Nuclear Safeguards Bill — House of Lords, 2018-02-22
Topic: Energy
Alexander Carlile (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendments 14 and 15 tabled in my name, and in particular to the proposed new clause set out in Amendment 14. I would never insult the Minister by accusing him of being overly sensitive; nevertheless, he will have realised that there is a great deal of genuine concern about what is going to be delivered in relation to Euratom on 29 March 2019. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, just said, which was in the same vein My suggested new clause would require the Government to answer certain criteria by that date. The criteria are set out clearly and they have been shown, in the debates on this Bill and on the withdrawal Bill yesterday, to be the ones that cause concern around the House and which the Minister has heard repeated time and again. In debating terms, this has basically been a one-horse race in relation to concern about Euratom Yesterday—and I will not repeat them—I cited some answers that had helpfully been supplied by the Minister to questions raised by the Society for Radiological Protection and by me as a result of that society’s representations. What was clear from those answers was that the Government do not know what will be delivered or when. This afternoon, I will cite another piece of evidence that draws the same conclusions. On 12 February, just over a week ago, there was a meeting between 10 officials—nine from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, one from Public Health England and the two senior relevant officers of the Society for Radiological Protection. I have in my hand a record of that meeting, which I feel sure is accurate In that meeting, there was what was described as a "Euratom exit update". One of the officials, who was clearly a senior and responsible official—it is invidious to name officials, so I will not name him or her—noted that the Nuclear Safeguards Bill is currently going through the House of Lords. The official noted that, "at current there has been minimal industry engagement, due to the short timescales to pass the bill. However"— the official— "did note that the bill is a skeleton, and more detailed consultation with industry and professional bodies would take place as the regulations are developed" All I am asking for, in my new clause suggested in Amendment 14, is the key to the skeleton or the cupboard where the skeleton is kept The official noted that, "discussions are going well internationally", which is very welcome, "with progress being made on bi-lateral agreements with the US, Australia, Canada and Japan" We would certainly like to know more about that. The official then explained—and this is very important—that, "as part of the EU exit process they"— the 10 officials— "are unable to pursue agreements with the various EU countries"— I think "pursue" means seek— "till the exit process is complete" If that is right, it is extremely worrying. I am sure that the Minister can be supplied with a copy of the minutes of that meeting It was also noted that, "there have been wider EU civil nuclear issues around legal ownership of fissile material and radioactive waste" Contained in that single sentence is a host of problems that will have to be unravelled in great detail if there is to be proper nuclear safeguarding Having read those notes, with the welcome support of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I tabled Amendment 14. It requires the Secretary of State to publish a report setting out the answers to all these questions before 29 March 2019. It requires the making of, "regulations providing for the implementation of any agreements covered", by the clause and a statutory instrument which should be approved by each House of Parliament There is an evidence base for the kind of quality assurance that any responsible Government would demand of any contractor to which they were letting a contract. As a Parliament, we are entitled to demand, respectfully but necessarily, a similar level of quality control for the Government before we lose the legislative opportunities available to us and throw this enormously important issue to the wolves—or to a skeleton.