Swansea Tidal Lagoon: Hendry Review

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

I think that the noble Lord is trying to put the wrong interpretation on that. As my right honourable friend made clear in responses earlier today in another place, she is still open on this matter, no decisions have been made and she still wants to continue those cordial relations with colleagues in the Welsh Government. I have not got a transcript of what she said but no doubt the noble Lord can look at Hansard tomorrow.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister could take this matter forward by telling us when the decision will be taken.

[Lord Henley]

The noble Lord is slightly more of an optimist than I am.

Smart Meters Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th April 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

I support Amendment 4. Compared with other noble Lords present, I came late to the smart meters table. They have participated in a number of debates leading up to where we are now and during that process they have obviously met a number of bodies associated with the smart meters programme. I have to say that I have been somewhat shocked at how what should be an energy revolution, welcomed on all sides of this House and beyond, has turned into a shambolic mess. As was mentioned, the cost—much higher than was ever envisaged—will no doubt end up with the consumer. This could and should never have happened.

I was a member of the London Assembly when it was formed in 2000 and I was chair of the transport committee. When we introduced in London the biggest civil engineering project since the end of the Second World War—the congestion charge—a great deal of planning and work went into making sure that on the day it went live, it was so well thought through that nothing went wrong, despite the Daily Mail circling the perimeter of the charge to, it hoped, see it go wrong. I do not really understand why the commissioning of such a major infrastructure project has not been treated in that fashion. This is an absolutely huge change and an infrastructure priority, heralding a better future for all when energy is very important to this country. It seems to have involved a kind of piecemeal bun fight over which companies will deliver which meters to which people under what circumstances and for how long, with no co-ordination, no collaboration and nothing bringing it together.

Everyone has made it quite clear that the deadline will be missed. I am afraid that I have not met anyone, other than the Minister, who thinks that this deadline will be reached. That being the case, rather than move the programme to 2023 or whatever, it would be far better to grab hold of it now: otherwise, consumer confidence, which is vital to this project, will be completely undermined. I hope that the Government will grasp hold of this and take up the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, coming back with a similar suggestion for halting the project and promoting a national plan. Not only does what needs to be done to whom, by whom and at what cost need to be thought through but there is a great need for a new communications programme to market the project. There is possibly also a need to incentivise consumers and to find a way not to put them off but to bring them back into the fold after they have become somewhat disillusioned.

The opportunity to make the project work is there, but at the moment we are in danger of the absolute opposite happening, with diminishing returns and diminishing confidence, shooting ourselves in the foot over what should be a fantastic programme for the future. The project has been piecemeal, inadequate and not thought through. If the Minister will excuse me, I believe that he should bring it together, do the necessary and bring back an amendment on Report.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on this major amendment in terms of a plan. I have been searching to find a way in which this project can be put right. The difficulty is in making it deliverable and coherent without going back to where we were 12 years ago. This programme started in 2006 and it has taken since then—the time taken for the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War, plus a bit more—to get to 300 SMETS 2 meters. That is what we have achieved over that period of time. That suggests to me that it has not been good. Obviously, a number of Governments have been involved during that time. We all understand how important this is. This programme is not just about people not having to read the meter any more, as one of my colleagues said over lunch, but about how we manage energy in the whole economy and our nation for decades ahead. We should be leading a cultural, technical and economic change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

Again, I do not know about this year. I understand that the NAO still plans to undertake a review. It has not confirmed its timetable. Obviously, that is a matter for the NAO. When there is a new cost-benefit analysis, obviously we will look at it—but I cannot go into the NAO’s timetable.

[Lord Teverson]

Perhaps it might be useful if we could meet the NAO and go through this and make sure that the audit is broad enough in scope without it taking longer. I realise that this question is not completely to do with these amendments, but I did ask the Minister about the transferability of SMETS 1 meters, which is different from interoperability—SMETS 1 meters are surprisingly interoperable generally—and the problem of taking one out and replacing it with one that is almost identical but is from a different supplier. Is the Minister aware of that? Do his officials see that as a significant problem? Is there a solution so that we can stop this almost immediately, if it is happening?

[Lord Henley]

I think I had better take advice on that and possibly write to the noble Lord, or deal with it in any meeting that we have. I understand that some SMETS 1 meters can be upgraded. But I do not want to put on the record anything that I might have to make a personal statement about and correct the following day. Perhaps we could leave that to a letter or a discussion with the noble Lord.

[Lord Teverson]

I am very happy with that. I stress that it is an asset and financing issue, rather than an interoperability issue.

[Lord Grantchester]

I thank the Minister for his response, and I am grateful for all the comments made around the Committee today. It has been very helpful. I am not trying merely to tease the Government in offering them more time, I thought that the Minister might come forward with evidence to show that all this is going to be achieved well within the 2023 timeframe, and the different steps that are going ahead, such that we could be shown to be completely erroneous in our impression that the Government may need more time. I put it to him that we are trying to be constructive and trying to get the right solutions done in an effective way for smart metering to be well accepted, so that when consumers are offered a smart meter they are only too keen to go ahead because of the state of the technology, the benefits that can be shown to them, and so on, and we can all look forward to an early resolution of all these problems for a successful outcome. So if the Minister is happy to take it in that timeframe and does not see a critical issue in the 2023 deadline, I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

One is the consequence of the other, as I understand it. That is the problem. When you change your supplier, I understand that on occasion you have to change the meter. Am I not correct?

[Lord Teverson]

Unfortunately, probably after the First World War, the Second World War and the Korean War, the phoney war bit during the coalition Government was around the whole process more or less coming to a halt because this whole security issue came up, which was a major delaying factor at the time. I do not want to talk on behalf of the Government of that time, but security was given huge focus. From a personal point of view, I feel that that area has been dealt with enough at the moment. It clearly needs an ongoing security look, but it was one reason why the whole programme pretty much ground to a halt during part of the period of the coalition Government—if that is at all helpful.

[Lord Henley]

We will get on to “helpful” again later on. I do not know whether I can take the noble Lord much further. We have talked about security, and I have made it clear that we must give the public as much assurance as possible. I think that the noble Lord is happy about that and the involvement of GCHQ and others.

The noble Lord raised the question about consumers in effect losing functionality when switching supplier. When installing a smart meter, it is necessary for energy suppliers to take reasonable steps to inform the consumer that they may lose some of the functionality when switching supplier—but only some. There is also the question of whether those with SMETS 1 meters can switch supplier. The noble Lord’s question started on one level and moved to quite different levels at different moments, but I think that that was what he was talking about. Consumers with the first generation of SMETS 1 can still switch energy supplier, and they are often in a better position to do so. That is a matter for them, and they can continue to do that.

I shall now move on to the second in this block of amendments—the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, Amendment 6, which suggests that there should be a review of the code of practice by the Secretary of State. Receiving a positive installation experience that leaves consumers satisfied and well informed is vital to ensuring that they can engage with their smart meter and take control of their energy use. Energy suppliers were required by their licence to develop and adhere to an installation code of practice when installing in domestic and microbusiness premises. In developing this code, energy suppliers were required to ensure that it both supported the delivery of overarching objectives and, in a number of key areas, met detailed requirements. Those requirements include providing energy efficiency guidance, not charging consumers up front for the installation, and meeting the needs of vulnerable domestic consumers. Energy suppliers were also required to take into account the views of consumer groups and other interested parties when developing the code.

The code was consulted on in draft in 2013 and subsequently approved by Ofgem in its capacity as the authority in this area. It is overseen by a code governance board composed of representatives from large, small and microbusiness energy suppliers. It also includes representatives from Citizens Advice. Any of those representatives has the ability to propose amendments to the code, which are then presented to Ofgem for consideration. This governance framework ensures that consumer interests are represented on an ongoing basis across all elements of the code’s operation.

Energy supply licence conditions supporting the code of practice also require energy suppliers to put in place monitoring arrangements and procedures for reviewing and updating the code. As part of this activity, energy suppliers are required to obtain views from consumers on the installation process and conduct of their installers. To achieve this, the code requires all energy suppliers installing more than 5,000 smart meters a year to undertake a survey of their customers. These surveys are conducted regularly, the results are anonymised, and reports are provided to the code governance board on a quarterly basis, enabling any areas of concern to be identified and rectified, including through amendment to the code.

As a further backstop, in the event that significant concerns are raised regarding the suitability of the code, Ofgem also has the power to require energy suppliers to review specific features of the code and can direct modifications if necessary. The amendment here would require a one-off review of the code to be undertaken, but I hope that in outlining the governance and monitoring requirements already in place I have demonstrated that the code is already subject to ongoing review and continues to evolve to meet consumer needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Maddock]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 5—I hope I have got the right number this time and I apologise if I confused people before.

This is a probing amendment. I have raised issues with the Government before about the interoperability and the joining-up of the different policies that we have. Fuel poverty is an area in which I take an interest and the Bill impacts on fuel poverty strategy and affects those in fuel poverty. It also impacts on energy efficiency, which, as the Government have made clear, is one of the reasons for the programme. However, I am never quite sure how good the Government are at joining everything up. The amendment therefore asks the Government to review how this programme is affecting the fuel poverty and energy efficiency programmes and how it can benefit them.

On fuel poverty, the ability for people on low incomes to get an accurate bill and save energy is important. We know that shock bills can create a sense of fear in people and quite often that is why they end up going into debt. Inaccurate bills can sometimes have the same effect and we recognise that part of this development is to prevent people receiving inaccurate bills. Any delays in the programme will have a greater adverse effect on those who are in fuel poverty or are vulnerable in some way or another.

The pre-payment meter price cap, to which we will come later, is still closely linked with the smart meter rollout. One area of the rollout concerns me. Smart meters have been of great benefit to people on pre-paid meters but I understand there might be problems later when the SMETS 2 come in. Could the Minister reassure us that the Government have this in hand, because some people are concerned about how it might work out?

I learned today something that neither I nor my colleagues had heard of before. Photovoltaics on roofs is one of the energy efficiency programmes that we have introduced in the past, but when one of my colleagues in the House who has such a system asked for a smart meter she was told that she could not have one. However, she might be able to when SMETS 2 comes in. So there are two questions about the SMETS 2 meters: are people who pre-pay going to suffer and what are we doing about people with solar panels? Do the Government know how many houses have solar panels? That is a whole chunk out at the moment. If that is the case, they should be the first people to get SMETS 2. Somebody should try to target it in that way.

The other issue is one that I have discovered, I think from the briefings we got from Smart Energy GB, which is the fact that not everybody has an in-house display when they have their meter fitted. I was quite shocked by this because I thought that was the whole point. As it said in the briefings I received from it, some people have meters in very strange places—in cupboards under the stairs and all sorts of places. I cannot understand why the programme was not insisting that, when you have a smart meter, you have an in-house display, otherwise many of the benefits that we hope smart meters will bring are somewhat negated if you cannot read it very easily.

I am not going to prolong the Committee much longer, but it is important, whenever the Government review what is going on with the smart meter rollout, that they think carefully about the other areas of policy. As I said, and as I raised before, I am particularly concerned about those in fuel poverty. I know that the smart meter rollout companies are working quite carefully with other people to help those in fuel poverty. I declared an interest at Second Reading because I am a vice-president of a fuel poverty charity, National Energy Action. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister can answer a couple of the questions I have given him. I urge that, whatever reviews we have, we must sometimes refer to how it is impacting on other government policies. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 12 and 13. One of the things that has exercised me most about this programme is how, in the transition from SMETS 1 to SMETS 2, we assess that we are sufficiently there to fire the gun to roll out what is an £11 billion programme. That is not an insignificant amount of money. My noble friend Lady Featherstone pointed to the congestion charge. I do not know what it cost to roll out; it was expensive, but I suspect it was not anywhere near £11 billion. That is why it is important, before the rest of this happens, that we make sure we are in the right place.

I understand that we currently have some 300 SMETS meters out there being tested. I also understand that there is still a further software upgrade to happen in September—I would be interested to know whether that is the case—yet we have a deadline of October, which is only some six months away. That is why I am saying in the amendment—it is rather a blunt instrument and probably would not be absolutely correct for the final Bill—that there should be some 500,000 SMETS 2 meters out there to make sure that this market works. That seems like a huge number, but I remind noble Lords that it is 1% of the total number of meters that have to be smart by the end of this programme—some 47 million to 50 million. That is why, in terms of the size of the programme and the length of time we have already taken in getting it right and getting consumer confidence, I am trying to understand from the Government and the Minister what tests they have and what threshold they are expecting to see before they say that the programme is fully fit for purpose, they have confidence and they are going to roll the rest of it out as SMETS 2—SMETS 1 no longer, although we have 10 million of those meters already. What is the threshold that says that they have the confidence to roll out one of the most expensive projects? I am not sure that it is as expensive as Hinkley C, but it probably will be by the end of the Hinkley C programme. It is a huge amount of money and a huge national investment that is really important for the future, so what is the threshold test before we roll it out with confidence?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this is a wide-ranging group of amendments and it is a bit hard to find the right balancing point to address it, so I am going to give up at the beginning and just go through them one by one—in a slightly different order, just to confuse everyone.

Amendment 5 is right on the money in trying to make us focus again on why we are doing this and what it is about. It will not be worth doing unless there is an impact on energy efficiency. As we were reminded in the first group by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the problem we face and the one that the Government have to open themselves to be honest about is whether this will be worth having in the sense that it will actually change people’s behaviour and therefore save us some of the costs that we have from our expensive use of energy. If that is not part of what we are thinking, we need to make it part of the process and, indeed, the plan, if we go that way.

I was listening hard to what the Minister was saying, but I was expecting him to say a lot about the industrial strategy, since it is seated in his department and it seems to me that this is part of the industrial strategy. Our energy efficiency should have a material effect on our ability as a nation to continue to operate as a net importer of energy and as we gradually try to be more effective and efficient in what energy we can produce and how we use it. Those things seem crucially the bedrock on which any industrial strategy, and therefore any chance of this country surviving in the long term, is placed. I would have thought that it would be important to the Government to put this at the heart of what they were saying about the future stages of this process, because that will be helpful in convincing consumers, both those in fuel poverty and others who are just interested in the overall economics and efficiency of the country. So the requirement to lay a report that focuses on that might help us to win the battle of hearts and minds to get people more to accept it, and we support the amendment.

Amendment 7 is a bit more on the money in real terms, because it says that, if there are economic and other efficiencies in the process, the consumer should benefit from them. Again, we would support that. You do not have to be a conspiracy theorist—well, probably you do, but you do not have to be a genuine conspiracy theorist—to sense that there is something a bit odd going here. In a curious sort of way, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said it. Here we have an £11 billion programme. It is not being financed out of general taxation; there is a money tree, and that money tree is consumers who are being asked to pay for this without actually knowing what they are paying for. This is being loaded on to their bills and recouped by the companies. It is not being passed on to those who are benefiting from efficiencies. Nor is it being used for useful purposes for trying to help those who are suffering fuel poverty. Have I got this wrong? If I am right in this, we ought to confess that this is what we are doing and think much more carefully about the £11 billion price tag. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, put his finger on it in saying that we ought to be certain about the benefits that will flow from this before we push the button, and his amendment, which we are coming on to, focuses on that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, talked about real benefits to individuals. If we were interested in the consumer approach and in consumers buying this programme, getting behind it and saying that everybody should have one of these things because not only do they give you pretty pictures about what energy you are using but you get money out of it because it shows you how to reduce your costs and that benefit comes back to you, that would be an advantage to the Government, who might otherwise be struggling to get people behind this.

Amendments 12 and 13—effectively, Amendment 13 —take us back to our discussions on the first group of amendments and Amendment 4, which is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Grantchester. Amendment 13 sets as a condition of minimum confidence 500,000 SMETS 2 meters—still a very small number—which are so far really untested in operation. Going back to what I said earlier about the need to operate in the wider context of opening up for innovation and bringing in new ideas, new ways of saving money and new ways that consumers could try to do things differently in their home in their use of equipment and the internet of things, we know all these other things are there and should be part of this process and package, but they cannot be until this project goes well. This amendment might look like a simple delaying tactic, but it sets an important pausing point at which everybody who is concerned in this, whether there is a proper plan or not, can say that they have confidence to go ahead with this project because they know it works and that at least at the level of the first 500,000 of these SMETS 2 meters it is a going concern, it is terrific, we can talk it up and we can all get behind it. There is a lot to commend this amendment to the Minister and I look forward to hearing him respond to it.

The Government have a rather uncomfortable choice. It would be very sensible for them to accept either this amendment or Amendment 4 because without some sort of overall bringing together of the consumer interest, the supplier interest, the regulator interest, Parliament, which needs to have a role in this, and the Government we will not get this working properly. That will be suboptimal for the country and for everyone in the long term.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, may I correct something I said about Hinkley Point C? EDF’s latest estimate is actually £19 billion to £20 billion. Preventing that sort of capital expenditure on energy generation is what this programme should be about. I apologise to the Committee that it is a rather larger sum than even I thought.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, £1 billion here, £1 billion there and pretty soon we are talking real money. I will deal with the amendments in the order they came: that is, Amendments 5, 7, 12 and 13. Amendments 12 and 13 go together. Actually, all three go together, but there was some confusion.

Starting with Amendment 5, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, on energy efficiency and fuel poverty, I ought to say in passing that I very much support the spirit behind these amendments but I am concerned that they could undermine the efficient delivery of the rollout and could lead to unintended consequences and costs for consumers. But I will deal with the amendments one by one, starting with Amendment 5.

One of the main objectives of the smart meter rollout in Great Britain—it does not apply to Northern Ireland—is to put consumers in control of their energy use so that they become more informed and efficient, and save themselves money. Smart metering will reduce the costs for prepayment customers and enable remote topping-up, meaning that some of Britain’s hardest-pressed energy consumers will have access to more competitive deals and more convenience in paying for their energy. I was grateful for what the noble Baroness said about people with prepayment meters and the price cap. We will get on to the price cap for others more generally, but it is already in existence for people with prepayment meters and I think that it has been working with some success.

If I heard her aright, the noble Baroness said that she had heard that SMETS 2 meters posed a problem for some prepayment customers. We believe that SMETS 1 meters provide significant smart functionality to consumers, but SMETS 2 will provide them with additional benefits and will allow consumers always to retain smart functionality when they switch suppliers. SMETS 2 meters will also allow consumers, if they choose, to share data with third parties, and those third parties may be able to offer, for example, tailored energy-efficiency advice, which could be of use to certain customers.

Amendment 5 would introduce a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to commission a review to consider how the extended use of powers would impact energy use in the United Kingdom, with a particular focus on the impact on fuel poverty and energy efficiency.

With in-home displays offered to households as part of the installation, low-credit alerts are more visible, giving consumers an early warning. The ability for consumers to set a budget and to see exactly how much they are using, in pounds and pence, is giving prepayment consumers control over their energy use and contributing to greater levels of satisfaction among prepayment consumers. Certainly, the research that we have done shows that 84% of smart prepayment customers are satisfied with their smart meters and 88% are likely to recommend them. Government research shows that eight out of 10 would recommend them to family or friends, and 82% of people with a smart meter have taken at least one step to reduce their energy use. British Gas is reporting that its dual fuel customers with smart meters are making sustained 4% annual energy savings.

To some extent, that brings me on to the question about accessibility of meters raised by the noble Baroness. As she is well aware, the accessibility of existing meters can be pretty difficult, as I discovered in London the other day as I lay down on the floor trying to read a meter. I realised that I did not have my reading glasses with me but then realised that reading glasses would not help as I was wearing my contact lenses. It is a minor problem for someone in a reasonably fit state, but we accept that reading meters can be difficult for certain people, depending on where the meters are put.

The technical specifications for IHDs require them to be designed to enable the information on them to be easily accessed and presented in a form that is clear and easy to understand, including by consumers with impaired sight, memory, learning ability or dexterity. Energy suppliers, led by Energy UK, have been working together to develop a fully accessible IHD, and we expect that device to be available shortly. If it can be made available to those who have problems, the noble Baroness and I will also find it a great deal easier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

I do not necessarily take all claims from France as seriously as the noble Lord does. I will certainly have a look at that claim being made by the French, but I believe we are doing reasonably well. Obviously, I will have a look at what they are doing and, if there are things that we can learn from that, we should do so. Just as we will continue to monitor delivery in this country, we will study and look at what is happening abroad. I have received advice about what is happening and whether we are sharing our experience with other countries and whether other countries have shared their experience with us. We have looked not just at what is happening throughout Europe—we have met representatives from Ireland, Sweden, Spain, Malta and, I understand, France—but we have looked further afield to India, Australia and the United States. Lessons we have learned include the importance of consumer engagement. That is why I emphasised earlier what we have done on consumer engagement.

On the actual costs, the advice I have received is that the EU average comes in at £181, compared with our figure of around £155 for a single-fuel electricity installation. So that is somewhat lower. On that front we are doing better. If there is anything further I can add about gas distribution grids in Malta or Italy that might be of use or even of interest to the noble Lord, I will pass it on. Another matter that came up was a concern about privacy, which is something that the noble Lord is concerned about and we discussed earlier.

In conclusion, we will continue to monitor the delivery of the programme and will continue to provide updates in annual reports and an updated cost-benefit analysis. I do not think the amendments add much. They risk duplicating those processes and could result, as I said, in unintended consequences that might delay getting the benefits to the consumer. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Teverson]

The purpose of my amendment—I accept a lot of what the Minister said about its effects—was to get to understand what the test will be. What criteria will the department use to say, “SMETS 2 meters will work, they will integrate with the systems they have to integrate with, so we will give them the green light”? How will the assessment be made that SMETS 2 works—not just the individual meters but as a system—before we invest the other £8 billion?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we have started. The noble Lord gave his figure for how many SMETS 1 meters have been installed—I think it was about 10 million, which I do not dispute. I do not have the precise figure in front of me. We feel it is likely that we will be ready to cease to count the SMETS 1 meters towards the target in about October and therefore the suppliers will move on to SMETS 2, which brings further benefits. Over this year, we will see a growth in the number. I am not going to give a precise figure now for how that will grow, but we are likely to see the benefits from that. There is no point sticking with SMETS 1 when we can move on to SMETS 2.

[Lord Teverson]

I agree entirely with that, but it is not the point I am trying to make. SMETS 2 operates through DCC in a different system. It has different software and capabilities; otherwise, there is no point in doing this. SMETS 1 machines work on different systems. They work through the suppliers in bespoke ways. I understand the difference between the two. We need to stop operating SMETS 1 as soon as possible and we want to roll out SMETS 2. What is the test so that we can be happy that SMETS 2 functions correctly and confident that it is all systems go? I do not understand the test.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, in this group we have Amendment 10, which I think takes the debate a little further forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, made the case very well about the immediacy of the problem that now faces the Government and how they make progress with a company which has given a profits warning and has had to raise funding. Although it says that it might have access to many billions of pounds in borrowings and other things, it obviously raises questions of an order similar to those in the Carillion episode of a few months ago. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that, which I hope will cover the question of whether the Crown’s official involved in checking out companies that have major contracts with the Government has considered its longer-term prospects, making sure that any contracts placed with that company are satisfactorily secured in terms of delivery.

Our amendment fits in very neatly with this, at least in the sense that the reality of an administration is that it is a failure not only of the operations but of the possible costs. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, we do not wish to see those costs passed on to the consumer. However, it also raises wider questions about what is going on here. In a sense, this is relatively familiar territory in that the Government are achieving a social objective using private sector activities. As was said in the other place only this afternoon, this is not new to Governments; Governments of all shapes have for the last 20 years or so increasingly used the private sector. Indeed, it is a long and distinguished history: Governments do not do very much on the ground in terms of buildings or roads. They may well carry responsibility for them and pay for them but the physical work is done by others. Outsourcing can deliver benefits. However, at a time when margins are being decreased and there is a bit more concern about whether these companies will be able to survive, we have to be very careful in what we do.

The thinking behind Amendment 10 concerns not just the mechanics of what happens in a default but whether the Government can think a bit more widely about how the company operates. Obviously, the new company, the DCC, is crucial to the delivery of the SMETS 2 programme. It is wholly owned by Capita; it has a ring-fenced arrangement with Capita but is nevertheless entirely under the control of that company. Although there are independents on the board, and everything else, do the Government really feel that that is sufficient at a time when so much is riding on it? We are talking about £8 billion worth of investment and work going forward, and everything that we have said this afternoon in relation to the future of our energy policies and initiatives and to consumer interests is certainly part of the whole operation.

When we were considering the green bank—I am waiting for the head of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, to snap up at this point—we came across a similar problem, which was trying to make sure that the body that was being set up in the private sector, which we knew at that time was to be sold, had imposed within its structures a set of conditions under which the Government retained a golden share, to make sure that its original purposes, and green purposes in particular, were not polluted or changed by subsequent changes in the operational management of the company when it was set up or in its eventual sale. It turned out to be a very complicated issue, and I pay due credit to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for pursuing it to the point where we found a solution, which was not one that the Government ever thought we would come up with. But it was possible to come up with something that met the requirements that the Treasury set, unrealistic though they were, that the arrangements should not leave the Government in a direct power relationship to the company, because that would require any costs and everything else to go on to the balance sheet, but still retained the ability of the company to operate so that the green objectives were retained and operated. I am simplifying to make the point.

Does not this arise also with DCC? Is there not a worry here that we are talking about an organisation, a structure, a delivery function and an operation which suggests that we really ought to be thinking harder about the overall structure here? If the narrow question about what happens in an insolvency is insufficient to probe it, should not the wider concerns about all the companies that are going through difficulties with their delivery of public service obligations? The newspapers will be full of questions about what is happening to recruitment to the Army, because Capita is not performing very well on that, and what happens to other areas of activity. We may find that, £3 billion into the programme, the main structural body responsible for organising the network for our safety and data and all the operations that will lead to customer buy-in to this is unable to fulfil its objectives because of other financial constraints, and we do not have the right regulatory structures in place to ensure that it carries on the way it does. This amendment gives the Government at least some incentive to look at that, and I hope that they will respond positively to it.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Featherstone. Indeed, I agreed with many of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned. The structure of the company in terms of green shares or golden shares is an interesting point that may be well worth pursuing.

Perhaps I should know this, as it is a factual question, but how long is the contract with Capita for DCC? What are the arrangements at the end of that contract? However long the smart metering programme goes on for—and one hopes that smart meters will be there for many decades before the next technology comes along—what are the arrangements for selecting the next incumbent? Does the DCC remain, or does it transfer to the new contractor, or is there a new corporate structure at that time? I am just trying to understand the length of commitment that we have with DCC at the moment. I am sure that, if I had done that research, I would already know, but perhaps the Minister could enlighten me.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 20th March 2018 Lords Chamber

In these circumstances, I suggest to the House that the only responsible action the Government could take is to remain part of Euratom until new arrangements can be guaranteed to be in place. If the Government are unwilling to do this, it is in the national interest for the House to pass this amendment and ask the Commons to think again.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I am very happy to have added my name to this amendment. I am chair of the House’s EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee, which looked at the subject of Brexit and energy security. Regretfully to some, we did not come out with any great headlines that said that the country was going to grind to a halt on the energy side, although we did say there was probably going to be an increase in prices because of increased electricity trading inefficiency. However, we made one exception, which we thought at that time was probably unlikely, but the evidence since might push this the other way. If the UK did not manage to replicate the agreements that Euratom has with the rest of the world and the IAEA, then there was a real risk of our current fleet of nuclear power stations coming to a halt, Hinkley C not being built and various other problems in terms of our deep work in nuclear research.

That is why this amendment absolutely puts its finger on the issue. It goes through the three things that have to be agreed for the United Kingdom to be able not just to fulfil its own obligations internationally but to be able to trade in nuclear material, people and spare parts even, post Brexit. What are they? We clearly need our own Office for Nuclear Regulation to be approved as a safeguarding authority by the IAEA, which is clearly essential; we need a voluntary offer agreement with the IAEA; and we need to replicate a number of our nuclear co-operation agreements with the rest of the world. I have certainly not heard, anywhere, even any attempt to try to give confidence that we will be able to roll over any of these NCAs following Brexit. But there are a large number of hurdles to achieving these aims, and this is going to take time.

In terms of the approval by the International Atomic Energy Agency of a safeguarding regime, they include recruitment, which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has talked about many times and was covered in the evidence that came to the House of Commons Select Committee. There is the training of those personnel. There is the retention of those personnel, which has been highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on previous occasions, as once they are qualified, there is a very strong international demand for them. There is also the issue, which I raised in Committee, of IT systems, and I thank the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his reply to my Written Question, which very carefully went through the new systems that are required for us to be able to function as a safeguarding authority. Those systems are quite substantial, and we will come on to that—on my Amendment 9A—later today.

Of course, we also need to negotiate an agreement with the IAEA itself. When it comes to nuclear co-operation agreements, these are absolutely essential to us for our nuclear fissile material for power stations, for repairing, for spare parts and for nuclear intellectual property. It is very difficult to replicate those agreements so, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, absolutely showed far better than I could, two of our key nuclear co-operation agreements—one with the United States, a legal requirement, and one with Australia, as the Minister highlighted in Committee—would expect us to be full members of the IAEA and to be able to have nuclear co-operation agreements in order to trade those materials. Even just in those two countries, we have major hurdles.

Turning to the voluntary offer agreements, these agreements are only necessary—or only made—by the five nuclear weapon states, or those that have declared as such; India, Pakistan and Israel have separate arrangements. I cannot imagine, however, that as a country that is one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and that stands for the upholding of international law and for the importance of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, we would allow ourselves to go ahead without having concluded such an agreement with the IAEA.

That is why this amendment is so important. If we cannot fulfil these three criteria, then we should not go ahead: we should postpone leaving Euratom. Why is the date of 1 March 2019 there? Clearly, it is four weeks before we are set to leave the European Union. Like others, I have looked at the agreement that was made yesterday, and there is a separate article and chapter on Euratom. Paragraph 2 of Article 76 of that agreement—which is in green, meaning that it has been agreed by the European Union and ourselves in detail—says very starkly:

“The United Kingdom shall have sole responsibility for ensuring its compliance with international obligations arising as a consequence of its membership of the International Atomic Energy Agency and of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”.


When you look to the transition chapter, there is no mention of Euratom, or of paragraph 2 of Article 76 being postponed in any way. This ties up with the Government’s own view. We will be leaving Euratom on 29 March next year unless we make other arrangements, and the EU 27 and the UK are agreed on that position. That is why this is a matter not just of energy security but of national security.

[Lord Hutton of Furness]

I want to say a few words in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Broers. I draw the House’s attention to my interest in the register: I am currently the chair of the Nuclear Industry Association.

None of us in this House or outside who has been following this debate really has any doubt at all that the Government are seized of the significance of the challenge that we face. Having made the decision, which many of us regret, to leave the Euratom treaty, the Government have to do two things against a very tight deadline. The first is to replace the existing Euratom safeguarding regime, which, as other noble Lords have said, is a very important part—in fact, the central part—of one of our obligations as a nuclear weapons state: to ensure against the risk of nuclear proliferation. That is a big challenge. We have not exercised that function, which is currently done for us by Euratom, and building up the capability under the auspices of the ONR is a difficult challenge. The ONR itself has said, in evidence in another place, that it probably will not be ready to fully discharge those responsibilities by next March. So the Government—rightly, in my view—have come to the view that they need a little more time, once we have left the EU, to ensure that the ONR can step up and do that job, but it will be touch and go.

The other thing that the Government need to do, although, with respect to the Minister, they have come to this a little late, is to put in place all the machinery necessary for the continuance of the nuclear co-operation agreements that exist between ourselves and Japan, the US, Canada and Australia, our principal nuclear friends and allies, for the continuing exchange of information, goods and services in the nuclear sector. Of course, unless we are able to move seamlessly from the current NCAs to the new arrangements, the trade in goods and services will come to an end at the end of the implementation period at the end of 2020—assuming that the implementation period is agreed—unless in that period we have successfully put in place alternative nuclear co-operation agreements.

The fundamental reason why your Lordships’ House should pay close attention to the amendment is that it is good to have a default or a back-up. Suppose we do not get to the point at the end of the implementation period where these nuclear co-operation agreements have all been agreed, renegotiated and put into legal effect. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, drew our attention to some of the issues of complexity around renewing the NCAs. The process is not in our gift; we do not have control of the process whereby these replacement nuclear co-operation agreements will take legal effect, because in many of those countries they are international treaties—and will require the consent of, in the case of the US, the US Congress.

Any student of US politics knows one thing: that international treaties progress very slowly in Congress. Something that we have come to see in the US repeatedly, under both Democrat and Republican Presidents, is the extraordinary process that we in the UK do not understand at all where the US Government shut down because of, for example, a failure in Congress to agree budgets. We have no say in or control of that. Suppose there is a prolonged shutdown in the government machinery of the US at the very time when we want the US Congress to renew the nuclear co-operation agreement. What do we do then?

Fundamentally, the amendment poses that question: what do we do, all of us, if, with the very best of intentions and the absolute commitment of the Government, which I do not doubt, to renew these nuclear co-operation agreements, the implementation period comes to an end and we have not succeeded in putting into place the nuclear co-operation agreements? It seems pretty obvious that, despite all the difficulties of trying to construct a default or backstop, we have to give attention to the risk that we come to the end of that period and we have not renegotiated successfully—through no fault of our own but simply because we do not control all the processes that are involved in moving pieces of the jigsaw—and we do not find ourselves in the situation, where we all want to be, where these NCAs can be seamlessly renewed.

If we get to that point where the NCAs are not in place with our key nuclear trading allies, we have a major problem. In my view, it would become impossible for the vital exchange of goods and services in the nuclear sector to continue beyond that point legally and lawfully, and if it cannot be done legally and lawfully then it will not be done at all. The noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Teverson, have referred to the problem which that might create for the energy security of the UK. I am sure I cannot be the only person in this House to say, “I don’t think any of us should take a gamble or a risk with the energy security of our country”. Given the important role of the nuclear industry, that is precisely what we will be doing if we do not find the wherewithal in this Chamber today to find a way of constructing a backstop for the “What if?” moment if at the end of the day these nuclear co-operation agreements cannot be brought into effect at the time when we want them to be. That seems to be the issue that the amendment has raised, and it is not going to go away. We have to have an answer somehow to that fundamental question, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

8: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Freedom of employment for specialists
(1) Article 2(g) of the European Atomic Energy Community Treaty, ensuring freedom of employment for specialists, continues to have effect in UK law in relation to those who work in nuclear safeguarding, after the United Kingdom leaves Euratom.(2) In this section “specialists” includes those staff essential to the United Kingdom’s nuclear safeguarding.”

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I remind Members of what the Euratom treaty says in Article 2(g)—that, in order to perform its tasks, the community shall,

“ensure wide commercial outlets and access to the best technical facilities by the creation of a common market in specialised materials and equipment, by the free movement of capital for investment in the field of nuclear energy and by freedom of employment for specialists within the Community”.

I have not taken the whole of the article, or of part 2(g), into the amendment, but rather the important post-Brexit part, which concerns the free movement of nuclear specialists. I will not make a long speech because I believe that this is self-evident. The Government have an industrial strategy around the nuclear sector: to expand it and for it to be part of where this country goes economically.

We have heard in previous debates that our most important need in the short term is to have a functioning safeguarding authority, whether that is Euratom or—as soon as that stops—our own Office for Nuclear Regulation. We need those bodies, and that body in particular, to function. We have a shortage of qualified people in this area and a shortage of specialists in the industry more generally—although the amendment is, because of the Bill, primarily around safeguarding. Therefore, it must be in the interests of the Bill, and of the country at large, to ensure that we maintain the mobility of those specialists in the nuclear industry and the nuclear sector, so that we maintain this benefit post Brexit and post our membership of Euratom. That is why the amendment is absolutely appropriate to the Bill and is of great importance not just to this sector but to our national security.

I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give a greater reassurance—perhaps higher up on my noble friend Lord Fox’s Richter scale of assurances—than we have received so far that this area will be looked after by the Government, that we will not be browbeaten by the Home Office into having a minimal circulation of specialists, and that this country will benefit from those with the experience and skills that will enable us to perform in this sector, not just in safeguarding but in the nuclear sector more broadly. I beg to move.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment because, like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I remain concerned about the industry’s access to the workforce that it will need once the UK leaves Euratom. I suggest that the free flow of essential specialist staff could well dry up unless the Government are reasonably energetic in the guarantees that they give them. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, this is not just a safeguarding workforce issue; it affects the whole sector, as was very well brought out in the Nuclear Industry Association’s briefing. I shall not go into detail on that but it is clear that we need a very skilled workforce coming to this country to help both in maintaining existing reactors and, even more significantly, in building new ones, as well as in the safeguarding area.

With regard to the regular reports that the Government will give to Parliament on progress in the safeguarding area, it is a bit disappointing that we did not manage to get into the Bill a specific reference to the need for an essential specialist workforce. I hope that the Minister will take this suggestion in the spirit in which it is offered, and perhaps he might encourage his officials, when they are producing these reports, to say something about the progress that is being made, particularly with the ONR getting the specialist staff that it needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

As I remember, the last time we debated this, by chance—I may be misremembering—a Home Office Minister was sitting next to me. I can confirm, however, that the Home Office is fully aware of the concerns expressed in debates of this sort, and we will make sure that it continues to be so. It is important to us that we continue to—as I put it—access the best talent. As the noble Lord will be aware, we have already doubled the number of available visas in the tier 1 exceptional talent review, and will be looking at changing Immigration Rules to enable world- leading scientists and researchers under the tier 1 route to apply for settlement after three years and to make it quicker for highly skilled students to apply for work in the United Kingdom after finishing a degree. We are, therefore, relaxing the labour market tests where appropriate.

The crux of this amendment, which relates to safeguarding staff—the Bill has been drafted in that way and so the amendment must be too—attempts to ensure the freedom of employment of specialists employed in that field. This is clearly a matter of particular interest in the light of the Government’s preparations for establishing a domestic nuclear safeguards regime, which, among other important work, means securing the right quality and quantity of appropriate safeguarding staff in the Office for Nuclear Regulation. Given the importance of attracting the right staff to work in this specialist field, the Government are committed to ensuring that the ONR has the right personnel. I can give the House a bit of information: in the most recent recruitment round for two further posts in this field there were 112 applicants for the ONR to look at. We will continue to work with the ONR to ensure that it has the right staff to regulate the UK’s new civil nuclear safeguards regime. Those figures show that there is no shortage, certainly in the world of recruiting and training the appropriate inspectors and building additional institutional capacity.

The noble Lord will not be surprised if I do not go into this, because he will then ask for further details. If I give him an assurance that the amendment is possibly itself defective and not suitable for inclusion, and he accepts that in spirit there is no need for it—since the Government are committed to ensuring that we have the right specialists and the Home Office continues to work in this field—I hope that he will feel able to withdraw Amendment 8.

[Lord Teverson]

I thank the Minister for his reply. It is good to have some figures: can we have more of them in these interactions around groups? I also remind the Minister that he regularly mentions the highly skilled and the talented. That may, I agree, be the case in nuclear safeguarding, but in a lot of Brexit areas, perhaps including some areas of the nuclear industry, the need is far broader. However, I take his point in regard to this Bill.

I also recognise that this issue will inevitably be fought out during the immigration Bill that we will eventually get. I am delighted that we will have another opportunity to debate Euratom in another Bill, to pursue sanity and perhaps get some change in this area. I therefore accept the noble Lord’s challenge—as it were—and his assurances about taking up these issues in the future immigration Bill, which we continue to await with interest. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

9A: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on information technology systems necessary for nuclear safeguards
(1) The Secretary of State must, in respect of each reporting period, prepare a report containing information about the progress made to provide adequate information technology systems necessary for the United Kingdom to operate a nuclear safeguarding regime to international standards.(2) The report under subsection (1) must include the progress on, and the estimated cost of, developing the following systems—(a) a State System of Accountancy for and Control of Nuclear Materials;(b) a Safeguards Information Management and Reporting System; and(c) any other technology system necessary for the United Kingdom to operate an effective international nuclear safeguarding regime.(3) A report under this section must be laid before both Houses of Parliament after the end of the reporting period to which it relates.(4) There are four successive reporting periods, each of which is a period of 3 months.(5) The first reporting period is the period of 3 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, in Committee I raised an issue that I do not think has been raised before, about the information systems required for the Office for Nuclear Regulation to perform its tasks acceptably as a safeguarding agency in the international system. I subsequently submitted a Written Question to the Government on this matter, and I thank the Minister, very genuinely, for a comprehensive and interesting reply—a very good one. In that regard, I almost feel that I have to apologise to the House for the long names in subsection (2)(a) and (b) of the amendment: the State System of Accountancy for and Control of Nuclear Materials and the Safeguards Information Management and Reporting System. The Minister informed me that these were needed to fulfil our international obligations.

I also asked what those systems would cost, less to understand the cost than the size of the task that needed to be completed within the next 12 months. I will quote from the Minister’s Written Reply:

“ONR has estimated that it will cost £10 million to establish a UK SSAC and SIMRS”—


the two systems—

“is included as a part of this overall estimate. An initial tender opportunity in relation to the SIMRS is currently being advertised on the Government Digital Marketplace and responses to that tender will provide more certainty on estimated costs”.

I do not know whether we already have the other system—I do not think so—but what concerned me particularly about that reply was that we are only tendering for one of those systems. It is clearly a significant cost—£10 million for both—but we are only just getting around to advertising them. From both my corporate career and my role in this House in scrutinising what the Government are up to, and government systems, I know that it is not the easiest thing to predict when IT systems will be ready, let alone functioning. We had a debate last week about the Smart Meters Bill and all the IT needed for that, and it is 12 years later that we have come to those particular systems.

My real question is a serious one. Clearly, from the Minister’s reply, the ONR cannot function properly without these systems, but we are only at the stage of advertising just one of them. The size of them is at least £10 million and I feel very nervous that these systems will be ready when we need them to be ready on 29 March next year. That seems to be quite an ask. Therefore, with the amendment I am looking for some substantive reassurance from the Minister that this is under control and that it will be part of the Government’s reporting mechanism between now and our leaving date for Euratom, so that we can understand the progress in this critical area—an area where, to put it lightly, the Government do not have the greatest reputation in terms of delivering such systems. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for moving his amendment. He and the House really want two things. They want substantive reassurances and details of further reporting. I asked to have this amendment grouped with Amendment 6, which to some extent deals with this matter. We propose to put such reporting on the face of the Bill, and progress with the information technology systems required for the safeguarding regime will fall within that reporting duty. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he does in due course get sufficient information. In the meantime, I will give an update about what is happening. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, I might have to write with further detail later on, but let us see how the quarterly statements take place to see whether they provide sufficient information. If not, noble Lords can come back to me.

The overall system of safeguards is generally referred to as a state system of accountancy for and control of nuclear materials. The noble Lord referred to that in my original Written Answer. That is also known as an SSAC. The last time I came across SSAC it was the Social Security Advisory Committee, but that was in another world and another place. We will not go there now. As part of this, the ONR plans to put in place an IT system which it refers to as the safeguards information management and reporting system. I do not know how you pronounce “SIMRS” so we shall refer to it by its initials. The SIMRS is aimed at enabling the ONR to obtain and process the information necessary to ensure timely submission to the International Atomic Energy Agency of the reports required by any future safeguards agreements with the agency. The SIMRS will also enable submission of any specific reports required by supplier states as part of nuclear co-operation agreements.

The ONR has estimated that it will cost some £10 million—the figure I gave some weeks ago in Committee—to establish a UK SSAC, and the SIMRS is included as a part of this overall estimate. A pre-qualification questionnaire in relation to the SIMRS was recently advertised on the Government’s digital marketplace. Sixteen suppliers responded, of which six have been invited to respond to the invitation to tender by 6 April. Responses to that tender will provide more certainty on estimated costs, and the ONR expects to let the contract in early May.

I of course take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, warned about IT systems from his experience with the health service and the Home Office. We are all aware of problems that new IT systems can have. I do not think that what we are proposing here is on the scale of what the National Health Service needs, but I accept that there can be problems. We and the department have a duty to examine that as carefully as we can. I give an assurance that we will do that as far as is possible.

Put very simply, that is where we are at the moment. We will keep noble Lords updated. We have accepted my Amendment 6, as amended by the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. There is no need to further complicate the Bill’s proceedings by adding this amendment, which duplicates what we already have. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and welcome his undertaking that the IT systems will be included in the regular reporting. It would be useful if the Minister could answer my noble friend Lord Fox’s question about whether they are starting from zero or whether we are effectively modifying existing systems.

[Lord Henley]

I give an assurance to write to the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

[Lord Teverson]

I welcome that and on that basis beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9A withdrawn.

Smart Meters Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 13th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, last Sunday evening my family were watching “Call the Midwife”. It was raining outside, as it often is in Cornwall. We have a number of outside sockets. The television suddenly stopped, much to my relief, as I am not a great fan of that programme—I am sorry to offend the Minister. Unfortunately, the further downside for me was that I had somehow to fix the electricity. This became my task, so I went out and I had to search for a torch. Then I had to find my way under the stairs, where there is a cupboard. I had to put the torch on. The meter, a dumb meter, is some two or three feet further away. I had to look at all the switches, and finally I managed to get the electricity back on.

How I wish that I had had a smart meter so that I could have got on to my iPhone and knocked a switch so that light was restored to Thornparks House down near Tregony in Cornwall. Alas, this was not the case. However, this underlined to me how important this programme should be. It is supposed to be an £11 billion programme. That is £11 billion of what I see as upgrading of domestic and commercial infrastructure and communications channels in the United Kingdom. That is why it is important.

How is it that in these days, when we use iPads and smartphones and with all the technical ability that we have, we still have so many people with these dumb electricity meters? My meter has, I think, never been read by anybody apart from me in the past 10 years because no one can get access to it from the outside. How is it that we still have this dumb technology when everything else has changed so much? The Minister will gather that I am a fan of this programme, but from now on the supportiveness of my speech goes downhill.

When I first joined this House 12 years ago in 2006, it happened to be the year that the smart meter operational framework was produced. I have always been interested in energy and one of my first visits—on the way up from Cornwall—was to a smart meter manufacturer in Winchester. They were the people who told me how great this technology was, what a fantastic future it should lead to and how obvious it was that it should be adopted, not just in terms of ease but of information and future distributed energy systems. It was quite clear. I became not just a fan, but a strong advocate. However, where are we now?

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has gone through a little bit of the current position. My numbers may not be exactly the same, because they vary by source, but there are some 47 million meters in this country. There are 27 million properties, so a number, particularly commercial properties, have several meters. We have approximately 9 million SMETS 1 meters, which means that we have 39 million still to do. At 1 million a quarter, which roughly ties up with the Minister’s figure, that takes us to 2028. By that time, I suspect that I shall no longer be a Member of this House, but I sincerely hope that we are able to meet that timetable. We also have about 100 SMETS 2 meters, most of which I understand have been installed on close friends and family of the producers as guinea pigs to see how these meters work. Last time I heard, they do not work particularly well. In fact, in the main they are fairly non-functional.

We should, however, give the Government their due. They have put back the final date for SMETS 1 installation from July this year to October and we have a 2020 target. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, maybe with his tongue in his cheek, asked the Minister whether it was possible to meet this target. Clearly it is not, so for goodness’ sake let us admit it, get back from la-la land into the real world and allow the industry, consumers and everybody else, including the Government, to plan this sensibly.

As I said, it is an £11 billion programme. That is massive in terms of future charges to electricity consumers. At the centre of this we have DCC, a Capita organisation. I understand that it has recently changed its management quite substantially. I certainly hope so. I looked through a list of just how late it had been, and I think there had been six postponements since 2014. We finally had it go live in November 2016, some years after it originally happened.

One thing I learned when I was very young was that, as a relative said to me, people who put lots of initials after their names are probably the ones you want to avoid, because they are trying to impress you and probably do not have the substance—I am sure noble Lords keep their peerage title in front of their name but have nothing behind. I stretch that example to reports and projects that are full of acronyms. When I went through all the background work to this, I was concerned: SMETS 1, SMETS 2, DCC, PPMID, CAD, IHD, CGI, SMSO, SMDA, SMOF, GCME, ESME, GBCS, SAR and of course MAPs, which are meter asset providers, which I will come back to later on. It seems to me that this process—this structure—is so difficult to understand and has been put together in such a difficult form, with a mixture of public and private, that it is designed to fail.

So far, I regret to say, it has been unable to deliver, despite in many ways the context being so simple, in that all you need is a bit of technology in your house—not necessarily under the stairs—which tells a monitor what you are doing in terms of electricity and maybe later allows you to participate in smart energy through a distributive grid as well. All that it then has to do is communicate usage in some way to a data hub, and all that data hub has to do is communicate with the electricity or gas supplier. That is all that is required, and yet 12 years later, where are we? We are a small way through a programme that we desperately need.

The Minister mentioned costs to some degree. I think the whole DCC budget to deliver this between 2013 and 2021, which goes on to consumers’ bills, has gone up from £1.3 billion to £2 billion. Its project management costs have gone up from £107 million to £374 million, and its set-up costs for subcontractors from £131 million to £948 million. DCC may be out of control, but government management of the process has clearly also been quite ineffective. In terms of timing, DCC has been late in going live by some two years, while SMETS 1 has been put back from July to October. At the moment, SMETS 2 meters are not working and have no supply chain, so if we stick to the October 2018 date for stopping the installation of SMETS 1 smart meters, can the Minister explain to me what happens to all the installers between October and when we actually get SMETS 2 meters going? We have thousands of skilled people out there fitting 400,000 of these meters a month, but I cannot see how they are not all going to be out of a job in October. We then lose the skills, so how do we get the rest of the programme in, not just by 2020 but by whenever we manage to do it?

One of the things that has to be core to this whole programme is interoperability. I understand SMETS 1 meters are reasonably interoperable, but as I think the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, if you change supplier—which government, we in Parliament and people interested in energy want people to do—there will be instances when you get stuck with a meter which is either dumb or has to be replaced by the new supplier, at an additional overall cost to the consumer, if not individually. That is not right. What will happen to all the SMETS 1 meters? Are they going to be stranded assets? I do not see how that will work.

Turning to meter asset providers, I am not greatly into the argument about whether they should be licenced or not. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, brought this up; I am sure that it is an important issue. To me, the real issues relate to energy prices and meter finance. I may have been fairly naive, but I thought that the energy supply companies would probably finance them themselves. How naive can you get? Of course not: they do not do that; they get them off balance sheet and lease them, yet the lease costs of these machines have been extremely high and are still high. That will reflect, once again, on consumer prices. It is something that needs to be considered and possibly changed.

I have many questions to ask the Minister, but first I congratulate the Government on having the half-hour metering to make sure that we can actually push forward much greater use of smart meters for smart grids, and particularly for demand-side management—all of that area. However, they are going to have to be a lot cleverer in terms of explaining to the public that demand-side management is not compulsory but voluntary, so that we do not have the Daily Mail headlines about people being forced to turn their heating off, or whatever.

I have not yet been told that the Government have solved the problems in relation to multi-occupational buildings. Are they anywhere nearer to solving them? On the compatibility and interoperability issues, the north is on a different communications system from the rest of the country and, as I understand it, it is incompatible with the remainder. Are all the 9 million SMETS 1 meters going to end up being stranded assets, and what do we do with them? Is this system now future-proof? I get the impression that it is not; that to really have an intelligent system, we are going to have to upgrade again. When are we going to have to do that? What policy action can we do centrally to bring down that rental cost of meters that is going to affect energy companies and that will inevitably be passed on to consumers? How will that be changed? For goodness’ sake, how are we going to manage DCC better in the future? This seems to be an organisation that started late, has been complacent with public money, has had hugely overshot budgets and just requires much better management for the future. Lastly, the 2020 target date is just not possible. What is the real target date for that, and do we have a chance of actually meeting it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, on the last or second to last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, he looked forward to a world with a SMETS 3 or 4 that might be able to assist a customer in finding a new supplier and direct him in that way. I think we are already there. I imagine that the noble Lord reads the Guardian more often than I do, but the Guardian of 11 March was talking about one company that is developing some sort of dongle that can be plugged into one’s meter and will automatically switch one to the best supplier according to the programme one puts in. One can put in, “I want the greenest supplier” or “I want the cheapest supplier” and one could find oneself having a different supplier from month to month, possibly two or three times a year. The future is good. I refer the noble Lord to that article to see just what is happening out there and what smart meters, as they are at the moment, could possibly lead to.

I have to say that, listening to the debate, I felt that it was a fairly Eeyoreish performance, even by the standards of this House. The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, was politer—she referred to it as a masterclass in faint praise. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, was, as always, very kind to me: after making her Eeyoreish speech, along with her colleagues and all other noble Lords, she said that she expected something more optimistic from me, “Because the noble Lord always is very optimistic”. I think there is nothing wrong with being optimistic when one has technical developments that are going to bring great benefits to everyone. They are going to bring benefits to the consumer, as I made clear in my opening speech, but they will also bring benefits in terms of reducing our overall consumption and in many other ways.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, I was very amused by the picture of her noble friend Lord Teverson under the floorboards or somewhere—I am not quite sure where he was; it was rather a confusing picture, but he was in the rain with a torch. All I can do is refer the noble Lord to Hilaire Belloc’s “Lord Finchley”. The noble Lord will remember that Lord Finchley came to an untimely end because he tried to do these things himself. In future, the noble Lord can get someone else to look at these things, but smart meters will solve the problem for him.

Others, such as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and me, took us back to 2008. I was very grateful to him for doing that and for saying that back in 2008 he was giving warnings, in his Cassandra-like way, and now he could say, “I told you so”. The great thing is that he can say “I told you so” to everyone here, in that the 2008 Act, as the noble Lord and others on the Benches opposite will remember, was passed under a Labour Government. The 2011 Act that I referred to was passed under the coalition Government. I think that we had a Liberal Democrat in both the business department and the energy department during that time, so their fingers must have touched this at some point. Now, in 2018 we have a Conservative Government, so perhaps, like Peter Simple’s Dr Heinz Kiosk, I can just say, “We are all guilty!”, if something has gone wrong. I think, from the degrees of optimism I have listened to in the course of the debate, that there is a general acceptance that smart meters are going to be able to do something that has not been available before and that, as I said, that will bring great advantages to us.

A very large number of questions of a fairly detailed sort have been raised and I will try to address a number of them. However, I think that what a debate of this sort also shows is that even a Bill such as this—a Bill that is broadly welcomed on all sides, that has been through pre-legislative scrutiny, that has had a very useful trip through another place since that pre-legislative scrutiny and that is now here—will benefit from what your Lordships can do in Committee. I look forward to that Committee and hope that we can tease out just where the problems are so that I can give appropriate assurances on matters that are relevant to noble Lords and, if necessary, make amendments, but I do not think that that will be necessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, put it, this is a largely technical Bill dealing with three small matters, but its title allows us to discuss the generality of smart meters, smart metering and how we get the rollout completed. I hope that in the course of this debate, Committee and further stages we can continue that process and provide the proper assurances.

This afternoon, I propose to answer a few of the questions to the best of my ability. I think it would be useful if I write another letter to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and place a copy in the Library, setting out a more detailed answer of the sort that one cannot properly give to some of the more detailed questions and very sensible suggestions made by my noble friend Lady Manzoor. I give that assurance that I will send that detailed response to all noble Lords.

In the meantime, I shall answer a few of the questions that have been asked. The first, and most important, is to give some sort of assurance that we believe that it is still possible, despite the numbers which the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, quoted from Which?. The numbers probably appeared in the Daily Mail as well, for all I know—that was another publication that was mentioned. We believe that we will be able to get there in due course. The rollout to date has been growing. Around 400,000 smart meters are being installed every month. That has to get up to a bigger figure if we are going to get to the end in the three years that are available. I do not think that is representative of the next phase of the programme when most suppliers will be installing smart meters with greater numbers of installers and more types of customers across Britain. We will certainly continue to collect data—this was something that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked about—on the rollout, getting independent, official, quarterly statistics on progress by the large suppliers, and we will make sure that they are published quarterly, as I think they have been since September 2013. In addition, a summary of the annual rollout progress for the calendar year is published every March, so we should have that in due course. I do not know whether it will be before Committee, as no one has yet given me a suggested date for the next stage of the Bill.

[Lord Teverson]

As I said, I think it is impossible to get to that. Can I just be clear about the commitment? It is to offer everybody a smart meter. Are the Government clear with the suppliers about what “offer” means and that it is not just an email saying, “Do you want a smart meter”? Are we clear about the target? Not everybody wants one. Is that a potential get-out clause in this target?

[Lord Henley]

The noble Lord knows that we are not going down the route of saying that everyone will have one, but we hope everyone will see the benefits of them and that everyone will be offered one, and I hope that offer will be more than just the email that the noble Lord suggests. It is difficult to persuade people to change. Some months ago we discussed the ease with which one can change one’s electricity supplier. However, because of inertia, few people do. The easier that it becomes and the more benefits that there are, the more people will switch supplier. The same applies to smart meters: people will adopt them as they see the benefit. We shall continue to push suppliers to do what they can, because of the benefits. That is not only those benefits to consumers that we all recognise, but those to the country through reducing our overall electricity consumption by evening it out and those other benefits identified.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 1st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I support what my noble friend, Lady Neville-Rolfe, just said. I would also be cautious about including in the Bill a requirement to ensure that there should be sufficient staffing, because it is not a good reason to decide whether to put in a certain control. Obviously everything the Government undertake to do must be properly staffed.

I ask the Minister to confirm whether the Government consider that a transition period will be necessary for Euratom as well as for the EU generally. I had understood that the Government expected to put in place a satisfactory accredited nuclear safeguards regime before March next year, although I understand that certain doubts have been expressed about whether that is feasible in the time available, given the necessity to obtain the consent of various other countries’ legislatures, with which we would have to establish new nuclear co-operation agreements. Could the Minister tell the Committee whether a transition period for Euratom is envisaged?

I question what the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, said about Euratom standards being better than IAEA standards. I understand that the Government’s intention and commitment is ultimately to reach Euratom standards, but I am not sure there is any evidence that Euratom’s standards are better than IAEA standards. Two weeks ago at a briefing by a representative of EDF, together with the NIA, we heard that, in his opinion, the safety standards set by the IAEA are more robust on process, procedures and controls than those set by Euratom and that Euratom concentrates heavily on verification processes that may or may not add anything to achieving a satisfactory level of safeguards. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on that.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment, but want to follow up what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who made the obvious point that the more the Government keep us in touch with what is going on, the more confidence everybody, including the industry, has; we might then avoid half the debate we have every time we discuss Euratom. That is true of the whole process of EU withdrawal, but if we could just get it right in this niche area of Euratom, we could save the Government, Ministers and Parliament a whole load of time just by understanding what is going on.

To be honest, I think the Government undersell their position in this area in all sorts of ways. I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for her letter to me in response to my question at the end of the last session about the transition for Euratom, because, so far as I could see, there was no disagreement between Brussels and the UK about it. The noble Baroness’s letter effectively confirmed that. In the legal draft framework on withdrawal and transition, there is a whole area on Euratom—I read it through yesterday; I do not have it here. In terms of the EU-UK relationship, the withdrawal from Euratom, particularly in respect of the transitional period, seems fairly well agreed, and I welcome that. The difficulty I still have is around third parties. There has been good communication on where we have got to with nuclear co-operation agreements, but I am still unclear as to whether the International Atomic Energy Agency and third countries are happy to accept that, while not being a member of Euratom, we can still use all those provisions as a safeguarding regime.

I also noted in the document the expectation of the UK to come up to Euratom standards on nuclear safeguarding. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s explanation of that and what it means for the transition and withdrawal process.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I do not wish to put a dampener on proceedings, as the word “transition” seems to have lifted your Lordships a little, but does the Minister agree that for there to be a transition there needs to be agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union on the terms of leaving the European Union and that, in the event of there being no agreement, we go into a period where there is no transition? If that is true, I refer your Lordships to that little lecture I gave on risk on the previous day in Committee: there remains a finite risk that we need a safeguarding regime in March 2019. This provision does not take the pressure off us to get this sorted out and to have a process that delivers the safeguarding regime we need, whether or not the prospect of transition is increased.

--- Later in debate ---

Then there is the ongoing running cost of operating the monitoring and inspections that are presently funded by EU budgetary contributions of £9.5 million a year. The industry is very concerned that the Government will require it to self-fund the safeguarding amount in addition to funding already passed to it for safety and security. The costs of Brexit should be disclosed in full and the Government should play fair by the industry. The Minister agrees, in his letter of 20 February, that they will carry out a full consultation, including close engagement with industry and key stakeholders. Are the Government willing to show their commitment? In answering these questions, will the Minister clarify the position of ownership and retained rights of EU customers to UK operations, such as uranic material at URENCO in Cheshire, that EU customers have the right to use? This could cause operational difficulties of physical segregation. I would be quite happy if the Minister were to write to me on this last, technical note.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, as we are in Committee, it may be helpful if I quote article 77 of the draft treaty published by the European Commission yesterday, which is specifically around nuclear safeguards. It states:

“The United Kingdom shall implement a safeguards regime applying a system offering equivalent effectiveness and coverage as that provided by the Community in the territory of the United Kingdom until the end of the transition period”.


That accepts that there is to be a transition period, as long as we are not in a no-deal situation. There is a transition period—there is no disagreement between us and the EU about that—but the EU expects that to be at Euratom standards. I cannot see that that can be any different if we remain within the acquis during that period, which I think both sides are agreed to anyway.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)]

My Lords, I start by offering my apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, as he did not receive a copy of that letter. I will make sure that copies are made available. I thought that I had arranged for copies of all the letters—those I sent on the 20th, the one on the 28th to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the one from my noble friend, I think again on the 28th, to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—to be placed in the Library. After 40 years in this House, I still do not quite know exactly what that means—I think one can go along to the Library and get a copy, but I leave that to noble Lords. I will certainly make sure that copies are made available to all those who want them.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

10: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Freedom of employment for specialists
Article 2(g) of the European Atomic Energy Community Treaty, ensuring freedom of employment for specialists, continues to have effect in UK law in relation to those who work in nuclear safeguarding, after the United Kingdom leaves Euratom.”

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, let me say first that the last thing that I would expect—and this will be a great relief to the Government—is for this amendment in its current state to be in the final Act as it is passed. It is in many ways a probing amendment, but an absolutely critical and important one. I quote Article 2(g) of the Euratom treaty to which this amendment relates. It says that the Community shall,

“ensure wide commercial outlets and access to the best technical facilities by the creation of a common market in specialised materials and equipment, by the free movement of capital for investment in the field of nuclear energy and by freedom of employment for specialists within the Community”.

So it is all around being able to take advantage of that freedom of movement of nuclear specialists, particularly as this amendment has to relate to safeguarding only—but really it is much more general than that, into the future and beyond our withdrawal from the Euratom treaty.

One great privilege that I have in this House is to chair one of the European Union Select Committee sub-committees, the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee. We have undertaken a number of Brexit reports over the last year, including on environment, energy security—from which I shall quote in a minute—agriculture and fisheries and animal welfare. We are currently looking at food security. One key theme of all those reports, very much on a cross-party basis, is the issue of supply of specialist labour after Brexit has taken place, and how a number of those sectors, from agriculture right the way through to the nuclear industry, are dependent on specialists. Those specialists are not always the great and the best and the Nobel Prize winners whom we want in this country, but they are the people who have their own specialist skills in things that you would not necessarily take degrees in—particularly in the agricultural sector—and we can take advantage of those skills because they are not available in the United Kingdom.

I just give one or two examples from our report Brexit: Energy Security, to which we are still waiting for a government response—which is not overdue at the moment, I would add. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, quoted these examples on our previous day in Committee, but I will go back through some of them, particularly around energy security and the nuclear industry workforce. In paragraph 41 of the report, we quote EDF, which stated:

“The highest concentration of non-British nationals as a percentage of the total employed workforce is within Nuclear New Build”.


Angela Hepworth, the corporate policy and regulation director of EDF provided some detail saying, on Hinkley Point, which is new nuclear,

“we are going to need 1,400 steel fixers. At the moment, the total population of certified steel fixers in the UK is 2,700 so we would need more than half of the total”.

The Institute of Mechanical Engineers stated that,

“the nuclear sector relies heavily on skilled workers from Europe”,

as did the Centre for Nuclear Engineering at Imperial College London:

“The free movement of skilled professionals within the nuclear industry is critical to its long-term success”.


Energy & Utility Skill told us that,

“any new immigration policy must avoid arbitrary distinctions between ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ skilled jobs, based on inaccurate criteria such as whether or not it requires a degree”.

I am well aware that this is broader than safeguarding itself, but safeguarding is also a part of that nuclear skill set and this is the only way that I could really get this in the Bill, because our safeguarding regime is a key area where we have this challenge. I emphasise again that I am quite satisfied that the UK and EU 27 can come to an agreement on a transitional period that gives us extra time; I am relaxed about that, but I am not relaxed about the point made by my noble friend Lord Fox that, with the other issues that there are around the withdrawal treaty—not least around Ireland—the possibility of coming to no deal has perhaps gone up. We still need to have a strong contingency so that we are ready in this area by 29 March next year.

The only way that I can see for us to do that is to make sure that we continue freedom of movement for nuclear specialists beyond our withdrawal from the agreement. On this, I remind the Government that the nuclear industry is one of the key sectors identified in their industrial strategy and, if that is to be fulfilled, we need to make sure that freedom of movement continues in this area—and, I would say, more widely than just safeguarding.

My question to the Minister is: will BEIS have enough backbone to really confront the Home Office, and perhaps No. 10 as well, on this issue, because the Home Office is naturally resistant to anything to do with migration? Will we be able, through the discussions between BEIS, the Home Office and perhaps No. 10, to make sure that this freedom of movement within the nuclear industry, not least in the safeguarding sector, continues after Brexit? I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

I am fully aware of the concerns of the noble Lord and of the industry. Obviously it is a matter for the Home Office to develop these policies, and I am very grateful that a Home Office Minister—just by chance—happens to be sitting near me; she will listen to this and take it back to her colleagues. I repeat that we are satisfied that we can deal with safeguarding. Our concerns, the noble Lord’s concerns and other concerns will be dealt with. Proposals for a future immigration system will be set out shortly. That is something that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will play his part in.

The noble Lord said that his amendment was a probing one. I hope that I have given the appropriate assurances for him to withdraw it.

[Lord Teverson]

I thank the Minister for his response. No doubt this debate will continue when we debate the Brexit and energy security report on the Floor of the House. I will just say—to all Ministers who are present—that the whole of history tells me that this is going to be a very difficult ask. It seems obvious, in terms of getting it right for the nation, that it ought to happen, but I suspect that it will be a lot more difficult than perhaps the Minister hopes. I will reflect on the answer and see whether there is anything more exacting we can say on Report—but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw.

[Lord Skelmersdale (Con)]

Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, as he said he would, I have noted that this debate has been entirely about new build, but surely one of the great problems in this area will be the experts needed for decommissioning.

[Lord Teverson]

I thank the noble Lord for his contribution. He is absolutely right. Experts are needed not only for decommissioning but for keeping going the existing fleet of nuclear power stations, which provide some 20% of low-carbon energy to our energy system at the moment. We also need nuclear co-operation agreements so that we have not just people but spare parts and everything else for this sector. I can see that the Minister wishes to intervene.

[Lord Henley]

I just want to interrupt the noble Lord to offer him one further statistic to indicate how long this will continue. Again during my trip to Sellafield, I was reminded that decommissioning there will continue well into the next century—in other words, the grandfathers of the people who will be working on it then have not yet been born.

[Lord Teverson]

The whole area of the financing and decommissioning of Sellafield is the subject of another debate—and a contentious one—which we will not get into. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 10 withdrawn.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Thursday 22nd February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment can only be delivered by people, and it is the issue of people that I want to raise with the Minister, because I think that his letter is in fact quite worrying. I first go back to the evidence taken by the Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee on energy security on 13 September. We had two groups of witnesses, and the second group was essentially on Euratom, with witnesses from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and EDF—which of course runs most of the nuclear power stations and is building one—and Dr Golshan, the deputy chief inspector at the Office for Nuclear Regulation.

Having been asked how we were going to be able to deliver what is needed by the IAEA, Dr Golshan, in answer to Question 37 asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said:

“I started off by saying that we are building capability and capacity and we are recruiting experts in the safeguards area … the extent to which we can equip ourselves depends on the scope of the safeguards arrangements that the Government are working towards. That, in turn, depends on the outcome of the negotiations with both IAEA and Euratom. We are working towards having a regime in place that enables the UK to fulfil its international reporting obligations to the IAEA and to meet the reporting requirements of our nuclear co-operation agreements. We see that as a much more realistic starting point that we can build upon and build in additional layers of assurance as currently provided by Euratom”.


That was basically telling us, “We are not going to deliver”. That is what that means. Dr Golshan concluded her answer to that question:

“To seek to replicate Euratom standards arrangements by the end of March 2019 will be highly challenging and, while we would work towards that, we want a starting point that allows the UK to meet its obligations”.


Later on, in answering another question, Dr Golshan said:

“We currently have 10 staff in our safeguards function. I should not call it an inspectorate. We need another 12 to get to a level where we are able to provide the required reporting arrangements. If additional assurance layers are required we will need to staff to a higher level. Currently what we have, as I said, is based on the fact that we have been a member state of Euratom”.


She went on to alert us to what would need to be put in place to meet the roles and responsibilities that will be placed on the ONR. In answering a question from the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, she said:

“The first one is to have an IT system that allows us to collect and process data and then provide a report to the IAEA”.


I have seen nothing about that because clearly a new IT system is required. Dr Golshan continued:

“That means the UK would meet its international obligations as part of the non-proliferation treaty. The second element is that we should be able to facilitate IAEA’s activities in the UK. The third element is that we should have suitably experienced staff to undertake verification activities”.


In a later question, Dr Golshan was asked about the staff and she said:

“The biggest risk that I see is our ability to recruit”.


Of course, there has been free movement while we have been in Euratom and recruitment has not been a problem. Not everybody that is needed in the nuclear industry fulfils the Home Office requirement for getting into the country. We are not going to be able to build Hinkley, for a start, because we cannot get the steel erectors into the country. We need half the country’s steel erectors on Hinkley at one point. We will not be able to get them in. They are not qualified in terms that allow the Home Office to let them in.

I am sticking to the point of what will happen about the staff because we were then told in the report, which was published only a few weeks ago, that the training programme to train people to become fully trained new inspectors lasted between 12 and 24 months. Therefore, my first question is: why have six months been lopped off that figure in the Minister’s letter? What has happened to change that timescale between now and when the committee received the evidence? Have more resources been put in? Have the criteria changed? That is quite a big change, bearing in mind the timescales we are working to. We do not have a lot of time. In addition to the training lasting from 12 to 24 months, the committee was told that we need more staff anyway because the existing staff are not inspectors. The Minister’s letter flags that up and refers to 11 safeguards officers, all of whom will undertake training to become inspectors by March. The Minister then chose to put the next sentence in bold type. I assume that that was his choice to reinforce his assessment that the ONR will be in a position to deliver the international standards. The international standards mean lower standards than we have now. That is the assumption because they are not the Euratom standards.

The Minister went on to say that the ONR will require a team of 30 to 35 people, which was implied in the answer given by Dr Golshan that I cited earlier when she said that the ONR would need more staff. The ONR is recruiting but the fact of the matter is that a far more interesting choice of jobs in this industry is available in the rest of Europe than in the United Kingdom, notwithstanding the fact that I understand that a quarter of Euratom’s inspections take place in the UK, so there is quite a big capacity there. But, of course, we have not been doing that. We did not need to recruit or train people because we are members of Euratom.

The Minister went on to tell us that since the evidence was taken back in September and October—the report says the end of October—the ONR has managed to recruit the princely sum of four individuals. Where did they come from? I would like to know. Are they from the UK? Some 98% of its staff were from the UK or had dual nationality when the evidence was given. Where did the four come from? Why is it only four? If this matter is being dealt with urgently does that figure reflect salary levels or other matters relating to the job such as promotion prospects or seniority? Can the training programme cope with upskilling the safeguards officers to become safeguards inspectors?

The issue here concerns the staff but the Minister’s letter did not really address that issue. First, we are told there are only four. That is not enough. They cannot be trained in time, and in the Minister’s letter someone has lopped six months off the period given to the Lords Select Committee. Why is that? There must be a reason for it. I presume that someone reads the evidence given to your Lordships’ Select Committees from representatives of industry and other sectors. I would like to know the answers to those questions because if there is confusion about the number of staff, their training and recruitment at this point in time, we are heading for real trouble. That is clearly the case. Therefore, I hope the Minister has come to this debate prepared. I know that we are in Committee, so I apologise for the detail of my questions, but that is what this stage is for. We need some answers on this issue before we move on to the next stage.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for having gone through all that. That session of the committee which I chair was an eye-opener. That is why I tabled my Amendment 10, which we will consider in the next sitting of the Committee. The amendment is about labour mobility, which is an absolutely key factor in terms of not just safeguarding but the nuclear industry as a whole. I look forward to continuing that debate on that occasion and very much agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)]

My Lords, I hope that I can respond to and deal with the various points that have been made. I am very grateful for all the contributions that have been made, particularly from my former noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, who stressed that she wanted reassurances. I think that was the gist of what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said as well. He was seeking reassurances on when the ONR would be ready and whether we would meet the appropriate standards under the IAEA and so on.

I will refer back to the letter that I sent to all noble Lords, to which the noble Lord referred, and remind them of that. I also remind the Committee that we have committed to a domestic nuclear safeguards regime that is equivalent in effectiveness and coverage to that currently provided by Euratom. That is the commitment that we have made and I repeat it to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. That means a level of inspections and other regulatory arrangements—it is not just inspections—that goes beyond the normal international standards as applied by the IAEA that would be expected from the United Kingdom: for example, additional assurance and verification activities at additional facilities.

It is crucial that we meet all those international standards following our withdrawal from Euratom. Compliance enables the United Kingdom to discharge international commitments and would also underpin international nuclear trade arrangements with key partners such as the US, Canada, Japan and Australia. It is right therefore that the ONR focuses its efforts on ensuring that the United Kingdom is able to meet those standards immediately on withdrawal from Euratom and seeks to move to Euratom standards as soon as possible thereafter. The important thing is that we get to the IAEA—I hope I have got the letters in the right order; it is difficult to remember sometimes—as soon as possible thereafter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

I am answering the question but the noble Lord is enjoying himself. The ONR is recruiting and will make sure that it has the right people to provide the appropriate safeguards regime on 29 March next year to meet IAEA standards. Obviously we are not going to impose restrictions on where employees go thereafter. Is this a new policy being developed by the party opposite, that once people are trained in any job, they cannot move on and have to stay? These people will be employed by the ONR, and it is then a matter for the ONR to make sure that they have an attractive career and wish to continue working for the ONR. I am sure they will find that it is an attractive career and will want to stay

I am equally sure that they will do the job very effectively and that the ONR will feel confident that, with its recruitment processes, it can provide the appropriate safeguarding regime to make sure that we meet IAEA standards by 29 March next year.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who mentioned the requirement for information technology systems, which is always the other area that needs to be looked at. When we get to my amendment in the next Committee sitting, I will certainly come back on the points that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, raised about churn, as that is important. However, are we also confident that we will have information technology systems in place? What nature will they take, in a very broad sense? Will they be Excel spreadsheets or something more involved?

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Teverson]

It is amazing what you can do with Excel spreadsheets, and I suspect that most systems are based on something like that. I would be reassured if that were the case, but if it is rather more sophisticated, I start to get concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendments 14 and 15 tabled in my name, and in particular to the proposed new clause set out in Amendment 14. I would never insult the Minister by accusing him of being overly sensitive; nevertheless, he will have realised that there is a great deal of genuine concern about what is going to be delivered in relation to Euratom on 29 March 2019. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, just said, which was in the same vein.

My suggested new clause would require the Government to answer certain criteria by that date. The criteria are set out clearly and they have been shown, in the debates on this Bill and on the withdrawal Bill yesterday, to be the ones that cause concern around the House and which the Minister has heard repeated time and again. In debating terms, this has basically been a one-horse race in relation to concern about Euratom.

Yesterday—and I will not repeat them—I cited some answers that had helpfully been supplied by the Minister to questions raised by the Society for Radiological Protection and by me as a result of that society’s representations. What was clear from those answers was that the Government do not know what will be delivered or when. This afternoon, I will cite another piece of evidence that draws the same conclusions. On 12 February, just over a week ago, there was a meeting between 10 officials—nine from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, one from Public Health England and the two senior relevant officers of the Society for Radiological Protection. I have in my hand a record of that meeting, which I feel sure is accurate.

In that meeting, there was what was described as a “Euratom exit update”. One of the officials, who was clearly a senior and responsible official—it is invidious to name officials, so I will not name him or her—noted that the Nuclear Safeguards Bill is currently going through the House of Lords. The official noted that,

“at current there has been minimal industry engagement, due to the short timescales to pass the bill. However”—

the official—

“did note that the bill is a skeleton, and more detailed consultation with industry and professional bodies would take place as the regulations are developed”.

All I am asking for, in my new clause suggested in Amendment 14, is the key to the skeleton or the cupboard where the skeleton is kept.

The official noted that,

“discussions are going well internationally”,

which is very welcome,

“with progress being made on bi-lateral agreements with the US, Australia, Canada and Japan”.

We would certainly like to know more about that. The official then explained—and this is very important—that,

“as part of the EU exit process they”—

the 10 officials—

“are unable to pursue agreements with the various EU countries”—

I think “pursue” means seek—

“till the exit process is complete”.

If that is right, it is extremely worrying. I am sure that the Minister can be supplied with a copy of the minutes of that meeting.

It was also noted that,

“there have been wider EU civil nuclear issues around legal ownership of fissile material and radioactive waste”.

Contained in that single sentence is a host of problems that will have to be unravelled in great detail if there is to be proper nuclear safeguarding.

Having read those notes, with the welcome support of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I tabled Amendment 14. It requires the Secretary of State to publish a report setting out the answers to all these questions before 29 March 2019. It requires the making of,

“regulations providing for the implementation of any agreements covered”,

by the clause and a statutory instrument which should be approved by each House of Parliament.

There is an evidence base for the kind of quality assurance that any responsible Government would demand of any contractor to which they were letting a contract. As a Parliament, we are entitled to demand, respectfully but necessarily, a similar level of quality control for the Government before we lose the legislative opportunities available to us and throw this enormously important issue to the wolves—or to a skeleton.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 9. One of the things I have tried to do in this amendment—I could not do it completely satisfactorily because of where we are in the Bill—is to ask what are the key things we need in place before it is safe and practical for us to leave Euratom and the system we have. There were three specific areas that we needed to cross that finishing line before we entered out into this brave new world. They are listed and they are very clear.

The first is that we should have an agreement from the International Atomic Energy Agency that our safeguarding procedures and the body that we are talking about in the Bill are approved. We need that; without it, we are unable to move forward. Secondly, because we are one of the few nuclear weapon states in the world, we need a voluntary offer agreement with the IAEA that relates to our new status outside Euratom. Thirdly and very practically—we have had a description of the difficulties around this—we need active nuclear co-operation agreements that have been confirmed or agreed by the other side. Whether we can get grandfathering rights on them is very difficult in some instances—the one with the United States has been particularly highlighted in that degree—but we also need to have those in place for those nations where we have active nuclear trading of the type of products listed in the schedules of the Euratom treaty and under the international agreements of the IAEA.

The difficulty in drafting this amendment was that if we do not have these in place, what do we do? My solution to that was very simple: that we should seek temporarily—as the Minister said, we have already gone through the process of agreeing withdrawal from Euratom, rightly or wrongly—to withdraw the notice under Article 106a until we have those three areas of agreement in place and we can be certain that we can go ahead. It is my opinion that we can do that ourselves unilaterally. More certainly we would need to get the agreement of the 27 other member states. That would clearly be the right answer, in that we would continue to be a member until we had those in place.

I was unable to put that in the amendment because it was out of the scope of the Bill, apparently, so I have looked to move on. What we would have to do here is, effectively, to have a transition period. On that, I come back to my question to the Minister that I raised in the first grouping of amendments: do we know that there will be a transition period with Euratom, the negotiation on which, as I see it, is going ahead and will have to be agreed or not on 22 March—it is only a month away—and that we can indeed somehow satisfactorily subcontract all these responsibilities to Euratom and to the international agencies should one of these vital areas go wrong? That is an entirely reasonable question for which I would expect us to have a workable strategy to avoid that cliff edge, if that should happen for all sorts of reasons that, quite clearly, are not totally in the Government’s control. From that point of view we need contingency and to understand the route map if those three areas are not fulfilled. I look forward to the Minister’s response on them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I am on paragraph 11. I have many more paragraphs to go and I hope that in those paragraphs I will be able to keep him very happy indeed.

I understand and share the sentiment of wanting to maintain a close relationship with Euratom. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, mentioned this relationship and it could indeed include any of the things that he mentioned, but they are subject to the negotiations. However, we have already stated very clearly that the Government will seek a close and effective association as part of phase 2 of the exit negotiations with the European Commission. What we cannot accept is that the regulations must await a definitive outcome of talks which are by their nature uncertain in both timing and result. It is therefore vital that we continue to work to enable the set-up of a domestic safeguards regime, and to have ready the bilateral safeguards and nuclear co-operation agreements that we will need to function as a responsible nuclear state from day one of exit.

This approach will reassure the international community that the UK remains committed to nuclear non-proliferation, and will provide clarity to industry that it will continue to be able to move vital materials, parts and expertise once we leave Euratom. There can be no question of waiting until we know the outcome of the negotiations on our future relationship before we can put in place our own arrangements. The implications of not having the right systems operating from when Euratom safeguards arrangements no longer apply are too serious for industry and for our position within the international civil nuclear community.

[Lord Teverson]

Can we actually make this clear? I have not heard anyone in this Committee saying, “Please, Her Majesty’s Government, do not do anything until this thing is finished”. We are not asking for anything to be delayed, we are saying, “Please get on with it”, but we need some information on the way; we have to have some idea of the destination, and Brussels wants some idea of the destination by 22 March and then in October. If it does not happen, what are the contingency plans? We are not asking for anything to not happen now. I do not think the Minister understands that. Did I hear anybody say that?

[Lord Warner]

I put in this provision about regulations only out of sheer frustration because one cannot get any information out of the Front Bench about what that relationship will be. I am not seriously going to stop the Bill proceeding but there is a very high level of frustration across the Committee that the Government cannot explain in any way what relationship they are aspiring to. For example, do the Government want to talk to Euratom about seconding some inspectors to the ONR for a period of time to get it over the hurdle of the transition to a UK regulator? That is the kind of specific thing which it would be quite sensible to discuss. No one is going to stop that. We just want to know what the Government are trying to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I suspect that she is now on paragraph 15, but she is not answering this debate, which is about whether Her Majesty’s Government are prepared to provide specified information to Parliament on certain criteria. What she is telling us would all be very interesting if we had not heard it many times before, but it is a dissertation on the roles of different organisations. Can we please have an answer to this debate? It is 4.32 pm on a Thursday and I would have thought that it could be answered in a few paragraphs—maybe numbers 47 to 50.

[Lord Teverson]

I was happy with the answer that the Minister was giving about NCAs.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

With the greatest respect, I did not interfere in the writing of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and I will crack on a bit further to answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, as I too think this bit is very interesting. We are talking about these additional countries because we are obviously going to have to set up NCAS with them, too, for trade to continue. I assure noble Lords that discussions on the four priority NCAs started a while back and are progressing well. They are on track to be completed before the UK leaves the EU. I can also assure noble Lords that this Government, as part of their planning process, have factored in the time necessary to seek parliamentary ratification of the agreements both in the UK and in third countries. This will enable the NCAs to come into force from the moment that Euratom arrangements no longer apply to the UK.

I turn now to the UK’s discussions with the IAEA. Noble Lords will be aware that the UK began formal discussions with it some months ago to conclude new safeguards agreements that would replace those between the UK, IAEA and Euratom when the Euratom arrangements are no longer applicable. These discussions, which began some months ago, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe mentioned, have been constructive and fruitful, and substantial progress has been made. I can be a little more specific: formal negotiations started last September and there were several rounds of preliminary meetings before that. There have been two rounds of negotiations so far, which have made substantial progress. I hope that that is helpful.

The amendment asks that the IAEA should recognise the ONR as the approved safeguards authority in the UK, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I will make it clear that the IAEA’s focus in respect of the UK’s safeguards lies with the voluntary offer agreement and additional protocols rather than with the domestic legislation underpinning the domestic regime or the UK Government’s arrangements for fulfilling their commitments. However, as I have set out, the Government have already held productive and fruitful discussions with the IAEA on the UK’s future safeguards agreements and understand what the IAEA requires of us in setting up the system. It is not necessary to consult on the detail of legislation or on the ONR’s readiness to implement the new regime with the IAEA.

As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy set out in his Statement to the House in September last year, the Government are seeking new agreements with the IAEA that follow exactly the same principles as the existing ones. This will ensure that the IAEA retains its right to inspect all civil nuclear facilities and to receive all current safeguards reporting, ensuring that international verification of our safeguards activity continues to be robust.

In addition to this, the Secretary of State set out on 11 January the Government’s intention to update the House on our overall progress with Euratom, including on the EU negotiations and other important matters such as international agreements. I trust that these reports, the first of which we expect to provide in a few weeks’ time—indeed, just before the Easter Recess—will reassure noble Lords that significant and substantial progress is being made. Indeed, noble Lords will be able to see it for themselves and will no doubt bring it back to the House to discuss, should they wish.

Amendment 15, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, inserts two new subsections and seeks to require that, by 29 March 2019, the Secretary of State must present to Parliament a substantially detailed report, along with draft regulations implementing any agreements reached with Euratom relating to safeguards, and have such regulations approved by both Houses. Amendment 14 seeks to prevent the substantive provisions of the Bill coming into force until regulations under Amendment 15 to implement safeguards agreements with Euratom have been approved. While I have sympathy with the noble Lord’s aim of ensuring robust parliamentary scrutiny, the process set out in Amendment 15 would not be appropriate. As we have already discussed in our deliberations on this Bill, I am confident that there are appropriate processes in place to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of the substantive powers in the Bill. Noble Lords can be assured that the regulations establishing a UK safeguards regime under the powers in the Bill will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure.

I turn now to the report proposed in this amendment. We have been open about our strategy for withdrawal and our future relationship with Euratom. In the Written Ministerial Statement on 11 January, we outlined a twofold approach under which we are seeking a close association with Euratom through our negotiations with the European Union. I refer noble Lords to the Written Ministerial Statement. It goes into some detail about our specific objectives in relation to a close association with research and training, continuity of open trade arrangements and close and effective co-operation on nuclear safety. This is a very broad ambition of ours, and it goes much further than the nuclear safeguards that we are specifically talking about today. Simultaneously with these discussions about our broader relationship with Euratom, on which we will report to your Lordships’ House every three months, we are putting in place measures to ensure that we can operate as an independent and responsible nuclear state from day one.

As noble Lords will be aware, we are planning negotiations on a possible implementation period. The Government have confirmed that they intend to include Euratom matters. This implementation period will start after the date that we leave the European Union. This must be taken into account. We are being open with our plans for a domestic regime, and we have been clear on our intentions for the new domestic regime. As made clear in the Written Ministerial Statement, the Government intend to be able to put in place a robust regime equivalent in coverage and effectiveness to that currently provided by Euratom. To put this more clearly, and for the avoidance of doubt, we would be meeting IAEA standards on day one and working our way to Euratom standards as soon as possible thereafter. A key but inevitable difference will be that reporting and assurance activities would be carried out by the ONR rather than Euratom.

The approach of using a domestic body rather than a supranational one to operate a domestic safeguards regime is common among other non-Euratom countries, such as the US and Canada, whose safeguards regimes consist of a state regulator, with the IAEA providing independent international verification. This approach necessitates some differences in the approach of the regime but we do not consider it to necessitate a reduction in standards. To be absolutely clear about independence, it is the international oversight provided by the IAEA and the inspections carried out by its inspectors that underpin the independence of nuclear safeguards around the world. As I have already mentioned, we have committed to providing Parliament with quarterly reports on progress from across the Euratom programme. These reports will include a section on ONR capacity and readiness as well as on research, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

Before I close, I want to return to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about the meeting that he attended with officials. I want to flesh out the Government’s consultation strategy on this because I fear he thinks it is narrower than is truly the case. The Government continue to have discussions with the nuclear industry on the future of the nuclear safeguards regime. In addition to official-level engagement, Richard Harrington, the Minister for Energy and Industry, held a representative industry stakeholder forum in September. There have been further forums since then and the next one will take place on 5 March. The Government have provided the industry with pre-consultation drafts of regulations that we propose to make, and in late February we held a technical workshop on the draft regulations with key nuclear operators.

I hope my explanations have provided sufficient reassurances to noble Lords, and that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Broers, for that comment. I did have a little more flesh on that particular bone so I shall share it now. On the question of research, the Government’s objectives are set out in our recent future partnership paper, Collaboration on Science and Innovation. We are seeking a close association with the Euratom research and training programme, including the Joint European Torus and International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER, projects. The Government have already guaranteed our share of the funding for the Oxfordshire-based JET fusion reactor until the end of 2020, demonstrating our commitment to continued collaboration.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I found part of the Minister’s statement extremely useful and I thank her for that, particularly on the NCA question.

However, there is an issue on which I would like clarity; I think it is very straightforward, and I ask this in a very positive tone. It is the Commission and the EU 27’s offer and negotiating position on transition that the whole of the Euratom acquis is also included in the broader EU transition agreement. Are the British Government in line with that, and will they go down that route as well? I do not hear that we are rejecting it. We have potential issues with the initial situation over residents and people on the EU side, but are the Government saying they are going to have the Euratom acquis as part of the transition that will be agreed, whether that is until the end of 2020 or the two years? If they were saying that, it would take a lot of pressure off what we are talking about as long as the IAEA was happy with it. That seems a very straightforward question and I presume there is a government policy on it. In the response today to Barnier’s negotiating position I did not see any contesting of the Euratom side of it, so I presume we are going ahead and agreeing that transition in March.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for that interesting question. If it is okay, I shall write to him, because I should like to find out more information about what we are allowed to say at this time.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 22nd February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I shall refer to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Warner. The noble Baroness would like us to remain a full member of Euratom but, failing that, her amendment seeks to ensure that, as far as possible, we become an associate member of Euratom on exactly the same basis as we are a member. It seems to me that in that case we might as well remain a member. However, given that the treaties seem to be so mixed up with those of the EU, I understand that the Government are in receipt of legal advice that that is not a possible option.

However, it is not accurate to say that our continued associate membership of Euratom is essential for us to adopt and have approved by our nuclear partners a proper accredited safeguards regime. An accredited nuclear safeguards regime does not depend on meeting Euratom standards, it depends on meeting standards set by the IAEA. Euratom standards are thought to be less robust on process, procedures and controls than those set by the IAEA, which concentrate more heavily on verification processes, which is one reason why you need so many inspectors.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I thank the noble Viscount for letting me intervene, but I honestly do not understand that. If Euratom procedures were not up to IAEA standards, it would not be approved as a safeguarding authority by the International Atomic Energy Agency itself.

[Viscount Trenchard]

Euratom is certainly approved by the IAEA as having adequate standards. My point is that Euratom has standards that go beyond the level required by other international nuclear partners, including Japan, the United States and Australia. My point is that it is therefore not necessary to comply with Euratom standards to comply fully with the safeguards regime—

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Trenchard]

My Lords, I am not sufficiently aware of the detail of the proportions of different types of isotopes that come from the European Union—the Netherlands, France and Germany—but the 60% from the EU comes mainly through the Channel Tunnel, as I understand. The 40% from non-EU countries, comes through Heathrow in the main and is subject to the fast-track customs clearance procedure. That is absolutely necessary given the 66-hour half-life that applies to quite a proportion of these isotopes.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I think we should allow the noble Viscount to sit down, and remind ourselves that he is not the Minister. To go back to something that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, in a way, none of the amendments in this group is perfect. Why are they not perfect? It is because we have given our notice to withdraw from Euratom, yet we all know that that was not the greatest thing to do. So we are now trying to claw our way back to the status quo, having given notification under Article 106a of the Euratom treaty. We are trying to find a way to get back to where we want to be, but we are not allowed to withdraw our notification under the treaty. We certainly cannot within the scope of this Bill, but perhaps under the EU withdrawal Bill there is more scope. Who knows? It does not seem so long ago that we were debating that.

I presume the Minister will confirm that we do want to achieve Euratom standards, not bargain-basement, superstore value in terms of just the IAEA standards, although those are important. Can the Minister confirm that a transitional agreement is possible and would work, and that the EU 27 are up for this? Certainly in the publication on transitional arrangements, which was published last month, Euratom is a footnote on a couple of occasions, so I presume that it is in the mix in terms of the continuing acquis during the transition period.

What concerns me most about this is the need—as the noble Viscount has said, and he is quite right—to avoid this rather more precipitous cliff edge than there is even in the other areas of transitional commercial arrangements. When the break from the treaty happens, are we certain that the International Atomic Energy Agency would be prepared to have Euratom act as our safeguarding authority during a transitional period even though we are not legally a member of Euratom? That is a fundamental question. An answer would provide a lot more clarity and perhaps enable us to come back on Report with a suitable amendment which might actually work. We are not in a position to do that at the moment because we do not have that information.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, after the excellent introduction by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, I listened with great attention to what was said by the noble Viscount. My conclusion, after he sat down, was that I should take a deep breath, count to three and then try to analyse where we are up to in this debate. My conclusions are: first, we have at the moment a very satisfactory set of standards; secondly, what we are offered as an alternative is a set of good intentions. We know about good intentions; they do not always lead to good standards, or even any standards being adopted at all. I say to the Minister that what persuades those of us who are taking part in this important debate, and who took part in yesterday’s analogous debates, is real anxiety about the standards this country will have in the future, and about whether we will be recognised as coming up to world standards in relation to nuclear safeguards. It was partly with that in mind that I went to look at the EU exit analysis papers at 100 Parliament Street the day before yesterday, which were referred to extensively in the night shift before we signed up to today’s morning shift. I looked in those papers for a single sentence or word about the future of nuclear safety and Euratom. I was only there for three-quarters of an hour so I only had time to read the documents twice, but I do not recall, and did not note, a single word on this issue. It worries me that it was not there because this is a key issue that should have been addressed in the advice given to Ministers, which is what those papers really are.

Therefore, I repeat a question I asked of the Minister’s colleague last night: how many meetings have so far taken place on this issue with European negotiating counterparts? Can we be given a number please? Next question: how many meetings of that kind have taken place on this issue with counterparts in the IAEA? Please can we have numbers because they will give us at least an indication of how far down the road we are towards turning the good intentions into a set of future standards? I am not wholly opposed to leaving Euratom: we may be able to do at least as well or better under other arrangements, but we have to do at least as well or better, otherwise we will serve the country ill.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 7th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister, particularly for his explanation at the beginning, not least that the Nuclear Safeguards Bill is not about safety but about security. I look forward to the Government’s nuclear security Bill, which will look after safety in due course—the whole of this area is perhaps a little confusing.

On the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, I am relatively relaxed about the Bill and the transfer of medical isotopes. However, he pinpoints the right issue with the Bill, which is that out of Euratom we are then out of the observatory, which is there for emergencies when supplies of these difficult commodities are short. That itself is probably a key area as regards the Euratom aspect.

I welcome a number of things from the Government on the Bill. The Government, unlike with the shambles of the EU negotiation, are getting on with it, and I give them credit for that. In comparison with the other negotiating stream, they are positively better. I also welcome the Minister’s undertaking in his opening remarks that we would go not for IAEA standards but for the continuity of Euratom standards. That is an important point—if only we had that guarantee of alignment elsewhere, perhaps in the negotiations. I also welcome, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, the advance publication of the draft regulations. Therefore, it is good from all those points of view.

As my noble friend Lord Fox mentioned, the Euratom treaty and organisation is around research projects. I was privileged to visit Culham a couple of weeks ago with the other members of the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee that I have the privilege to chair. It is important that the work that is going on there—the co-operation, future planning and the promise that we hopefully have from the project as it moves on to ITER, into France and then on to a demonstration project—is here in the United Kingdom and co-operates on research projects as part of Euratom.

The Euratom treaty is also around the movement of materials, which I will come back to later on, and, as my noble friend Lord Fox said, around freedom of movement for individuals. When we remove ourselves from the Euratom treaty, we will then stop those freedoms that come with the treaty, and I very much hope that the Home Office will take note of the fact that we need to have that freedom of movement for nuclear experience to continue. That is not just about the most professionally advanced people but about people at all levels. For instance, I know that one area that EDF has been particularly concerned about at Hinkley Point is steel fixers, as the lack of that key skill could stop that project going ahead. So it is not just the PhDs and the nuclear fusion research; we need to keep that freedom of movement right the way through the nuclear chain.

However, the thing that really concerns me, which has been mentioned by other noble Lords, is timing. The deputy director of the Office for Nuclear Regulation has already been quoted a number of times. I find it very difficult indeed, from both her evidence and that of others, to see that we can have an approved organisation—the technical term for what we need is a voluntary offer agreement—with the IAEA by the time we leave Euratom on 29 March next year. It seems that there is a high risk that we will not meet that. That has a number of implications for our international relations. It particularly means that, if that is not the case, we will be unable to fulfil our obligations under international treaties and the legislation of other countries with which we deal.

If the Minister answers one question I ask today, this is the one I would most like him to answer. Let us suppose that we get to 29 March next year and do not have the voluntary offer agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. If we manage to get an agreement with Euratom that we can subcontract and still work those safeguarding arrangements through Euratom, will the IAEA agree to that? I would be interested to understand from the Minister whether we have an agreement with the IAEA on that, because it seems fundamental.

We cannot guarantee that we will have that agreement with Euratom, however. Why? Again, I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about extending our membership of Euratom instead of having a transitional agreement; it would make everything so much easier. The referendum did not cover Euratom, so politically it is not an issue. It is not a given, however; the situation could be more sensitive than we might think, because Germany and Austria are often difficult about the Euratom treaty in areas including future agreements.

Finally, on nuclear co-operation agreements, I went through the Commission’s website earlier today to see how many such agreements Euratom had to which we were privileged to be party. The list covers Australia, the Russian Federation, Japan, Canada, the United States of America, Switzerland, South Korea—strangely, it was described as the Korean peninsula—Argentina, South Africa, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and, of course, the International Atomic Energy Agency itself. To continue the 20% of generation that we already have and complete the construction of Hinkley Point and the remainder of a new nuclear programme if we have it, we need to replace significant numbers of those nuclear co-operation agreements very quickly, before we actually leave the Euratom treaty. That seems an extremely tall order, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister exactly how we intend to achieve it.

Climate-related Financial Disclosures

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, my noble friend makes another point. If these impacts are going to be beneficial, there will be an even greater reason for companies to wish to list them in their financial disclosures. As I said in response to other questions, whether we make them mandatory is obviously a matter we want to consider in due course.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, the City recently released an excellent report, Fifteen Steps to Green Finance. One of its recommendations was that the UK should set up a green finance standards board. That would enable this country to take that sector of the finance market and call it its own, set standards globally and make sure that issues such as greenwash did not undermine that concept. Will the Government take that on? Should they not do it urgently to make sure that we corner that market globally?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, that is something else we can consider. Quite a lot of task forces and other boards exist at the moment; the Question itself relates to the task force on climate change and financial disclosure, set up by the Bank of England, and there is our own green finance task force. There is also the consultation I referred to earlier—consultations seem to be coming out of our ears. But I will certainly look at what the noble Lord said; whether it is right to set up yet another body is another matter.

Green Finance

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

That this House takes note of the case for the United Kingdom to remain a global leader for green finance, and for the United Kingdom’s financial sector to be resilient to climate change.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Green Purposes Company, which is the green shareholder for the Green Investment Bank. Regrettably, it is an unremunerated position.

An interesting thing that happened when the appointment of myself and my four fellow trustees of the Green Purposes Company was announced was that the five of us were described in one publication as “reliable eco-warriors”. This took us rather by surprise because we had never really thought of ourselves in that sort of role. Certainly, and probably unfortunately, I have never been on a Greenpeace ship in the Southern Ocean protecting the orange roughy from being exterminated.

What the five of us also had in common, apart from that description, was that we had all been involved in various ways in the finance sector. It struck me then how many in the outside world see a contrast, if not a contradiction, between high finance, or finance generally, and those who are concerned about and campaign for the environment; they are seen very much as separate bedfellows. If I want to do one thing in this debate, it is to show that it is vital that those two characteristics—those skills, those markets, those interests—are indeed bedfellows in the way that the future of our planet develops.

The background to this debate is, inevitably, the Paris agreement of December 2016. Its headline purposes were to reaffirm an international agreement on the target for a maximum planetary temperature change of 2 degrees, but the island nations of this world in particular aspired to an increase of only 1.5 degrees. When I secured this debate, I wondered what the financial size was of the commitment to meet the Paris agreement. The numbers are very difficult to envisage but I shall give the House two of them. The first is that $100 billion a year is needed by 2020 to support climate action just in the developing countries—that does not even include the developed world. Secondly, the International Energy Agency estimates that $26 trillion of additional investment is needed in renewables and energy efficiency between 2015 and 2040 to achieve even the two-degree target, and that is just in clean energy efficiency and generation. However, it is not just about those areas. We also have a need for energy storage, recycling and circular economy systems, right the way down to the minutiae of smart meters, home insulation and research and development into new technology. It is blindingly obvious that public sector money has no chance of getting anywhere near those totals, so private sector investment is vital.

That is merely around the mitigation of climate change. In terms of adaptation, major weather events demand major upgrading and the provision of public and private infrastructure, the most obvious element being coastal defence. The key role here is that of the insurance industry in covering the costs of flooding, storm damage, firestorms and droughts. The numbers show that insured losses have increased from an average of around $10 billion per annum in the 1980s to an average of around $45 billion per annum—a fourfold increase so far by this decade. Overall losses are up threefold over the past 30 years: there are some four times the amount of insured losses.

Taking those mitigation and adaptation imperatives to meet the climate change challenge, and then connecting with the world of finance, we meet head-on the challenge of financial stability and resilience. Two threats are seen here. One is transition risks, which are about the reallocation of assets from dirty to clean technologies. The challenge is to do that in an orderly market transition. The remedies are classic: green investment finance; transparent corporate reporting around assets, not least the potential stranded assets; and corporate environmental performance. Then there is the adaptation side—the physical risks of climate events, which are very much down to the insurance and banking sectors.

Why is this important to us? As we know, the UK, particularly London, is a global financial centre. Let me give some of the numbers again, although many people here for the debate will know them. The City and the financial sector generally in the UK offer, and provide, £125 billion of gross value added. That is some 7% of total UK GVA. Its trade surplus is something like £26 billion, it employs 1 million people—some 3% of all jobs—and gives a tax take of more than £70 billion, which is some 11% of Treasury receipts. Only 50% of that GVA is in London. Another 10% is in the south-east and 7% in Scotland, which is another important centre.

Why is green finance an opportunity? As well as being an important economic hub, the UK has an important financial ecosystem. First, we have world-class commercial legal practices, English contract law, the London Stock Exchange, AIM and other world-class financial exchanges, top global universities and business schools, and a vibrant fintech sector. We can also provide the full range of financial services, not just the obvious Green Investment Bank-style investment finance and green bonds—although I recognise and congratulate HSBC and Barclays on the issuance of foreign currency green bonds that we already have in this country. There are also the insurance and reinsurance markets, including catastrophe bonds and resilience bonds, carbon trading, private equity and venture capital, crowdfunding and, right down at the retail end, green collective investment schemes and green mortgages. All have a place in the financing of a clean future.

Secondly, the UK is an environmental hub. We have international NGOs such as WWF, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth headquartered in London. We have superb environmental consultancies such as E3G, university centres of excellence such as Imperial College’s Grantham Institute and—more down my way in the south-west—we have the internationally renowned Met Office, based in Exeter.

We also have environmental leadership. That came partly out of the Climate Change Act, which we as a Parliament passed 10 years ago. The original Stern report is still highly regarded. We have had, and still have, leadership in the European Union on climate change. Our sherpas were key in delivering the Paris result. We also have the leadership shown by Governor Mark Carney and the Bank of England, co-chairing with China the G20 Green Finance Study Group, and Carney’s leadership within the Financial Stability Board. I congratulate him on the work that he has done, and on what he has brought to international attention in the financial sector.

My point is that this is the perfect match in the making. London is best able to provide us all with a sustainable future, and that sustainable future needs the power and skills of London. When I say London, I mean the broader UK financial community as well. This can be win-win for the City and for our planet. Let us make no mistake: this transition to a clean economy is going to happen. As we have seen across the Atlantic, despite Trump’s efforts to reverse the clock, American states and corporate America continue to move down the path to a clean economy—rather too slowly, but the economics are driving that just as much as the politics are resisting it.

The only questions for us are: are we to remain at the centre of these new opportunities, and how do we consolidate our lead? Scandinavia is already rearing its head in this area, and there will be major investment in Asia in the future. The French have already issued a sovereign green bond worth some €7 billion. We cannot be complacent. We must maintain our position by breaking down barriers, and building on our competitive advantage.

The barriers are generally seen as externalities, such as the total costs not meeting the complete environmental and social costs, maturity mismatch, lack of clarity, asymmetric information and inadequate analytical capabilities. In London we can be really good in most of those areas. But I must say to the Government that we also have barriers in the UK, such as a shrinking home market. This week the Bloomberg New Energy Finance report points out that UK investment in renewables and smart energy technologies fell by more than half—by 56%—in 2017, the biggest fall in any country.

Our access to European Investment Bank money will disappear following Brexit. The EIB has provided loans of more than €37 billion for UK energy infrastructure since 2000. In the UK we have a lack of pace. The Smart Meters Bill will come to us shortly, yet when I came to the House over 10 years ago that was supposed to be urgent. We also have the uncertainty over Brexit and its effect on our financial sector.

What is the answer to this? There is an important agenda. We need action from the Government to achieve the fourth and fifth carbon budgets to make sure we have a good home market, and we need to keep our environmental and financial communities here in London and in the City coherent despite Brexit. I believe that we need to remain a member of the EU ETS. We need to continue welcoming all talent into the City, including from non-environmental areas. We need to create and validate world-class benchmarks and indices. We need to keep standards in our financial affairs that keep out “greenwash”, which is so easily done and will undermine our reputation, and to stimulate retail investment products so that households and individuals can also participate in this market, as well as product development and research. We need more mandatory reporting for UK-listed companies in line with the recommendations in the excellent report of the Financial Stability Board’s Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. As a former trustee of a local authority pension fund, I know we need to show that fiduciary duty does not always mean conventional investment in huge pension funds.

I welcome the Government’s green finance task force but we need to seize the moment now. The good news is that this programme requires little public money to implement but does require legislation and some regulation. We need to reinvigorate our environmental leadership and remain outward-looking as much of the investment will be in the developing world. Therefore, I ask the Minister to take very seriously the recommendations of two excellent reports among many: the City of London’s Fifteen Steps to Green Finance and the report of the FSB’s Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. Will the Government move forward those recommendations—not least, as a starter, the City’s demand for the establishment of a new UK green standards board? Will the Treasury issue a green savings bond, like the French?

The Clean Growth Strategy and the 25-year environmental plan are welcome but do not contain enough action. We need action now. This is a golden green win-win opportunity. In Cornwall we say, “This is the moment to ride the wave”. I challenge the Government not to miss that opportunity. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. It is last business on Thursday so I will obviously need to be brief. To put this beyond doubt, I should say that I and my fellow eco-warriors feel it entirely appropriate that we are not remunerated as trustees of the Green Purposes Company.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Barker, for his work over many years on distributed energy and the work he did in the coalition. The Minister is right: we worked very well together in this whole subject area as part of the coalition. The enemy was the Treasury, but I suspect that that is government, whether in coalition or not.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, on having achieved this Green Finance Initiative and the report Fifteen Steps to Green Finance. It is eminently readable and sensible and is a superb agenda that a Government of whatever colour should be able to deliver. My noble friend Lady Kramer drilled down and offered challenges. The right reverend Prelate spoke about social responsibility and particularly the role of DfID, which I did not mention but is incredibly important. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, talked about transparency. I do not know what I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes. I think that microwaves are pretty efficient. Unfortunately the real enemies are probably people like me who are Aga owners—I think we are the real enemies of megawatt hours when it comes to preparing food. I also thank the Front-Bench spokespeople, particularly my noble friend Lady Featherstone, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for his usual insights. Of course, they have to be here, given the weighty positions they hold as Front-Bench spokespeople.

I say again to the Minister and to the Government: catch this wave. There is that opportunity: it is a sweet moment, so let us get on and do it. I have one disappointment, but I recognise that the noble Lord is not a Treasury Minister. The one thing we could and should do to lay down a marker as a nation—as the City—is to have a green sovereign bond. If we do not, we are saying we are out of this important market, so I ask the noble Lord to take that back and discuss it further with his Treasury colleagues.

I thank all your Lordships for your contributions.

Motion agreed.