Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme

Nick Smith Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also place on the record my thanks to you for selecting this debate, which I am pleased to have secured for one simple reason: to give the Government a chance to do right by retired miners and their families in my constituency and coalfield communities across the country.

I understand the significance of the mineworkers’ pension scheme to other hon. Members here today, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), who has brought so many of those involved together; my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), who led the recent Westminster Hall debate; hon. Members who are themselves former miners; and the many other coalfield MPs who join me here today.

This debate specifically seeks to address the injustices of the surplus sharing arrangement agreed in the mineworkers’ pension scheme back in 1994, but I want to start by explaining just why it matters so much to people in areas such as Barnsley. Our community is one built on the coal industry. It once helped sustain some 30,000 jobs in the area, many of which were directly involved in mining itself, where the work was tough, difficult and dangerous. Aside from the economy that depended on it, the industry also fostered an identity and a sense of community spirit that lives on to this day.

In the same way that mining powered our community, our community powered a nation, so I firmly believe that those who did so deserve nothing less than a fair arrangement that properly looks after them in later life. Unfortunately, the current scheme, agreed with the Government on the privatisation of British Coal in 1994, no longer does so. Back then, the Government offered to act as a guarantor to the scheme, ensuring that the pensions hard earned by miners would not decrease in value.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. She is doing a great job here this evening. Does she agree that we are not disputing the importance of the Government guarantee? It is giving retired miners like my uncles peace of mind that their pensions are secure, and that is really important. The question is whether the Government still need to take a 50% share, more than £3 billion over 25 years, out of the scheme, when they have not made any—any—direct payment into it. Finding the best way of giving former colliers and their families a fairer share of the pension is what has earned our focus tonight, and that is what she is leading on.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)]

May I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) on securing this debate and on a superb, passionate speech? It was brilliant to hear.

I need to declare a strong interest in this matter. There is a reason why I take my stewardship of the scheme incredibly seriously, and that is that my mother-in-law is a beneficiary. She is a widow and her husband, Bill O’Neill, who was a leading light in the coke workers union, died very young as a result of his many years of service underground. Indeed, my husband turned down a job in the Keresley pit at the age of 16, but got into trouble at university for helping to organise the blockade of ports on the east coast to stop the imports of Polish coal, so I will not take any lessons from anybody in this Chamber about the impact of the scheme or the feelings that have been raised over the years, which were so powerfully expressed by the hon. Lady. I completely share her view that one thing that we always need to focus on is the sheer blood, sweat, tears and toil that went into building our industrial revolution. One of the marvellous things about my current portfolio is the opportunity perhaps to repurpose some of that work, through things such as geothermal energy projects, to basically create energy for the next generation, based on the effort that went in.

I want to pick up some of the hon. Lady’s points about how the scheme is working and touch on some of the issues around cash flow. It is a little unfair of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) to say that there has been no engagement. There has been a lot of engagement on this process. I continue to be interested in what the trustees are bringing forward; indeed, I was discussing this with the Chancellor only today.

[Nick Smith]

I understand that the mineworkers’ pension scheme trustees tried to meet the Department before Christmas to talk about the guarantee but have still not heard from the Department about a meeting. Will the Minister pledge this evening to meet the mineworkers’ pension scheme trustees within the next fortnight?

[Claire Perry]

I will, but I met the trustees last year. I think that they have done an exceptionally good job, and I shall say more about that later. We have discussed their proposals with them, and I am shocked to hear that they were told that a meeting was not available to them. A meeting will be available whenever they want it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

No, I will not give way. Some important questions have been answered. I think that I was generous in allowing two speeches to be made before my response.

As the hon. Member for Barnsley East rightly said, the scheme continues to function and the numbers are falling. The only scheme that resembles this one is the one that was set up for rail workers. Again, the Government are the guarantor, which means that any liabilities incurred by the scheme will come back to them. For that reason, the trustees, who include ex-miners, have done an amazing investment job. Because of that guarantee—it is basically a Government-backed scheme—the returns are at least a third higher than they would otherwise have been, so it has generated a lot of value.

[Nick Smith]

rose—

[Claire Perry]

Does the hon. Gentleman want answers, or does he want to keep asking questions? Because I love the hon. Gentleman, I will take a question from him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Smith]

I have listened to what the Minister has said. We argue that the Government have received at least £3.5 billion in surplus in recent years. The Minister says that they have spent £1 billion in coalfield communities in the last 20 years. Labour Members feel that our communities have been short-changed by £2 billion. Given that the last review took place nearly 20 years ago, why will the Minister not do the right thing now and agree to another review?

[Claire Perry]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be the first to acknowledge—the point has already been made—that, sadly, one of the results has been that many people who are in receipt of this pension scheme, including the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), who was in his place, no longer live in those coalfield communities, but they have benefited as pensioners from many of the other pension benefits that that income has gone towards providing.

I met, and was incredibly impressed with the trustees. Relative to other schemes, the results they have provided and the compassion and generosity with which they administer the scheme are second to none, and we should pay tribute to them for that. I point out again that the returns from the Government underwriting of the scheme are about a third higher in real terms than they would have been.

I want to turn to something that has been suggested by the trustees. When I met them—and perhaps the hon. Member for Barnsley East and I should meet them together to have the same conversation; I will be happy to do that—they indicated to me that they understood that changing the surplus sharing arrangements, as was considered by the last Labour Government and rejected, was not the biggest priority. The biggest priority was protecting the accrued bonuses and making sure that the scheme could proceed on that basis. They have come forward with some excellent proposals and I commend them for that. I had a brief discussion this evening with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about my interest and the Treasury’s interest in properly reviewing those proposals and taking them forward. I am very happy to have those conversations face to face, as I have committed to do.

I genuinely admire the hon. Lady’s speech. It is brilliant to see her and so many colleagues standing up for a group of people who many may argue gave more to the system than they received from it. As a family member, I am proud to acknowledge that and to stand up as the steward of the scheme and pledge to her that I will do my best to ensure that it continues to deliver.

I do want to say that the trustees’ proposals are excellent, albeit we need to look at the cash flow implications. We will continue to explore options and I am very happy to do that on a cross-party basis with all Members who would be interested in doing so.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Intellectual Property (Copyright and Related Rights) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Nick Smith Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2019 General Committees

[Richard Harrington]

I can answer that question in the following way. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have a lot of respect for him and that we share many views. I do not know what the views of the stakeholders on leaving the EU were—I imagine they would have thought it detrimental to their businesses, but I was not party to that. Today, we are talking about a specific piece of secondary legislation for the event of crashing out of the EU—a hard Brexit.

I do not know the rank of the people involved, and I cannot say whether Richard Branson was involved. He is offshore and is allowed only 90 days here, so perhaps he was not allowed to come. I cannot comment on that. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there were proper senior people representing proper companies and proper entities. I do not think that the Department had a plan for only low-level people to attend. I cannot say who was there. I am not withholding information; I am afraid I do not know. Having had more than two years’ experience of the Department, I can say it is fairly thorough in its consultations with stakeholders.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

The Minister said that there were no formal consultations as part of the exercise, but there were roundtables with key people from the relevant sectors and businesses. Where is the feedback from the roundtable discussions that took place? I am quickly flicking through the information on the analysis and evidence, and I cannot find it. Will the Minister tell us more about what businesses said during the roundtables so that we can understand what occurred?

[Richard Harrington]

I must apologise for not sitting down, Sir Edward. I have never had so many interventions in an SI.

Draft Recognition of Professional Qualifications (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Nick Smith Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 General Committees

[Richard Harrington]

That is a sensible suggestion. However, all of this information was in the technical notices that were distributed, I think, in October last year, although one might say that people do not read them. There was a lot of information in those notices, but I will look into how we can make sure that there is an easily acceptable and consumer-friendly way of getting that information. I accept that technical notices are somewhat technical, and might be quite dry.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Harrington]

Yes; this is very unusual, but I would be delighted.

[Nick Smith]

Does the Minister know, through the various professional organisations that his officials may have been in touch with, how many UK citizens are working as professionals in the European Union at the moment whose role may be affected if we crash out of the EU?

[Richard Harrington]

I do not know whether my officials have that information, but I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman directly. I must say that he and I are probably quite unique on this Committee in not explaining that we ourselves have professional qualifications. I am certainly in that position, and I might be doing the shadow Whip a disservice, but I think he is in the same boat as me. I have learned a lot about professional services in the course of this SI and others, but I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. I will make sure that it is answered in the next couple of days.

I have done my best to answer the questions I can, and hon. Members know that I will be very approachable afterwards if they wish to take up some of these issues. With that in mind, I beg the Committee to accept this SI.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Recognition of Professional Qualifications (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

Draft Insolvency (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Nick Smith Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2019 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her analysis of the regulations’ effects. She got quickly to the point that mutual recognition between the UK and the EU is not guaranteed if we leave with no deal. Under the terms of the withdrawal Act we would be giving one-way recognition of EU appointments and judgments. The statutory instrument would give our Government the opportunity, should they need it, to withdraw that recognition. I will tease out one or two points surrounding that intention.

People in the profession do not want the Government to have to use the power—I dare say that the Government do not want to use it either. They want the Government to secure a deal so that the existing system of mutual recognition continues, and they argue that no deal should be avoided. We often do the same in Committees such as this one, but we recognise what would happen in the event of no deal.

People in the profession have made the point to me that the Government have the power to create a level playing field for the UK profession if they are unable to obtain the deal that they are looking for. The SI is not a mechanism for maintaining the current system; it deals only with problems that could arise from not having a mutual recognition deal. I urge the Minister to take on board their point that in the event of no deal the Government should try to re-establish mutual recognition as quickly as possible so that the provisions in the SI will never be needed.

The Minister referred to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments’ concerns about the clarity of the regulations, potential defective drafting and the fact that they deliver broad powers rather than narrow ones. She gave various examples of what could happen without the kind of mutual agreement that I referred to. I think the Joint Committee, like the Opposition, would call for every effort to be made to achieve mutual recognition as soon as possible. Can the Minister say what work has been carried out to try to establish that mutual recognition in the event of no deal? Such work is effectively what the sector is calling for.

What indications has the Minister had from the EU about its intentions to maintain the status quo and to reciprocate what she proposes in the regulations, which is that we will continue to recognise the appointments and jurisdiction of EU courts in insolvency proceedings? Has she had an indication that that arrangement will be reciprocated in the event of no deal? What discussions have her officials had with EU Governments or the Commission?

As far as I understand it, the SI enables the Government to remove automatic recognition of foreign practitioners and recognition of court decisions. We have an extremely well regarded, strong and economically successful insolvency regime in the United Kingdom, and it is important that we continue to do so. Maintaining confidence in it is extremely important to our economy as a place for businesses to come to restructure, and for creditors in insolvency cases to recover what they are due effectively and successfully. It is important that we avoid a long-term shift away from a lot of that work being based in the United Kingdom, so those guarantees from the EU are extremely important.

A point made to me by people in the profession was that some people in the insolvency profession across the continent of Europe may see an opportunity to increase the amount of work that they can obtain at the expense of the UK profession. They may not be particularly concerned about reciprocity or about getting the EU to continue mutual recognition. I urge the Minister to address that point when she answers my question about the progress made towards achieving mutual recognition.

Further to paragraph 2.10 of the explanatory memorandum, will the Minister explain the implications of the draft regulations for the Pension Protection Fund? What is changing? I did not entirely get a sense from her speech of what assurances are in place to protect employees. Sadly, in recent years there have been some very high-profile cases that have made a significant call on the fund—the BHS insolvency springs readily to mind. Clearly we need to ensure that the fund is not undermined in any way, shape or form by what is happening, and that the draft regulations will protect workers in the event of a no-deal exit.

As paragraph 2.14 notes,

“the UK will no longer be an EU member State.”

What are the implications for employees of companies that operate in more than one jurisdiction, or where there is foreign ownership of a UK subsidiary? That may be a relatively easy question but, again, I did not quite get a sense of the answer from the Minister’s speech.

Paragraph 3.7 refers to the main thrust of the draft regulations:

“the lack of reciprocity after exit day.”

That is an argument for preventing no deal at all costs, but there is real concern about the fact that we can continue to offer recognition of EU operations in insolvency but we cannot require member states to recognise UK insolvency judgments. The explanatory memorandum sets out the challenge clearly. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed exactly what progress has been made towards overcoming the lack of mutual recognition.

As ever in Delegated Legislation Committees, there are matters of consultation and impact assessment to consider. I understand that there has been informal discussion, and having spoken to people in the sector, I think it is fair to say that they are as happy as it is possible to be—in this case, if not in all cases—with what is being proposed in the event of no deal. However, they stress that the draft regulations are only a stopgap. As the insolvency body R3 stated in its 2017 Brexit recommendations, it is extremely important that a mechanism be put in place as quickly as possible that provides the same benefits as the European insolvency regulation and the recast Brussels regulation.

R3 also noted how much money is recovered as a result of UK insolvency actions. One of its case studies was Nortel, which entered insolvency proceedings in 2009. A total of £1.5 billion was returned to creditors as a result of the work carried out by insolvency practitioners and their agents, where the insolvency was based in the UK. That compares with a total of £4 billion a year returned to creditors in the UK, including to the UK Government through HMRC. I therefore find it quite remarkable that the Government say there is no business impact worthy of an impact assessment—that they regard the impact as below the de minimis level. My calculation is that £4 billion is a little more than the £5 million de minimis level. Yet again, a regulation has a significant business impact but the Government do not carry out an impact assessment.

I will not go through the entire way in which the EU carries out its impact assessments; it does things rather differently. Those of the Committee who were here on Monday will have heard me read them out on that occasion. It is on the record and I do not need to do it again. The Minister may refer to it and I would have hoped she would have done so before today’s meeting.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Definitely don’t want to go through that again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I see the hon. Gentleman understands that point.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, in what we have laid out as our future economic relationship in a deal, our focus is on ensuring that we are able to deal with mutual recognition and reciprocal status going forward if a deal is to be had. We recognise, with the profession, that if we can come to an agreement in this area in a deal situation, that would be in everyone’s best interest. With a deal, we would continue our civil judicial co-operation, including on cross-border insolvency. That is in the best interests of both the UK and the EU, as he outlined. However, it is not possible for us to unilaterally continue with the co-operation on cross-border insolvencies; we can achieve the benefits that both sides currently enjoy only through a mutual recognition agreement with the EU. The declaration on the future relationship was clear that it would include wide-ranging agreements on trade, including trade in professional and business services and the framework necessary to support that.

We will continue in those endeavours, but this SI is intended to ensure that, in a no-deal situation, UK law provides clarity for the profession and that we are able to operate on day one. After that date, it would be down to us to bring any further changes to our insolvency regulations that are not in the scope of the draft regulation to the House, as we see fit. After leaving, there may be things that come up that we might need to change, but that would be done in the course of standard business.

Regarding the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the Pension Protection Fund, I assure the Committee that the Prime Minister and the Government have been clear that we will not row back on workers’ rights through the withdrawal Act. Employees living and working in the UK for a company registered here or in the EU will continue to receive redundancy-related payments from the national insurance fund where their insolvent employer cannot make them, as they do now. The draft regulations ensure that the law in this area is clear and can operate correctly when we are no longer an EU member state. One of the limitations is that within this SI we cannot guarantee for workers in EU states, how EU member states will deal with the employees working in those states. What we can do, as laid out in this SI, is to ensure that people working in the UK, be it for EU companies operating in the UK or UK companies, will still have those protections as they are now for UK workers.

On the hon. Gentleman’s questions about the impact assessment, we have been in this situation many times over recent months and I know it is a particular concern for him. However, for this particular SI we have assessed the direct cost of to business in terms of the costs of insolvency and have estimated that the direct cost would be £2.7 million, due to the extra costs that may arise when practitioners need to open cases in EU member states, which they do not currently have to do under EU regulations.

[Nick Smith]

I do not know whether this is the case, but if there is a no-deal Brexit, will EU-based employers pay the levy into the Pension Protection Fund?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

EU member states will be operating under the current EU regulations as they stand, according to how they have implemented those rules in their own states. We currently submit to the levy here, so workers in the UK, whatever their nationality, will still be entitled to all of the same protections and benefits that exist today. With regard to how individual member states implement the EU regulation, we cannot guarantee how they will interpret a UK no-deal situation. We hope EU member states will treat all UK workers in the same way as we will treat people working in the UK, but that is something we cannot dictate. Does that give some clarity?

[Nick Smith]

No, the Minister did not absolutely clear up the matter for me. Will she check whether EU-based employers will continue to pay the levy into the pension protection fund on behalf of UK employees should we leave without agreement?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I apologise if I was not clear. Perhaps I was trying to explain the matter in a more complicated way. Yes, they will all pay the PPF levy. I was simply trying to highlight that we here can expressly say we are making sure that all people working in the UK, no matter what their nationality, will be afforded all protections. What we do not have any control over is future changes that might occur in other member states and in EU regulations in a no-deal situation. At that point we will be regarded as a third country, but under the current regulations they will still pay into the fund.

The changes proposed in the draft regulation go some way to protecting the UK insolvency market in the event of a no deal. They ensure that citizens, businesses and the insolvency profession will not be disadvantaged by unilaterally retaining EU rules when reciprocal and necessary safeguards would not be guaranteed by the EU. The proposed changes provide certainty and clarity regarding cross-border insolvency cases with the EU following exit.

The regulations also ensure that protections for UK employees of insolvent employers are maintained after the UK exits the EU: something we all agree is vital. The instrument is essential to repeal the majority of EU insolvency regulations from UK law and to retain the status quo for employment rights in the UK. I hope I have been able to answer all the questions and I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Insolvency (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

Draft Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Nick Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2019 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

I repeat my sentiment of yesterday that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. It is even more of a pleasure because yesterday’s Committee was chaired with such brilliant style and dignity that my shadow, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, was kept to record brevity. It will not help his reputation, but I thank him for his co-operation—and everybody else for theirs. I expect that today’s proceedings will be rather longer, but I will try to curtail my own contribution.

The regulations, which were laid before the House on 29 November last year, set out the legal framework of our new domestic civil nuclear safeguards regime after we withdraw from Euratom—the European Atomic Energy Community, for those unfamiliar with the body. The regulations are made under powers set out in the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018, which amended the Energy Act 2013. They replace the current legal framework, which is provided principally by our membership of Euratom.

I emphasise that the two sets of regulations dealt with yesterday and today are essential to establishing our domestic regime whether we leave the EU with a deal or without one. They are linked to the Nuclear Safeguards (Fissionable Material and Relevant International Agreements) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which set out the definitions of fissionable material and relevant international agreements. I am sure that Members who were in yesterday’s Committee will remember them in full, and I will test them later to see whether they were listening—

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Bring it on.

[Richard Harrington]

—with the exception of the Opposition Whip. I remind everybody who has not wished the hon. Gentleman a happy birthday that it was his birthday yesterday. I think I have milked that one enough, but I will try to be nice to him in the hope that there will not be several votes this afternoon.

As I said, for the purpose of the regulations, the terms are defined under the 2013 Act, as amended. If it is acceptable to the Committee, I will not repeat what nuclear safeguards are. If anybody would like me to, I am very happy to go over that, but I went over it yesterday and at various points during the passage of the 2018 Act, pointing out that they are distinct from safety and security and are to do with non-proliferation.

The regulations are essential for two reasons. First, they will show the international community that we honour international legal nuclear safeguards, and that we are a responsible nuclear state. Secondly, the detail in the regulations and in yesterday’s will, we hope, retain public, industry and international trading partner confidence and enable the continuity of civil nuclear trade. We have to ensure that our civil nuclear ambitions continue and are not diminished when Euratom safeguards no longer apply to the UK.

The 2018 Act empowers the Office for Nuclear Regulation to be the regulator for safeguards. It did not do that before; the ONR regulated safety and security. The Act gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations giving effect to our nuclear domestic regime when we leave Euratom. The regulations perform that function.

The regulations establish requirements on operators of qualifying nuclear facilities. They establish provisions for the ONR to be the new safeguards regulator when it takes over the roles and responsibilities currently with Euratom. Regulations 3 to 33, together with schedule 1, set out the requirements for operators, which include, for example, the record that an operator is required to keep, together with the forms that the operator must send to the ONR. Regulations 7 to 9 set out the requirements for an accountancy and control plan. Regulations 39 to 42 set out the provisions dealing with the ONR as safeguards regulator. Regulation 43 sets out the offences, with regulations 44 to 49 setting out the provisions dealing with notifications of the Secretary of State. Schedule 4 sets out the transitional provisions.

Our Department held an extensive consultation about the regulations; there were 28 responses, and we ourselves responded at the end of November last year. I thank those who contributed, because the comments on the regulations assisted our final policy deliberations. In response, we introduced a specific commencement date of 1 January 2021 for the accountancy and control plans, which gives operators further time to produce the plans, as they requested. We have introduced a new exemption for certain educational establishments holding very small quantities of qualifying nuclear material. We listened to comments on the transitional provisions in schedule 4 and further developed this to support operators and ensure a smooth move from Euratom to our safeguards regime. As part of the consultation we published an impact assessment for the regulations. A final fit-for-purpose nuclear safeguards impact assessment was published on 29 November 2018.

I am pleased to report that there has been good progress on many of the steps required to ensure delivery of a new domestic safeguards regime in the UK. We have signed our bilateral safeguards agreements—we discussed Japan extensively in yesterday’s Committee—and they were approved by Parliament on 19 December. The ONR is ready to take on the role and responsibility of the UK safeguards regime. It has been enhancing its capabilities. Several members of the Nuclear Safeguards Public Bill Committee expressed fear about that during the Bill’s passage. We heard evidence from Mina Golshan of the ONR explaining possible concerns that the posts would not be recruited and filled. We took those concerns on board, and I am pleased to say that the fears have not been realised. That is not because she was advising incorrectly; until a role is advertised and recruited it is almost impossible to tell what is going to happen.

From January 2019, the domestic regime commenced parallel running alongside Euratom, processing and checking reports received from industry through a system of safeguards managing and reporting. While it is running in parallel, we will have an opportunity to identify any adjustments necessary. We have time to do that before 29 March. On recruitment, which has been of interest to the House, the first phase of recruitment has been fulfilled, with 16 new safeguard officers in place—seven more than the minimum of nine that we felt were required to deliver the regime. Four nuclear material accountants have been appointed, giving a total of 20 in post.

These regulations, together with our international agreements, allow the ONR to deliver a safeguards regime that meets our international obligations from day one after exit. I believe the ONR’s capacity and expertise will build over time to be, by December 2020, equivalent in effectiveness and coverage to that currently provided by Euratom. That was our policy intent. It is the means by which the UK will exceed the commitments that we need to give the international community. The entire purpose of this is not to do the minimum required, but to do what we have done since all this started, showing leadership in the world. That is the regime we are aiming for.

I believe the draft regulations, together with the ones approved yesterday are vital to enable us to operate our domestic civil nuclear industry. They will deliver the Government’s commitments to establish a new regime by December 2020 that is equivalent in effectiveness and coverage to that currently provided by Euratom, and to meet international obligations from day one of exit. In certain respects the safeguards commitments set out in the new bilateral safeguards agreed between ourselves and the International Atomic Energy Agency will be exceeded. I very much look forward to hearing what hon. Members have to say.

Draft Postal and Parcel Services (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Nick Smith Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 General Committees

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind comments. I will try to answer her questions and give her some more information about what has been done.

Regarding co-operation, as the SI highlights we will not be able to continue as a member of the ERGP after we leave, but Ofcom has made it clear that we will be trying to obtain permanent observer status. I touched on this briefly in my opening speech, but I can reassure her that that group votes only twice a year, so the voting element is minimal. It is an advisory board, working together and consulting, and there are a number of countries with observer status in the group. Obviously, obtaining that status is a decision that will have to be taken at a later stage, but I do not see any reason for it not happening.

As the hon. Lady will know, we are already a member of the Universal Postal Union, which is a UN body that operates worldwide and is able to co-operate internationally. The potential impact of the measure will cross over to the impact with respect to cross-border issues. As she will know, we are in consultation with Royal Mail and other delivery operators regarding customs arrangements and requirements that will be necessary. That work is being undertaken by Her Majesty’s Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and that information is already being tested in the White Paper.

Regarding impact assessments, we believe that this SI has a very minimal impact. It is under the £5 million mark, so a full impact assessment has been judged not to be required. We are continuing to work with delivery operators and the Royal Mail as we move through the process, towards exit day, either with or without a deal, to make sure that we continue to address what needs to be addressed. We have assessed that neither the regulator nor the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy would require further funding to be able to operate under a no-deal scenario in relation to this SI.

To put it on record and to put the hon. Lady’s mind at rest regarding cross-border parcel delivery, we have a duty to co-operate with other countries with respect to the postal service and parcels. We will become a third country, but we expect that to operate in the same way with the European Union. We will retain European standards, which are widely shared. We have a great postal service here in the UK, and it has become more efficient in the past eight years.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Does the Minister know whether Royal Mail anticipates that any customs changes that come about due to a Brexit in which we crash out will have any practical impact?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are continuing to work with Royal Mail and HMRC on the customs arrangements that will be put in place. That is a live issue, which continues to be consulted on. I cannot give him full details, because that is a piece of ongoing work.

[Nick Smith]

I thank the Minister for that response. Will she update us on the analysis she does with Royal Mail on the possible financial impact of the draft regulations in the event that we crash out?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

If there was to be a direct financial impact that was less than minimal, of course we would provide an update. As things stand, we have assessed that there will be a very minimal cost, but we continue to work on those customs arrangements. Let us be frank: in a no-deal situation, we will be dealing with customs for our postal and parcel services in some way, shape or form, so that will have to be monitored right up to our leaving date while we wait for our direction to be confirmed. That is as far as I can go on that point, I am afraid.

The draft regulations will be made under the powers conferred by section 8 of the withdrawal Act. Those powers will provide legal clarity in respect of postal and parcel services legislation after the UK’s exit from the EU by removing inconsistencies and inappropriate references from the statute book. I have addressed the concerns of the Commons sifting Committee about the effects of the UK’s non-participation in the ERGP as a result of our leaving the EU. The draft regulations do not represent a policy change in the operation of postal services; they preserve as far as possible the rights, responsibilities and protections offered by the existing system. I therefore hope the Committee will approve them.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Accounts and Reports (Amendment) (EU Exit) REgulations 2018

Nick Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2018 General Committees

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I will try again to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. There is no policy change in this SI: it is correcting deficiencies in the retained EU law. If he is asking about the impact of no deal, I refer him to the work that has already been done by Government on the impact of a no deal scenario versus a deal scenario, rather than these individual statutory instruments. As he will know, there are a number of statutory instruments across all Departments that may well affect businesses in different ways, which do not come under my responsibilities as a junior Minister in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I just want to press the Minister on this point about the overall cost to business of the no deal planning that she has talked about. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central has mentioned the specialist media coverage of the accounting requirements that have already taken place in one sector of the economy, and this is the third Delegated Legislation Committee on this topic in this week alone. By when will we receive from the Minister the true cost to business of these extra responsibilities and regulations from her Department?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the assessments of the effect on business have been well reported. With this particular SI, we are talking about the impact on a very small number of businesses, compared to the 3.8 million that are registered. The vast majority of UK-registered companies will not be affected by the SI at all, because we are not changing the policy; we are correcting deficiencies so that we are legal and can operate correctly and efficiently in the case of a no deal scenario. Quite rightly, if we are able to establish a future relationship with the European Union—if we are in a situation where we have a deal—this is one of a number of elements that would be part of those ongoing negotiations. However, I am unable to give the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent clarity on the direct question he asked regarding the total cost to business for all the SIs that have been passed or are coming up.

[Nick Smith]

On this topic, in this Department.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to accountancy, we are talking about the accountancy SI today.

[Nick Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I am going to carry on, because I have given as full an answer as I am prepared to give.

As I highlighted in my introduction, and as I have reiterated, we are not changing the way in which we ask companies to report. We will work with Companies House, as we do already, to ensure that we identify all the companies that are affected by not having the exemptions, that we have the data, and that any guidance that is needed is issued well before the SI comes into effect.

On the extraction industries, the hon. Member for Sefton Central is right that currently the EU Commission has the power to grant equivalency to third countries. We are not changing any of the criteria for that; rather than the EU Commission having that power, the Secretary of State would have the authority to make those decisions in a no deal situation. As I outlined, the SI will correct the deficiencies in EU retained law.

Ending Seasonal Changes of Time (Reasoned Opinion)

Nick Smith Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2018 General Committees

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The Government’s course of action at the moment is to be successful—we are still hopeful that we will be able to block the proposal, thanks to what I have outlined in my statement—but if not, we would work with the devolved administrations and would consult widely. One of the reasons for our objection is the timeframe, which is very short, and other member states have said that other elements are completely unworkable. We have support from different member states and they share some of our concerns.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Does the Minister think that the provision in the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) in the last Parliament but one—that the clocks should go forward to Greenwich mean time plus one hour in the winter and to GMT plus two hours in the summer—would be a good idea, as that would reduce road traffic accidents and save lives? Does she think a similar proposal might be made in the future?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

As hon. Members will know, during the second world war, we had GMT plus two hours at one point, before that changed in 1968 to 1971, and again in 1972. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point; many Members of Parliament and other bodies have suggested that a change in the time zone could have an impact on road safety. Currently, we are not consulting within the UK on whether to change the clocks; we are working with other EU member states to block the proposal, full stop.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Smith]

May I ask the Minister if she thinks it is a good idea to bring clocks forward to save lives?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

First, I would say that it is rather an unfair question to ask me whether a clock change would save people’s lives. If the hon. Gentleman was able to provide me with evidence to suggest that that might be the case, it might alter my personal position. I highlight to him the fact that the Government’s position is clear: we are not looking to change the clocks as they stand at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I have written, as a Minister, to the devolved Administration. My officials have written to the officials in Northern Ireland. I have not issued any direct guidance. I hope that that finally answers the hon. Lady’s question.

[Nick Smith]

May I just ask the Minister to take a peek at the evidence provided by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which quite clearly supports the case I have made today and which may influence her thinking in future?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarification. I still believe that his original question was slightly unfair, but as he will know I do engage, as the Minister with responsibility for consumer protection, with organisations concerned with accident prevention. I recently had a forum with those organisations; we are looking at ways in which we can protect consumers and the general public.

Nuclear Sector Deal

Nick Smith Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

Nor had I been aware of the hon. Gentleman’s distinguished career, Mr Speaker—you learn something new every day in this House.

I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that safety is absolutely paramount in the plans that the Government have. On the tidal lagoon, the proposed programme would have cost the average household consumer up to £700 between 2031 and 2050. Each week in this House, there is a question about what we are doing to bring down the cost of energy. We are not against tidal lagoons, but we cannot support every project at any price, and that is why we made the decision that we did.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

This is a good nuclear sector deal, but are tidal lagoons totally off the agenda now?

[Mr Gyimah]

As I said, we are not against tidal lagoons, but they must demonstrate value for money for consumers and public funds.

Marks & Spencer

Nick Smith Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

Absolutely.

My hon. Friend referred to disability access, and I think we still need to do more about that. We must bear in mind that it is not enough for companies simply to relocate out of town if people need cars or some other form of transport to get there.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

High streets throughout the country will be the poorer for this decision. Retail closures are coming thick and fast now. May I press the Minister on one point? When will we see a change in VAT rules that will help our local shops?

[Claire Perry]

As my hon. Friend—for he is a friend—knows, it is an unwise Minister who pre-empts a Treasury announcement, so I will not be tempted. But I think that we should focus on the fact that through such actions we can end up with a thriving great British company that is able to compete in the 21st century and to maintain its stores. We have seen too many great British names go under, partly because their managements did not make the right decisions and did not think enough about their staff in the long term.