppliers share their information with it and with us, because it is in everyone’s interests to do so. They are transparent about their activities, both because it is in their interests and because they are required by law to publish an annual report outlining their performance against targets, alongside an updated consumer engagement plan. All that is available to the public via the internet and the usual channels.

As recently as August, the Government published the findings of external research that we commissioned on consumer experience of smart metering. We will produce further findings from ongoing fieldwork in the next few months. Our evidence to date shows that consumer satisfaction with smart meters is high. Some 80% of consumers are satisfied with them and 7% are dissatisfied. That information is all publicly available. Interestingly—I know that vulnerability is of interest to every Committee member, but particularly to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran—there was higher satisfaction among prepayment respondents, who are much more likely to be vulnerable consumers.

I support the positive intention behind the new clause. The Government really have to consider how consumer engagement can be better reflected in annual reports, which have to be consumer-facing as well as Parliament-facing. I am not quite sure about the answer, but that needs to be considered in detail. On balance, though, I consider that the requirements of the new clause are well met by existing arrangements. I promise that I do not say that through complacency. I have explained about external research agencies, and Smart Energy GB, which is independent, continually reviews consumer engagement. A review is therefore not needed at this stage—not because we do not intend to do that or because it does not need to be done, but because it would duplicate existing activities and would not represent good value for money. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak will withdraw the motion.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Lord Harrington of Watford

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

[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.

Support for the Bereaved

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Lord Harrington of Watford

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. I used the word “most” to refer to the most critical short-term time, which is what I was discussing, but I am prepared to accept her point, without getting into a competition about when “most” is most. It is all the time, and I am happy to say that, but that is not the context that I was referring to.

I hope the hon. Lady will agree that the old system could be unfair and complex, and could act as a trap preventing people from readjusting. Reform is essential to simplify and modernise the system. The history of bereavement benefits is rooted in the Widows’, Orphans’ and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act 1925. The way that people thought in those days was that most women were wholly dependent on their husband’s income. If a woman was widowed, her sole source of income would disappear completely, so it was considered necessary to provide a replacement income for her to survive.

Today, women as well as men actively participate in the workforce, and many households now benefit from dual careers and dual incomes. That is why we are modernising bereavement support into a simple, uniform and easy-to-understand benefit that better reflects society. We listened to the recommendation of the Work and Pensions Committee that there was merit in considering the length of the new bereavement support payment. For that reason, the bereavement support payment is now payable over 18 months.

[Patricia Gibson]

The Government have said that this is not about saving money but about, as the Minister has said, rationalising the system, bringing it into the modern era and so on. However, the Work and Pensions Committee told us that the changes to bereavement support payments will save £100 million. If this is not about saving money, will that £100 million be reinvested in helping the 75% of people who will lose out under the new measures?

[Richard Harrington]

If the hon. Lady will be patient with me a little longer, I will mention the financial point that she has made. I am sure that she will intervene to castigate me if I do not.

The new bereavement support payment restores fairness to the system and focuses support during the 18-month period after a loved one dies, when people need it the most. I accept the view of the hon. Member for Walthamstow that “most” can mean a lot of things. If I said “when people need it” without “the most”, it would still mean the same thing. People need it in those 18 months. The support is not taxed and is subject to a disregard for income-related benefits. The idea is, hopefully, to help those on the lowest incomes. Those who are least well off will gain the most, as for the first time they will be able to receive payments of bereavement benefit in full alongside any other benefit entitlements.

In her case studies, the hon. Member for Walthamstow mentioned the duration of payment and interactions with universal credit. We do not believe that the period of payment could or should be equivalent to the period of grief following spousal bereavement. As I know from the experience of many people known to me, grief can go on for one’s whole life. The payment is not designed for that; it is designed to support people with the additional costs associated with bereavement, rather than providing an income replacement. That is probably the contradiction with the points that she made.