Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

2. What assessment he has made of the effect of the UK leaving the EU on the civil nuclear industry.

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

The Government have made clear their commitment to the continuing success of the nuclear sector, including nuclear research, in this country. We are aiming for a maximum level of continuity with the current arrangements. My Department has held discussions with the sector to ensure we understand and address its concerns.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the Minister agree that the uncertainties over leaving the EU, as well as the falling prices of solar energy and the timescale for delivering the projects, will make nuclear energy projects such as Hinkley Point deliver very little value for money?

[Richard Harrington]

I very much disagree with the hon. Lady’s assessment. The Government’s policy is to go for a mix of different types of energy, of which nuclear power is firmly and clearly one, as are renewables and all the others.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

As the Minister knows, the nuclear industry is extremely important to Cumbria. Does he agree that leaving the EU has its issues, but that it is far more important to ensure that we have a nuclear sector deal as part of the industrial strategy, which will mean real investment and growth in the sector?

[Richard Harrington]

I agree with my hon. Friend and I commend him for all his work to support the nuclear industry. We are very well aware of the nuclear sector deal. I met leaders of the industry last week, as I do repeatedly, to ensure that their sector deal is important and will be relevant to carrying the industry forward for a long time in the future.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

19. The civil nuclear industry is getting increasingly twitchy about Euratom transition arrangements. Will the Minister today clarify whether Euratom membership can continue during the transition period and, if not, will he support the cross-party amendment 300 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which would protect the civil nuclear industry from a cliff-edge Brexit?

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Lady will be aware that these matters are being discussed in the Bill Committee. The Government intend to build a consensual view to ratify the problem. I know she has a keen constituency interest. The Government are aware of all the issues. It is our intention to have the closest possible relationship with members of Euratom.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

It is very important that we achieve an agreement with the EU that enables us to retain as many of the benefits of Euratom as possible. Will the Minister say something about the future of small modular reactors in the UK?

[Richard Harrington]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Department is looking closely at small nuclear reactors. We have had presentations from many different companies and entities involved in developing this technology. We hope this will be brought to a conclusion very quickly. I commend him. I visited his constituency to see the research work going on there. We are very supportive of it.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Exiting the EU is introducing an added complication into the efforts to rescue the Moorside deal, with all the jobs and security it would bring. Are the Government open to the idea of offering a stake in the Moorside project if the conditions with a particular buyer are right?

[Richard Harrington]

I would make two points to the hon. Gentleman, who is also a worthy champion of the nuclear industry: the Moorside arrangement is a private commercial matter for Toshiba; and in my view what is happening with Euratom and the EU is not really relevant here.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

3. What steps he has taken to ensure that the UK participates in the Horizon 2020 programme for the duration of that programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

9. What assessment he has made of the effect on consumers’ awareness of energy consumption of installing a smart meter.

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

Recent research has been conducted by Smart Energy GB, the independent not-for-profit organisation responsible for national consumer engagement on smart meters. It found that 86% of people with a smart meter said that they had made energy-saving changes to their behaviour and that this positive action was maintained over time after installation.

[Nigel Huddleston]

The Minister is obviously aware that, by encouraging better energy consumption, the average consumer saves about £75 a year through a smart meter. Does he agree that smart meters will enable more switching of suppliers, saving the average customer £200 a year, and that this is therefore good for the environment and for consumers?

[Richard Harrington]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s analysis. Smart meters enable consumers to make more confident and informed decisions about which supplier and tariff is right for them. Interestingly, Ofgem’s survey for 2017 showed that consumers who say they have a smart meter are more likely to have switched supplier in the past 12 months.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

Energy consumption and awareness is a two-way street, and the companies are aware of what energy is being consumed in the home, so what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that energy companies do not increase the customer’s daily rate as customers reduce their energy consumption?

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Lady should rest assured that this is on our agenda. Increases must have Ofgem approval, and it is something we are monitoring very carefully.[Official Report, 14 November 2017, Vol. 631, c. 1MC.]

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

What assessment have the Government made of the security of smart meters?

[Richard Harrington]

The Government consider the security of smart meters to be very important, and the whole smart meter programme was designed with the approval of the cyber-security body and all the other relevant authorities.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

How does the Minister intend to make the process for switching between gas or electric companies easier for those with smart meters, as the process is extremely convoluted, to use a Ulster-Scots-ism, at present, with customer smart reading going dumb and manual readings having to be sent out?

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the SMETS 2 programme involves complete compatibility between all the different meters, enabling people to switch. The current system that is being installed, SMETS 1, will be applicable for that in, we think, about a year, when the software allows that to happen.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

10. What steps he has taken to meet the UK’s commitments under the Paris climate change agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

16. What assessment he has made of the potential merits of the recommendations set out in the Hendry review on tidal lagoons.

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

As my hon. Friend knows, the issues raised by the review are complex. A lagoon programme could cost in the region of £50 billion. The costs of renewable energy are plummeting, and we need to consider the questions associated with deploying this technology in the marine environment. All programmes have to be considered with the following in mind: the cost, the export potential and the contribution to the green economy.

[Richard Graham]

The Hendry review was delivered on time by a distinguished former Conservative Energy Minister who started a sceptic and finished a convert, strongly recommending that the Government push ahead with a pilot project. Although none of us would want to see the Government rush into decisions of this kind— a global first—what are the chances of a formal response before the review’s first anniversary in January? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Budget is an excellent opportunity for a positive announcement?

[Richard Harrington]

My hon. Friend may be frustrated, and I know the Government have yet to respond to the review, but as I have said this is an extremely complex issue and we need to ensure that we make the right decision. All I can say to him is that we will be publishing our response in due course.

[Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.