Nuclear Safeguards Bill
Public Bill Committee, 31 October 2017.
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
Before we begin, I have a few little parish notices. First, for all the activities that we indulge in when considering the Bill, both here and in the Committee Room, the orders of procedure are precisely the same as in the main Chamber—for example, no eating and drinking; preferably jackets on, unless it is extremely warm, in which case Members may consider taking them off; ties, of course, are now optional, but I always wear mine; and I tend to be a little on the conservative side and maintain standards.
We will talk through the procedure later. This stage, for those who have not done it before, is rather like a Select Committee. You are bringing witnesses in front of you to inquire of them their expert knowledge about what is in the Bill. It is different from a Select Committee in the sense that you are not quizzing them, holding them to account or giving them a tough time; you are seeking to extract the maximum benefit from their evidence. This is not party political; it is like a consensual Select Committee.
The Bill is very narrowly drafted. It is about a particular subject, not the entire spectrum of what Euratom does or stands for. We will be reasonably strict about trying to keep people within the terms of the Bill, so that they do not ramble widely. We now have a couple of formalities to deal with.
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room, and all the papers are on the table behind you.
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
We will now discuss the general line of questioning during this sitting. Let us try to do that reasonably briefly, because we do not have much time. As soon as we have agreed what questions we want to ask, we will have the witnesses and the public in to start the sitting.
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
If Members of the Committee have interests to declare, they should please do so now.
Dan Carden (Labour, Liverpool, Walton)
I am a member of Unite the union.
Trudy Harrison (Conservative, Copeland)
My husband, father and brother work at Sellafield, as well as many other family members.
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
I am a member of Unite.
Examination of Witness
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
Q I welcome our first witness, Dr Mina Golshan, who represents the Office for Nuclear Regulation. Dr Golshan, thank you very much for coming. Perhaps you can kick off our considerations with a brief statement about who you are, what you do and what you think about the Bill.
Richard Harrington (Conservative, Watford)
Q Dr Golshan, thank you for appearing today. I know that you are a regular at these things. From your point of view, how critical are safeguards in underpinning the UK nuclear industry?
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Q I want to ask you about the Office for Nuclear Regulation’s capacity to take on the additional responsibilities implicit in the Bill, given your current staffing levels and the large number of people employed by Euratom to fulfil these roles.
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
Dr Golshan, can I ask you to speak up slightly, because this is a very large room and we are having trouble hearing you. I am getting older—you know how it is.
Trudy Harrison (Conservative, Copeland)
Q Thank you for coming here this morning, Dr Golshan. I understand that the ONR currently has the responsibility for safety and security at the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. I am keen to understand how the relationship would work with safeguards.
Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)
Dr Golshan, you have mentioned the sort of headcount you will need for inspectors. What is your current total establishment, and by how much do you think you will need to grow?Q
Ben Bradley (Conservative, Mansfield)
Can you tell us a bit about the ONR’s track record of delivering new regulation previously? Do you feel that you have the right relationships within the industry to deliver this new programmeQ ?
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Q May I follow up on your earlier answer, Dr Golshan? You have been clear and helpful. From what I understood, you said that you were recruiting an additional 10 to 12 inspectors now, with the potential of a further 20. Is that the whole size of the establishment you might be looking for? I might be wrong, but I understand that Euratom employs about 40 people on nuclear safeguarding in relation to UK establishments.
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Q This is a sector with which most of us are—with some exceptions—relatively unfamiliar.
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
Mr Blomfield, could you speak up? Not all of us can hear you.
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Can you give us a little more understanding of the talent pool from which you are drawing, the recruitment opportunities and the training needs there might be to fulfil the skills needs you anticipate?
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Q Could you give us a sense of the length of that road? How long will it take you to get from A to B?
Mary Robinson (Conservative, Cheadle)
NowQ that the Bill has been introduced, what in your view is the main priority in developing a new nuclear safeguards regime for the UK?
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
You mentioned that you were clear that we could not have a complete regime up and running by March 2019, and that the right way to proceed was to get the basics in place, as it were. However, as far as I understand, we are going to have to undertake a series of additional activities in order to get ourselves to a position that would have been equivalent to Euratom in the first place—nuclear co-operation agreements, negotiations with the IAEA, and so on. What do you think is the realistic timetable for getting those agreements in place, so that we actually have a final replication of everything that we were previously doing under Euratom as far as safeguarding is concerned?Q
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q But to what extent do you think that the achievement or otherwise of those wider agreements impinges on the basic work that you indicated would be necessary to put in place by March 2019?
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q Right, but as far as I understand it, we need to have, not a concept of theory but a practical safeguards regime in place—
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
In order to demonstrate to the IAEA that we are able to fulfil a function relating to nuclear safeguards outside Euratom.
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
And those discussions, I understand, are proceeding at the moment but have by no means reached any conclusion. Are you confident that in terms of replicating the UK’s safeguarding function, the basic structure you have outlined to us this morning that needs to be in place will be able to fulfil its functions and, in particular, assure and satisfy the IAEA that it can safely proceed with new treaty arrangements with the UK?
Trudy Harrison (Conservative, Copeland)
Q Assuming that the Bill goes ahead as written, what will be possible on day one and what will not be possible, and how will that impact on our 17 nuclear sites? I ask with specific regard to my constituency of Copeland, which has Sellafield, the low level waste repository and the national nuclear laboratory.
Trudy Harrison (Conservative, Copeland)
Q In terms of moving fissile material, exchange of knowledge and those kinds of practical aspects of work that need to happen?
Trudy Harrison (Conservative, Copeland)
Q I just wonder about the benefits of the transition period, once we have gone through this stage, to enable those bilateral agreements—the 123 agreement and others—with the States and the many other countries outwith the European Union that we work with daily. How necessary is that and how long should it be?
Dan Carden (Labour, Liverpool, Walton)
Q The Bill does not cover other aspects of the UK’s relationship with Euratom, such as research funding, and if you were making a plea to the Minister here today, or—
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
As a very tough Chairman, I am going to say that we are not allowed to discuss things that are not in the Bill; we can only discuss those things that are in the Bill. Therefore, no matter what your thoughts on that subject may be, I am very sorry, but you will have to raise them in another Bill Committee at some other time. I am sorry—I hope people do not mind—but we have got to keep to what is actually in the Bill itself.
Andrew Lewer (Conservative, Northampton South)
Are there any other examples around the world of where national regulators are responsible for safeguarding in the way that this Bill proposes?Q
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q You mentioned the different relationships that different countries have, both internationally and with Euratom. This Bill, as has already been set out on Second Reading, is very much a contingency Bill, in the event that—effectively—no other relationship with Euratom is possible after March 2019. How would you see a possible future relationship with Euratom that might assist in any way with lessening the burden that you clearly have on you at the moment to establish a completely new regime, and indeed a completely independent set of inspection and reporting arrangements? Should it be an association similar to that of Switzerland, or would you envisage something rather closer to Euratom for the future, if that can be achieved?
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q A final thought for you, rather more for my curiosity than anything else. My understanding at the moment is that the inspection regime under Euratom means that there are effectively inspectors who are domiciled in the UK but working for Euratom. What happens to those inspectors in March 2019? Can we, as it were, steal them for the UK, or do they get exported back to Euratom at that point?
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
Unless there are further questions from colleagues, I thank you very much, Dr Golshan, for your excellent and most interesting information, and indeed for expressing it in such careful, precise and brief terms, which gives us an extra five or 10 minutes for the following panel. So thank you very much indeed for coming.
Examination of Witnesses
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
I welcome the next panel to give evidence, and—without meaning any disrespect to the other two gentlemen—I particularly welcome back our former colleague, Tom Greatrex. Good to see you back here. You probably remember the tough time that you gave me at various times—you are going to get a tough time, too. Welcome to the other members of the panel, from Prospect Law. We have until 11.25 am, which is a reasonable time; but we will have to stop at 11.25 even if we are speaking, so I will try to wrap up a little bit before. First, I ask the three witnesses to introduce yourselves and, if you wish, to give a brief introduction to your thoughts on the Bill.
Richard Harrington (Conservative, Watford)
Q I am very happy to ask this question of any of the witnesses, but it is particularly addressed to you, Tom. You have all made comments at different stages about, in effect, your own case, Tom—that you hope the decision to leave Euratom can be reversed. I am aware of the different points made; but may we for the moment leave aside these hypothetical points? I am not entering into their validity or otherwise for the purpose of this question. Do you believe it is necessary for Parliament to pass this Nuclear Safeguards Bill?
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
Q Perhaps you could expand on what that proposal is.
Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)
Q This is probably a question to Rupert or Jonathan. You said that you watched the Second Reading with interest. You will have heard in that session that if we leave the EU, which we will, we will by definition have to leave Euratom. If Parliament was your client, would that be the guidance you would give it—that one decision necessitates the other?
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
Briefly, as we are starting to get outside the scope of the Bill.
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
By all means comment briefly if you wish to—I would not want to be declared a tyrant—but I would stick to the terms of the Bill, which is nuclear safeguards, rather than the extempore bits.
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
That will be a matter for another day. I tend to be quite strict with the Committee because it is a topic that can spread its wings in a whole variety of different areas. We are tasked by the House of Commons simply with discussing the terms and the wording of the Bill, rather than the wider consequences or circumstances.
Trudy Harrison (Conservative, Copeland)
Q With regard to the ownership of fissile material, I understand that Euratom actually owns the plutonium at Sellafield. Therefore is it not in the European Union’s interests to be co-operative, because would it really want that material sent back to it?
Trudy Harrison (Conservative, Copeland)
Q Because it would be practically impossible to do so?
Trudy Harrison (Conservative, Copeland)
Q Who owns it?
Trudy Harrison (Conservative, Copeland)
Q But who currently owns the material?
Trudy Harrison (Conservative, Copeland)
Q That is certainly my understanding: that Euratom owns all of the fissile material in the UK in the civil nuclear industry.
Trudy Harrison (Conservative, Copeland)
Q Rupert, you mentioned interruptions to the industry. Could you be more specific? What interruptions? What needs to happen to avoid those interruptions? What are the consequences?
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
You may digress very slightly, but don’t get too carried away.
Trudy Harrison (Conservative, Copeland)
Q So I understand, but it is a first point of getting this Bill through.
Trudy Harrison (Conservative, Copeland)
Q Which will then give us the opportunity to progress those bilateral agreements.
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q You mentioned that the Bill is first a contingency Bill and secondly an enabling Bill, and that the main work will be putting in place secondary legislation to get us to a basic safeguarding regime that by March 2019 will operate pretty much as Euratom does at the moment. How realistic do you think that process is, in respect not of the Bill but of what needs to be done to get to that position, on the basis of the Bill?
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
Perhaps you could speak up a little. We are having slight difficulty hearing you.
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q A first question on that statement: are there any individual bilateral agreements that one might think ought to be a priority for negotiation as opposed to others? Secondly, if one did engineer some kind of transitional arrangements with Euratom, would it be satisfactory for continued membership, effectively, of Euratom while those negotiations took place? Would that effective transitional membership of Euratom after March 2019 provide the sort of facilitation for those individual agreements to be satisfactorily concluded that would actually give comfort as far as the overall picture of those agreements was concerned?
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q Could you perhaps expand on that a little, because there are a number of potential lines that one can move down in this process? One, presumably, is to seek some kind of long-term associate membership of Euratom. We have two models in place for associate membership of Euratom at the moment, but I understand that they do not provide fully for the sort of arrangement that we might want to consider, which would cover all the issues of the transfer of responsibility to the UK jurisdiction.
Secondly, we might move down the line of a transitional arrangement, in order to get to the position—not at a more leisurely pace, but at a rather more possible pace —of possible complete rupture with Euratom, but in circumstances in which we might have got NCAs in place in a reasonably orderly way. What, in your view, are the realistic prospects of going down one or other of those routes in the sort of time that we have in front of us?
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
Again, we need a brief answer, because we are drifting slightly wide of the terms of the Bill. We have plenty of time, but even so.
Mary Robinson (Conservative, Cheadle)
Q This question is actually a continuation of that line of thought. How far does UK participation in Euratom enable access for nuclear research funding?
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q I think this is a question about an issue that we were both concerned about. Mr Cowan, you mentioned the date of March 2018. That presumably is because you feel that that is the point at which—?
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Okay. Assuming we did mean 2019, if we are not in a position—even if we are reasonably close to a position—where we have done all the secondary legislation arrangements for nuclear safeguarding, but we have not made too much progress in a number of other areas relating to transposing Euratom responsibilities to the UK, and/or a number of those NCAs are in a difficult position as far as their conclusion is concerned, what would be the effect on the nuclear industry at that point?
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q The Bill, as we have heard and as you have set out this morning, is very much an enabling Bill. As the Bill stands, the process of getting us to where we need to be by March 2019 is entirely in the hands of secondary legislation, which does what secondary legislation does and is accountable in the way that secondary legislation is. One of my concerns is the extent to which the Bill therefore places in the hands of somebody—obviously, present company are entirely absolved from this criticism—the ability to do the various things to get us to that position by March 2019 but without further reference to Parliament. Do you have any views on the legal position relating to that, and on whether Parliament ought to have some kind of scrutiny role to ensure that we do get to that position by March 2019, bearing in mind that the current arrangements in the Bill appear not to allow that to happen?
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q On a scale of one to 10, how much of a scare story position is there on what would happen to the nuclear industry if we do not have those arrangements in place by March 2019, or if we do not have a transition period in which we could get those arrangements in place on a more leisurely basis? Some stories have been circulating that the nuclear industry will essentially cease to function, when it comes to the transfer of fissile material, supply chains and so on. Do you take that completely seriously or partly seriously, or are you not worried about it at all?
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
I am keen to move on. Minister.
Richard Harrington (Conservative, Watford)
Q Thank you, Mr Cowan, Mr Leech and Tom, for your support for the Bill. Everything you have said is the reason why we are introducing the Bill, and I thank you very much for your support for it. I have read your opinions and amendments and have taken them into consideration. Thank you very much for the work that you have done. Please do not think that the evidence that you have given is taken lightly, but I must underpin that by confirming your answer to a previous question, which was that you do support the Bill. I accept fully the reasons why you do.
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Q I want to explore the concerns about the gap between the existing safeguarding regime and that envisaged by the Bill. Dr Golshan said that the new regime that she was seeking to establish would not replicate the functions undertaken by Euratom in relation to safeguarding. I am also conscious that the NIA’s evidence talked about the importance of leaving without any gap, but that you were worried about the gaps provided. I wonder whether you could elaborate on that a little more, Tom.
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
We will discuss that in this room when we are considering subsequent Bills, no doubt.
Trudy Harrison (Conservative, Copeland)
Q I am hearing that the legislation should be descriptive of Euratom—almost a cut-and-paste job. That differs from the way that ONR currently deals with safety and security, which is outcome-based. While ONR has responsibility for safety and regulates for security, do you see benefits in ONR also having responsibility for safeguarding? Could there be cost or knowledge and skills benefits in ONR having all three strands of the nuclear industry in one building and within one organisation?
Trudy Harrison (Conservative, Copeland)
Q I am going to come back to the waste issue. I understand that we have waste from the United States and also, I think, from Tokaimura in Japan at Sellafield. What would happen to that waste—waste owned by either other countries or Euratom—if we do not get this in place?
Trudy Harrison (Conservative, Copeland)
But it already is our problem.
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
We are testing the edges of the Bill. Maybe because I want to say “sir”, I call Sir Robert Syms.
Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)
Q May I ask you this, Mr Leech? You are saying that this is a good first start, but the key thing is the regulations. From your point of view, would you like to see as many of the regulations published as early as possible, so that you can see the overarching regulatory regime, which would build confidence for the industry?
Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)
Good.
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
I am being fairly relaxed, but I want to bring it back to what is in the Bill, rather than what is not. With that in mind, I call Dr Whitehead.
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q What is in the Bill is, among other things in the schedule, some possible route by which nuclear inspection might be made compatible with what the process of safeguarding inspection consists of, so far as what those Euratom inspectors who undertake it in this country on behalf of Euratom do. In the Energy Act 2013, there is a substantial appendix that sets out in detail the responsibilities, powers and intervention arrangements of nuclear inspectors for the whole nuclear industry, except for safeguarding, which is specifically removed from inspectors’ responsibilities by that piece of legislation. What would be necessary to make sure that those powers in the 2013 Act for nuclear inspectors are mirrored exactly, to integrate what the Euratom inspectors did and what UK inspectors would be required to do in the future?
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q Would it be necessary, for example, to bring into the Bill the entire range of powers and intervention possibilities that inspectors have, to ensure that they are identical to those that would have been undertaken by Euratom inspectors? Or would it be necessary perhaps just to switch off those bits of the 2013 Act that meant that inspectors could not inspect and issue prohibition notices and other things relating to nuclear safeguarding, whereas they could do everything else? Is it not the case that, in the 2013 Act, there are sufficient powers for those inspectors to enable them to do what they need to do as far as a successor regime to Euratom is concerned simply by turning off what they are not able to do?
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
My instinct is that the Committee has found your evidence extremely useful. Unless there are any further questions, I thank you all for your extremely helpful, useful, well-informed and wide-ranging evidence. We are most grateful to you.
Examination of Witness
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
I welcome our witness for the first session this afternoon, which can last for half an hour. Angela Hepworth is the corporate policy and regulation director at EDF. Perhaps, for the record, you would be kind enough to introduce yourself. If you want to say anything about the Bill by way of introductory remarks, please do so.
Richard Harrington (Conservative, Watford)
Q 46 Good afternoon, Angela. I would like to ask you a general question, if I may. Do you agree that a nuclear safeguards Bill is an essential step for the UK in preparing for its exit from Euratom?
Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)
Obviously EDF works beyond our borders. If your business ends up having to work across multiple safeguarding regimes, what likely complications will that cause for youQ ? Do you do that already?
Mary Robinson (Conservative, Cheadle)
What do you see as the biggest risks to the industry of leaving EuratomQ ?
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
May I ask you about the Euratom costs relating to safeguarding, which may not go to Euratom but to the Office for Nuclear Regulation as a result of the transfer of responsibility for safeguarding from Euratom to ONR? I understand that EDF Energy already pays into ONR as a contribution to its general costs, but does not pay anything to Euratom for safeguarding. Is that right?
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q At present, the UK Government’s responsibility is absorbed into the £14 billion per annum net rebate that goes to the annual overall EU budget.
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q So, given the fact that it will be a contribution to ONR in the future for that new purpose, which, as we have heard, will require additional inspectors and other things, you would anticipate, or hope, that it would be separated out in practice among the various moneys that go to ONR generally at the moment.
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q Do you think that that separation out ought to be in legislation? Obviously, in this Bill we are trying to make sure we have got absolutely everything right, as far as transition is concerned. Is that something you think can be dealt with by discussion, or do you think it perhaps ought to be laid down?
Rachel Maclean (Conservative, Redditch)
You mentioned some of the things that need to happen after the Bill is introduced to make sure that we have a safeguarding regime for the UK. Can you prioritise those for us, once the Bill has been introducedQ ?
Drew Hendry (Scottish National Party, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)
You laid out your concerns about the pace and timescale for the replacement requirements for leaving Euratom. You said there was a lot to be done to discover what ownership details were there, their future trading relationships and the nuclear co-operation agreements with third parties and, obviously, workers from the EU. Assuming a date of leaving Euratom of March 2019, when is the latest date that you would say would be required for you to have clarity on those agreements going forwardQ ?
Drew Hendry (Scottish National Party, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)
Q So first of all, give them that confirmation of continuity, and also how long would you like to see that transition period last?
Drew Hendry (Scottish National Party, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)
I am surprised that you do not have an idea of what you might require as part of the industry—that you might not have an idea of how long you might need as a run-in time to adjust to new regulations.
Trudy Harrison (Conservative, Copeland)
To declare my interest, my husband and various other family members work at Sellafield in my constituency of Copeland. I have heard loud and clear that there is a need for a critical path for us all to have sight of, to understand how this process is running, and also the transition period. I think it would be helpful to understand what outcomes we would need from that transition period from other countries outwith Europe, but also for us to understand how it is necessary for other countries to have this in place. How do other countries rely upon the UK to continue with their business in the nuclear industryQ ?
Trudy Harrison (Conservative, Copeland)
Q We have heard examples of how we need it; are there examples of why other countries need it in place, for their own benefit?
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
On the same theme, in your evidence you very diplomatically describe the challenge that we face, even if the Bill proceeds in a timely manner. The legal and practical challenges to the Government and the ONR to put the necessary arrangements and resources in place remain Q significant. I guess that what you are trying to say, in code, is that that is not really very doable by March 2019.
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Q You would find it helpful to have that in the Bill?
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q From the point of view of EDF’s operations across the world, what is your view on whether, and in what form, association with Euratom might be a reasonable proposition for the future, and on whether the associations already in existence might fit the bill as possible models for UK association with Euratom?
Preet Kaur Gill (Labour/Co-operative, Birmingham, Edgbaston)
You say under “Issues to be addressed”:Q
“The UK Safeguards Bill says little about what a new regime will look like.”
You also say that if there were any changes or amendments to regulation,
“Neither EDF nor the wider UK nuclear industry are…included as statutory consultees”.
Do you think that the current consultees include the wider sector, or are they quite limited?
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
Unless there are any other questions from colleagues, I will say thank you very much indeed for your time. You have been extremely helpful and clear, and have added a lot to our deliberations over the next couple of weeks.
Examination of Witnesses
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
I welcome Sue Ferns, Deputy General Secretary of Prospect Union, and Kevin Coyne, National Officer for the Energy and Utilities Sector at Unite the Union. Having introduced you, I will none the less ask you to introduce yourselves for the record and, if you wish, say a word or two in general about the BillQ .
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
Q Before I ask Mr Coyne, I will just pick up on that particular point. We are restricted by parliamentary procedure to discussing what is in the Bill. Associate membership of Euratom is not, and therefore we are not permitted to discuss it even should we wish to do so. We must discuss only what is in the Bill and not what, presumably, we would have liked to be in it.
Richard Harrington (Conservative, Watford)
Welcome this afternoon. I accept your point, Kevin, and the Chair has quite rightly ruled about our discussing what is in the Bill, but my door is always open to both you and Sue to discuss other matters on another occasion.
Richard Harrington (Conservative, Watford)
Q I know you know that, but I wanted to confirm it, although it is not relevant to this afternoon’s session.
I would like to ask you a leading question—something which of course we do. I understand your views on Euratom and what Sue said about associate membership. She is quite right that there is no actual definition of associate membership. However, given that the Government decided to serve the article 50 notice on Euratom and we are leaving subject to negotiations, which is a statement of fact, would you accept that we are doing the right thing in having nuclear safeguards built? I accept that you do not think that the Bill covers everything, but would you still support it?
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
I call shadow Minister, Dr Alan Whitehead.
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q I think it was made clear verbally on Second Reading that the Bill is certainly intended to be a contingency measure—a Bill that would come into operation only if having any other arrangement following Euratom proved not to be possible. I imagine that is what is meant by contingency.
I wonder if you might briefly share with us what you think might be possible so that the Bill is not a contingency, and whether you think the timescale that we have in front of us over the next period is sufficient to bring in either associate membership, perhaps, or similar arrangements with Euratom. Alternatively, if the Bill is to be used as a contingency, do you think that the timescale in front of us—bearing in mind all the detail of the secondary legislation that we need to get through as far as the Bill is concerned—will be sufficient to make that happen?
Eleanor Smith (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)
IQ noted that you talked about training and wanting personnel to do work. How long would these individuals need for training?
Eleanor Smith (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)
Q Yes, and other people you require, because you said there are numbers that you need. I just wondered how long training would take.
Trudy Harrison (Conservative, Copeland)
Q I absolutely share your pride in our nuclear industry, and I am certainly looking forward to the future. In terms of the expertise that we already have in this country, my constituency alone has 14,500 Nuclear Industry Association members and 10,000 staff working at Sellafield, many with the skills to lend themselves to being nuclear inspectors. Indeed, the 17 Nuclear Decommissioning Authority sites across Britain are already compliant, which means that they must have staff in place to ensure that compliance, regardless of inspection. Sue, you mentioned not being confident, but what specific steps should we take to provide that confidence?
Trudy Harrison (Conservative, Copeland)
Q So that critical path when there is project management talk about what steps need to be taken on what date and by whom.
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Q I want to pursue the issue of the time that it will take to get the necessary staff in place. Sue, you said that you were uncertain about the training period. Prior to this Committee, it had been suggested that it could take up to five years to train safeguards inspectors. Is that a reasonable period?
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Q That comment probably reflects the very helpful conversation we had with Dr Golshan this morning. I think we all formed the impression that it is doing its very best, but that there is a real worry about the size of the talent pool from which it could draw. Do you want to reflect on that?
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Q You said in your evidence, Sue, that you were concerned that the powers of the inspectors were not set out in the Bill. Can you elaborate on exactly what your concerns are?
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q May I briefly follow up on that thought? As you say, schedule 8 to the Energy Act 2013 looks like a comprehensive range of powers and definitions for what inspectors can and cannot do, except it excludes nuclear safeguarding from that definition. If nuclear safeguarding were included among those powers for inspectors, would it be the case in your view that what is in the 2013 Act—provided you switched off those prohibitions—would be sufficient to give the inspectors the powers and the arrangements they felt would be necessary for the transfer of inspection from Euratom to ONR? Or are there other matters that you think should perhaps be included in the schedule to the Bill that would comprehensively do the job, as far as those inspectors were concerned?
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q One of the problems with schedule 8 to the 2013 Act is that it refers to a number of other bits of legislation. I am not sure whether inspectors’ current powers that are switched off in relation to nuclear safeguarding could simply be transposed into being switched on, bearing in mind what the 2013 Act says about other constraints on inspectors relating to other Acts. I do not know whether that coincides with your concerns about what might or might not be in the legislation, or whether it needs to be achieved by physically placing all of what is in the 2013 Act plus anything else necessary in the Bill or whether that could be achieved by other means. I still have some doubt in my mind. Do you share that doubt, or do you have a better idea about how to do it?
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q I want to get a better understanding of the duties and responsibilities—and, indeed, appointment and placement—of inspectors when we exit the EU. What view might the IAEA take about the readiness or otherwise of the regime when it considers the voluntary agreement that we will have to make with the IAEA when we exit Euratom? Is it your understanding that one of the things that the IAEA will consider is whether we are genuinely ready to undertake the additional work and reporting back to the IAEA rather than Euratom that the voluntary agreement would entail? The IAEA will either come to an agreement based on the fact that we look ready or, alternatively, say that more work is needed before we can come to an agreement. Presumably, however, an agreement will have to be reached by the time we exit the EU.
Trudy Harrison (Conservative, Copeland)
Q Just changing tone slightly, I notice, Kevin, that you have a reference to concern around radioactive isotopes. I do not share that concern. I do not understand why you think this is relevant to Euratom, because they are not fissile material. I have not heard of anyone using plutonium or uranium in medical practice. I wonder, if they have not been risk-assessed by the IAEA, why you would feel there is a concern about their falling under the realms of Euratom.
Richard Harrington (Conservative, Watford)
Q On that point, if I may clarify, given that that has been brought to my attention—I have agreed to see the Royal College and other people who are interested. Is your point that the movement of the isotopes is perhaps to do with what happens with Brexit—that is, the movement of any foreign goods—or is it a Euratom point? We think on the former you have a point, but on the latter you are mistaken.
Richard Harrington (Conservative, Watford)
Well, because I can quite understand the point that they have got to be overnight, or very quickly, and all that kind of thing—would that be affected by a change of law when we Brexit. My advice, though, is very clear; I have asked a lot of people, as you might imagine. It is very much Trudy’s point, which is that, whatever one thinks about Euratom and so on, the medical isotopes are not covered within the fissile definition of Euratom. Do you feel that we are wrong on that, or was your point, “Yes, we’ve got to get them quickly and without paperwork and all that kind of delay”—which may or may not happen afterwards?
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
Finally, Alex Norris, before we break for a vote.
Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)
Q Thank you. We have heard the Bill characterised in lots of ways—whether it is a place-holder, a contingency. We have heard from yourself and previous speakers about the fear of a lack of clarity about what is on the face of the Bill. What impact is this uncertainty having on staff?
Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)
Yes.
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
On behalf of the entire Committee, I thank both our witnesses, Kevin Coyne and Sue Ferns, for their extremely interesting and useful evidence, which added to our understanding and will be useful in the debates that lie ahead in the next couple of weeks. The Committee will know that there is to be a vote which has to be by 3 pm. Rather than starting the next session, I think we should stop now and do our best to get back by 3.10 pm.
Examination of Witness
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
I welcome Professor Juan Matthews, a visiting professor at the Dalton Nuclear Institute. I am told that another Division is due within half an hour, so I would like to conclude our discussions by that time and keep remarks brief. Will you start, Professor, by introducing yourself and giving some brief comments on the Bill?
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
As you correctly say, that is beyond the scope of the Bill. I did not interrupt earlier but if it comes up again, I will.
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
It is most kind of you. The Minister may want to clarify the difference between inspectors and safeguarders.
Richard Harrington (Conservative, Watford)
I do not feel able fully to clarify the point at this juncture, Mr Gray. Usually the mistake is made—not that Professor Matthews would—between safety and safeguarders, but we are looking at the safeguards regime here, which includes physical inspection, mentioned today by quite a few of the people giving evidence, and, though I do not quite know how to use the expression, remote inspection by cameras and other sets of kit, which at the moment belong to Euratom but I am sure will be part of the new safeguards regime.
Richard Harrington (Conservative, Watford)
That is laboratory testing the quality and the content.
Richard Harrington (Conservative, Watford)
I would accept that.
Richard Harrington (Conservative, Watford)
I would accept that.
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
Exceeding my role as Chairman, it might be something you would ask your officials to look into for later consideration during the Bill?
Richard Harrington (Conservative, Watford)
They already are.
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
They already are. That has answered the point; good.
Trudy Harrison (Conservative, Copeland)
Q May I ask for clarification? You say they already are: will there be some kind of appraisal of the staff skills, knowledge and qualifications required to carry out the function of Euratom in the UK, to determine what skills are required?
Richard Harrington (Conservative, Watford)
Is it acceptable for me to answer?
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
Why not? It is slightly unusual, but why not?
Richard Harrington (Conservative, Watford)
Why not? I am quite happy to. That function, currently done by Euratom, will be done by the new safeguards regime. It will be responsible for examination and testing and making sure there are suitably qualified inspectors, in the same way that Euratom does now.
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
I think you were in the session when we heard evidence from our previous witnesses this afternoon concerning what is in the Energy Act 2013 and in other Acts concerning the responsibilities and powers of and prohibitions on nuclear inspectors in general. You have made the very precise point that the role of an inspector relating to nuclear safeguarding is certainly not the same as the role of an inspector relating to nuclear safety: they will have different skills and responsibilities. Is it your understanding, however, that what is in the legislation at the moment concerning the overall powers and responsibilities of inspectors is sufficient for the purpose of bringing under the regulation of ONR a number of inspectors who previously would not have been covered by that area of responsibility but would have been reporting to Euratom and covered by whatever Euratom decided was necessary as far as that inspection and safeguarding is concernedQ ?
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q From your point of view, there is nothing that you might think needs to be added, over and above what general powers inspectors have, when we are in a situation where inspectors are reporting to ONR—and, presumably, it would then be sufficient simply to add them to the club of the powers of inspectors as they presently stand in legislation?
Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)
Q Professor Matthews, you are responsible for training and teaching the next generation of nuclear engineers—no pressure. How ready and willing are they to take up the roles that they are going to need in order to replicate Euratom in this country, and how soon might we be able to think that they may be able and willing to do that?
Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)
Q The cohort you teach at the moment in Manchester—where are they from?
Mary Robinson (Conservative, Cheadle)
Q It is great to know that in Manchester you train up these great future scientists; they are the technical, highly skilled jobs that we need. One of your issues and concerns seems to be about having sufficient staff to man the safeguarding progress at a time of high build, because we are building new power stations—so there is that to factor in, as well. To what extent is this an exciting time in the industry for jobs and high-skilled jobs, as well as a challenging one?
Mary Robinson (Conservative, Cheadle)
When you say £10 billion, what is that related toQ ?
Mary Robinson (Conservative, Cheadle)
Q So the training that you are doing and undertaking with the students in Manchester is crucial to the future.
Mary Robinson (Conservative, Cheadle)
Q Are they being attracted here?
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Q Professor, could we return to your primary concern, which we have also exercised with previous witnesses? It concerns the ability of the ONR to recruit sufficient inspectors by March 2019—you helpfully clarified the difference between safeguarding inspectors and safety inspectors. How likely is it that the ONR could meet the staffing levels necessary to take over the Euratom function in safeguarding by that date?
Paul Blomfield (Labour, Sheffield Central)
Q I guess in lots of other areas, having got close and being not quite but almost fully functioning might be satisfactory. In this specific area, what are the consequences of not having a fully functioning safeguarding regime in place?
Richard Harrington (Conservative, Watford)
Thank you for that, Professor Matthews. You are of course using my argument for why we need the Bill; thank you for supporting it. Dr Mina Golshan, whose organisation is responsible for recruiting the 15 people we are talking about, said that recruitment had already started. Once the Bill proceeded beyond Second Reading—I thank everyone, including Opposition Members, for voting for that—it meant that the financial resources needed for the IT and recruitment are provided. We are very well aware of that.
I thank you for your de facto support for the Bill. I have of course noted the points you have made, and I will be very happy to chat about them on another occasion. The purpose of the Bill is precisely to get over some of the obstacles that you are talking about and prevent what you have explained would happen—as we accept would happen—if we did not have a safeguards regime in place.
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q May I come back briefly on the question of finance? I think we all know that, as a contingency, we need the safeguarding regime that is set out in the Bill. What I think we do not know is what will happen with the various finances involved in the whole process. I characterise that in two ways. First, what will happen to what we previously paid to Euratom, and presumably would have to pay and then recover —as is mentioned in the Bill—via ONR, for the cost of the inspectors, who would previously have been part of our contribution to Euratom but will now be a UK contribution?
Secondly, I understand that the Torus fusion project at Culham will be a subject of safeguarding inspection. Will that be financed, subsequent to our leaving Euratom, in a way that is commensurate with its present level of assistance, which largely comes, as you are aware, from EU funding? Do you have any comment on that?
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Would there be other materials that are not fissile but would also be controlled and inspected under safeguards?
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
Yes. Perhaps fissile materials are slightly beyond the scope of the Bill.
Richard Harrington (Conservative, Watford)
That is beyond the scope of the Bill, but perhaps we could discuss it, although not necessarily now, in the evidence session. I am happy to discuss it, but I suspect that your interpretation is correct, Mr Gray, and it is beyond the narrower scope of the Bill. I am happy to discuss it with the Shadow Minister.
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
One might argue that the scope of the Bill is too narrow for the safeguarding that we need to undertake.
James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)
It does not matter. The scope of the Bill is the scope of the Bill. Let us not get into a chat among ourselves. The reality is that the Bill is as printed, and it is the Bill as printed that we have to discuss, under the long title and the short title. Of course, within that we can amend it as much as we like. My instinct is that the Committee have done our work for the day. Thank you very much, Professor Matthews, for your very useful evidence, both written and in person. I assure you that it will be taken note of in the discussions that lie ahead, starting on Thursday, when my colleague Mr McCabe will be in the Chair. The Committee will see me again, assuming that we sit—we will no doubt sort that out—next Tuesday.