Draft Scotland Act 2016 (Onshore Petroleum) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2017

Alan Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2017 General Committees

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I will be mercifully brief. The Minister mentioned the Christmas spirit in her opening remarks and I think that it has broken out, as people seem to be in the holiday mood when making their contributions.

We welcome the statutory instrument, although its introduction has taken a bit longer than we thought it would. However, I appreciate that the Minister said it was tied in with the progress of the Wales Bill. Clearly, it relates to the Smith commission and that is good. It does not actually marry up with the spirit of Gordon Brown’s vow, because it does not take us as close to federalism as can possibly be within the United Kingdom; that is quite clear. Obviously, tax receipts remain reserved anyway, although perhaps tax receipts are a moot point because, as was stated by the shadow Minister, the current intention is that there will be no fracking in Scotland while the SNP is in Parliament. It is only right that the Scottish Parliament makes that decision, because although it is an SNP Government, obviously Parliament should make the decision. It is right that the Scottish Parliament has these powers and I simply welcome them coming to Scotland.

Industrial Strategy

Alan Brown Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency. As she points out, not just in this country but all around the world economies are becoming cleaner and greener, and if we can establish leadership in the research and development and, critically, the translation of those discoveries into industrial products and processes, we can benefit substantially. We are already doing that in the offshore wind industry and others. It is a world full of opportunities for more of that, and of course the south-west has a particular role to play in that.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State’s document rightly stresses the importance of transport infrastructure and digital infrastructure, yet when it comes to Scotland, his Government have just imposed a £600 million cut to the future rail investment programme and to date we have been underfunded in terms of superfast broadband. Will he confirm that Scotland’s funding from the £740 million digital infrastructure programme and the £400 million fund for electric vehicle charging will be allocated on need, which covers Scotland’s landmass and geography, and will not be based on arbitrary population or other measures?

[Greg Clark]

Of course we recognise that, and I have made the point throughout our discussions this afternoon that every place requires a consideration of its particular challenges. The geography of Scotland means that different decisions will be appropriate there compared with more urban parts of England, for example. We completely recognise that, which is why we are setting out a localist approach to ensure that we make the right investments for the right places.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

13. What steps he is taking to support the development of carbon capture and storage technology.

[The Minister for Climate Change and Industry (Claire Perry)]

Carbon capture usage and storage has huge potential to play a vital future role in reducing emissions across a range of activities, but the technology has to be made more cost-effective to deploy at scale. That is why we have committed up to £100 million of public money in CCUS innovation in our clean growth strategy and why are working with the private sector and other Governments to drive up technological innovation and to drive down costs.

[Claire Perry]

The world has not yet decided to invest in traditional CCUS. There are 21 at-scale plants operating globally, of which 16 rely on enhanced oil recovery as a revenue stream. It is simply not cost-effective enough in its current form for us to commit large-scale investment. We have to get the costs down. We are now in a world where the private sector wants to invest, however, and I am sure we would both welcome developments such as Project Acorn, to which both the UK Government and the Scottish Government have committed funds.

[Alan Brown]

The Minister does not like being reminded that the pulling of the £1 billion for the Peterhead project was a betrayal of the north-east of Scotland and the Scottish energy sector. She talks at the Dispatch Box about value for money, but the strike price of £92.50 at Hinkley is not value for money. When will the Government make real financial commitments to CCS in Scotland?

[Claire Perry]

In the world I live in, £100 million is quite a substantial financial investment in CCUS. It is striking that the Scottish Government invested only £100,000 in Project Acorn, as opposed to our £1.3 million. The point remains that the technology is not cost-effective. Only six plants in the world are operating without additional revenue from enhanced oil recovery. We want Britain to be the technological leader and to develop cost-effective solutions. I hope that we can work together to achieve that aim.

Smart Meters Bill

Alan Brown Excerpts

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

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I would be very pleased to take up the particular concerns of her college. The energy companies do have an obligation to roll out smart meters. If they subcontract the work, they do not escape their responsibilities. Again, the purpose of the Bill is to extend the current regulatory powers through to the end of the roll-out so that we can ensure that the higher standards apply.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way one more time. On projected savings, consumer benefits are estimated in the Government’s cost-benefit analysis to be £5.24 billion. How much of that is based on consumers having to switch? In the same cost-benefit analysis, supplier benefits are estimated to be £8.25 billion. How will those supplier benefits be passed onto the consumer?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There are multiple benefits. About a third of the savings come from the possible reductions in the use of energy. Just over 40% comes from the supplier’s cost savings, which is a result of not having to read meters—that gets done automatically. We expect those savings to be passed onto consumers as savings in their bill. In the 21st century, it seems absurd that we should have to rely on someone physically coming to inspect, literally, a spinning metal wheel. That is decades out of date. To have such work done automatically provides important savings. Therefore, there are benefits to consumers and to the whole economy.

[Greg Clark]

I can certainly confirm that. There is no obligation on the customer whatsoever.

The roll-out is well under way. Some 7.7 million smart meters were installed by June 2017. The current rate of installation is around 350,000 a month, but that is increasing as energy suppliers continue to ramp up their delivery. As the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) mentioned, it is right that we should move on to the second generation of smart meters, the so-called SMETS 2 meters. One advantage of doing so is that the next generation of meters are between 20% and 30% less costly than SMETS 1 meters, thereby providing another good reason to upgrade.

In recognition of the importance of this upgrade and the value that it will bring to consumers, we are committed to seeing all homes and small businesses being offered a smart meter—but they are not compelled to have one—by the end of 2020.

[Alan Brown]

To help achieve that 2020 target, the install rate needs to go up from 350,000 a month to 1.25 million a month. How will that happen?

[Greg Clark]

There is a significant increase of the scale that the hon. Gentleman describes. Part of the reason for ensuring that we have these powers is so that the energy companies do not regard this as optional, and have to meet their obligations.

The Government are overseeing the process and that has enabled us to take steps to protect consumers. We have put in place a licensed central data and communications provider, the Data Communications Company. The information will not be held exclusively by the supplier. It is therefore available, with the consumer’s consent, to competitors. Through the DCC, energy companies and other authorised parties are able to collect energy data remotely and securely.

Let me take the House through the specifics of the Bill. Clause 1 extends by five years the Government’s powers to direct the roll-out of smart meters. Since the first legislation was introduced, the powers have lasted for five years at a time, which seems to be the right approach, rather than having powers in perpetuity. Therefore, it is consistent with our practice to come back to the House in order to renew those powers for five years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I start with a slight confession: I sometimes wonder whether I am easily confused. I ask that because I have been looking at the information that the Government have put out in the briefings associated with this Bill. I have to ask myself, “Are the Government easily confused, or are the Government trying to confuse us?” I want to highlight some of the issues that I have picked up.

First, it is claimed that the extension of the Secretary of State’s powers to intervene until 2023 does not extend the actual period of the smart meter roll-out beyond the 2020 target date. The Government claim that they are on target to hit their deadline, but analysis shows that 53 million smart meters need to be installed but that only 7.7 million meters have been installed since 2011. That leaves 45 million smart meters to be installed in just a three-year period.

[Stephen Kerr]

Is there not an upside to this? The meters that have been installed so far have fairly limited functionality and interoperability. The upside is that the second generation of meters, which will be fully functional, will allow the Government to put their foot to the floor and move ahead with these meters.

[Alan Brown]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I thank him for it. It is a bit like saying that the long-drawn-out introduction of universal credit is good, when the roll-out was a shambles. It is not enough to say, well, this roll-out is a shambles but that is good because better technology is coming further down the line.

[Steve McCabe]

Surely, if the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) was right in his assertion, he was making a perfect argument for not installing any more of these inferior meters.

[Alan Brown]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. I know that that was alluded to in the previous intervention. Yes, if there is better technology, it makes sense to work towards installing that better functionality. There is another consideration when it comes to extending the deadline. If we are going to be honest about things, extending the deadline will actually make the installation process much more efficient. How much will it cost to ramp up and supply the additional labour that is needed to go from 350,000 meters a month to 1.25 million meters a month? It will take extra labour, extra training, a massive recruitment exercise, and then, lo and behold, all these people are out of a job because the installation period has gone by. There is actually some merit in considering doing this over a longer period, as it could work better for consumers in the long run.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

Just while we are still on installation, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the three big suppliers in Scotland—SSE, Scottish Gas and Scottish Power—seem to be focusing much of their work on the urban areas rather than on the more rural and remote areas, where fuel poverty is a bigger issue? Does he agree that the roll-out should be equidistant across the country, and that that is something we could achieve in Scotland?

[Alan Brown]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree with his point. There are also other logistical installation problems, which tie in with concern about how practical this 2020 deadline is. For example, at the moment, many properties in Scotland have gas meters installed in their external walls. Right now, smart meters cannot be installed in external walls. Last week, my office manager agreed to get a smart meter installed. Someone from the company came out and said, “I can’t actually give you a gas meter.”

[Stephen Kerr]

The other issue is connectivity. There is not the broadband or mobile telephony coverage that these rural areas need to sustain the functionality of the meters.

[Alan Brown]

I agree. There is an issue with connectivity, and a problem with gas meters on external walls. Flats and tenements quite often have banks of meters installed in communal areas, and there is not yet a solution for the installation of smart meters in those cases. Frankly, the 2020 deadline is dead in the water.

As I said, the consumer pays for any increase in labour costs and recruitment to try to hit a deadline, so that is an additional cost that eats into savings and is probably not yet projected. I am a wee bit unsure about the Government’s estimate of the financial benefits of the smart meter roll-out. I am not saying that the roll-out is not a good thing, but I do question some of the figures attributed to it. The only guarantee that consumers have is that they will have to pay for the £11 billion installation costs. As we have already heard, those costs are increasing.

There is an estimated direct consumption saving of £5.3 billion, which is only half the installation cost. There is also an assumption about long-term behaviour—that customers will continue to operate a reduced energy usage. I have a concern about human behaviour. It may be the natural instinct of many customers to modify their behaviour and turn down their electricity usage when they get smart meters, but bad habits may creep in over a long period and the savings might not be realised at the same level.

There are other estimated savings in the Government’s cost-benefit analysis that are, frankly, quite spurious. The Government estimate £8 billion of supplier benefits, but there is absolutely no guarantee that the £8 billion that suppliers are predicted to save will be passed on to consumers. The Secretary of State intervened earlier to suggest that the market will dictate that these savings will rightly be passed on to consumers, but I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that market failure is the whole reason that we agree on energy price caps. There is no way that we can guarantee that future savings for suppliers will be passed on to consumers.

Other spurious savings estimates include carbon-related benefits of £1.3 billion and £98 million in air quality savings. Now, reducing carbon emissions is a good thing, but I question how we can quantify those reductions as savings that will go direct to the consumer. The Government estimate savings for each household of £11 per annum by 2020 and £47 per annum by 2030, and £16 billion of savings were estimated overall. However, as my colleagues have touched on, the bottom line is that these estimated savings of £16 million are completely dwarfed by the £30 billion project that is called Hinkley Point C. That wipes out any projected savings from this programme.

Other hon. Members have mentioned that all consumers are paying for this programme, so surely the fuel poor and prepayment customers should be targeted first and given assistance. We should ensure that these vulnerable customers get the smart meters they deserve. Smart meters are supposed to end estimated billing, but it is acknowledged in the Government’s own factsheet that accompanied some briefings that if somebody with a first generation meter changes supplier, it is quite possible that they will lose the functionality of the smart meter. Even if they retain some functionality, they will end up back with estimated meter readings. That is counter- productive and the opposite of what the smart meter roll-out is supposed to achieve.

It was said that the second generation roll-out will start in July 2018. Well, we need the Minister to confirm how certain that is. Will the energy suppliers be forced to move on to the second generation meters, or will they be able to use up the backlog of 2 million first generation meters or whatever the number is? What if the initial companies are doing cheap deals on the first generation meters to get them out the door? Are we still going to be stuck with them?

[Matt Western]

I have spoken to a major energy supplier in my constituency, and it is clear that suppliers are seeking clarity from the Government on not only the timescale in which they are supposed to install these meters but what are deemed to be all reasonable attempts to get them installed. So, overall, there seems to be a lack of clarity, even for the suppliers.

[Alan Brown]

Yes, I agree, and I hope we will get more clarity when the Minister sums up.

I agree that properly functioning smart meters can bring consumer benefits, but it is clear that they are not a silver bullet in reducing bills for energy users. To properly reduce costs, the Government need to look at their wider strategy. Nuclear commitments need to be scrapped. All renewables need to be able to bid in future contract for difference auctions. Much more also needs to be done to manage the smart meter process, and I look for confirmation on that when the Minister sums up. At the moment, the Bill will not achieve that, but it will extend the Government’s powers, and I hope we will hear how those will be used to better implement the roll-out of smart meters.

Finally, the Secretary of State mentioned the smart grid and the use of smart meters for demand management. If we are going to get to that, the future upgrades need to be much more efficient, and I look forward to that happening in due course.

Carbon Capture and Storage

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. Like other Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) on bringing forward this debate. He promoted Teesside and highlighted the possible economic benefits of CCS, including to the energy-intensive industries located there.

I had started to wonder what the Teesside Collective was. Before I came into the Chamber, I understood that it was the consortium looking to develop the project, but it is quite clear that the name could be applied to the Members gathered in Westminster Hall, because there is no doubt that they spoke with a unified voice. It is good to hear cross-party support fighting for jobs in constituencies, and it is to be applauded.

As the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) said, this is the second debate on CCS in this Chamber in a 10-month period. That shows how valuable CCS is deemed to be for climate control and emissions reduction. The debate has been somewhat more upbeat and optimistic than the debate in January, but I warn the Minister that, just like my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), I reserve the right to apply a bit of gloominess to the issue.

[Alex Cunningham]

Before the hon. Gentleman introduces further gloom to the debate, perhaps he would like to welcome, as I did yesterday, the fact that the Caledonia project in my home country is working very closely with the Tees Collective project in my adopted home. It is co-operation between projects that will capture the imagination of the Government and others and drive things forward.

[Alan Brown]

Yes, I welcome that collaboration and announcement. The hon. Gentleman made a joke about being parochial for his area and his constituency, but surprisingly I am not going to be that parochial. I would like to see all these projects develop, with local areas across the United Kingdom benefiting.

The hon. Gentleman talked about taking tiny steps forward. We need to take much bigger leaps forward—this is where I turn to the gloomy aspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey touched on—but we have taken backward steps. The Minister might not like hearing this, but it is important, and it has got us to where we are just now. Pulling the plug on the Peterhead project cost the Peterhead area 600 jobs, but it has the much wider implication that it dented investor confidence. The Government need to take action to recover that confidence and find ways to get private investment going forward.

In 2014, before the Scottish referendum, we were told by the Better Together campaign that only the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom could cope with a reduction in the oil price. Since then, we have sadly seen a reduction in the oil price, but we have not seen enough support from those broad shoulders. That is why the pulling of the project at Peterhead was a further blow to the oil and gas industry in that area of Scotland. That project could have been the perfect fillip.

[Ross Thomson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the White Paper on independence was wrong when it talked about the proceeds from oil and that the Deputy First Minister John Swinney was wrong when he said that there would be a second oil boom? As we are talking about U-turns, will the hon. Gentleman join me in calling on the First Minister to perform a U-turn on scrapping the energy jobs taskforce, because that is needed to support jobs in Aberdeen?

[Alan Brown]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and for talking down the oil and gas industry in his area. Yes, the Scottish Government’s predictions in the White Paper had the future price of oil wrong—just like the UK Government and the Office for National Statistics had it wrong. The Scottish Government were somewhere between the two. We were not the only ones who got it wrong; economists got it wrong too. We admit that we got it wrong, but it is why the SNP has long argued for an oil fund, because that would have helped to smooth the trough that came. I am happy to acknowledge that point and put it on the record.

Returning to where I was going to go, the decision to pull the plug on Peterhead had wider implications for investor confidence. It has been acknowledged and was repeated in the clean growth strategy that risk was an issue with these projects, but in the previous competition the real risk was the White Rose project, where the contractors involved could not apportion risk between themselves properly and could not provide a compliant bid. In the Peterhead project, Shell was able to manage the risk. The Government need to review that and find out why Shell said it could manage the risk and provide a compliant bid. That has important implications going forward.

The National Audit Office report compiled after that decision confirmed that a total of £168 million was spent on the two CCS competitions with no tangible research and development outcomes to show for it. The Government may suggest that the contractors or personnel involved in the projects developed some expertise, but there is no guarantee that they will be involved in future projects. There is a risk that they will take their expertise elsewhere. That is why we need to go forward quickly. Following the decision on Peterhead, there has been the withdrawal of funding for onshore wind and solar power, which has caused problems in those sectors, leading to a 95% drop in expenditure on renewables. There is a clear pattern, and I highlight that to remind the Government that investor confidence is low and it must be stimulated. They need to find a way forward.

The Government can find ways forward to manage risk. In the Thames tideway project, they underwrote risk to the value of £5 billion. Hinkley Point C had bonds of £2 billion underwritten, not to mention the fact that the National Audit Office estimates that the project will cost £30 billion. We must remember that, unlike the other contracts for difference awards, Hinkley has a 35-year lifespan and not the standard 15. It is clear that where there is Government will, there is a way. They need to find that will and way for carbon capture and storage. The hon. Member for Waveney talked about the Oxburgh report, which highlights that CCS can deliver an estimated strike price rate of £85 per megawatt-hour. That compares favourably with £92 per megawatt-hour for Hinkley.

Other Members have highlighted the estimate of the Committee on Climate Change that CCS could halve the cost of meeting the 2050 carbon reduction target. In that respect, I welcome the clean growth strategy, which the Government brought forward last week. As I said at the time, however, the strategy gives mixed messages. It states that CCS will be deployed subject to cost reductions, but we need clarity. What are the Government’s cost expectations and what is the expected trajectory once the initial project is up and running? We need to remember how that compares with the “sign at all costs” attitude taken towards Hinkley. The Government also need to state clearly how they expect CCS to be paid for. Members from Teesside have highlighted the need to find a suitable and robust payment mechanism that gives value for money.

I welcome the Government’s statement in the clean growth strategy that they

“will work with the ongoing initiatives in Teesside, Merseyside, South Wales and”—

importantly from our perspective—“Grangemouth”. However, they need to clarify what “work with” means. What is the real level of support that they will provide? It needs to be more than working with or providing token support. As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey highlighted, the St Fergus project in the north-east of Scotland is being supported by the Scottish Government and EU funding. When it comes to EU funding, what future funding are the UK Government going to allocate beyond the 2020 horizon? How do they see collaborative working going forward?

Due to the abrupt pulling of the previous competition, at great cost to the public purse, not only was the National Audit Office report undertaken, but the Public Accounts Committee also undertook an investigation. It made a number of recommendations; hopefully the Minister will advise us on how the Government will take them forward. First, the Committee recommended that the Government

“set out in its Industrial Strategy the role that CCS can play”.

I am not sure that there is enough detail in the industrial strategy on that yet. The next recommendation was that

“By the end of 2017, the Department should quantify and publish the impact across the whole economy of delays”

to CCS and of its not having been implemented yet. The Committee recommended that an

“Emissions Reduction Plan should set out a clear, joined-up strategy for deploying CCS”.

It also said that the Government need to look at different risk options for energy policies, that the Treasury should buy into the emissions reduction plan at the outset and that there is a need for less Treasury interference—the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy must actually make the decisions, rather than the Treasury intervening.

I hope that the Minister will respond to that, and advise whether the carbon capture, utilisation and storage cost challenge taskforce that is to be put forward will consider those aspects. I welcome the setting up of that taskforce. Will she also confirm how experts will be selected and incorporated into the taskforce, and what the terms of reference from the Government will be?

It is laudable that the clean growth strategy reiterates that we want to see the implementation of CCS. As the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) asked, what does large-scale CCS in the 2030s mean, what is the pathway to that, and what projects do we need to see on board before then? The mention of supporting hydrogen production is also laudable; that is certainly a good way forward. I would also highlight the fact that Scotia Gas Networks is looking to run demonstration trials up in Scotland, to see how that will work in a domestic setting.

It is laudable to say that the UK aims to be a global leader, but to be a global leader we need to lead from the front. We need financial commitment, drive and determination, and we need to see a clear way forward soon. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

International Investment

Alan Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

We are saying loudly and clearly that we depend on free trade, and that free trade depends on our having clarity in the rules so that investors in our companies know what scrutiny they will be subject to. That is something that business has wanted, so it is good that we are going to be clear about that.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

These proposals are welcome as far as they go, but if, thinking about the bigger picture, we are looking at transparency in safeguards relating to foreign investment, we will need to stamp out the laundromat money-laundering schemes that channel billions of pounds through the UK. What steps are the Government taking to eliminate the vehicles for that practice, including the Scottish limited partnerships?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friends in the Treasury are, as the House knows, active and vigorous in pursuing measures against money laundering, and that approach is an important part of this regime’s reputation for applying high standards.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Alan Brown Excerpts

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

[Greg Clark]

The fact of this legislation should send a signal to the world that we are absolutely determined to be forward facing and to make sure that we have a regime in place that can continue the high standards that we enjoy while pursuing, in negotiation with Euratom and with other countries, the same continuity of arrangements that we have enjoyed. I see absolutely no obstacle to that.

Clause 2 will create a limited power, enabling regulations to amend the Nuclear Safeguards and Electricity (Finance) Act 1978; the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2000; and the Nuclear Safeguards (Notification) Regulations 2004. This narrow power will mean that cross references in that legislation to existing agreements with the IAEA can be updated once new international agreements have been reached.

Let me summarise the four key points. We are totally committed to the current and future prosperity of the nuclear industry. It is an important part of our energy future, our security as a nation and our commitment to clean energy. We are committed to meeting all our international obligations and to retaining our world-leading status on nuclear research and development. We need the powers in the Bill to give the existing independent nuclear regulator—the ONR—a new role to regulate nuclear safeguards, alongside its existing role regulating the UK’s nuclear safety and security.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way one more time. I am not sure whether he is coming to an end, but he has not yet responded to the intervention on radioisotopes of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). Does that mean that the Nuclear Industry Association, Dame Sue Ion, the honorary president of the National Skills Academy for Nuclear, and the Royal College of Radiologists are right to express concerns about the future possible supply of radioisotopes, especially given that, in the past, there have been global shortages? The Euratom supply chain was prominent in managing those shortages of supplies.

[Greg Clark]

Radioisotopes are not in scope of the measures before us today; this is about safeguards; and I replied perfectly adequately to my right hon. Friend.

The Bill sits alongside other work streams around our future relationship with Euratom, with the International Atomic Energy Agency and with third countries, and as such has been drafted to cater for a variety of possible outcomes to these talks. I want to reiterate our commitment to maximum continuity of these arrangements. The reason we are leaving Euratom is the decision to leave the European Union. The two treaties are uniquely legally joined. We continue to support Euratom and want to see a continuity of co-operation and standards and a close future partnership with it.

We do not know what the final arrangements will be, so we are doing what any responsible Government would do by putting in place now a civil nuclear safeguards regime for the United Kingdom through this Bill so that we will be fully prepared whatever the outcome of negotiations. I commend this Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Green]

Yes, I understand that some half-lives can be as short as six hours, so the efficacy of the isotopes will diminish in an incredibly short period. However, to say that the European Union and the British Government are not fully aware of that and that getting such materials from Europe over to the United Kingdom cannot or will not happen is extraordinary.

[Alan Brown]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Patricia Gibson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Green]

No. I am going to make some progress.

As we leave the European Union, we want to continue research relationships with it on many projects. We will see through Horizon 2020 to the end, and we must consider what kind of relationship we will have on the successor programme—framework programme 9. We need a close relationship with the European Union on Horizon 2020, but we must also consider what relationship we need or want on framework programme 9, and we must be mindful of the direction of travel with the European Union.

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the period beyond 2020. All things being equal, this Parliament, being a fixed-term Parliament, will last until 2022. Should the Government not already be signalling how much money they will put towards future funding?

[Chris Green]

There will be an ongoing consultation on the relationship the university and scientific sector in the United Kingdom wants on the successor programme. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know, Horizon 2020 really focuses on top-end research—the things that we often do very well in the United Kingdom—which is why this country has a disproportionately large share of the Horizon 2020 money. On the successor programme, however, the moneys may be directed towards capacity building, which would favour other regions of the European Union more and the United Kingdom less. We must look into that and watch the direction of travel in the European Union. This is not set in stone, and we should not think that the successor programme to Horizon 2020 will merely “cut and paste” what we have today.

My big concern about where we go from here, post-Brexit, is the migration to the United Kingdom of European Union citizens and people from across the world who want to take up jobs in the nuclear industry. There is a huge opportunity in this, post-Brexit, for trained and qualified staff who currently work in Euratom to come across and work in the United Kingdom or for us to recruit and bring in people from across the world. Once we leave the European Union, we will have an opportunity to set the skill requirements we need in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

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

[Alan Brown]

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

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

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

[Patricia Gibson]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. These debates often get stuck in a groove on the gramophone, the needle gets stuck and we do not knock it forward. I think it was John Maynard Keynes who said, “When the facts change, I change my mind.” A concern is raised, it is addressed, it ceases to be a concern and we move on to something else. I am not saying there will be no other concerns.

[Alan Brown]

rose—

[Simon Hoare]

On the subject of concerns, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Alan Brown]

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when the Royal College of Radiologists, Dame Sue Ion or the Nuclear Industry Association changed their mind? The Nuclear Industry Association’s latest briefing came out today, and it still expresses the same concerns. Who are all these people who have suddenly changed their mind?

[Simon Hoare]

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

[Simon Hoare]

I am not contradicting. I am seeking to answer—

[Alan Brown]

You are dismissing them—

[Simon Hoare]

No, this is not dismissing them either. Are Members honestly saying that when a question is asked and someone answers it, weight can only be given to that answer if it compounds the premise of the question that was raised? [Interruption.] That might be how the Scottish National party goes about doing its politics and its business, but it is not a particularly good way of doing it. People have raised a concern that leaving Euratom may well have an impact on access to this vital ingredient. As this vital ingredient is not covered by Euratom now, it goes beyond eccentricity to suggest that by coming out of this organisation some sort of control is going to be placed on this ingredient, as the organisation we are potentially leaving does not have control of its trade in the first place. I say to Opposition Members that that is a non sequitur. We have been trying to answer calmly and rationally a concern raised by serious and sensible medical practitioners, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds mentioned, we have heard from our Science Minister, who is held in high regard by those in the scientific and medical research community, irrespective of any of their political affiliations. Save for slashing our wrists and writing it in our life’s blood on the wall here in the House of Commons, I am not sure what assurance SNP Members are going to accept.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

What a pleasure it is to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare).

I support the Bill. The introduction of a Bill on nuclear safeguards is an entirely sensible contingency measure. It is sensible to cater for the possibility that no associate membership of Euratom can be agreed; indeed, given the importance of the matters covered by our current membership, it would be extraordinary were the Government not to do so. I have listened with interest to the Opposition speeches but, ultimately, they resulted in sound and fury signifying nothing, because it appears that no one is going to vote against the Bill’s Second Reading.

[Alan Brown]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether the Bill is a contingency and a back-up or the bright, shining new way forward? Mixed messages are coming from Government Members.

[Alex Chalk]

It is a sensible contingency to deal with safeguarding. We will no doubt be able to consider other aspects in due course.

Were the Government not to introduce the Bill, they would be in complete dereliction of their duty. The background is as follows: the UK has a strong and developed nuclear sector, with 15 nuclear reactors generating 21% of our electricity; there is something in the order of 30 licensed nuclear sites; and our nuclear industry serves important civilian purposes, including medicine, transport, farming and industrial processes.

It is worth my taking a moment to reflect on the Bill’s key purpose, which is to give the Office for Nuclear Regulation—a UK body—powers to take on the roles and responsibilities required for us to meet our international safeguarding and nuclear non-proliferation obligations. What does that mean? In other words, it is to demonstrate and ensure that civil nuclear material is used only for civil purposes, not military ones.

It is also worth reflecting on what the Bill is not about. First, notwithstanding the points made by the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), it is not about security standards in the UK. The security standards relate to the physical protection measures. The UK already follows the convention on the physical protection of nuclear material, which is outwith the scope of the Bill. Indeed, the related responsibilities are already within the ambit of the ONR.

Secondly, the Bill is not about safety standards for the prevention of nuclear accidents. We will continue to observe the standards imposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, overseen by the ONR. We have heard a bit about medical isotopes, which are not special fissile material, so I do not propose to traverse the ground that has already been ably ventilated by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset.

It is clear, though, that our membership of Euratom covers far more than safeguarding. I wish to develop a little the points that were helpfully set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey). First, on research and development such as that on fusion technologies, we need to continue our collaborations. We heard a little about the JET scheme, which ends in 2018, although the Government have rightly committed funding for it in case it is extended to 2020. We want that co-operation to continue.

Secondly, there is the international thermonuclear experimental reactor project to build the world’s largest tokamak—at that point, my expertise starts to evaporate, but it is important.

Thirdly, the Government have already committed to funding the Horizon 2020 projects that were entered into before March 2019—the date of our departure—even if they continue after our departure. That is absolutely the right thing to do. All that underscores the importance of such projects to our economy and the European economy more widely.

After research and development, the second area that the Bill does not cover but in the perpetuation of which we have a strong national interest is nuclear co-operation arrangements, and we have heard a little about Australia, Japan, the United States and Canada. Those agreements matter because the United States cannot enter into trade agreements with the UK unless NCAs are in place. That is vital.

The third point that bears re-emphasis is the free movement of highly expert scientists. All three things must be secured, and the easiest and most sensible way to do so would be through associate membership of Euratom. It is worth making the point that there is no off-the-shelf solution: the Swiss associate membership relates only to scientific and technological co-operation and the Ukrainian model is even more limited.

The Bill is entirely necessary and entirely sensible, but in a way it is just the easy bit. Just as vital is that we secure co-operation in all the other areas, too. I have already said a little about associate membership, which I suspect is the most straightforward way to deliver that co-operation, but there might be others. I have every confidence that once this sensible contingency legislation on safeguarding is securely enacted, moving on to other matters is precisely what the Government will go on to do.

draft Electricity Supplier Obligations (amendment and excluded electricity) (amendment) regulations 2017

Alan Brown Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2017 General Committees

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. In general, we, too, welcome the regulations. Anything that can help energy-intensive industry to be competitive, to keep jobs and to operate is clearly welcome.

The Minister touched on the additional £1 per domestic customer. As has been highlighted, it is quoted elsewhere as £1.80. Will the Minister clarify what the actual cost will be for domestic users? I noted in her opening remarks that she did not highlight the fact that medium users are estimated to carry a burden of £3,100 to support the offsets to energy-intensive industry. What proposals do the Government have to help businesses that will be hit with that extra cost?

The Scottish Government are using Resource Efficient Scotland, which works with businesses to bring down their energy bills and make them more energy efficient, and also looks at water use. What help will the UK Government provide? The proposed retail energy price cap was mentioned. To keep bills down in general for businesses and domestic users, it is important that the Government have a coherent strategy for future contract for difference auctions. Onshore wind currently is the cheapest form of renewable generation, so it must be allowed to bid in future auctions. Will the Minister say anything about that? The clean growth strategy published last week announced more dash for nuclear. We know how expensive Hinkley is, so what is the likely impact of more nuclear projects on businesses and domestic users?

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

The estimate was too high in the first place and it has reduced. I will look into the reasons for that and I will write to the hon. Gentleman. In his speech, he asked about the policy for this sector of the economy post-Brexit—might we pursue a more competitive approach vis-à-vis the rest of the European Union? I think that he is asking what our policy on state aid will be after we leave the European Union, and that is a matter for the negotiations.

I think I have addressed the questions raised by Committee members. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said that the average increased cost of electricity for a medium business user would be £3,100 a year—she is correct on that point.

[Alan Brown]

What will the Government do to try to mitigate that £3,100 burden on businesses?

[Margot James]

For this measure to be cost neutral, the cost of exempting some energy intensive users has to be distributed fairly among businesses. For an average user—a medium-sized user—the uplift will be about £3,100. As yet, the Government do not have plans to mitigate that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

I am happy to write to the hon. Lady with more details of the assessment that has been carried out and about the size of the charities that have been scrutinised.

The exemption is a key component of our programme to reduce electricity costs for energy intensive industries. It will help to prevent putting those industries at a significant competitive disadvantage. The increase in industrial electricity costs due to funding the CfD can reduce the UK’s attractiveness as an investment location, and increases the risk that companies will invest and move elsewhere.

[Alan Brown]

Going back to funding the contracts for difference and managing the costs overall, the Minister will be aware that the last option—offshore wind—came in at £57.50 per megawatt-hour, compared with Hinkley at £92.50 per megawatt-hour. Onshore wind is going to be even cheaper than that. Will the Government take account of that the next time they auction bids for CfDs?

[Margot James]

I will ask my colleagues to write to the hon. Gentleman with more information. I would not like to mislead the House, and I do not have the information at my fingertips.

Retail Energy

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s personal energy in this matter. He has been assiduous and tenacious in pursuing consumers’ welfare. The reason for publishing the Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny was to build the consensus that I know he will participate in. Our proposal is for an absolute cap—to ensure a clear limit on what can be charged—but I know he has thoughtful views that he will want to convey during the scrutiny process.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of the statement and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for the cross-party way in which they have brought this to the House. I am sure that that is what has forced Government action.

With 18 million customers on default tariffs, today’s announcement is a welcome step forward. I hope that those customers get the benefit of the savings that have been talked about. We need to make sure, however, that there is not too much equalisation or coalescing of pricing around the cap and that customer service is not affected as a consequence of companies trying to find other ways to save money. As the Secretary of State rightly said, standard variable tariffs themselves are a problem. How will the Government guarantee that people are moved off them once and for all?

The end supplier is only a small component of energy bills. What steps will the Government take to review the profits that the distant network operators make? They make up a huge cost in energy bills. Government energy policy also impacts on energy bills. I refer the Secretary of State to the Hinkley project and the fact that future auctions have been announced but onshore wind cannot bid. To keep energy prices down, clearly we must have the most cost-effective energy generation policies in place, so it must be allowed to bid in the electricity generation market. In Scotland, the First Minister has announced that a public sector supplier will be set up and allowed to bid in the markets. Does the Secretary of State welcome that and is it something that the UK Government will follow? Energy efficiency is also a key component. The Scottish Government are committed to a warm homes Bill. Will the UK Government do likewise?

[Greg Clark]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to stay for the statement by my hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and Industry.

[Alan Brown]

indicated assent.

[Greg Clark]

He says that he will. I hope he will give a warm welcome to the proposals in the clean growth strategy, which will include something that many of his colleagues in Scotland, from all parties, have pressed for, which is the remote islands being entitled to bid in renewables auctions. I hope he will welcome that and, indeed, our leadership in renewables, not only in deployment—we are the world’s leader in offshore wind—but in the jobs being created around the United Kingdom in the supply chain.

When it comes to the proposals in the retail market that we have set out, I can confirm that it is absolutely the Government’s intention and requirement that competition should be preserved—indeed, extended—in this market. The Competition and Markets Authority said there was not enough of it at the moment. That is why part of its panel said that interim measures were needed while that competition comes in. That is important, and the requirement of the draft Bill is that Ofgem should take steps to ensure choice and vigorous competition as part of that.

Clean Growth Strategy

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

Of course I always assiduously read anything written by my right hon. Friend and neighbour. Like him, I welcome the fact that as part of our 50-point policy and plans we have No. 41, which is to develop a world-leading resources and waste strategy, on which I am working closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) is absolutely right: it is right for the planet and it is right for business that we do this, so we will progress on that.

I have read the excellent document produced by the Conservative Environment Network, and I want to remind the House that the first person who raised the issue of man’s activities—men’s and women’s activities—on the impact of the climate was, of course, Mrs Thatcher, who understood the core Conservative principle that you take care of what you inherit and try to pass it on to the next generation in a better form. I am proud to be the latest person to carry that flag for Conservative environmentalism in this House.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is interesting to hear that Maggie Thatcher’s policy of shutting down coal mines and importing coal was down to some strategic vision about climate change. On a serious note, however, I thank the Minister for early sight of the statement and welcome the document’s publication, although she will understand that I have not yet had a chance to read it from cover to cover.

The clean growth plan clearly needs to be strategic and must bind other Departments. As the shadow Minister said, it must tie in and deliver the desired outcomes of the carbon budget and our climate change commitments. That is the spirit and intention of the strategy, but the Government need to ensure that that actually happens, so Treasury commitments are necessary. Some £2.5 billion of investment was outlined in the statement, but that is in reality only a fraction of the investment that is needed to decarbonise the UK.

All future energy scenarios rely on carbon capture and storage, but the strategy both includes and dismisses the use of CCS, so I am not exactly sure about the Government’s policy. We need a real commitment to delivering CCS, and the shadow Minister correctly said that pulling the £1 billion funding was farcical. Although the document states that £130 million has been spent on CCS R and D to date, that money has effectively been wasted. That was highlighted by a National Audit Office report, which said that the previous investment did not deliver any real outcomes. Investors need to have confidence in CCS, so the Government need to take a lead. The same can be said of tidal lagoons. If lagoons are to deliver, we need a much better show of commitment from the UK Government and we need it soon.

Another strategic aspect that the growth plan must link into is air quality. The strategy sets out the ambitions for ultra-low emission vehicles, but we need more than investment in charging points; we need real incentives to get people to purchase those vehicles, so a diesel scrappage scheme should be considered. The Government must also look at how they are going to tackle pollution from transport refrigeration units. A proper strategic review of infrastructure, transmission charges and energy efficiency is required, and it should consider in particular how to tackle private landlords. Onshore wind and solar are cheap, and such methods of electricity generation must be able to bid in the next round of contracts for difference. The Government need to keep an eye on this subject as the Brexit negotiations proceed and make changes as required.

[Claire Perry]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for an exhaustive and intelligent list of questions. I am happy to grab a cup of coffee with him and run through the document, because the strategy represents a genuinely UK-wide set of commitments. The Scottish and Welsh Governments have produced excellent plans using their devolved powers, which we welcome and in many cases support. As we implement the policies and design new ones, we are keen to work in a cross-Government and cross-party spirit of co-operation, because that is how we will get the best outcomes. I am happy to discuss all the opportunities with the hon. Gentleman and to listen to what he and his colleagues have to say. For example, I think we both welcome the remote islands announcement, which shows that we are absolutely committed to working within the current structure of various auctions and schemes to ensure that we maximise the contribution of low-carbon and low-cost energy from wherever we can source it.