Energy Security

Robert Syms Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I thank the hon. Member for welcoming me to the Dispatch Box. As he will know as Chair of the Select Committee, we have been working on the Sizewell deal for quite some time and we got to the Government investment decision stage yesterday. Of course, we have been talking to potential financiers along with EDF and the French Government. We are confident about the level of interest, but I have no doubt that I will come to his Select Committee, along with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Climate, to discuss that in more detail soon.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I welcome the announcements on nuclear and specifically on Sizewell C. The Rolls-Royce scheme for modular nuclear seems very exciting, but we do need to get on with it. Does the Secretary of State have a view as to what year we will be starting the first project?

[Grant Shapps]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that when I was at Sizewell yesterday, I was with leaders from EDF and the French Government—indeed, the French ambassador was there. Later in the day I spoke to my opposite number about ensuring that we can speed up co-operation on nuclear, as well as on things such as wind, and even on our interconnectors. I was going to say that the point of Great British Nuclear is to really put the acid under this, but I am sure that there is a much better nuclear comparison. It is really about ensuring that we get on with producing our new nuclear fleet a lot faster than has happened in the last few decades.

Shale Gas Extraction

Robert Syms Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is no surprise that I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I refer him to the 2012 report, which went through that and through what had happened in the United States for comparison purposes. First, it found the evidence on the pollution of aquifers was not actually any good: most of the stories were invented or were scare stories. In addition, the UK has a very good regulatory regime. The combination of ignoring the scare stories and decent regulation means that one can be confident that aquifers will not be damaged.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I welcome this announcement; it is one of the few from Front Benchers that will actually make us a lot richer, if we pursue it. It will also make us more resilient in a very difficult world. The key seems to be what advantage the communities that may be affected can get through financial support. Has the Secretary of State had any discussions with the Treasury? It seems to me that if local people give their consent, that is in the national interest.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful: my hon. Friend makes exactly the right point, both ways around. This is in the national interest and will make the country richer, but it is absolutely right that those affected should be rewarded. To my mind, that means direct financial reward, not a theoretical one. The last time that we discussed fracking, the idea was that communities would be delighted if they got £10 for the village hall. I do not think that is the right way to do it. This needs to be direct, to the individuals who are affected. I have had preliminary discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but I do not have a formal thing to announce.

Oil and Gas Producers: Windfall Tax

Robert Syms Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

We have had a pandemic, and the Prime Minister and the Chancellor put £400 billion into the economy to support businesses, people and employment. At one point, 11 million people—a third of the workforce—were being paid by the Treasury. If at that point one had said, “We will emerge with a growing economy, falling unemployment and 1.5 million vacancies,” it might have been thought to be a very optimistic scenario.

Yet the British economy is growing, and Europe, America and Canada are growing. The reason for the inflation spike and rising oil prices—they were zero during lockdown—is that the world economy is recovering. I make the gratuitous point that that is rather good news. It causes a problem for the Government in how to deal with some of the shortages and some of the price increases, but it is all good news. There are jobs out there, and people have a great opportunity to get into employment. The key point is that the Government’s policy of saving jobs has been a tremendous success.

The North sea has been a tremendous British success story, as my Scottish colleagues have said, but it is now in a mature phase. It needs stable, calm husbanding and tax rates so that less viable fields are eked out to their maximum life and so that newer fields in deeper waters are able to be developed. That is why we need a stable tax regime.

The arguments that have been made are perfectly sensible. Companies were losing money only a year or two ago, and now they are making money. The corporation tax regime and the petroleum revenue tax generate money when they make profits, which is the fair solution. The oil companies are owned by pension funds, and most of the people in those pension funds are ordinary people up and down the land. We have already heard about the 100,000 jobs that rely on the North sea. Why kick a successful industry when it can generate a lot more wealth, a lot more jobs and a lot more gas and fuel for the benefit of our nation, just to make a quick political point and make a few runs?

One of the things the last Labour Government did not do was develop the nuclear industry, which will be vital if we are to get to net zero. Hinkley Point C is being built, and I hope we will soon sign off Sizewell C. Rolls-Royce’s proposal for small nuclear reactors is excellent. The Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill, introduced by the Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change, allows more sustainable financing for these companies, and I think it will be a game changer.

We need more nuclear power, so we need to give it a big push. We need to value and to continue supporting the North sea. We should leave alternative measures, on top of all the measures the Minister set out at the beginning of the debate, for a statement from the Treasury. I think the Government’s policy is perfectly sensible and will get more supply of energy and a stable tax regime.

[Alan Brown]

The impact assessment for the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill gives an upper-limit estimate of £63 billion for the capital and financing costs of a new nuclear station. Is that really good value for money for bill payers?

[Sir Robert Syms]

Yes, it is very good value for money, because that is a lot cheaper than Hinkley Point C. The reality is that the Government are underwriting the industry, and if the industry overspends when it is producing a nuclear power station, it either gets equity or gets paid in cash. That is a very sensible way of doing it.

The only way that we will get to net zero is with a vibrant industry. Let us not forget that all the Magnox stations will close down over the next 10 or 15 years and we will have to replace that capacity. The solution to our problems is to have a balanced energy policy, with renewables, nuclear and the use of gas. If we have that, and if we do all we should to insulate homes and make people’s use of energy more efficient, we have a good policy. The Government have an excellent policy; I think they should say more about it.

Draft Infrastructure Planning (Electricity Storage Facilities) Order 2020

Robert Syms Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2020 General Committees

[The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Infrastructure Planning (Electricity Storage Facilities) Order 2020.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I am pleased that we have your direction for this hopefully short debate.

The draft order was laid before the House on 14 July. In the current situation, it is a very simple statutory instrument. Currently, for electricity storage facilities over 50 MW in England and over 350 MW in Wales, planning consent must be sought from the Secretary of State under the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime. For facilities below those thresholds, consent is derived from the relevant local planning authority. The SI simply removes the threshold and devolves all consents to the relevant local planning authority. We are doing this because there is strong evidence that the 50 MW threshold in England is distorting the sizing of projects and the nature of investment decisions. Here in England, there is clearly a clustering of storage projects sized just below the 50 MW threshold simply to avoid referral to the NSIP regime.

In 2019, we consulted on removing electricity storage, with the exemption of pumped hydro, from the NSIP regime in England and Wales. We received some 28 responses from the industry, and all bar two, I think, were broadly supportive of the change. For battery and more innovative forms of storage, the planning impacts are low compared with pumped hydro and other forms of generation. The extra time and cost of the NSIP regime is not thought to be proportionate and is also limiting the size of new projects to just below the threshold. The draft order removes these technologies, as I said, from the NSIP regime, so that consent will generally be sought from the local authority. To ensure consistent treatment, this will also apply to Wales, where the NSIP threshold, at 350 MW, is higher than that in England.

We feel that this measure will unlock investment in larger storage projects, support low-carbon jobs and help to decarbonise our energy system. Our assessment is that it could save the industry up to £7 million a year. As I said, the order does not remove pumped hydro storage from the NSIP regime, as hydro storage technology facilities have significant planning impacts, which we feel should be kept within the NSIP regime. Should Parliament approve the draft order, a parallel order will be required to amend the Electricity Act 1989 to ensure that consents for electricity storage fall within the local planning regime.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on a clear, concise explanation of what the Government are doing. It is rare in a Committee of this type that one actually understands what the Government are trying to do without doing handstands trying to read all the explanatory notes, so well done.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I thank my hon. Friend very much. I am pleased to say that I always try to boil down exactly what legislation does and to explain as simply as I can the Government’s aims. Having sat in these Committees, he and I know that many times people simply read out exactly what has been as presented to them, and in many instances—though not, I hasten to add, in this Parliament—Ministers have not really understood what they were saying. That was the impression I had as a Back Bencher, so I have tried to make things simple.

We will ensure that the statutory instrument applies for onshore and offshore facilities. We are working closely with the Welsh Government, who will pass their own legislation on storage located off the Welsh coast. The order will ensure that storage is treated appropriately in the planning system. That will unlock investment, which is critical to the net zero strategy that we have set ourselves.

Draft Shipments of Radioactive Substances (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Robert Syms Excerpts

Monday 18th February 2019 General Committees

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I was involved with the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 and I have sat on a number of related statutory instrument Committees, so it is pleasing to hear that all the building blocks are now in place. As a brief observation, the Minister has done a good job. He has been cheerful and open, and he has got on with it. If other Ministers took the same attitude, the job of Government would be a lot easier.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Robert Syms Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, which I believe reflects the progress that we have made. He works very hard for Culham; it is an extremely impressive place and I am sure that everyone on both sides of the House supports what they do.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

May I be the first to congratulate the Minister on the co-operation agreement that we have signed with the United States of America? This is a very good sign. There was some concern in Committee about the progress that we had made, and I believe that the Minister is doing his utmost to make sure that we have a fit-for-purpose regime in future.

[Richard Harrington]

I thank my hon. Friend. I would like to say that it was because of the personal influence that I have with President Trump, but no one in this House, and particularly you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would hear that. However, it shows that we have made a lot of progress and things are going according to plan. I am grateful to the United States for that assistance it has given us, as well as that of the other countries we are dealing with and the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose initials some of us repeatedly had difficulty pronouncing—I will come to the IAEA in a moment.

As currently formulated, amendment 3 will not work. Subsection (3)(c) currently contains a broad reference to international agreements made by Euratom to which the UK is a party. First, the UK is not a party to Euratom’s nuclear co-operation agreements; Euratom concludes them on behalf of member states, and Euratom, rather than the member states, is a party to those agreements. Secondly, subsection 3(c) covers a number of international agreements that are not in fact required to ensure the continuity of nuclear trade after withdrawal from Euratom. For these reasons, the other agreements that are covered by Lords amendment 3 should be restricted to the priority nuclear co-operation agreements with Australia, Canada, Japan and the US. Although I cannot agree to Lords amendment 3 in its present form, I am tabling an amendment in lieu, which I believe will address parliamentarians’ concerns. I particularly hope that it will address the issues raised by the shadow Front-Bench team and Members on both sides of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I can assure my hon. Friend that he meant March 2019. In answer also to the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), I would like to assure the House that the UK and the EU have reached agreement on the terms of an implementation period that will run from 30 March 2019 until the end of 2020. The existing Euratom treaty arrangements will continue during this period and businesses will be able to continue to trade on the same terms as now. As part of this, the UK and the EU agreed that for the duration of the implementation period the EU’s international agreements will continue to apply to the UK. This will include Euratom’s existing nuclear co-operation agreements with the USA, Canada, Australia and Japan.

[Sir Robert Syms]

I presume that the objective is to sign agreements with all the countries mentioned before March 2019, but there is also a process of ratification. Is it the Government’s objective to get those ratified before the leaving date, or will some of them be ratified during the transition period?

[Richard Harrington]

The best example I can give is the ratification of the agreement with the US—and this will also explain the difference between signing and ratification. Now that it has been signed, it needs to be approved in accordance with the relevant constitutional requirements of the UK and the US, just as will be the case with the other bilateral agreements, but we have built into our timetable sufficient time to allow for the necessary processes in both the UK Parliament—it will come before Parliament this year—and the US Congress, which has a slightly different arrangement involving several days of congressional business. I am very confident, however, that the process will be completed. In both cases, it is unprecedented for this to be anything other than a formality. Both countries will then exchange notes to bring the agreement into force when required, which we fully expect to be at the end of the implementation period, but we have built plenty of time into the process.

Draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Itemised Pay Statement) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2018

Robert Syms Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Griffiths)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Itemised Pay Statement) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2018.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. It is also a pleasure to bring the order to the House, because in doing so we are protecting the rights of thousands of workers and ensuring that everyone is paid fairly. In our response to the Taylor review of modern working practices, the Government agreed with the principle of increasing transparency for workers. Workers should have access to information on their rights and entitlements. In fact, today’s order goes beyond the recommendations made by Matthew Taylor in that review.

The order was laid alongside the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Itemised Pay Statement) (Amendment) Order 2018. Together, the orders will give all workers across the economy the right to a regular payslip and require all employers to provide better information in those payslips to help workers understand what exactly they are being paid for. They will provide workers with more information on their pay and help workers spot if they are being underpaid. For example, the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Itemised Pay Statement) (Amendment) Order 2018 will require employers to increase the amount of information provided in time-paid employees’ payslips. That means employers will have to state clearly the number of hours that those workers are being paid for.

Put simply, if a worker receives a payslip recording 20 hours of work, when she or he has worked 25 hours, there is a clear case of underpayment. The transparency ensured by providing hourly information will assist workers in identifying and addressing cases of underpayment, including in some cases national minimum wage underpayment. Up to 1.6 million people will be entitled to receive information on the amount of time they are being paid for in their payslips.

The second order, which we are debating, extends the right to receive an itemised payslip to all workers. Currently only employees—a subset of workers—are entitled to a payslip. The order will mean that an estimated 300,000 workers who do not currently receive a payslip will start receiving one. These simple and practical changes will help workers up and down the country spot and address underpaid wages.

Whenever a worker thinks they may have been underpaid, I encourage them to raise it with their employer. Unfortunately for some workers, that is not always feasible. In those cases, workers should call ACAS for free and confidential advice. I commend the work of that organisation. However, although Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will look into potential national minimum wage underpayments, a worker will need to raise a complaint with an employment tribunal if they do not receive a payslip or the information to which they are entitled.

To develop the policy, we consulted widely with a variety of stakeholders, including employer and worker representatives and payroll and software providers. The exercise established that the majority of stakeholders supported the principle of greater transparency and sharing more information with workers. We are encouraged that the majority of employers already provide all their workers, not just those who are employees, with a payslip. Furthermore, some employers also include breakdowns on the hours worked by their staff. The orders therefore bring all employers under one set of standards.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

Will the Minister define what he considers a payslip? Is it a piece of paper or is it access to something online?

[Andrew Griffiths]

It is access to information on the amount that a worker or employee is being paid, so it could be paper or it could be electronic.

I have listened to the arguments for even greater detail in payslips, which I am sure hon. Members may want to make. It is important that we introduce the measure in a proportionate way that does not overburden employers who are trying to do the right thing.

The need to provide greater transparency over pay in workers’ payslips was first recommended by the independent Low Pay Commission. It said:

“We recommend that the Government reviews the current obligations on employers regarding provision of payslips and considers introducing a requirement that payslips of hourly-paid staff clearly state the hours they are being paid for.”

Bringing these orders into force is part of a wider Government crackdown on wage underpayment. Those aged 25 and over are entitled to the national living wage of £7.50 per hour, and I am pleased to say that the Government will increase that rate above inflation to £7.83 from next month. That is a pay rise of £600 a year for those on the national minimum wage. In all, increases to the national minimum wage and national living wage will benefit more than 2 million workers. It is a well-earned pay rise.

We recognise that, as the minimum wage rises each year, the risk of non-compliance increases. We are actively taking steps to tackle non-compliance and sending a clear message to employers that underpaying workers will not go unpunished. It is simply wrong and must end, which is why the Government continue to invest heavily in ensuring workers are paid correctly. We have doubled our investment in minimum wage enforcement and spend more than £25 million annually on investigating employers and ensuring they meet their legal responsibilities.

It is right that workers are provided with transparent information on their employment rights. It helps empower workers to hold their employers to account. It is essential for good work and underpins a productive and motivated workforce.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Syms Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

1. What assessment he has made of the effect of the liquidation of Carillion on the viability of small businesses.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

10. What steps he is taking to support businesses affected by the liquidation of Carillion.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

I have set up a taskforce bringing together small and medium-sized businesses, the Government, local government and trade unions to assist with the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises and the supply chain. The taskforce has delivered a range of supportive measures, including assistance from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for those experiencing difficulties and more than £900 million of support from UK lenders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Syms]

The collapse is really bad news for many smaller businesses, many of which will have their capital wiped out. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with banks about forbearance in keeping those businesses going so that there is proper competition in this market for the future?

[Greg Clark]

I apologise to my hon. Friend if he did not receive notice of the grouping—I am sure that is my error.

On engagement with the banks, each of them has responsibilities to its customers to help them through difficult times. The banks have explicitly committed to help them with any cash flow difficulties that they experience, and I expect the banks to deliver on it.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill (Sixth sitting)

Robert Syms Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause refers to the possibility of seeking a transition period prior to the UK leaving Euratom of not less than two years. It states that during that transition period,

“conditions under which the UK is a member of EURATOM before exit day shall continue to apply…obligations upon the UK which derive from membership of EURATOM before exit day shall continue to apply…structures for UK participation in EURATOM that are in place before exit day shall be maintained”—

and most importantly—

“financial commitment to EURATOM made by the UK during the course of UK membership of EURATOM before exit day shall be honoured.”

Nothing in the new clause suggests that we shall be members of Euratom in perpetuity.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we continue to be a member of Euratom for two years, during which time we would presumably continue to pay our contribution, while at the same time employing inspectors in the UK— we are actually trying to recruit people at the moment. Would it not impose additional costs on the industry if we are both recruiting inspectors and staying in Euratom? Is that not double jeopardy?

Nuclear Safeguards Bill (Fourth sitting)

Robert Syms Excerpts

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

[Dr Whitehead]

That is absolutely right; that is the process by which the Bill comes into place, and that is the whole intent behind the trajectory of the Bill and the discussions ahead of it.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

Getting an agreement with Euratom might well be one of the easier things, but it will get caught up in all the other negotiations, which means the EU might not say yes until the other things are considered. Even if there is an agreement before March 2019, it might not be ratified by the EU for some months—perhaps years—because the whole process could take a while. That leaves a gap in which we need a regime that the world has confidence in, so that we can continue to have a nuclear industry. If we simply put our eggs in one basket by waiting for an agreement with Euratom, the risk is that we will be sitting around, unable to import, export or employ people. This is simply the Government’s straightforward backstop position, which I think is sensible.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I cannot help feeling that there is some degree of misunderstanding going on here, for two reasons. First, it is not the case, and never has been, that the Opposition understand the process of moving from Euratom to our own arrangements—parallel to, and as close as possible to, Euratom—as involving any gap at all. Clearly, we need to have a regime in place to deal with whatever contingent circumstances take place; we are completely at one with the Government on that. We do not know exactly what those circumstances will be, so we need to be ahead of the game and have those contingent arrangements in place. Everybody, on both sides of the Committee, is in complete agreement on that point.

Secondly, however, it is not necessarily the case that the close association that we might want to seek will get embroiled in the rest of the EU withdrawal negotiations, because the Euratom treaty is separate from the EU treaty. Even if one considers them to be conjoined, it is more than possible—in fact, highly probable—that the actual negotiations will proceed on the basis of those two separate treaty arrangements, and therefore will not get entangled in those overall negotiations.

We are seeking clarity on what those arrangements might be; arrangements that would not stop the Bill from happening but might be there in place of the Bill, circumstances permitting. One builds the house and the roof hoping that it will not rain—at least not while one is still building—but clearly one has to proceed in all circumstances. That seems to me to be essentially what we are doing today in Committee. It is a separate point from what we might to seek to achieve in terms of our future relationship with Euratom, and that is what the amendments are about.

To end the suspense for the Committee, if it is still wide enough awake to be in suspense—I am sorry if I have gone on for rather a long time on this point—we particularly want to press for the purpose clause, because we think that would clarify a number of the other intentions. I understand that the new clause has essentially been moved up in the order of consideration and is being debated today, but nevertheless as a new clause it will be voted on at the end of our proceedings, so it is not a question of asking whether we want a Division on it, because that will not happen this afternoon. The new clause has been moved into this debate, absolutely rightly, and has served its purpose well in framing the debate in the proper place; and because the amendments are contingent, in effect, on that clause, it is not our intention to divide the Committee on those individual measures this afternoon. However, depending on what happens with the vote on the purpose clause at the end, it is conceivable that we would return to them on Report. However, for this afternoon’s purposes, we do not intend to divide the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.