Nuclear Safety
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Bradley, Karen (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Byles, Dan (North Warwickshire) (Con)
† Coffey, Dr Thérèse (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
† Crockart, Mike (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Donaldson, Mr Jeffrey M. (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
Elphicke, Charlie (Dover) (Con)
† Fallon, Michael (Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change )
† Greatrex, Tom (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
Hopkins, Kelvin (Luton North) (Lab)
† Phillips, Stephen (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
† Phillipson, Bridget (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
Stringer, Graham (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Margaret McKinnon, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
European Committee A
Monday 20 January 2014
[Annette Brooke in the Chair]
Nuclear Safety
4.30 pm
The Chair: Does a member of the European Scrutiny Committee wish to make a brief explanatory statement about the decision to refer the relevant documents to the Committee?
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. For the benefit of the Committee, I will briefly describe the background to the document and explain why the European Scrutiny Committee recommended it for debate.
Directive 2009/71/Euratom establishes a framework for the safety of nuclear installations and requires member states to establish responsibilities for the safety requirements, provide for the licensing of nuclear installations and establish an independent regulatory authority. Although the safety record of the European Union’s nuclear power plants is good, the European Council decided in March 2011, in the wake of the Fukushima accident, that they should each be subjected to a stress test and that the EU should review its legislative framework in this area. The Commission subsequently produced in June 2013 a draft Council directive for comments by the European Economic and Social Committee. The draft directive aims to strengthen the role and independence of national authorities; enhance transparency; introduce new safety requirements, addressing issues across the entire life cycle of nuclear installations; reinforce monitoring and exchange of experience; and enable the development of EU-wide guidelines.
The Government said that the proposal could result in restrictions on member states, with some safety decisions being taken centrally by the Commission, and that the focus should be instead on the proper implementation of the current directive. They also said that the proposal appeared to be inconsistent with the Euratom treaty, and to be driven by politics, rather than safety.
The Commission subsequently adopted its earlier draft as a formal proposal, which gives rise to the same concerns. The Government also commented that the Commission’s impact assessment does not provide a fully balanced assessment of events following Fukushima and fails to demonstrate the benefits of the proposed change. As the Commission appears wedded to an approach containing a number of elements of significant concern, which would impose unacceptable constraints on member states in an important area, the European Scrutiny Committee considered it right for the House to consider the issues that the document raises at an early opportunity. It therefore recommended that the document be debated in European Committee A.
The Chair: I call the Minister to make an opening statement.
4.32 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon): I echo my colleague’s welcome to you as the Chairman of the Committee this afternoon, Mrs Brooke. On behalf of the Committee, I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for introducing the debate and for ensuring that it was tabled before the Committee.
As my hon. and learned Friend explained, the main driver behind the Commission’s current proposal is the terrible events that occurred in Japan in 2011 that resulted in the accident at the Fukushima power plant. Although no lives are known to have been lost as a result of the release of radiation following the accident, the event shook the world. If there is anything positive to take from the accident, it is surely that it has forced the world to take stock of the assumptions we have all made in the past.
For that reason, the Government supported the European Union’s stress test, which was the Union’s initial response to the accident at Fukushima. Additionally, we supported the European Council’s decision to review the European Union nuclear safety framework, to ensure that it remained appropriate in the light of the lessons learned from Fukushima. The outcome of the stress test was clear. It found that there were no fundamental weaknesses in the definition of design basis events or in the safety systems to withstand them. It was also clear from the tests that none of the 143 nuclear power plants in the European Union needed to be closed for safety or technical reasons.
Before I outline our main concerns with the Commission’s current proposal, I should state that ensuring that nuclear safety remains a top priority is an ambition that we obviously all support. However, the views of the Government and the Commission diverge on how that ambition is best achieved. Clearly, acting on the findings of the stress test is part of that ambition, but in our view it is for member states to address these issues under the current nuclear safety framework arrangements. That said, the Government are of course willing to consider any evidence-based and proportionate enhancements to the current regime.
The Commission’s approach appears to be to make explicit the implicit requirements of the current arrangements. That has resulted in a proposal that contains detailed provisions that restrict member states’ scope for implementation. Additionally, the proposal is likely to result in greater involvement of the Commission in national nuclear safety matters.
The existing directive was originally drafted to set specifically a high-level framework under which continuous improvements to safety could be achieved. It was not meant to be prescriptive; nor was it meant to result in the responsibility for nuclear safety being shifted away from member states. It is the Government’s view that this proposal changes that initial purpose.
We agree with the Commission that member states should implement the spirit and intention of the current directive. If they do not—I include the United Kingdom in this statement—of course the Commission should hold them to account.
Due to the importance of nuclear safety, the Government have decided to engage in seeking to ensure that any changes to the current directive are appropriate, rather than simply seeking to block them, so our position in
summary is this. We can and will support evidence-based and proportionate proposals to strengthen nuclear safety. In so doing, we will seek to ensure that the balance of competences between member states and the Commission is respected. We will also seek to ensure that any amendments do not result in over-prescriptive requirements that undermine our ability to take national circumstances into account.I hope I have provided the Committee with the initial information needed to facilitate the debate.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab): I want the Minister to clarify something; perhaps all the other members of the Committee are clear about the process. What exactly would happen to this directive should we in this Parliament consider that it does go too far?
The Chair: The Minister might prefer to take that in the round of questions, but I leave it to him, as it was an intervention.
Michael Fallon: I am in your hands, Mrs Brooke, as always. Let me try to answer. This is a proposal from the Commission. We will continue to seek to get it into the shape that we think best fits the interests of the United Kingdom. I have described our worries: changes to the existing directive should be evidence based and proportionate and should not extend the competence of the Commission. We will continue to have discussions with the Commission on that basis, in the hope that we can get changes along the lines that I have described.
The Chair: May we get back to the accepted pattern for these proceedings? We now have until 5.30 pm for questions to the Minister. I remind hon. Members that these should be brief. It is open to a Member, subject to my discretion, to ask related supplementary questions. I intend to call Mr Tom Greatrex first. It may be appropriate for him to ask up to three questions and then we will take other questions, but we will return to him as long as there are questions outstanding.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op): I am grateful for your guidance, Mrs Brooke, on the procedure for questioning.
I note that the document refers to framework proposals to strengthen independence by setting out benchmark criteria and guidance, which sounds slightly contradictory in terms of the independence of the regulators. What is the assessment of the Minister and his Department of the benchmarking and peer review activity that already happens between the Office for Nuclear Regulation and other nuclear regulators inside and outside Europe? Is he satisfied that the type of comparative work and peer review to which the documents refer are fully covered by existing practice?
Michael Fallon: The Government have no difficulty with peer review or with the Council’s original proposal to conduct stress tests. The difficulty with the current proposal is that, although it purports to reinforce the independence of the regulator, the Commission would, for the first time, be assessing whether the regulator had properly undertaken its duty.
Tom Greatrex: In connection with that question, will the Minister give us more of an indication of whether he thinks that the current peer review work, which I understand happens routinely as part of the ONR’s usual activity, sufficiently addresses the concerns expressed in the Commission’s document on the ability for lessons to be learned and for changes in practice to be instituted in European member states?
Michael Fallon: As I said, I do not think the Government have any difficulty with peer review or with continuing to learn lessons from it.
Tom Greatrex: I have a related question. The document also refers to enhancing transparency, and I am sure the Minister and all members of the Committee agree that transparency is vital for those engaged in nuclear safety and for interested communities and individuals. The ONR’s guidelines and policy do not seem to suggest that there is currently any transparency on regulation in the way envisaged by the Commission document. Will the Minister explain whether the ONR will be looking to develop such transparency, which is important as we seek to provide reassurance on safety in relation to nuclear energy?
Michael Fallon: Transparency is an issue, and the hon. Gentleman will recall that in our debates on the Energy Act 2013 we strengthened the framework under which the ONR operates in this country. Transparency is a key part of that, and it is an aid to accountability. I will reply to him on the specific proposal a little later.
Stephen Phillips: At present, as I understand it, this is a draft directive. If the directive is in due course adopted as a formal proposal, what will be the effect on the United Kingdom’s existing nuclear industry, on the nuclear power stations that are planned and have already been announced, and on the development in due course of further nuclear electricity generation within the UK?
Michael Fallon: I assume that my hon. and learned Friend is asking what would happen if the directive was implemented in its current form, in which case we would have concerns about an additional, overtly prescriptive regulatory burden that could well damage investor confidence in our new civil nuclear programme and inhibit precisely the kind of investment that we both want to see. This country has a good record on regulating nuclear safety. It is right that the primary responsibility for nuclear safety should fall to the operator, and our regulator should be completely free to hold operators to account, but there is no need for any further validation of how regulators are performing their duty to be absorbed as a new competence by the Commission. I hope that that multiple answer will suffice to answer all three parts of my hon. and learned Friend’s question.
Kate Hoey: It is clear that, as the Minister has said, the directive would increase the Commission’s role in the peer review of member states’ safety regimes. Does he think, as perhaps I and other Members do, that the proposal is driven more by political reasons than by safety reasons?
Secondly, the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked what would happen if the directive were implemented in its current state. If that happens, what are Her Majesty’s Government going to do about it? Are they just going to say, “Thank you very much, EU, for taking away more powers from this country”?
Michael Fallon: Let me try to answer. The hon. Lady made three points. On peer reviews, let us be clear that they already take place. There are peer reviews every three years under the convention on nuclear safety, and there are peer reviews at the international level every 10 years, so further endorsement is not necessarily needed from the Commission at the European level.
Secondly, the hon. Lady asked me where I thought the proposal came from and whether I thought it was political. I do not think that it is for me to speculate as to its origin. Approximately half the member states are nuclear and half are not, or are actually opposed to it. However, I think that the motivation for this particular enhancement was clearly the chain of events at Fukushima.
Thirdly, the hon. Lady asked what would happen if the directive proceeded in its current form. I have said clearly to the Committee that we seek changes that are not simply to do with our concerns over competence—the proposals in the directive should be more evidence-based and proportionate. On those two latter points, it is not impossible that the Commission would be able to put forward more material to justify the extent to which the proposal is evidence-based and proportionate. We have not seen that so far.
We will continue to discuss with other member states with similar concerns the disadvantage of agreeing to something that is not in our interest. We will retain the ability to block the directive until our concerns are addressed. I hope that they can be. As a former Minister, the hon. Lady will be familiar with the processes in Brussels. It is not impossible that we will get a new text that we will be able to live with, but we have serious concerns about competence and the overtly prescriptive nature of the proposals. We hope that our concerns will be shared by a sufficient number of member states to encourage the Commission to think again.
Tom Greatrex: May I follow up on a question that the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked about the effect on nuclear new build? Specifically, does the agreement between EDF and the Government include the potential for additional costs as a result of changes in regulation? The Government response from the Minister’s colleague, Baroness Verma, says that the requirements could result in a need to change the UK regulatory regime, which could have financial implications. Are any such changes covered in the existing strike price agreement with EDF? If the directive is implemented in its current form and changes have to be made, will the taxpayer be liable for an additional amount of money?
Michael Fallon: As proceedings unfold, I may be able to give the hon. Gentleman a slightly more definitive answer to that question, but what we have agreed with EDF so far is in essence draft heads of terms. We have not got to the stage of signing any investment contract
with EDF, because that requires state aid approval—Brussels needs to be satisfied that such a contract does not fall within the scope of state aid. As we have already made clear to the House, there are provisions within those heads of terms for what he is referring to and—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham may correct me if I get the terminology wrong—there are provisions relating to change of law. If the law is changed, there are circumstances in which that contract would have to be amended; the financial terms might therefore have to be revisited.Tom Greatrex: Further to that point—I appreciate that the Minister might not be able to answer now—it might be helpful to Committee members to be aware of the financial implications of the measure in terms of the strike price that was agreed, as he rightly described, as heads of terms. He might not be able to provide the answer instantly, but it might be helpful for Committee members to know the impact if the proposals are implemented in their current form, even though I understand that that is not his hope, desire or intent.
Michael Fallon: It is not my intent. I would not encourage the Committee to overegg this. Clearly, we do not disagree with the intention behind the new directive; everybody wants nuclear safety to be robust. We think we have a robust regulatory regime; before we start tinkering around with it, we need proper evidence and to ensure that the changes are proportionate. We do not want to compromise the independence of the regulator, which both Houses spent some time last year reinforcing on the statute book in the Energy Act 2013.
I am not suggesting that there would be immediate financial consequences if the directive were passed in this form; I have explained to the Committee that I hope it will not, and we shall do everything possible to ensure that it is not. All I implied to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham is that further regulation and legislation of this kind will undoubtedly affect investor confidence and investment overall in our nuclear programme—I think that that was the question he put to me—and indeed in the nuclear programmes of the dozen or so member states considering replacing or adding to their nuclear fleet.
I should add that the strike price that we have agreed with EDF is based on the cost of production, and the required standards under the current regime are already as high as those in the new proposal, so any additional cost will relate largely to the need for EDF to familiarise itself all over again with the new requirements. I am not suggesting to the Committee that that would add significantly to the cost, but it would be yet another bureaucratic factor that would complicate the picture.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD): I have a quick question about the future timetable for the proposals. I am slightly worried by the very last paragraph of the notes prepared for this debate, which states that as this is a priority, the Government are seeking to complete the negotiations and adoption in advance of the Commission elections in 2014. For such an important piece of legislation on an issue judged to be highly dangerous, it seems rather odd to be hasty in implementing proposals. Does the Minister have any further information about the likely timetable?
Michael Fallon: I am sure that I can help my hon. Friend on that point. It is not the United Kingdom that is advancing or encouraging the proposal; as I have made clear, we want it to be amended. However, there are a number of proposals before member states that the Commission would like to put on the European statute book in some form or other before its mandate expires this summer. It may well be that the proximity of the mandate’s expiry will encourage the Commission to introduce sufficient amendments to make the proposal acceptable to everybody, but I note what my hon. Friend says about the timetable.
The Chair: If no more Members wish to ask questions, we will now proceed to the debate on the motion.
4.54 pm
Michael Fallon: I beg to move,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 15030/13, a draft Council Directive amending Directive 2009/71/EURATOM establishing a community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations; notes the importance of learning the lessons from the Fukushima nuclear accident at a national level; and agrees with the Government that, while there is a need to ensure that a robust EU nuclear safety framework is in place, any changes to the current framework should be evidence based, proportionate to the risks they aim to address and do not result in a shift of competence away from Member States.
I am grateful to you, Mrs Brooke. I thank those hon. Members who have contributed during questions, and I will reiterate briefly the main focus of our approach. I want to make absolutely clear the Government’s position, which is that nuclear safety is a top priority and will always need to remain a priority, to protect people and the environment, and to ensure that nuclear energy remains a viable part of our domestic energy mix. We believe that it should be part of the mix—we were pleased to have the ringing endorsement of almost every party during the vote on nuclear power last summer, during the passage of the Energy Act 2013—and for that reason we shall do what is necessary to ensure nuclear safety.
That means that we will consider any evidence-based and proportionate proposals to enhance nuclear safety—not that we will support measures that unfairly put the nuclear sector at a disadvantage. Nor will we support amendments to current European legislation that would further change the balance of competence between member states and the Commission.
In considering the Commission’s proposals we shall continue to work with it and member states to ensure that any new provisions to the existing directive are evidence-based and proportionate. As I have said, the Government’s view is that the current provisions ensure nuclear safety. We will ensure that the Commission and member states focus on amending provisions that help us to secure proper implementation of the spirit and intent of the existing nuclear safety directive.
The issues that we have covered in Committee will help us to ensure we focus our arguments to achieve those aims. The interest shown and challenges made in the Committee have been helpful. We should all agree that it is important to get things right at European level. As significant developments arise on the draft directive—perhaps this is a better answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West—we will keep the Committee informed.
4.57 pm
Tom Greatrex: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I thank the European Scrutiny Committee and the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for bringing the matter to the attention of the Committee. I do not recall whether it was in the time of the Minister’s predecessor, or his predecessor’s predecessor, that we touched on the issues in relation to the stress test proposals. It was some time ago and I cannot remember whether I am the only member of the Committee who was there at the time.
During the debate, hon. Members on both sides expressed concern about whether the Commission was simply helping to co-ordinate activity—an important response to the events at Fukushima—or whether there was an underlying intention to take a much more active role.
To echo the Minister, I agree, as I am sure all hon. Members do, with an important statement in paragraph 1.1 of the Commission document:
“The effects of nuclear accidents do not stop at national borders and can entail potential harmful consequences for the health of workers and citizens but also wide-ranging economic implications. It is therefore essential for society and the economy to reduce the risk of a nuclear accident in an EU Member State by applying high nuclear safety standards and guaranteeing a high quality of regulatory oversight.”
I am sure that all Committee members will agree that it is of fundamental importance to take the safety of civil nuclear installations in the EU seriously.
Of course, civil nuclear installations and nuclear power plants are not just in the EU. They are in other European countries outside the EU and other parts of the world. The thrust of the document places great emphasis on the need for peer review and for regulators from different jurisdictions in the EU to continually compare their work and learn from each other. That principle is right, but the idea that it should be tightly drawn within EU member states is wrong. There are plenty of other regulators in parts of the world outside the EU, and an incident in a country outside the EU could have implications for EU member states. It is therefore not appropriate to draw it tightly within the EU.
The Minister referred to the ONR, which we put on a statutory footing in this very room during our consideration of the Energy Bill, which is now the Energy Act 2013. It was one of the lesser debated aspects of the Bill, because it was something that had been developed over a period of time, and which was widely regarded across the House to be a regulatory regime committed to continual improvement and ensuring that the regulation of nuclear power is as robust as possible. During those discussions we considered issues of transparency. I say to the Minister in all seriousness that I have looked at the ONR guidance and policy—although I only had a cursory look at it this afternoon so I may have missed something—and the transparency regime to which the European documents refer does not seem to be part of the ONR’s operational activity. It is important that the Minister or his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, who have some responsibility for the ONR, look at that to ensure that nothing that is being suggested here is missing from the way in which our domestic regulator was established and the work that it does.
My other point of concern on the Commission document relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall. Members of the European Scrutiny
Committee will be better versed than me in reading the underlying tone of the wording and phraseology of Commission documents. I want to make two points. First, paragraph 1.1, in relation to Fukushima, states:“This latest nuclear accident once again undermined public confidence in the safety of nuclear power”.
Following Fukushima, the Department of Energy and Climate Change rightly commissioned the Weightman report to consider the impact of Fukushima on UK nuclear, and other processes were rightly put on hold while that was happening. My understanding is that similar things happened in other parts of the world. The polling about whether nuclear should be part of the energy mix shows that public confidence in the safety of nuclear power has not been undermined. That leads me to wonder why that phraseology and language was used in the document. I am sure the Minister is aware of that, and I am sure that when he and his colleagues discuss these issues with other member states and the Commission, they will seek to explore it further. It is right that the regulation is done properly, but it is wrong that other states’ political agendas are allowed to influence the wording of the document. That is not helpful for the overall goal—our shared desire to see the effective regulation of nuclear energy.
Secondly, paragraph 1.2, in relation to Fukushima, states:
“well-known lessons learned from accidents decades ago have not been taken up voluntarily by parts of the industry and not been sufficiently enforced by regulators, even in a nation—Japan—that was assumed to have particularly high standards of industrial and nuclear safety.”
That is a concerning statement. Members of the Committee, and people more widely, should be concerned to ensure that lessons are learned from any incidents and, if necessary, safeguards are enhanced or updated through regulatory activity.
Again, that is an important point in relation to international comparison and peer review, which is fundamental. Fukushima is not part of the EU, but the implications from that incident—apparent non-compliance with regulatory activity, or the failure to update regulation—should be of wider concern to EU member states. When the Minister and his colleagues are in discussion with other member states, they should consider how best we can ensure that those lessons are properly learned, and learned more widely than just within the European Community.
The document refers to consultation with interested parties. It states that
“90% of respondents agree on the importance of a Euratom nuclear safety framework”.
The existing framework is designed to ensure that member states’ regulators are completely independent. My concern with the proposals is that they seem to hamper operational independence, which is of fundamental importance for confidence in regulatory activity.
In conclusion, everyone accepts the importance of regulation of nuclear safety for nuclear workers, experts, and operators of existing nuclear power plants and those being decommissioned. Fukushima indicates what happens when we have a mixture of old reactor design, an unprecedented climatic event and the apparent failure to take seriously developments in regulatory activity elsewhere.
I am in favour of continuous, extreme vigilance on such issues, and of continuous assessment, benchmarking, regular peer support and working across member states and more widely. I remain concerned that the proposal is not the best approach to ensure that those factors are taken into account.
Therefore, I urge the Minister, when in discussions with the Commission and other member states in the Council of Ministers, to approach the issues from the perspective of wanting to ensure the highest possible regulatory standards, but not in a way that hampers the ability of independent regulatory bodies to focus on the core issues of improving and maintaining safety. The focus should not be on the structure of a new and different apparatus via the Commission, which might not enhance the safety that is fundamental to the continued use of nuclear power as part of the energy mix in the UK, the EU and more widely.
5.8 pm
Michael Fallon: With the leave of the Committee, I shall reply to some of the hon. Gentleman’s points. We absolutely agree with his point on peer review. It should, of course, be broader than the European Union. We probably need to make better use of some of the existing international peer reviews. That is an extremely important point. Neither nuclear power nor the scientific community stops at the borders of the European Union, so we absolutely agree with him on that.
After this House put our regulator on to a statutory, independent footing, it is—as I implied—somewhat perverse of the Commission on the one hand to suggest that it wants to make regulators more independent, and on the other put forward proposals to say that the Commission itself should validate the regulatory decisions that independent national regulators make. It does not have any particular expertise in the area. As I have said, in several different ways, that would compromise the very independence sought by the Commission.
The hon. Gentleman asked about transparency. This practice is all about transparency, and I may write to him to reassure him about that. Transparency runs through the licence conditions that the regulator will attach to the operating licence for a nuclear plant. One area where we agree with the Commission is that we should promote greater transparency wherever we can, and I understand that we will in fact be suggesting a more acceptable text on transparency.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the important issue of public confidence, on which I absolutely agree with him. We continue to talk to those member states that have nuclear power or that are planning to renew their nuclear stations to try to ensure that there is some common ground and that we head off any administrative or legislative action that is not properly evidence-based and that might be affected by some more ideological approach to energy. Public confidence is important to the extent that regulators and Governments need to use balanced language and need to be prepared to test and review their various systems.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman touched on standards, which are based on a process of continual improvement and not simply on one-off requirements and prescription either from this House or from Brussels. They are based on the need continually to improve and to learn from the experiences of other nations. We need to drive up
standards wherever we can. The result of the Weightman review to which the hon. Gentleman referred was that we checked everything in our current regime and made improvements. We will continue to make improvements wherever we can.