Energy Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023.

Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)

Before we begin, I remind colleagues that Hansard would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Once again, I am happy to unilaterally give my permission for the removal of jackets, because it is hot in here. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not permitted, but there is a lot of water around—fizzy as well as still.

Clause 256 - Application to the territorial sea of requirement for nuclear site licence

Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 120 and 121.

Clauses 257 to 259 stand part.

Government amendments 124 to 126.

Government amendment 132.

Government amendments 127 to 129.

That schedule 20 be the Twentieth schedule to the Bill.

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, and to be back here for day seven of this Bill Committee.

A geological disposal facility, or GDF, is a highly engineered facility capable of isolating and containing radioactive waste within multiple protective barriers deep underground, so that no harmful quantities of radioactivity ever reach the surface environment. It is vital to the successful decommissioning of the UK’s civil nuclear legacy and to our new-build nuclear programme, which will support the UK Government’s net zero ambitions and energy security strategy.

Clause 256 makes it clear that certain nuclear sites—including a GDF, once prescribed in regulations—located wholly or partly in or under the sea, and within the boundaries of the UK’s territorial sea, require a licence and are regulated by the Office for Nuclear Regulation. I want to make it clear that no part of a GDF will be in the sea itself, nor will radioactive waste be dumped in the sea—that is banned by international conventions, including the London convention and protocol. The process to find a site for a GDF is under way, so it is vital that we have a clear legal framework to ensure that such a site will be licensed and subject to oversight by the Office for Nuclear Regulation.

Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Given the Government’s plan for a quarter of electricity to be generated by nuclear by 2045, how much additional nuclear waste does the Minister predict? How much additional nuclear waste will be stored at the new geological disposal site, and what is the estimated cost of the new facility?

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The costings of any geological disposal facility will be presented to Parliament for scrutiny, but the process is under way to find a site that will be large enough to cope with any increase in waste from our civil nuclear fleet. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to learn that Finland has just opened, and is beginning to utilise, a new GDF. That is the model that we in the UK would like to follow.

Mark Jenkinson (Conservative, Workington)

I hope the Minister is going to propose that the Committee visit the facility in Finland. Does he agree that it is unhelpful that our detractors cannot seem to distinguish between legacy waste from a number of programmes and waste from new nuclear establishments, for which we have well-established protocols?

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Absolutely—I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I would be delighted to propose a trip to Finland for all Committee members, but it is not within my gift to organise such a trip. If anybody who is able to host us is listening, I would be keen to engage on that.

I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments regarding new nuclear waste. The excellent work being done in Sellafield—I know that is not in his constituency, but it is certainly in his part of the country—is an example to the world of how we regulate and dispose safely of nuclear waste that has been created. When we talk about a GDF, we are talking about new nuclear waste, which will come about as part of the exciting, new, world-leading and revolutionary investment in a civil nuclear fleet that the United Kingdom is engaged in right now. The north-west of England will be at the very heart of that.

Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Will the Minister explain the process for looking for a new geological disposal site? Will consultants do it? Will it be desktop-based to start with, and then involve intrusive site investigations? Will people bid to have a site? How will the process work?

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

That is a good question. In fact, I was just coming to the process. The GDF siting process is a consent-based approach that requires a willing community to be a partner in the project’s development. The siting process is already under way. Four areas have entered the process: three areas in Cumberland—in Copeland and Allerdale—and one in East Lindsey in Lincolnshire.

Government amendment 120 removes superfluous wording in new section 3A of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. A licensed disposal site, as defined for the purposes of the new section, is not a nuclear installation within the meaning given by section 26(1) of the Act, so does not need to be mentioned explicitly in subsection (3). The amendment therefore removes it from the clause to correct this error. Amendment 121 is consequential on amendment 120 and removes the unnecessary definition of a licensed disposal site from new section 3A of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965.

The UK’s nuclear decommissioning programme is accelerating as older nuclear sites approach the end of their life cycle. As the first major nuclear sites will reach their final stages of decommissioning in the 2030s, it is essential that our nuclear legal framework is fit for purpose, while continuing to ensure an absolute focus on safety and security as the key priority. The Nuclear Installations Act 1965, which provides such a framework for nuclear safety and nuclear third-party liability, was written before serious consideration was given to decommissioning.

Clause 257 will amend the procedures for exiting nuclear third-party liability. Currently, the 1965 Act has the effect of requiring nuclear sites to remain subject to nuclear third-party liability for longer than is required by internationally agreed standards. The clause implements an alternative route based on internationally agreed recommendations and will apply to nuclear installations in the process of being decommissioned. It adopts a simpler and equally safe route out of the NTPL regime for non-nuclear parts of the nuclear site, such as laboratories, workshops, offices, car parks and land.

Clause 257 changes procedures for ending nuclear licences and regulation by the Office for Nuclear Regulation. It will require the licensee to apply to the ONR to end the licence and will require the ONR to consult the Health and Safety Executive before accepting an application. The ONR will accept an application when it considers that all nuclear safety matters have been resolved. Once the licence has ended, the ONR’s regulation of the site will cease. HSE will pick up responsibility for regulating the health and safety of work activities, while the relevant environmental agency will continue to regulate environmental matters for years or even decades after the end of the nuclear licence.

The clause has the effect of removing a barrier to the on-site disposal of suitable low or very low-level radioactive waste and avoiding the unnecessary excavation and transport of this material. Demolition work results in the creation of large amounts of rubble and waste, a small percentage of which may be lightly contaminated with radioactivity. Excavating that material can create radioactive dust, which is a hazard for workers. Transporting waste to disposal facilities can have noise and traffic impacts for local residents.

The existing environmental legislation, which the clause does not modify, was developed with land remediation in mind. It allows the operator to apply to the relevant environmental agency for a permit to dispose of suitable low or very low-level radioactive waste on site. Applications are subject to robust analysis, and an environmental permit would be granted only if disposing of the waste on site would be a safer and more sustainable option than excavating it and transporting it to disposal facilities elsewhere.

Finally, the clause will allow operators to apply to the ONR to exclude those disposal facilities for nuclear waste that do not require a nuclear licence from the nuclear licensed site boundary. To be clear, the clause does not constitute a relaxation in the standards for public protection. It aligns with UK radiological protection law, international standards and UK Health Security Agency guidance.

Clause 258 will bring an international agreement on nuclear third-party liability into UK law. Its aim is to lower the financial and regulatory burden on low-risk radioactive waste disposal facilities. Sites that meet the criteria will be exempted from the requirement to make provision for third-party claims. Injuries or damages will instead be covered by ordinary civil law, which is robust, proportionate and established. The clause allows the Secretary of State to set out by regulation the conditions that must be met to be excluded from nuclear third-party liability under the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency’s criteria.

The clause includes limits for radioactivity concentration that disposal facilities must meet. Only facilities with sufficiently low concentrations of radioactivity and negligible nuclear risk will be exempted from the requirement to hold nuclear third-party liability. The measures will help to ensure that the UK has sufficient disposal facilities for low and very low-level waste as the decommissioning of the UK’s legacy facilities accelerates and new nuclear projects are developed.

Clause 259 gives effect to schedule 20, which amends the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 to enable UK accession to a second international nuclear third-party liability treaty called the convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage. Nuclear third-party liability regimes aim to ensure that victims of a nuclear incident have access to adequate compensation. They also support investor and supply chain confidence by channelling liability to the nuclear operator and placing limits on their liability. The UK already has a robust nuclear third-party liability regime, being party to the Paris and Brussels agreements. The schedule 20 amendments to the 1965 Act that enable UK accession to the CSC will enhance the existing UK regime. Accession to the CSC enhances several of the benefits of our current nuclear third-party liability regime.

Government amendments 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129 and 132 make minor and consequential changes to schedule 20 to ensure the accurate implementation of the CSC. They will ensure that, following accession to the CSC, the UK does not inadvertently close off routes to compensation for nuclear damage. That applies to countries and victims that are currently able to claim under our existing nuclear third-party liability regime. To establish that, they seek to remove unnecessary consequential amendments as a result of the further amendments tabled. The changes also ensure that victims from a non-nuclear CSC state can claim under the appropriate conventions.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Dr Huq. It is also a pleasure to hear the Minister rattle through the Government amendments at really high speed. As he identified, this part of the Bill is about civil nuclear sites. Among other things, it is about the repository that we do not have at the moment—in other words, we have not yet found a repository. It would be helpful if the Minister were able to tell us where we are in that search. Does he think the clauses take that process further forward? Or do they impede or lengthen that search?

I am sure the Minister recalls that, some while ago, his party indicated that no new nuclear development would be signed off and authorised until a repository had been located and established. Now, of course, two civil nuclear sites are under active development. Hinkley C is under active development—the reactor core is in place and connected works are under way. I visited the site a little while ago and it really is in a very advanced state, so we can anticipate that nuclear power will come on stream in, I guess, about 2026. I have been guessing that it will come on stream every year since 2017, but we hope that will happen.

Advance discussions and some initial site works have been done for Sizewell C. The reactor that is going in is essentially the twin of the Hinkley C reactor, and a lot of the site works are being replicated to speed up that process a bit. I have not visited Sizewell C yet because—rather like in the story I told a while ago about the underground cable—there is not a great to deal to see at the minute, but we can anticipate that we will have four new nuclear reactors onstream by the early 2030s. All that is taking place alongside a process for a nuclear repository—a final solution for the issue of long-term nuclear waste.

Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a real paradox here? Allegedly the site rate for Hinkley Point C already has built into it the decommissioning costs for the storage of nuclear waste at the end? We are told that the estimates for Sizewell C will include all the costs of decommissioning and disposal up front, but how can EDF properly allow for those costs when it does not even have the new geological disposal facility that it needs to access?

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

The hon. Member makes a good point. I would think that it is very difficult under the present circumstances. I was about to talk about that briefly. On both those sites the question arises, as he alluded to, of what we do with the nuclear waste from their operation, and what plans are in place for their eventual decommissioning at the end of their lifetime. Having served on various Bill Committees with me, the hon. Member will recall that in a recent nuclear Bill the question was raised of ensuring that a reasonably accurate built-in planning arrangement for decommissioning would be in the programmes that are agreed for nuclear power plants. The plans both for decommissioning and for what happens to nuclear waste as we go along are rather important to get right, given that there is no geological repository either under way, unlike the new nuclear power stations, or finally identified.

We could say that the provisions apply to something that is not really there. It may be there in a little while, or it may not be there for quite a while. Meanwhile, the two nuclear power stations are getting under way and being build. We know that quite a lot of the nuclear waste that has arisen from activities around Sellafield is stored in ponds, which are open to the surface and are safe to the extent that the nuclear waste is firmly stored underwater and there is no risk of it spilling out, except if someone planted a bomb in the pond. The pond would then disperse its contents, but obviously a geological facility is proofed against that occurring. The question is about what sort of planning the new nuclear power stations are likely to undertake for the storage of nuclear waste during their operation, and for its storage and disposal when they are eventually decommissioned.

Mark Jenkinson (Conservative, Workington)

May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman arranges a visit to Sizewell B to see exactly how we store new nuclear waste from relatively new facilities? Sizewell B was also under an obligation to deal with the cost of its waste in advance.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I appreciate that Sizewell B is already storing nuclear waste, and I understand that it is doing so quite effectively, although I have not actually been to see it. Obviously, Sizewell B is the newest nuclear power station in the fleet, even though it is not that new. The storage of newer nuclear waste is pretty good and, as the hon. Member rightly points out, the amount of nuclear waste is much lower than in, say, the old Magnox reactors. The issue of the storage of nuclear waste is largely about legacy waste, not new waste, but that is not to say that a fair amount of both high-level and low-level nuclear waste will not arise in the operation of new power stations—Sizewell C and Hinkley C—and, as is clear in the amendments that the Bill makes to nuclear legislation, there is still an obligation, upon full decommissioning, to ensure that there is no hazard whatever on the site from any radiation. That is quite a high bar. I am sure that is something we would all support.

Do the planners and organisers of new power stations—Hinkley C and Sizewell C—plan for on-site storage over the next period and for forms of disposal upon decommissioning that are not geological disposal sites, as a contingency in the event that we still do not have a geological disposal site when those plants are up and running? Or do they rely on the idea that there might be a geological site coming along, although we do not quite know when? We think it might be in the not-too-distant future, but we have not quite got there yet.

As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun correctly points out, that creates quite a difficulty in planning contingency, when building a nuclear power station in the first instance, for decommissioning and the safe storage and disposal of waste nuclear material. I am not sure how that has been resolved in the protocols that have been agreed with the power stations that are under way at the moment, and nor am I exactly up to date with where we are on the geological disposal site. I think I am up to date to the extent that we have not actually found one yet and that, although we have offered favourable terms to several communities to host a nuclear geological disposal site, we have yet to receive support to get it under way.

It would help us to judge the clauses a little better to get a brief rundown of where we are in that process and what plans the Government have either to accelerate it or to determine it in the end, so that as we develop our new nuclear programme we can be reasonably certain that the protocols in place for disposal and decommissioning will be reliable in future. I would be grateful if the Minister would let the Committee know that information.

I have a query and concern of a rather different order about schedule 20. As the Minister said, schedule 20 is about accession to the convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage. That international convention, which eventually came into force in 2015, having been agreed, I think, in 1997, sets out the supplementary compensation for nuclear damage on an international tariff basis, so that there is consistency in how compensation is dealt with in the event of accidents or other problems at civil nuclear installations in different parts of the world. So far, so good—it is a good convention and it is important that we are part of it. Indeed, the schedule ensures that we are fully a part of that convention.

There is a bit of a puzzle here. The Government have inserted into the Nuclear Installations Act some proposed new subsections about

“further non-CSC-only claims to compensation”

and have denominated all those claims, and how the provisions about them work, in euros. That is in the Bill. Proposed new subsection (3BA), for example, states that

“the appropriate authority may be required to satisfy them up to the equivalent in sterling of 1,500 million euros”.

Proposed new subsection (3BB) states:

“To the extent that further non-CSC-only claims for compensation are CSC claims, the appropriate authority may be required to satisfy them up to the equivalent in sterling of the aggregate of 700 million euros”.

Proposed new subsection (3BC) states:

“To the extent that further non-CSC-only claims for compensation are both special relevant claims and CSC claims, the appropriate authority may be required to satisfy them up to the equivalent in sterling of the aggregate of 1,500 million euros”.

I do not know whether this is the secret explanation for why the then Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg), withdrew the Bill during its passage through the Lords—because he thought that this was a plot to move against Brexit—but it is a bit odd that compensation is denominated in euros, when of course the rate is variable and we would be in a position to vary claims according to the relationship of sterling to euros. In any event, this is an international convention. Perhaps there is a simple explanation, which I hope the Minister has in front of him, but we are signed up to an international convention, not a European convention.

It may be—I do not know—that these measures are a hangover from our membership of Euratom, which we of course de-acceded from at the time of Brexit. It be that if we were a party to Euratom, Euratom would take the place of national membership of the convention and therefore everything would be denominated in euros, but of course we are not now a member of Euratom—we are our own actor, as far as various conventions relating to nuclear safety and activity are concerned—yet we are still denominating things in euros.

While I do not wish to amend the Bill so that we do not denominate claims in euros—I am concerned that the Minister’s career may be in jeopardy if he does not do the job of creating instruments that get us out of being in thrall to the EU and euros—I gently point out that it looks a bit odd. Is there an intention at any stage to regularise that procedure?

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The hon. Member’s concern for my career is welcome, and I thank him for expressing it in such kind terms. However, I reassure him and every person in this room—and, indeed, anybody else who might be following the proceedings—that the Government are not secretly taking us into the eurozone through accession to the CSC. It is not an EU treaty. The reason that the sums involved are denominated in euros is simply that the moneys referred to in the treaties that we are currently signed up to—the Paris convention and the Brussels supplementary convention—are expressed in euros. This is just a continuation of the same process. The CSC is an international convention, and we are therefore using the same denominations as in those other conventions. I am sure the hon. Member will be relieved to hear that there is no secret plot. The CSC, of course, is under the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

So the Minister can state that all signatory countries to the CSC denominate their compensation in euros, just the same as we do.

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I would think that those that are signatories to the Paris and Brussels conventions may. I am led to believe very strongly that it is not the case that all signatories denominate in euros, but we do, as a result of our current membership of the Paris and Brussels conventions.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

So we do not have to denominate these things in euros, because a number of signatories to the CSC do not, and presumably their membership of the CSC is not in jeopardy as a result. Presumably, we would have the opportunity not to use euro denomination, like those other members, but we nevertheless we do.

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I feel that we may be going round in circles. The Paris convention is a base convention. That is why there is carry-over into the new convention that we are acceding to—the CSC—to maintain the denomination in euros. However, I would suggest that those who are seeking compensation do not really care in which denomination their compensation is paid as long as they receive it in the end for any damage that is caused. I think we have spent quite enough time debating the denomination in which people will receive compensation.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test spoke at length about GDFs. As I said, work is under way to find a GDF location. Four areas have answered the siting process—areas in Copeland, Allerdale and Theddlethorpe, which is in Lincolnshire. They have all formed community partnerships. The first geological and site sustainability investigations were concluded in those areas last year, so the process is under way. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion, there is—certainly in parts—a great deal of support for the possible siting, due to the community benefits that will arise as a result of the location of a GDF facility.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the cost of the GDF. Estimates of the whole-life cost are about £20 billion to £53 billion, and the cost to the UK Government is about £10 billion to £27 billion. The large range is due to uncertainties about location. The cost will be spread out over 100-plus years, as I am sure Members would expect.

To touch on one of the other problems that the hon. Gentleman identified, current plans already account for legacy waste, which is far and away the majority of waste by volume, and 16 GW for new nuclear projects. Nuclear Waste Services, the developer of the GDF, is confident that it can meet the waste requirements of the up to 24 GW of new nuclear projects set out in the energy security strategy. It is already planning for two thirds of that—the 16 GW that I referred to—and is in the very early stages of a flexible and adaptable design process. I want once more to praise the work of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and all those working at Sellafield and around the country to ensure that the current fleet is supported and that waste is disposed of safely.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I hope that my comments about the fact that we do not yet have a community that has said it will support a geological waste facility does not necessarily mean that there is not support for the facility to be sited in various parts of the country. It is just that, as I understand it, no authority has actually said, “Yes, we’re happy to have this facility in our area and we wish to proceed with it.” I assume that that is a factor in the question I was trying to get at: when can we expect a geological facility to be timetabled, developed and finally established, and to what extent does that timeline cohere in the context of the nuclear power stations that we are presently commissioning and will bring online in the future?

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for clarifying his earlier comments. As I said, we are at the beginning of the process of identifying a geological disposal facility. Surveys are under way. We are working with communities that have already expressed an interest and we will continue to do so as we move forward.

Clause 257 - Decommissioning of nuclear sites etcClause 257

Schedule 20 - Accession to Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage

Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)

We now come to the Question that schedule 20, as amended, be the Twentieth schedule to the Bill. [Interruption.] Dr Whitehead, anything else?

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

Sorry, Dr Huq, I was making a comment from a sedentary position.

Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)

Chuntering is a bad habit.

Clause 260 - Provision of additional police services

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I beg to move amendment 162, in clause 260, page 230, line 23, at end insert—

“(d) the provision of the additional police services in question is within the competence and in accordance with the usual operational practices of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary”.

Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 163, in clause 260, page 230, line 33, after “Secretary of State”, insert “or the Police Authority”.

Clause stand part.

Clauses 261 to 263 stand part.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I remain quite amused that we smuggled a euro or two into our flexibility structure a moment ago. I am sure that that will go down in history.

Clauses 260 to 263 relate to the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. For those who do not know too much about that constabulary, as I must admit that until recently I did not—

Mark Jenkinson (Conservative, Workington)

I am sorry for taking up so much of the hon. Gentleman’s time this morning, but on that note, I have a drop-in with the Civil Nuclear Police Federation at 12 o’clock today in room Q in Portcullis House. I encourage all colleagues to attend.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

That is a very helpful intervention, because among other things it means that our business will have to be finished by 12 o’clock this morning to facilitate our collective visit to the drop-in to be better informed about the Civil Nuclear Constabulary.

The Civil Nuclear Constabulary was established under the 1965 Act. It has about 1,500 officers nationally; they occupy eight sites in England and three in Scotland. There is a headquarters in Culham, with a chief constable and so on. It is just like a police authority, only not geographically in one place. Its prime responsibility is not guarding nuclear sites—that is for the Ministry of Defence police and the Army, basically—but the security of the sites and all that goes with policing around nuclear sites. I think it has jurisdiction up to 5 km away from nuclear sites. I will be interested to hear more about this, but as I understand it, it is a very specialised force.

All members of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary are routinely armed and are trained to that extent. They undertake virtually no arrests. A couple of years ago, they made a total of 24 arrests; last year I think they made 10, two of which turned out not to be arrestable. In comparison, an ordinary police force of the same size, such as Dorset police, would make about 7,500 arrests in an average year. The profile of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary’s activity and specialities is very different from that of an ordinary police force.

That is not saying very much about the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, other than that it is a specialist force, has jurisdiction relating to nuclear sites and, as far as I understand it, does a very good job at what it is asked to do. The clauses before us are not about the Civil Nuclear Constabulary itself, but about the extent to which its officers might, as it were, be rented out to other police forces. “Rented out” sounds a rather pejorative way of putting it; it is not intended to be, but that is really the only way I can describe it.

The clauses concern the circumstances under which officers can be seconded—I would say rather more than seconded—to other forces, subject to a decision of the Secretary of State. Clause 260(1), which will amend the Energy Act 2004, states:

“The Constabulary may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, provide additional police services to any person”,

which basically means to any other police authority.

Clause 260 also states that the Secretary of State

“must not give consent for the purposes of subsection (1) unless satisfied, on an application made by the Police Authority”,

which I assume means the Civil Nuclear Police Authority, that the application

“is in the interests of national security”

and

“will not prejudice the carrying out of its primary function under section 52(2)”

of the 2004 Act.

The establishment of the Civil Nuclear Police Authority is a little anomalous, by the way. It was originally under the jurisdiction of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and has now effectively been transferred to the jurisdiction of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, rather than the Home Office, as is the case with ordinary police forces.

Basically, clause 260 concerns the provision of additional police services, or renting out police, to other police authorities. Further clauses not only provide arrangements enabling additional police services to be provided to other police authorities, but provide that the police authority may expect to receive money from other police forces for those additional police services. The term “renting out” is not completely redundant, inasmuch as it is clear that compensation will change hands. The constabulary will be compensated in some way for the police services provided, rather like when a footballer is loaned out for part of a season, whether the team pays the whole of their salary or only part of it.

It appears that the Secretary of State may determine that renting out police is not a good idea. The police authority is involved in consultation with the Secretary of State as to whether the renting out arrangements should be progressed, should come to an end or should be temporarily brought to an end. Conspicuously, however, the chief constable of the force does not appear to have any say, in operational terms, in whether his or her officers are to be rented out in the way described. That gives rise to a number of considerations about which I hope the Minister will be able to say a little more, and which are reflected in our Opposition amendments.

The first overall conceptual consideration that perhaps we ought to think about is whether, if there are apparently circumstances in which any number of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary may be rented out, that brings into question whether the Civil Nuclear Constabulary itself is properly established. Is there routinely a surplus of officers who are signed up to the Civil Nuclear Constabulary but are not generally needed for its purposes and can easily be provided to other authorities on a routine basis, or is this to be just an occasional thing when a police authority has a desperate need at a particular juncture?

Can the Civil Nuclear Constabulary proceed with its business under those circumstances? Since it was set up by the Energy Act 2004 with different forms of responsibility, I presume that, as matters stand, the forces are effectively legislatively separate. The amendments proposed to the Act therefore give force to the idea that police can be transferred between authorities. I presume that if the Civil Nuclear Constabulary were not established as a separate authority under a different Department, the transfers would potentially be reasonably straight-forward.

I do not know what the arrangements are between police authorities at the moment, but there are certainly pretty routine transfers between authorities. If there is a large event, particularly a large civil disturbance or a civil disaster, police will be transferred in from all sorts of other authorities on a reasonably routine basis. I am not sure what the arrangements for compensation are, but that is how it works. Clearly that is not so with the Civil Nuclear Constabulary.

The second issue, which is of particular moment, is the circumstances under which police officers are recruited, trained and made operational within the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. As I have said, and as I am sure we will learn further if we go to the drop-in—I cannot remember which room the hon. Member for Workington said it was in—

Mark Jenkinson (Conservative, Workington)

Room Q in Portcullis House.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

If we go to room Q, we will find out more, but civil nuclear constables are special police. They are recruited and trained in a different way, their responsibilities are different, and the activities they undertake are normally different. That gives rise to questions about whether civil nuclear constables can easily be transferred to other police authorities. I assume that the rental agreement would state whether they should undertake the ordinary activities that constables in comparable authorities undertake. Are they to be rented out on the basis that they will become ordinary police constables in a particular authority, or on the basis that they have special arrangements? They clearly will not have special arrangements concerning arresting people, so I imagine that the arrest rate of a police authority that had recruited police constables from the Civil Nuclear Constabulary for additional services would not go through the roof. Such constables are routinely armed, so there is also a question about whether they would be disarmed for the purpose of undertaking their duties in other police forces.

The answers to such questions do not appear in the clauses before us. There is just an arrangement that police constables can be rented out, that compensation can be paid for them, that the Secretary of State can intervene if he or she thinks there are problems, and that the police authority has to be consulted about renting out and, as it were, de-renting—that is all that the clauses cover.

I do not necessarily imagine that our amendments will be pursued to a great extent, but I would very much like to hear the Minister’s response to what they are trying to do. On the renting out of police, amendment 162 would clarify that

“the provision of the additional police services in question is within the competence and in accordance with the usual operational practices of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary”.

That is, those police who are rented out are not to be turned into ordinary police, and the circumstances of the renting out should be within the competence of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, so we should not reasonably expect them to turn out to be ordinary policemen in other police authorities.

Also, we want the Civil Nuclear Police Authority to be rather more involved in decisions as to whether to continue renting out, so amendment 163 would add the words “or the Police Authority” after “Secretary of State”. We are trying to tighten up both the concept and the practice of these arrangements, to ensure that there is respect for the fact that the Civil Nuclear Constabulary is a specialist service, with staff who have special skills, qualities and qualifications that may differ from those of police in other forces. Renting-out arrangements should respect that. We should be a little careful to ensure that we do not put a square peg in a round hole through this renting out, even though there may be circumstances where a freer interchange of police between the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and county police forces could take place, and would benefit both sides.

I appreciate that clauses 260 to 263 to some extent supply what was left out from the Energy Act 2004, in which the Civil Nuclear Constabulary was defined, but I am not sure that the clauses do the job completely, and make sure that the strengths and qualities of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary are properly reflected in any renting-out arrangement, and that its constables are not expected to do things for which they are not trained, or in which they do not have experience, if they are seconded to other constabularies.

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

First, as the Civil Nuclear Constabulary will be in room Q, Portcullis House, at midday today, at a meeting hosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington, I pay tribute to all the officers and staff who serve so diligently in that constabulary. I had a very enjoyable and informative meeting with Chief Constable Simon Chesterman and the chairman of the Civil Nuclear Police Authority, Susan Johnson, a couple of weeks ago. The constabulary serves this country and does incredibly important work protecting our civil nuclear fleet. It is incredibly well trained for that.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test, referred to “ordinary” policing. Yes, Civil Nuclear Constabulary officers are highly trained in armed policing, and in the specialties that they have to be trained in to carry out their job, but they are also trained in what he described as ordinary—unarmed—policing, and are held to stringent College of Policing standards, such as those set out in the authorised professional practice armed policing guidance. That is consistent across the organisation, regardless of which site an officer is deployed to, and that would remain the case if there was any expansion of the constabulary’s services.

The Secretary of State must consult the chief constable before providing consent to the constabulary providing additional services. That ensures that the views of the person who is arguably best placed to assess competence and operational arrangements is taken into consideration. Should the CNC take on additional responsibilities outside the civil nuclear sector—we have been talking about that today—the chief constable will be responsible for ensuring that any additional training requirements are identified and delivered. I hope that addresses the concerns of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, on that point.

The Civil Nuclear Constabulary is a crucial component of our civil nuclear security system, as the specialist armed police force dedicated to the protection of our most sensitive civil nuclear facilities, and of civil nuclear material in transit. In the evolving national security and energy landscape, we want to ensure that we are making the best use of our resources to protect the UK’s essential services and critical national infrastructure, as well as our wider national security interests.

Clause 260 will allow the Civil Nuclear Constabulary to provide policing services beyond civil nuclear sites, if consent is granted by the Secretary of State. The clause sets out three criteria that the Secretary of State must be satisfied are met before granting consent: first, that any additional police services will be in the interests of national security; secondly, that the CNC’s core nuclear security mission will not be prejudiced; and, thirdly, that it is reasonable in all circumstances for the CNC to provide those services.

The hon. Gentleman’s amendment 162 would add a fourth test to the criteria: that the provision of the additional police services in question is within the competence of, and in accordance with, the usual operational practices of the CNC. I share his concern that CNC officers should not be performing duties that they have not been trained and equipped for. However, I believe that the test is already covered by the third element—that the additional police services should be reasonable in all circumstances. I also refer hon. Members to my earlier point: all police officers in the CNC are held to, and trained to reach, the highest standards.

That third test is designed to require the Secretary of State to take into consideration all relevant factors when asked to give consent to the CNC providing additional policing services. That could include, for example, whether the CNC will have the necessary skills and training. All activities will, of course, be in compliance with the applicable legislation and within the operational competence of the force. I do not believe, therefore, that the suggested fourth condition is necessary, and I humbly ask that amendment 162 be withdrawn.

Amendment 163 would enable the withdrawal of consent if the Civil Nuclear Police Authority considers that the criteria are not met. The CNPA is the body that will enter into agreement with the person or persons to whom additional police services will be provided, when consent is given. The CNPA can therefore agree its own contract exit terms with the customer, which makes statutory provision unnecessary. In addition, I reassure the Committee that the Secretary of State would consider the views of the CNPA when considering whether it is appropriate for the CNC to provide policing services outside its core civil nuclear mission. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels reassured that the CNPA will have appropriate controls over the activities of the CNC, and therefore feels able to withdraw amendment 163.

Clause 260 will amend the Energy Act 2004 to enable the Civil Nuclear Constabulary to use its expertise in deterrence and armed response to provide a wider range of policing services beyond the civil nuclear sector, in the interests of national security. That could be used to enable the CNC to provide armed guarding services to other facilities that provide vital services, or to deliver other protective policing in response to emerging threats. The security of our civil nuclear sites and materials will remain the CNC’s core priority. The clause requires that, before granting consent for the CNC to take on additional services, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the CNC’s core nuclear security mission will not be prejudiced. It also includes an ongoing statutory duty on the CNC’s chief constable to ensure that that remains the case.

Furthermore, the clause sets out provisions to ensure transparency and make amendments in relation to the CNC’s jurisdiction. By empowering the CNC to deliver a wider range of services, the clause will help it to retain specialist personnel to protect civil nuclear projects such as Hinkley Point C, as well as to improve value for money for the taxpayer from the civil nuclear industry.

In addition to delivering its core mission, the CNC plays an important role in supporting local police forces and national counter-terrorism operations. For example, it has supported the policing of major public events, such as the Commonwealth games, the G7 summit and COP26. To my knowledge, it also helped police London bridge and the recent coronation. During those deployments, CNC officers operate under the control and direction of the chief constable of the host force that they are supporting. The CNC uses collaboration mechanisms available under section 22A of the Police Act 1996, which requires individual collaboration agreements to be signed with each territorial force. That introduces bureaucracy that hinders the CNC’s ability to support other police forces during emergency incidents and other periods of unanticipated demand. Clause 261 will amend the Energy Act 2004 to streamline arrangements for the CNC providing support to other police forces in England, Wales or Scotland. That will allow the CNC to provide support for both spontaneous and planned deployments more quickly and effectively, and to provide specialist support as required.

The powers are in line with those already available to the England and Wales territorial police forces, the British Transport police and the Ministry of Defence police. The clause makes consequential amendments to ensure that, as with other forces, where the CNC is providing assistance under this arrangement, CNC officers would be under the direction and control of the chief officer of the requesting force, and would have the same powers and privileges as a member of that force. The powers are subject to safeguards to protect the CNC’s primary civil nuclear security function. The clause also makes provision for charging arrangements for that assistance.

Clause 262 will enable the CNC to exercise cross-border enforcement powers, in line with the powers already available to the territorial police forces and the British Transport police. It will do that by adding members of the CNC to the list of constables able to exercise their powers in part 10 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That will clarify the CNC’s power to execute warrants, or powers of arrest where a person who is suspected of committing an offence in one part of the UK, such as Scotland, needs to be apprehended in another part of the UK, such as England. The clause does not allow the CNC to exercise those powers in Northern Ireland, since the CNC does not operate in Northern Ireland.

Turning to clause 263, the Civil Nuclear Police Authority is the body responsible for ensuring that the Civil Nuclear Constabulary remains effective and efficient in delivering its vital nuclear security mission. Under the Energy Act 2004, the authority is required to publish a three-year strategy plan, which sets out the police authority’s medium and long-term strategies for policing by the CNC to be achieved over a three-year period. The Act requires the authority to publish such a plan at the beginning of each financial year. The annual publication requirement creates significant administrative burdens, and introduces an element of uncertainty to the CNPA’s delivery of its policing priorities in each three-year strategy-plan. Following a review of the governance procedures by the Department and the CNPA, it was concluded that the Energy Act should be amended to require a three-year strategy plan to be published every three years. That will improve efficiency and provide greater long-term certainty and stability for the organisation. Clause 263 does not affect wider obligations for the authority to publish annual reports and policing statements.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

The Minister addressed the overall subject of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary well, but I do not think that he entirely addressed our questions, which were not about the competency of the constabulary, or its establishment or function. Our questions were about the new provision that the Government are seeking to introduce regarding the extent to which police personnel could perform a wider function, depending on circumstances in the Civil Nuclear Constabulary.

By the way—this may be a reasonable topic for discussion in a drop-in—I would not like the Civil Nuclear Constabulary to be assumed to be an ancillary police force with some special responsibilities. It is clearly a very specialised and highly trained police force with a particular set of duties. By and large, it should have the necessary number of police constables to perform its duties. If over time—this may be something for the Department to consider, since it has special responsibility for the constabulary—the general conclusion is reached that this is a police force to which, to put it a bit unpleasantly, other forces can help themselves when they are in periods of stress, that would not be very good for the future of the constabulary.

There is another alternative. As the Minister mentioned, the police authority has to carry out three-year reviews. If during those reviews it is thought that substantial numbers of the police force had been rented out over the review period, there may be a temptation for a future Secretary of State—not present Ministers; I am sure they have a very close eye on what the Civil Nuclear Constabulary is doing and how it carries out its role—to say, “The Civil Nuclear Constabulary does not need all these people. Let’s reduce its size. Let’s cut it down to a smaller number, because that will do for its operations—we can see that it is renting out quite a lot of its force for other purposes.” That would be a retrograde step.

The Minister prayed in aid, as a reason not to pass the amendment, proposed new section 55A(4)(c) of the Energy Act 2004, in which the Secretary of State must judge that

“it is reasonable in all the circumstances for the Constabulary to provide those services.”

That is a bit of a problematic, I would have thought; how do we judge what is

“reasonable in all the circumstances”?

For that to apply, the officers must be “surplus to requirements”, but most reasonable judgments would be, “Well, they are not surplus to requirements. They are a key part of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and they are doing a good job.” I would therefore expect that there would be a fairly high bar as to what was

“reasonable in all the circumstances”,

but that is not defined. Our amendment attempts to define that effectively, by saying that the release of these officers would be

“within the competence and in accordance with the usual operational activities of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary.”

We do not want to press the amendments to a vote, but I would like the Minister to give some assurance on the record that the

“reasonable in all the circumstances”

judgment would, in practice, be a full and close partner to the definition we attempted to apply to the leasing arrangement through amendment 162. Unless that is stated on the record, we will worry about the temptation to play fast and loose with the Civil Nuclear Constabulary when there are pressures elsewhere.

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

To clarify, the expansion of the CNC will not in any way affect the CNC’s core mission. We are absolutely not playing fast and loose with the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. The CNC’s priority and core function will remain the protection of civil nuclear sites and material, in line with the UK’s international obligations. Before granting consent for the CNC to take on additional services, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the CNC’s core nuclear supervision will not be prejudiced in any way. This legislation includes an ongoing statutory duty for the CNC’s chief constable to ensure that that remains the case. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his amendment on that basis.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I thank the Minister for that intervention. Following the assurances he has given on that basis, among others, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 264 - Civil nuclear industry: amendment of relevant nuclear pension schemes

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 264, page 234, line 31, at end insert

“, or on benefits in deferment or pensions in payment;”

This amendment means that the Secretary of State may not put a cap on revaluation of benefits in deferment or pensions in payment.

Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clauses 265 to 269 stand part.

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. These clauses relate to nuclear pension schemes, and the amendment would provide certainty that Nuclear Decommissioning Authority pensions would not be capped. There is some ambiguity in the drafting of the Bill, and the door has been left open for the introduction of regulations to cap pension increases when that is not part of what has been agreed in the past among Government, unions and nuclear workers.

I say the door has been left open for such regulations because subsection (3) (c ) of the clause specifies that only increases for revaluation—that is, active deferred members—cannot be capped. It does not mention pensions in payment. The wording is

“not involving imposing a cap on any revaluation or revaluation rate”.

The amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could not put a cap on revaluation of benefits in deferment or pensions in payment, as well as the other schemes I have mentioned.

The provision as it stands is contrary to the heads of terms agreement between BEIS and the NDA, which explicitly states that pension increases will be in line with inflation, as measured by the consumer prices index, with no reference to any cap. It is also important to note that, although members of recognised trade unions in the NDA group voted in favour of the reforms that these measures facilitate, I am told that there was by no means an overwhelming endorsement. Many voted in such a way because they feared the Government would impose even worse reforms, which had been threatened, if they did not agree to what is now on the table. They felt that that was the best deal they could get, but they feel that the promises made to them have been broken and they are not happy. Given that, it is even more important that we ensure that the Bill reflects the compromise agreement that was reached.

It is also wrong to say that these reforms would bring pension provision across the NDA group into line with wider public sector pensions, which I think is what the Minister in the Lords said. Those pension schemes underwent much more radical reform long before Lord Hutton’s review of public sector pensions, and they have been closed to new entrants for many years. Lord Hutton recommended that public sector pension accrual remain on a defined-benefit basis, but pension provision across the NDA group is mostly on a defined-contribution basis. I have been approached by representatives of trade unions who are eager to meet the Minister to ensure that reforms are fully consistent with Lord Hutton’s review. I do not know whether the Minister can offer today to meet those representatives, so I can take that back to them.

An amendment is necessary to remove any doubt about the status of nuclear workers’ pensions. I am sure we all agree that the effectiveness of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary is essential to maintain the UK’s nuclear security, and that the work of everyone at the NDA is really important, as we have already heard this morning. Those people are integral to keeping the public safe, and that should be recognised when legislation is being determined.

I hope the Minister accepts that the amendment has been tabled in a constructive spirit. It is designed to remove any uncertainty, and I hope he will accept it.

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I am searching in vain for a second Minister to take some of this Bill. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be available. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East for moving her amendment and allowing us to debate an important issue, especially for employees of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. I recently had a constructive meeting with trade unions representing workers from the NDA and was happy to discuss the issues they are concerned about in depth and specifically the one we are debating today.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority agreed with unions as part of negotiations that the consumer price index should be used for revaluations and that it should not be capped. Both the reference to the CPI and that revaluations should not be capped are referenced in the clause. As the clause sets out, revaluations include pensionable earnings, benefits in deferment and pensions in payment. Pensionable earnings relate to the pension payments contributed by employee and employer while they are working. Benefits in deferment are those benefits that have been built up by an employee who has left the pension scheme but has not yet accessed it. Pensions in payment relate to those receiving their pension.

The Government are content, therefore, that the legislation as drafted does not exclude benefits in deferment and pension in payment from the non-capping of the revaluation of earning by CPI. It is therefore in line with the agreed scheme. However, I am happy to put on record that in the new scheme, both benefits in deferment and pensions in payment will be uprated by CPI and will not be capped. While I appreciate the hon. Member for Bristol East raising the issue and the importance of ensuring that those with benefits in deferment and pensions in payment do not have their revaluations capped, I do not think the amendment is necessary.

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

Can the Minister confirm that when he discussed this with the trade union representatives, they were happy to accept his assurances that that is what the Bill says? Certainly, they have not communicated that to us. As far as I am concerned, they still believe that getting our amendment into the Bill is still important.

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

That specific element was not discussed or brought up in the meeting, but I am happy to meet trade unions again to continue the discussion on the matter.

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

If there is some ambiguity, is there a reason why he feels that putting a clarification in the Bill to spell it out and give those reassurances would not be acceptable? The amendment does not seek to change his position as I understand it; it just seeks to make sure that that is clear.

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I understand why some Members, including the hon. Lady and trade unions, would find that helpful. We do not believe it is necessary because I have stressed today on the record—it will be in Hansard—that it is the Government’s position that those benefits in deferment and pensions in payment do not have revaluations capped and that they will be uprated by CPI. We do not think it is necessary because that is already the Government’s position. It is on the record and I am happy to stand by that.

Turning to clause 264, the 2011 report by Lord Hutton of Furness started the Government on the road to the reform of public sector pensions. While the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 made a large number of reforms, it did not cover all public sector bodies, including those within the NDA group. The NDA is the statutory body responsible for the decommissioning and safe handling of the UK’s nuclear legacy, with 17 sites across the United Kingdom, including Sellafield. Even though the NDA was created in 2005 via the Energy Act 2004, many of its sites have been operating since the middle of the 20th century. That lengthy history has led to a complicated set of pension arrangements, which include two pension schemes that, while closed to new entrants since 2008, provide for final salary pensions and are in scope for reform. They are the combined nuclear pension plan and the site licence company section of the Magnox Electric Group of the electricity supply pension scheme.

In 2017, the Government and the NDA engaged with trade unions to agree a reformed pension scheme that was tailored to the characteristics of the affected NDA employees. That resulted in a proposed bespoke career average revalued earnings scheme which, following statutory consultation with affected NDA employees and a ballot of union members, was formally accepted by the trade unions. Subsequently, a formal Government consultation was launched in 2018, with the Government publishing a response in December of that year confirming the proposed change.

The reformed scheme still offers excellent benefits to its members. Notably—and unusually compared with other reformed schemes—it still includes provision for members to retire at their current retirement age. For nearly everybody, that will be 60 years old. However, the complicated nature of the pension schemes, in the context of the statutory framework that applies to pension benefits across the NDA estate, means that specific legislation is needed to implement the new scheme.

Clause 264 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make secondary legislation designating a person who will be required to amend the provisions of a nuclear pension scheme. That is necessary, as at the current time the scheme rules limit the NDA’s ability to make changes to pension scheme arrangements. Clause 264 uses the phrase “relevant nuclear pension scheme” to describe the types of schemes that a designated person could be required to amend by virtue of that amendment. Clause 265 explains what is meant by that phrase. Clause 265 also clarifies the UK Atomic Energy Authority pension schemes and pension schemes that benefit persons specified in the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 are not relevant pension schemes.

Clause 266 relates to the provision of information. In order to implement the proposed pension reforms, the NDA—and, in the case of the MEG-ESPS, Magnox Limited—will need information from others. Clause 266 gives a person who has been required to amend a relevant nuclear pension scheme the power to require persons holding any information they might reasonably require to provide that information. That could include the number of members in a pension scheme, and the salaries and ages of those members.

Data protection legislation may still prevent the information from being shared. The clause specifies, however, that in making that assessment, the requirement to disclose imposed by the clause must be taken into account. The clause also provides that disclosure does not constitute a breach of confidence or breach of any other restriction on the disclosure of information.

Clause 267 sets out definitions relevant to the clauses about amendments of relevant nuclear pension schemes. Clause 268 relates to the protection that is in place that would currently block any change of pension. Although the reformed pension to be provided to affected NDA workers is still excellent, it has always been clear that the reforms to public sector pensions would result in lower levels of benefits to members than is currently the case. Although that is the acknowledged effect of Government policy in this area, it does bring it into conflict with existing legislation. Both schedule 8 of the Energy Act 2004 and regulations made under schedules 14 and 15 of the Electricity Act 1989 effectively mean that any change to NDA pensions must be “no less favourable”.

Clause 268 effectively expands a power made under an earlier clause, providing the ability for regulations made by the Secretary of State to amend or disapply schedule 8 of the Energy Act 2004 and regulations made under schedules 14 and 15 of the Electricity Act 1989. Given that this is not a hybrid Bill, we believe it is more appropriate for those powers to be exercised via regulation rather than primary legislation.

Clause 269 relates to the procedure for the regulations under this chapter. The Government believe it is right and proper for regulations under this chapter to be subject to the affirmative procedure. We also believe that these regulations should not be subject to the hybrid instrument procedure. There has been considerable consultation with those affected, and the policy is in line with pension reform across the public sector.

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

I welcome the Minister’s assurances and his offer to meet the unions to discuss this point. I have spent a lot time looking at the wording. Although I agree that it could be interpreted in the way the Minister says, that is arguable. I still feel it would be best to have clarity in the Bill and, therefore, would like to press the amendment to a vote.

Clause 270 - Prohibition of new coal mines

Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 271 to 273 stand part.

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I will start with the good news and first speak to clause 271 and Government new clause 52. The Government have maintained the view that Ofgem’s principal objective makes its role in achieving the net zero target clear. However, we have carefully considered the effect of clause 271 with Ofgem and sought legal advice to ensure that the Lords amendments would not impact the hierarchy and intended effect of Ofgem’s duties. We are therefore content to clarify Ofgem’s duties by making specific reference to the net zero target in the Climate Change Act 2008.

The Government new clause is equivalent in substance to clause 271, but includes some minor drafting changes to ensure that the duty works in practice. First, it clarifies the authority’s role in supporting, rather than enabling, the Government to meet their net zero target. Secondly, it clarifies the net zero targets and carbon budgets specific to sections 1 and 4 of the 2008 Act. The new clause does not change the intention of clause 271. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for the recommendation in his report entitled “Mission Zero”, Baroness Hayman in the other place and the energy industry for working constructively with the Government to bring forward this significant change.

I now turn to clause 270, which was also added to the Bill in the Lords on Report. The clause would prohibit the opening of new coalmines and extensions to existing coalmining in Great Britain. After carefully considering this addition, I tabled my intention to oppose the clause standing part of the Bill on 17 May. The Government are committed to ensuring that unabated coal has no part to play in future power generation, which is why we are phasing it out of our electricity production by 2024. Coal’s share of our electricity generation has already declined significantly in recent years—from almost 40% in 2012 to around 2% in 2021.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Elmet and Rothwell)

Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree with me that although, as he rightly says, electricity production by coal has been as little as 1% and huge amounts of work can be done to reduce that carbon dioxide output, it is vital, with electricity generation, to maintain a baseload? As we saw recently when a gas turbine power station was turned off and we were relying on wind power, the baseload could not be maintained and the system tripped out for a large area of the country. Does the Minister agree with me that the objectives are fine, but physics and reality come in at some point?

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I could not agree any more wholeheartedly with or put it any better than my right hon. Friend. For energy security reasons, it is vital that we maintain all options that are open to us. That does not in any way impede, get in the way of or stand contrary to our overarching net zero ambition.

Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

On that point, as the Minister agrees with his colleague, is the Minister saying that he needs to keep coal generation as an option, on the table, beyond the planned phase-out date? Because that is what I just heard.

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

No, the planned phase-out date of October 2024 is extant and something that we are working towards. However, it is important that we ensure that, as part of our electricity baseload, we have access to the relevant energy sources so that we ensure this country’s energy security. Given the situation with energy security in central Europe and, indeed, worldwide, that should be understood by everyone.

Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

If the Government allow the licensing of a new coalmine, how will that help energy security? The Minister has just committed to phasing out the use of unabated coal by October 2024, so, by the time a new coalmine is operational, it certainly will not add any energy security.

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The hon. Gentleman heard my answer to that very point. I do not think I need to labour it much more.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

Is the Minister saying that we should have access to those supplies in order to back the system up? And by the way, I do not think that tripping out, which came up a little while ago, was just about coal.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Elmet and Rothwell)

It was a gas turbine.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

It was a gas turbine that tripped out. It was not about coal, as far as I understand.

Is the Minister saying that we should have access to those supplies until, but not after, 2024? We will not have anywhere to burn them after 2024 because the intention is to have phased out coal by then. What exactly is the Minister saying? By the way, coal is unlikely to be burned in a UK power establishment in the future, if such establishments survive.

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

This is the Energy Bill, so I understand why the focus has been on energy and energy security. However, coal is not just required for energy purposes, and that is another reason why we will vote against the clause.

Mark Jenkinson (Conservative, Workington)

I have a constituency interest in a new coalmine in a neighbouring constituency in west Cumbria. Its planning condition is to produce metallurgical coal, which is used in steel plants. The Minister was recently in Sweden, as I was just a couple of months ago. We hear a lot about HYBRIT—hydrogen breakthrough ironmaking technology—which is a green steel project. I was relieved to hear that HYBRIT requires coking coal, even in electric arc furnaces with direct reduced iron, and that it will continue to be used for some time. Does the Minister agree that we should not close off avenues for UK-sourced coking coal?

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. His expertise in the area, his experience in Sweden and his constituency interest have proved invaluable in ensuring that everybody is fully aware of the situation, the technology and, indeed, the science behind all of this.

Even when we phase out coal power stations, domestic demand for coal will continue in industries such as steel, cement and heritage railways, and that demand can be met by domestic resources on existing lines of deployment. A full prohibition of coal extraction, regardless of the circumstances or where that coal is going to be used—be that in steel, cement or a heritage railway—is likely to prevent extensions to existing operational mining, even where an extension would enable site restoration or deliver public safety benefits; cut across heritage mining rights in the Forest of Dean, which are important to its tourism offer; and, importantly, prevent domestic coal extraction projects from progressing that are seeking to supply industries that are still reliant on coal.

Andrew Western (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

The Minister has set out a series of perceived advantages. On the flipside, the proposed new coalmine at Whitehaven would emit 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, so does he agree that that would have serious implications for our net zero ambitions?

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I very much question the figures that the hon. Gentleman has just put to the Committee. I stress that it is really important that we ensure that the industries in the United Kingdom that rely on coal are able to rely on a domestic source for that coal—British coal—and not on imports from overseas, which will actually increase carbon emissions.

Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

rose—

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)

Order. May I just point out that some of these interventions are getting a little bit lengthy? We have a whole debate—one other Member has already indicated that she wants to speak—so colleagues can make speeches if they wish.

Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I will be brief, Dr Huq. On the Minister’s point, is it not the case that up to 85% of the coke that will be exported to the EU is coming out of coal in Cumbria? Does he agree with the figures of Lord Deben, the chair of the Committee on Climate Change, which state that the new Cumbrian coal mine will emit about 400,000 tonnes of CO2 a year, equivalent to 200,000 cars being added to the road?

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Now I am getting confused, because I have some figures coming from over there and other figures coming from over there. It is important that we ensure that industries that rely on a source of coal are able to rely on domestic sources of coal. This clause, proposed by the Labour party, would prevent that from happening, harm future investment, harm jobs and harm our progress.

Katherine Fletcher (Conservative, South Ribble)

This is one of the most jaw-dropping moments I have ever had in my parliamentary career. The Scottish National party and the Labour party are arguing against domestic jobs, our proud coalmining heritage and energy security for this country. Is that not flabbergasting?

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I am actually close to speechless. Labour likes to describe itself as the party of the workers. Well, it is anti-workers, anti-jobs and anti-investment in British industry.

Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)

Order. We should not stray too much from the clause.

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

That is demonstrated by the clause, and that is why I believe that now is not the right time to make the changes suggested by the Labour party. We will oppose the clause.

Finally, I will address clauses 272 and 273 on community energy, which I also oppose. I recognise that several Members spoke in support of these clauses on Second Reading. However, the Government continue to believe that this is a commercial matter that should be left to suppliers, and further work is needed before considering whether primary legislation is needed.

In evidence submitted to the Committee and published on 13 June, Energy UK set out its in-principle support, much like the Government, for community energy, and recognised the role that it will play in our energy system. However, it asks that

“these measures be removed to give the Government, the regulator, and the industry time to fully consider the best approach to integrating community energy effectively, protecting consumers and preventing additional costs being added to all consumers’ energy bills on behalf of a currently small portion of the population.”

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

Does the Minister accept that the wording inserted in the Bill by the Lords reflects the exact same wording of a private Member’s Bill—I think it is the Local Electricity Bill—that more than 120 Conservative MPs previously pledged to support? I checked to see whether any members of the Committee supported that Bill, and apparently the hon. Members for Hyndburn and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine were among those 120 MPs. I think the rest of the Committee gets off the hook on that. Would the Minister like to explain why he has changed his mind?

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The hon. Lady is hearing me explain at great length why the position of the Government is what it is.

Clause 272 seeks a minimum export guarantee scheme. Community energy projects can already access power purchase agreements, which are arrangements for the continuous purchase of power over a given period with market-reflective prices. For example, Younity, a joint venture between Octopus and Midcounties Co-operative, already purchases electricity from more than 200 community groups of all sizes. It has PPAs of varying contract lengths, from six months to five years. Renewable Exchange has also enabled more than 100 community projects to sell electricity via PPAs since 2018.

When we introduced the smart export guarantee, we consciously moved from a consumer-funded subsidy model to a competitive market-based system with cost-reflective pricing. That was in line with the vision to meet our net zero commitments at the lowest net cost to UK taxpayers, consumers and businesses. Introducing a fixed price would be a step backwards, as it requires all energy consumers to pay more than the market price for electricity to subside local communities that benefit from community energy projects. An electricity export guarantee indexed to the wholesale price is inconsistent with the Government’s aim to decouple renewable generation from a wholesale price linked to the marginal cost, usually fossil fuel generation or gas. A static export price could also dampen price signals needed in the system, for example, in the use of intraday batteries.

History suggests that such a support scheme would have only a minimal impact on deployment. For example, deployment of community energy projects over the final five years of the much more generous feed-in tariff subsidy scheme was still very low. These projects are also typically more expensive than larger utility-scale renewable projects, with small solar and onshore wind projects between 50% and 70% more expensive. The proposal would be mandatory for suppliers with more than 150,000 consumers, and would therefore introduce a huge new administrative burden. Suppliers would face the additional one-off costs of putting in place process and IT infrastructure, as well as ongoing costs of managing the scheme, which would be passed on to consumers in higher bills. It is likely that it will disproportionately impact smaller suppliers, sitting just above the 150,000 customer threshold.

Similarly, on clause 273 it is the Government’s view that a local tariff is unlikely to result in a better price for consumers. Suppliers would incur potentially significant costs in setting up and delivering the scheme. They would also have to recoup the additional costs, which we anticipate would be via the service fee and would therefore be recoverable only from local consumers. A small-scale low-carbon generator is also unlikely to guarantee a supply of electricity to local consumers at all times. Suppliers would have to buy additional wholesale energy to cover all local consumer demand, while continuing to charge for all other supply costs incurred. The local tariff would also need to reflect the export price paid to the generator. Presumably that is intended to ensure that local consumers benefit from cheaper export prices, but it would create an unintended outcome whereby higher export prices benefit the generator and increase the tariff price.

I hope that I have explained at length why I, as the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, am espousing this position. I reassure the Committee that I am working with my officials to explore what other credible options are available to support the community energy sector. Indeed, work continues as we speak. We are taking these issues seriously, but for the reasons that I have provided I will oppose the clauses.

Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The Minister says that he is working with his officials, but assuming that the Government majority on the Committee will reject clauses 272 and 273, what opportunity is there for mechanisms to be introduced to support local energy?

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

As much as I know that we are all aghast at the thought of the Committee finishing and the Bill going back to the House, that will not be the end of our journey together. We will gather again on Report and Third Reading, so there will be ample opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to speak on the Bill at that stage, and for any changes that might be required to it.

Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)

There is a drop-in session in room Q in Portcullis House at noon, but it is entirely voluntary.

Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)

I remind the Committee that with this we are considering:

Clauses 271 to 273 stand part.

Government new clause 52.

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

It is good that we have all had a chance to refresh ourselves over lunch and have come back ready to do battle once again over the need to prohibit new coalmines.

Clause 270, which was voted through in the other place, should not be controversial. We already have more than enough fossil fuels to overshoot our best hope of maintaining a liveable climate. The International Energy Agency has estimated that coal combustion is responsible for over 30% of the global temperature rise. Globally, more than 800,000 people die each year due to pollution from burning coal.

This issue has been part of international discussions and agreements. At COP26, all parties agreed to accelerate the coal phase-down, and there were 65 country commitments to phase out coal. The UK had the COP26 presidency, and the Government boasted that:

“The end of coal—the single biggest contributor to climate change—is in sight”.

The COP26 presidency outcomes included the continued collapse in the coal pipeline, with 76% of planning projects cancelled since 2015. The UK is also a signatory to the UN’s “No New Coal Compact”, committing to not building any new coal power projects, and the UK helped to launch the Powering Past Coal Alliance. Three years ago, the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government refused a planning application for a colliery on the basis that

“there is limited objective evidence that the demand for coal for industrial purposes will remain at current levels beyond the very short term”.

Until very recently, the UK had not approved any new coalmines for three decades, yet Members of the House of Lords felt compelled to introduce clause 270 after the Government approved a new coalmine in Cumbria—a decision that the chair of the Climate Change Committee described as “absolutely indefensible”. Permission has been granted for this colliery until 2049, allowing the extraction of the most polluting fossil fuel until just a year before we are supposed to be at net zero.

The Government, in their defence, have tried to focus on the reduced need to import coal. A research fellow at the Leeds School of Chemical and Process Engineering, Dr Andrew Pimm, has estimated that the transport emissions savings could be less than 2% of the emissions arising from the coal.

Mark Jenkinson (Conservative, Workington)

The hon. Lady said, “just a year before we are supposed to be at net zero”. Does she realise that we will use oil, gas, coal and all sorts of other critical minerals beyond 2050, because the clue is in the name—it is net zero, not absolute zero?

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

It is net zero, but that requires us to make significant reductions in carbon emissions in the areas where we can, and we know that we can do that in replacing coal use. There will be some sectors that are hard to decarbonise, and we will hopefully see progress on that in the last decade of that commitment; there is technology that is yet to be invented that might help us to get there. I accept that it is a net commitment; I just do not think coal will be part of the positive side of the balance sheet.

Mark Jenkinson (Conservative, Workington)

I will let the hon. Lady make some progress, but this is simple chemistry. Steel is iron plus carbon. Without carbon, we cannot make steel. The HYBRIT—hydrogen breakthrough ironmaking technology—green steel project in Sweden, which I visited recently, uses coking coal. Is it not better that we use UK sources, rather than foreign sources?

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

I will come to that point in a moment, and I have some quotes from the steel industry.

It is not just carbon dioxide that is a problem. The Green Alliance estimates that the mine would release 17,500 tonnes of methane every year, which is equivalent to 120,000 cattle. Will the Minister tell us how that is consistent with the global methane pledge, which requires a 30% reduction by the end of the decade? Current evidence suggests that we are only on track for a 14% reduction.

The Government claim that the coal from the Cumbria mine is needed for steel production. The Government’s own carbon budget delivery plan relies on decarbonising steel production by 2035. Some 85% of the coal is planned for export, and the vast majority is likely to be used for power generation, despite our international pacts. As the Materials Processing Institute has highlighted:

“The UK steel industry has been clear that the coal from the West Cumbria mine has limited potential due to its high sulphur levels.”

A former CEO of British Steel described it as

“a completely unnecessary step for the British steel industry”—

but the hon. Member for Workington obviously feels otherwise.

Mark Jenkinson (Conservative, Workington)

I do. I have visited steelworks in the UK and talked through all this. They have a pressing need to decarbonise, and they need to access Government funding to do so, so sometimes reality meets the wishes of those industries.

The point about the sulphur content is misguided. It originated in a suggestion by the local Labour council at the time, which approved it three times, that there is a sulphur content limit of 2% or 1.8%—I cannot remember what was in the planning documents. The mine is limited by planning conditions to produce high-volatility A-grade coal, and 1.8%, which is the figure used as a misnomer all the time, would not be high-vol A. I think 1.6% is the limit. I have forgotten where I was going with that point.

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

Perhaps the hon. Member might like to make a speech after I have sat down. All I can do is reiterate the comments I have had from people who are very much at the heart of the UK steel industry.

The Government seem to be intent on defending 19th-century technology, while the steel industry is looking to the future. Liberty Steel’s plant in Rotherham uses an electric arc furnace, which not only replaces coal-fired blast furnaces but allows them to recycle scrap metal. Tata Steel has two blast furnaces in Port Talbot but has made it abundantly clear to Ministers that its intention is to

“transition to a greener steel plant”.

Its plan for two electric arc furnaces does not need the Government to support new coalmines; it needs £1.5 billion of investment to match its own funding.

According to the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, the UK is falling further behind the EU in the green steel race. The EU has 38 plants and plans for 23 more; we have one. Nearly 44% of EU steel is from electric furnaces, and in the US it is 69%. While the US races ahead with green steel, helped by Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, 80% of our steel still comes from blast furnaces. By opposing a ban on new coalmines, the Government are further undermining the UK’s standing in the world and hindering its diplomatic efforts.

The former COP President, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), noted that the UK had been persuading the international community to “consign coal to history” and that

“A decision to open a new coalmine would send completely the wrong message and be an own goal.”

The Government’s net zero tsar and my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), warned that opening the Cumbria coalmine could send “shockwaves across the world” and give “carte blanche” to other countries to open new coal power stations. The Government have said:

“Ahead of COP28 we will need to revitalise efforts to keep 1.5°C in reach, including in pushing for emissions peaking before 2025, active follow-up on the phase down of coal, and phase out of all fossil fuels.”

I ask the Minister: how on earth can that be compatible with opposing clause 270?

I want to ask the Minister about something more specific. I have seen an exchange of correspondence between one of his predecessors in post and the Welsh Government from January 2022 regarding the statutory duty on the Coal Authority to promote an “economically viable” coal industry, as set out in the Coal Industry Act 1994. The then Minister of State for Energy said in his reply on 7 January 2022 that he agreed that that statutory duty

“is at odds with our climate leadership ambitions and policies on coal so we are looking at measures to review that duty.”

As far as I know, there has not been any attempt to do that since then.

When Lord Callanan, who brought the Bill through the House of Lords, was asked about something similar, he said something in Committee that is pertinent:

“We will, of course, keep under review the Coal Authority’s statutory duties with respect to licencing extraction. Extensive changes would be required to the Coal Authority’s duties to establish an enforcement regime for it to monitor the purpose and the end use of coal extracted from future coal mining.”

This is the bit that is most pertinent:

“The phasing out of future coal-powered generation, in our view, is a more proportional response than introducing a completely new regulatory regime at the coal mining end of the production chain.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 January 2023; Vol. 826, c. 398GC.]

Basically, he said we should not be going back and trying to remove the statutory duty because there will not be any new coal anyway. Will the Minister update us on how he feels that statutory duty, which is still in force, fits with the Government’s intention to phase out coal? I think that is still sort of their intention, even if they are not prepared to actually ban it.

I am going to hand over to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test for the other measures in the group, but let me first mention a few other things. On community energy, I hope the Minister has noted that the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) now has England’s tallest wind turbine, which his community owns. That was opened at the weekend and is a great example of what local communities can do.

On Ofgem’s role in achieving net zero, I go back to what I was saying about the Inflation Reduction Act. It is clear to anybody I talk to in the course of doing my job and scrutinising this Bill that the industry needs certainty and a sense of direction. The Energy Networks Association says that adding the net zero duty to Ofgem’s responsibilities will allow a more forward-looking approach to regulatory regimes and allow for the strategic investment needed to achieve the UK’s net zero targets.

The National Grid also welcomed it, and, importantly, said that it meant the focus is on not just current consumers but future consumers as well. Surely it is important that a regulator does that? It also said that that would complement the development and delivery of a strategy and policy statement. Again, it is about that sense of certainty going into the future.

If we are to get the skills we need and get people behind the transition, we cannot have mixed messages: we need to know that we are all heading towards net zero, we need the workforce to do it, we need things such as changes to the planning rules so that we can get permission for projects far more quickly, and we need the grid infrastructure that we have talked about. On that note, I will hand over to my very capable hon. Friend, who will no doubt wax lyrical about the rest of the clauses in the group.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I may well wax, but not necessarily lyrically. It is necessary to wax to some extent, because we again have a slightly odd sequence in which we, the Opposition, are attempting to defend clauses that the Government do not want to see in the Bill. The Government initially tabled amendments, which were quite rightly not selected by the Chair because they were simply negativing amendments for each clause—that is, they said the clause should be struck out, full stop. Consequently, the action that should be taken this afternoon, I would hope, is to defend those clauses standing part of the Bill. The Government may well speak against the clauses; perhaps they will be convinced by our arguments and will not.

As I said, we will defend clauses 270 to 273. I imagine we will have a separate vote on each, but they are grouped together for discussion, so portmanteau speeches about their content will be necessary, certainly from the Opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East ably introduced our case for clause 270. I will not add too much to what she said, other than a consideration of some of the lines of defence that the Government indicated they will advance through the Minister’s initial speech regarding the future of coal generally.

Clause 270 is very much about the prohibition of new coalmines, as its title suggests. It does not say that the entire coal production industry should be closed down immediately; it says that there is no need, as my hon. Friend said, for new coalmines in the UK. Things are moving rapidly in terms of the decarbonisation of all sorts of things that previously used coal, or that do so at the moment. The issue is therefore not whether coal is defended for those industries, but whether they can work well without it. As my hon. Friend said, electric arc furnaces, for example, which use no coal at all, can replace the blast furnaces in the steel industry.

It was the coalmine in Cumbria that particularly concerned their lordships when they considered the clause in the other place. A number of them were rather shocked that an industry that they thought had closed to new entrants had suddenly reared its head again with an application, which the Government were encouraging and agreeing should continue, raising the prospect that we would have not only one new coalmine, but a number of new coalmines, if the principle of the new coalmine were agreed to. In the case of that particular coalmine, the increase in UK coal production would, by and large, not be used by British industry: the coal would be exported abroad.

As far as I am concerned, the figures for the intense pollution that the burning of coal produces are of relevance to the future of carbon dioxide emissions and our planet wherever that coal is burned. In producing power, coal is twice as dirty as gas in terms of pollution produced per kilowatt-hour. Gas, in turn, is about four times as dirty as biomass and other lower-carbon things, and about six times as dirty as wind and nuclear.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Elmet and Rothwell)

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. During his comments, will he reflect on what is happening in Germany with coalmining and coal-fired power stations? He just said that it does not matter where the burning is, it still comes through, so I am interested to hear his comments on what is happening on the European continent with coal burning for power generation.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

It is interesting that the right hon. Member should mention coal in Germany. As I am sure he is aware, Germany was and has been a particularly heavy user of coal in electricity generation, even when it had nuclear power. The switching-off or coming to an end of nuclear power in Germany left a large amount—not increased, but what was always there—of energy generation by coal, lignite in particular. On the scale of pollution, lignite is about one and a half times as polluting as ordinary, mineral, deep-mined coal. A potentially shocking series of emissions is coming out of coal and lignite for generation in Germany, and has done for a while.

The German Government, as the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell will know, have a programme called Energiewende, which is about the greening of German energy production over the period. It has to be said that it has taken them a fair amount of time to get down from the position of where they were with their concentration on coal—far higher than ours was, because they have less gas than us, when compared with coal. Germany did not have the same “dash for gas” that we had in the 1990s.

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

rose—

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I wondered whether the Minister would stop me talking about Germany—

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

On a point of order, Dr Huq. Some advice from the Chair, if you please: when the Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Bristol East, passed to the lead Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test—which is an unusual happening that I do not think I have seen in Committee or in the Chamber—I assumed that the lead Front Bencher would turn to other aspects of what we had discussed and not make the same points that had already been made.

Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)

I am grateful to the Minister for his point of order. It is an unusual arrangement. I was expecting to go to the general debate but Dr Whitehead’s speech flowed so nicely on from that of the shadow Minister Kerry McCarthy, and I thought it would supplement her contribution.

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. I sought the advice of another Committee Chair, James Gray, on whether it was appropriate. Obviously, it is appropriate for a shadow Minister to speak on a topic and then a Back Bencher, but I asked whether Mr Gray thought it was appropriate for me to come in on the same topic and he said he thought it was, so that is the basis on which we proceeded.

Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)

There are so many Chairs of this Committee—there are four of us—that it can cause confusion. The advice from the Clerk is to try to avoid repetition. Kerry McCarthy dealt with the clause very ably, a lot of which was about coalmines. If there is anything new on coalmines, that is all good, but I do not want to disappear down a cul-de-sac of German comparisons, so the point was well made.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

Thank you for that guidance, Dr Huq. The difficulty we have on the Opposition Benches is that, because all these clauses have been grouped together for debate, we all have—at least, technically—to speak on all of them in order to be heard in the debate. We cannot have separate speeches on each of them, because the Chair would rule us out of order were we to do so. That is why you will hear quite a lot on community energy this afternoon and a little on coal, although I was tempted by the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell to go much further down the German coal and decarbonisation route than I had originally intended, so I will shut up about that. You will hear from all Opposition Members this afternoon about the various things that are under debate in this group. It is impossible to avoid that, although I will concentrate far more on community energy.

The only other thing I want to say about coal, to follow on from the able and comprehensive remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, is to put the record straight about where we are with coal production and consumption. That may give us some further guidance about the wisdom of this clause, which says that we should prohibit the opening of new coalmines.

There is an imbalance between imports of coal and mining of coal in the UK at the moment, but that imbalance is rapidly working down towards balance as the consumption of coal in the UK also falls rapidly. Last year, for example, there was a record low level of mining, with virtually no deep-mine coal coming out, surface mining of about 1 million tonnes, which is about half what it was five years ago, and imports of 4.6 million tonnes, which is also about half what it was just a few years ago. The amount of coal being produced for the market is reducing quite rapidly, and the market is also reducing its use quite rapidly.

Katherine Fletcher (Conservative, South Ribble)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of community energy schemes, and I support and applaud his ambition for meaningful feed-in rates that would allow the economics of a scheme to be assessed. The issue that we are grappling with is that this is not just like a single commercial offering. There is a need for us not to have too many of these things that plug into the grid and—if I can use a layman’s term—blow it up, because the grid is not balanced properly. I just wonder whether he has considered how community schemes might contribute to the capital expenditure of the grid input that would allow for them to connect successfully and proliferate.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

That is a very interesting question, or challenge, from the hon. Member, and I hope that I will not go into that issue as far as I went off on one concerning Germany. [Interruption.] I see the Minister’s frosty glare at his own Back Benchers.

I will just say briefly that that certainly is potentially a problem for local energy and the grid, as it is set up. It is potentially a problem, for example, if we move forward very rapidly with electric vehicles in a neighbourhood; we could blow up Acacia Avenue if everyone turned up with their EVs and put them all on charge at the same time.

The answer to that, and the answer to local energy, is not just to build more local network but to have smart protocols—which may depend, among other things, on smart meters—to ensure that the energy goes into the system in a controlled and protocol-based way, and not surging in the way that has been suggested. One of the contributions that local energy suppliers could make under those circumstances is to be a party to those smart protocols—I am sure they would be—regarding how they put their energy into the system and how they sell it locally. We could say a few more things about that, but we will not—or I will not.

Clause 272 builds into the system a guarantee for the organisations, bodies and companies that produce local energy. It provides that licensed energy suppliers with more than 150,000 customers should be required provide those small companies with an export guarantee—essentially, those licensed suppliers guarantee that they will buy on a local basis from those companies. This is not a Government intervention in particular; it is just changing the terms of licences a little, in order to allow that to happen.

Clause 273 in effect tweaks licence arrangements so that companies can specifically sell to local customers in a way they are not allowed to at the moment. Among other things, that sits alongside the view, which has been expressed frequently in this place, including just a little while ago by the then Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—the one who did not last very long—that it would not be a bad idea if there was a financial relationship between local onshore wind production and local communities affected by that onshore wind production. The clause would allow that to happen really well. As I have said, small-scale enterprises could sell locally without having to undertake a national licensing process or anything like that. They would be able to operate properly locally, in their area, without having to pretend to be a large-scale supplier or anything like that, and very straightforwardly sell their energy locally.

That is why I think that these clauses should stand part of the Bill. I am disappointed that the Government response has been simply to try to knock them out of the Bill. I would be the first to say that there are other ways to achieve the aim of getting local energy suppliers to prosper and be a real part of their community as regards both energy production and energy supply. There are changes that can be made to licences, and other forms of guarantees that can be supplied.

The Minister says that the Department is looking carefully at these things. At the moment, though, we have no indication of what that careful looking might be like. Are the Government actually in favour of doing something like this? If they are, what measures do they think are the chief candidates for genuine local energy resilience as regards local supplies? If the Government do not like this particular way of doing things, what alternative will they put forward? All we have at the moment is the Government saying, “No, we don’t want it to happen. Please could you put it back in the box?” My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam has tabled a new clause, which we will debate later, that may reflect on that conundrum. It essentially challenges the Government to come up with what they want to do, assuming that they want to do something.

I would therefore welcome an indication from the Minister whether he actually supports the principle of this provision, as a number of his hon. Friends on the Government Benches have already done through their commitment to support the Local Electricity Bill. If he does support the principle, what are his proposals for the future? I hope that we can hear from him about that, and that we can make positive progress together in order to get local community energy on the basis on which it needs to be for its future prosperity.

Mark Jenkinson (Conservative, Workington)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I did not intend to contribute this afternoon, and I apologise to the Committee for detaining it longer, but I feel the need to expand on some of the points that I made earlier. As I said before, I have something of a constituency interest in the Cumbrian coalmine: it is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), which neighbours mine. But it is the disingenuity, for want of a better term, of some of the statements that we have heard—not just today but previously—on coal that drives me to want to expand on some of those points.

I want to cover some of the facts. The Labour council gave permission three times for the coalmine in Cumbria. The relevant Secretary of State then approved it after it was called in. They recognised that the coal mined would replace imported coal, which has incumbent shipping emissions. I just need to point out that from a constituency perspective—

Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

If the estimate is that more than 80% of the coal from the mine will be exported, how will it be displacing imported coal and shipping emissions?

Mark Jenkinson (Conservative, Workington)

I will come to export, which is on my list of points to cover. We have heard a number of mistruths. I am reminded of a debate when I became deputy leader of Allerdale Borough Council. At one of our first meetings, there was a climate change motion, and I talked about how carbon emissions in Allerdale had been reduced by more than half over the previous 10 years. The former Labour leader of the council was sitting on the front row in front of me, nodding like the Churchill dog on speed, really proud of himself. I had to point out that the reduction had come from a reduction—a decimation—in manufacturing and industry across Allerdale under a Labour Government and Labour council.

When the current leader of Cumberland County Council, the mineral planning authority for the Cumbria mine, took his position as leader of the shadow authority last year, he wrote an op-ed with the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) about how the coalmine was the wrong thing to do. That made it online in our local newspaper but, such was the pushback, I do not think it ever made it into print.

From a constituency perspective, I need to point out that even just discussing the potential of a future Government restricting coalmine activity puts at risk £169 million of foreign direct investment in my constituency and the neighbouring one. That means 500 well-paid jobs and 1,500 jobs in the supply chain. We heard before about heritage. Net zero is, as “net” suggests, not absolute. There will be an ongoing need for oil, gas, coal, heritage rail—all those things.

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

Clause 270 is about prohibition of new coalmines going forward. The reason the Lords felt that was needed, although there had been a de facto position of no new coalmines for three decades, was Cumbria, but we are not talking about the Whitehaven coalmine; we are talking about no new coalmines going forward. Does the hon. Member see it as his role, as a local MP, to support a just transition and ensure that his constituents have jobs in the green industries of the future?

Mark Jenkinson (Conservative, Workington)

Absolutely. Wind turbines cannot be built without steel. It is a very simple chemical reaction: iron plus carbon equals steel. We cannot build wind turbines or small modular nuclear reactors without it—and it should be UK-produced steel. The hon. Lady talks about the Cumbrian coalmine. The clause would prohibit the licensing of new coalmines. There is still a risk to the Cumbrian coalmine if the clause remains part of the Bill.

I want to deal with some of the mistruths and misreporting around the coalmine, and the idea that the steel industry does not need coal. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test said that we do not use coal in electric arc furnaces. That is simply not true. We can recycle steel in electric arc furnaces, which requires the correct formulation of recycled steel to give the output, because different steels have different carbon content. We cannot make new steel in an electric arc furnace without coal. HYBRIT in Sweden is not making green steel without the addition of coking coal. It is much reduced from the quantity used in a blast furnace—absolutely—but we continue to use it.

I mentioned that the idea of high-sulphur coal comes from a planning condition, but that would mean that the mine would not meet another planning condition—that only high-vol A must come out of it. There is the idea that we are burning this stuff in power stations at £400 a tonne, which the hon. Member for Bristol East referred to. It would not end up in power stations, by virtue of pure economics.

That leads us on to the export argument. We need to make a decision today about whether we continue to import coke and coal or use UK sources. If we continued to import, that would probably mean, de facto, that we had no UK steel industry. There would be no industry for creating new steel in the UK, because economics would rule it out. The export level therefore depends purely on the future size of our UK steel industry, and on whether we continue to have a UK steel industry and choose to grow it, in which case we would not necessarily be exporting stuff that came out of the mine.

We are far too parochial on the subject of net zero and emissions. Reducing carbon emissions is a global issue, and if we can export to Germany or somewhere else where people make large quantities of steel using coking coal, that is a reduction in total global emissions that we should champion.

I have covered all the points that I wanted to make. We have to remind ourselves that there is no point in us getting to 2050, reaching net zero and clapping ourselves on the back if we have done so by offshoring our emissions to poorer countries, possibly with worse environmental records and certainly with worse health and safety records.

Olivia Blake (Labour, Sheffield, Hallam)

It is a pleasure to serve under you again, Dr Huq. I will redeclare my interest, given what we are discussing: my husband is the company secretary of Sheffield Renewables, a community benefit society that funds, develops, owns and operates renewable energy systems in Sheffield and probably South Yorkshire as well.

I rise to speak in defence of the clause, which will prevent the Coal Authority and its successors from opening any new coalmines. I am dismayed by the Government seeking to remove the clause. To be clear—this has not been in the debate so far—it is important to recognise that it will prohibit the opening of new coalmines, not mining as such.

Having lived in South Yorkshire for such a long time—I am from West Yorkshire originally, although I was born in North Yorkshire, which a lot of people do not realise and was a bit of an incident—I am wary of the cliff edge and the real challenges facing an industry that could decline quite quickly. We have heard about deindustrialisation and the long shadow it can cast over communities. On steel and coal, that shadow remains deep and causes issues for my area even today, which means that it takes us longer to recover from economic instability than other areas of the UK.

It is important to recognise that the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report makes it clear that greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure are more than enough to push us beyond the 1.5°C limit for global heating compared with preindustrial times. The report tells us that if the world is serious about living up to its commitments and avoiding catastrophic climate collapse, no more fossil fuel sources should be opened. When certain factors come together, they complicate and escalate the situation. Everything is unpredictable, including our ability to tell how quickly the changes will come.

The Government seemed to recognise that at COP26, as they proudly announced that they were leading an international effort to end the use of coal. That commitment on coal was one of the few things that the Government, and Governments internationally, got out of COP26. In December 2022, however—just a year later—the Government went ahead with the Cumbria coalmine. Given what we have heard in today’s debate, I think they realise that that was somewhat nonsensical. Yet I do not understand why they are still trying to remove the clause.

Mark Jenkinson (Conservative, Workington)

I should point out that it is Chris McDonald’s job to find alternatives to coal, so perhaps he has a vested interest. The hon. Lady’s point on sulphur—I dealt with this in my earlier contribution and in an intervention on the hon. Member for Bristol East—relates to a misrepresentation of a planning condition. It is not an accurate reflection of the reality of the coal.

Olivia Blake (Labour, Sheffield, Hallam)

I gave just one example but could have listed several steel experts who have said similar. I will not back down on that point. It is a very valid point and I have heard it made by many in the industry who are very confused by the Government’s approach to steel. The loan arrangement with Forgemasters was cancelled and the organisation nationalised, but the greening of that industry is not being pursued particularly quickly, even though we have some ownership of it.

It is not right to argue that we need the coal for steel. Estimates show that 85% of it will be taken from ship to shore. We have had a conversation about our moral duty to prevent UK fossils fuels from being burned internationally, and we have had similar arguments about imported carbon being burned here. It is a thin argument to say that that is necessary, given that there is clearly no demand. However, that is not deterring the minds currently responsible for planning and operation. I thank the Government for tabling new clause 52, though: it is a positive step and I am pleased to see it.

On community energy, I am really disappointed that the Government want to remove clauses 272 and 273. The Bill could have been an opportunity to help community groups deliver useful schemes that could have provided the clean and green energy that we all want. Sometimes those things happen at a better rate at a local level. We know that a lot of delivery will happen through local authorities, as well as local groups and schemes.

I expected Ministers to want to redraft the clauses, rather than to scupper them. I would not have been surprised if the Government had gone further and proposed slightly different methods to increase the number of community energy schemes and their capacity. After all, Ministers have lined up to say that community energy is worth supporting and is important. They say that it is a good thing and that they want to see more of it, but those warm words have yet to translate into concrete actions. Instead, the number of schemes has stagnated and growth in the sector could at best be called anaemic.

There is clear cross-party support for community energy schemes. In the Commons, a majority of MPs from all parties support them. It is important that we remember that the measure agreed in the Lords was a cross-party amendment. There is broad support for the issue in both Houses. There is also clear public support, with more than 60 businesses writing to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Minister to declare their support for community energy schemes and calling for the Government to support clauses 272 and 273.

Despite all that support and the Government saying that they want this policy outcome, and despite the fact that the Bill provides the opportunity to do so, the response has been, “Computer says no.” That is not for want of trying on the part of campaign groups, such as Power for People, as well as MPs and peers who have been pushing for action. They have repeatedly shown that they are keen to try to find a way to work through some of the difficulties that the Government may have in this space, but so far every proposal has seemingly been refused, or not looked at objectively with any seriousness. In order to achieve the type of transformation that we are all ambitious for, I really hope that the Government can come back with some more options as the Bill moves forward. Removal of the clauses would be very challenging, and I have tabled some amendments to give the Government another opportunity to set out how they would achieve these aims.

Assuming that all the schemes are unable to get off the ground, we are missing a massive opportunity. It is down to the Government to come up with more ideas in this space. The Government may say, “Well, it’s easy to say that in Opposition.” Being in a minority, on the Opposition Benches, means that I sadly do not hold much hope of stopping the Government removing the two clauses, but I hope that they will look at what the Labour party has proposed on community energy. Just this weekend, we proposed a major investment of £400 million in community energy and £600 million for local authorities to build clean-power cities, towns and villages. Our local power plan provides much more detail.

This is about ensuring that we are kickstarting our local community energy projects, and helping to build skills, jobs and local supply chains. That can only be of benefit as we try to get to net zero as quickly as possible. I know for a fact that people have schemes that are oven ready, or on the shelf and ready to go, but they do not have the confidence to introduce them because they do not have the support that they need from the Government, which the two clauses would provide.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Elmet and Rothwell)

May I say for the first time what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq? Many hours ago, the Minister said that we need to prevent additional costs—I put it in my diary at some point. As we have said many times in Committee, this is a really important Bill, which sets the groundwork for decades to come. At the same time, we are trying to do everything at once. I have a few concerns that we are doing a bit here and a bit there, and bringing things in separately. I am not sure that we are always completely joining up the dots for what it means as a whole.

Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

When you are in government.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Elmet and Rothwell)

We’ll let that one fly. Let us reflect on how well it is going up in Scotland.

Therefore, any Government faced with not having enough electricity capacity to do x, y and z will always, as a priority, make sure people at home can switch their lights on, cook their food and heat their homes.

Katherine Fletcher (Conservative, South Ribble)

Some would say, in counter to my right hon. Friend’s argument, that it is a case of installing, say, more onshore or offshore wind, but does he agree that that misses the scale of the transition and the volume of electricity we need for it?

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Elmet and Rothwell)

Indeed that is true. It comes back to the physics of the situation and maintaining the base load. Wind turbines cannot be sped up or slowed down. I do not want to jump around the clauses, so I will come back to local energy grids in a moment.

I raised Germany with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test—he gave a very good answer to my question, although I was not quite sure where it was going—because it has got itself into an energy generation situation that it will be difficult to get out of, especially given that it now has to import liquefied natural gas and change things because its whole gas supply system is off. It is not certain that it will be able to stop using coal in the way it wants. As the hon. Gentleman absolutely rightly pointed out, it uses some of the worst coal that can be burned—it is a highly polluting material.

Why is that happening? I believe that we cannot just disregard the opening of coalmines, because this is about where we generate all this electricity from. If we cannot generate that electricity, we need back-up plans, including these mines.

Charlotte Nichols (Labour, Warrington North)

The right hon. Gentleman asks where the issue came from. The issue in Germany was caused by the frankly idiotic decision to stop new nuclear, but I am not sure that that makes the case for new coal. Surely, we should be arguing for more new nuclear in the UK.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Elmet and Rothwell)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because that is sort of the point I am making. Germany made a policy decision to switch off nuclear, and it became far more reliant on coal. It made a policy decision to import all its gas from Russia, and we know where we are with that; that did not reduce the coal either. My point is that these clauses make a policy decision that shuts off an area that could be used in the steel-making industry. We do not have the ability to generate the electricity we need to satisfy hydrogen production, electric vehicles and other new areas, and that will hit industry and homes.

I keep coming back to the fundamental idea that we have to take the public with us. We are trying to accelerate very quickly, and I am sure there is not a single Member in this Committee or the House who does not want us to decarbonise as much as we can. One of the reasons I mentioned Germany is that I am frustrated that we are doing a lot, and yet just over the channel there are countries that are not pursuing the agenda that we are pursuing because they say, “We’ve got to keep the lights on and do x, y and z,” following the energy decisions that they have made.

This is such a big Bill and it has been discussed for so long, and I do not want the little aspects that do x, y and z to suddenly box us in. We will then find ourselves saying, “Well, we’re going to have brownouts, and possibly blackouts, because we are not able to produce replacements in time.”

The hon. Member for Bristol East was right to mention the Inflation Reduction Act, because it is a very important global event. Let me be blunt: this started under Trump and carried on under Biden—namely, protectionism and America first. That has left the EU with no choice but to react by putting something similar in place, and it has created a real difficult for this country. How are we going to approach this area? I do not want an extra set of handcuffs to be placed on the Government, limiting their ability to do what they need to do to stay competitive in the market. We are not able to provide $400 billion in subsidies to ensure that everything is manufactured onshore in the UK. There have been examples of companies pulling potential investments in Europe and moving them over to the United States. I hope the Committee will forgive my complete forgetting of which companies, but I will look them up later.

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

I just do not understand how clause 270, which would ban new coalmines, would handcuff us, given that we are seeking to compete with the US and the EU on green investment.

Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Elmet and Rothwell)

If we cannot generate the electricity in time for arc furnace steel production, that industry will cease to exist. If we are subject to tariffs and are reliant on energy and resources from abroad to do that, we will not be able to achieve some of our overall objectives. We are halfway through 2023 and are moving towards 2035. The Government will have to row back on other things when reality bites, such as the non-replacement of off-grid businesses’ combustion heating systems from 2024—that includes much of agriculture—and the non-replacement of off-grid houses’ combustion furnaces after 2026. I do not think that those are achievable. I do not think the money is there for households or for businesses to achieve them, and I think we will have to give on them.

I am sure we all agree on decarbonisation objectives, but clauses such as clause 270 and the tying of hands will lead to unforeseen circumstances. Looking at the Bill as a whole, I see a lot that we want to achieve but I am not sure that we will be able to do so within the given timeframe.

I want to cast a note of caution about local generation. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam made a point about local power plants. Her speech was very interesting and I listened to it closely. A certain amount of battery storge is necessary. This is a live issue in my constituency and around Leeds and other areas of West Yorkshire. Battery storage is a developing technology. We can return to the issue of the resource supply chains of the rare earth elements and their availability. However, there are problems with the chemicals that need to be used to stop thermal runaway. There are reports from certain areas that it has taken 10 days to put down. Chemicals must be used, not water, yet there is nothing in planning law that states that it must take place at a minimum distance from a residential area.

This is a live issue in my constituency. I fully understand where a planning application is going in relation to an electricity substation, but it is not that far from houses and the research simply has not been done on what would happen if all sorts of chemicals needed to be poured, or if chemicals were released from a thermal runaway incident. There is, therefore, a slight concern—I am not making a political comment—that planning rules could be overridden in favour of a local power plant. This needs to be investigated further.

Everyone has the same objectives, but we are trying to do so much through this Bill that at no point is anyone tying up the points and checking whether we can achieve them on top of generating all the electricity we need. I therefore agree with the Minister that we should not be handcuffing ourselves and that we have the option to achieve things in the longer term. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington has pointed out that jobs rely on it and that the industry may collapse if we are not able to manufacture because of a move to electricity. I fully support the Minister. That does not mean that we are taking a luddite approach by opposing this sort of thing. It is just about ensuring that we have the ability to achieve our objectives without drastic unforeseen economic consequences.

Written evidence reported to the House