Civil Nuclear Road Map
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Hannah Bardell(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I will be mindful of that, Mr Deputy Speaker.
It is fair to say that while there are very different opinions on nuclear energy, and indeed on the civil nuclear road map, we can all agree on how important energy is to our future—the future of all nations across the UK—and, indeed, that it is becoming an increasingly important resource across the world. As a member of the SNP, representing the Scottish constituency of Livingston, I am proud that we are an energy-rich nation. We in Scotland are particularly rich in renewable energy, and we want to see those resources made the most of. I do not believe, nor does my party, that nuclear is the way forward.
The effects of climate change and resource competition have demonstrated that access to the amount of energy we need is not a given, and we must act to ensure that we have secure and sustainable energy resources. However, the goal of energy security cannot be achieved by going backwards, which many SNP Members feel is what is happening. It is interesting that even Members in this debate who support nuclear energy are critical of the road map. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), who is not supportive of nuclear energy, made a very pertinent point; he described that road map as a fantasy. That is probably the best and fairest description that could be given.
None the less, Members—particularly those who have constituency interests—raised pertinent and serious issues about cost and delivery throughout the debate. As we have heard, the cost of nuclear energy is staggering. The numbers we have heard in this debate are almost inconceivable: £35 billion for Hinkley Point C, including a £2.3 billion budget increase this year alone, and an eye-watering approximation of £20 billion for Sizewell C’s budget. For some context, the UK Government will spend only £1 billion to increase the availability of hospital beds in NHS England, and only £4.1 billion on England’s new childcare plan—a stark contrast to the cost of nuclear energy.
Every single project run by EDF, the company commissioned to build Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, has run over budget and between six and 14 years behind schedule. At a time when we face a cost of energy and cost of living crisis, that is not value for money; the plan is not efficient, effective or practical. What is more, those large investments come at the expense of green energy development in the UK. Non-nuclear renewable energy sources are credible options to solve energy instability. Scotland has proven that it can fuel its entire country and more just with wind power—in fact, according to National Grid, Scotland’s full energy mix has been keeping the lights on in England. We are doing our good turn, but the reality is that money invested in nuclear projects is taking away from investment in green energy, particularly in Scotland.
Turning to grid connection, an issue that a number of Members have raised, I recently met with a developer who is trying to develop a solar project in my constituency. I had concerns about how close it was to houses in my constituency; these are new developments, and there are still lots of areas that are being looked at. However, that developer said to me that if the project had been built in the south of England, it would have been half the size—it needed to be twice the size because of the grid connection charges. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), the grid connection charges and the standing charges in her constituency are absolutely outrageous. The green industrial revolution is the greatest economic opportunity of the 21st century, and it will deliver more jobs, cheaper energy and greater economic growth, but this focus on a blank cheque investment in unproven nuclear power is utterly ludicrous.
At the end of the day, we need energy in order for the United Kingdom to function, and fuel is becoming a scarce resource. Action must be taken to resolve that—this much we can all agree on—but the civil nuclear road map does not even solve the problem. In fact, the plan, as we have heard, focuses largely on the great development of small modular reactors, but the proposed 300 MW SMRs appear to be based on the 1,500 MW design that has not actually been built, making the technology in the civil nuclear road map unproven. To have such an important road map and spend so much public money on it, and to have at the heart of it a technology that is unproven just does not make sense.
As if that was not enough, these SMRs are thought to produce up to 30 times more waste than conventional nuclear reactors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun highlighted, waste is one of our major concerns. We are seeing water pollution across the UK, with sewage being pumped into rivers and seas, particularly on the coasts of England, and now we want to dump nuclear waste in bunkers—or, according to this road map, not actually to have any proper plans, but just to kick the can down the road.
Scotland, and the rest of the UK, needs a Government who will deliver a comprehensive energy strategy that includes jobs and lower bills, and that grows the economy. We deserve a plan that can unleash our full green energy potential, and Scotland’s future growth and green future will come from investment in renewable energy, not nuclear. The UK-wide focus on nuclear energy runs counter to common sense, frankly. We have seen projects—and I know the Minister knows this and, I hope, feels it keenly—that were cancelled, as when I worked in the north-east of Scotland in the energy industry myself, and saw that repeatedly with carbon capture, with the devastation that wreaked on the industry.
Sadly, we cannot trust the UK Conservative Government with our energy policy. At a time when other countries are ramping up investment in green energy, Westminster is showing itself to be incapable of delivering a credible plan. It is clear, as this debate has shown, that the UK Government’s civil nuclear road map does not deliver.
Points of Order
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Hannah Bardell(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for responding to the point of order of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). As I said earlier, it is not for the occupant of the Chair to adjudicate between different interpretations of fact. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for taking the opportunity to put her point to the House, and I quite understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I am sure there will be further opportunities, hopefully in the near future, for them to discuss this matter reasonably on the Floor of the House. I reiterate that it is very important that facts presented in the Chamber are accurate.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions, I was horrified to hear the Prime Minister, in LGBT History Month and on a day when Brianna Ghey’s mother was in Parliament, make a transphobic joke in the Chamber. As elected representatives, we come to this place to improve the condition of others, do we not? At a time when the trans community is facing unprecedented attacks from people in this place, from people in the other place and from the media, it is incumbent on us all to reflect on our language, on how we approach these issues and on how we talk about the trans and non-binary community.
Madam Deputy Speaker, can you guide us on how we can ensure that the Prime Minister apologises? He was given an opportunity towards the end of Prime Minister’s questions, and he refused. Can you use your good offices to encourage him to take the opportunity to come back to the Chamber to apologise for those remarks and to remove them from the record? I do not believe his remarks reflect the views of the majority of people in this Chamber who want to respect the trans and non-binary community, and who want to make it better and easier for them to live their lives in safety instead of what is increasingly becoming a hostile environment.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point, but it is often necessary for Mr Speaker or the Deputy Speakers to say that points of order are not designed to continue the arguments of Prime Minister’s questions. The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, all Members are here for the time that the Prime Minister is here, and very often—indeed, almost always—Opposition Members will disagree with what the Prime Minister says. It is not for me to adjudicate, nor indeed to require him to say anything different.
I will say, however, that the hon. Lady touches on a very sensitive subject, and I understand that the mother of the tragically murdered teenager Brianna Ghey was present this afternoon. I reiterate, as I believe the Prime Minister did from what I heard at the end of Prime Minister’s questions, the enormous sympathy that everyone in this House has—[Interruption.] Could the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) just let me finish, please.
It is not for me to comment on what the Prime Minister said or did not say. On behalf of the whole House, I reiterate our enormous sympathy and, indeed, admiration for Brianna Ghey’s mother on the way in which she has conducted her public profile during this tragic time for her and her family. The House ought to show sympathy and understanding when a tragedy occurs, rather than always making political points.
Israel and Gaza
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Hannah Bardell(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Points of order come after statements. Is this directly related to the statement?
Hannah Bardell
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for granting this point of order. I appreciate that the Prime Minister was at the Dispatch Box for nearly two hours, but as a result of the importance and the magnitude of this issue and the complexity and nature of our questions, nearly 50 Members did not get a chance to speak. Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, do everything that you can to ensure that time will be afforded to us during the rest of this week and going forward so that we can debate and discuss this very important issue?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Lady makes a perfectly reasonable point. The Leader of the House is in her place and will have heard what she has said.
Economic Update
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Hannah Bardell(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Let us see if we can go a bit faster to try to get everybody in.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) [V]
The Young Women’s Trust found that because of covid 1.5 million women are losing income; 69% are claiming benefits to the first time; half of young mums are unable to keep or find employment because of childcare costs; and a third of women will not report sexual harassment for fear of being fired. Can the Chancellor therefore tell me how his Government can possibly continue to justify the five-week wait, have statutory sick pay at a disgracefully low £94 a week, and exclude many female business owners from help? Will he take proper action for women, who are bearing the brunt of this pandemic?
Trade Bill
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Hannah Bardell(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. First, the hon. and learned Lady, whose eloquence is far above average in this House—that is meant to be a compliment—knows that she should not make such a long intervention. Secondly, she cannot have a private conversation with her colleague the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) and be looking away from the Chamber towards her; she must look this way. I call Hannah Bardell.
Hannah Bardell
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I absolutely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. The point is that we do not want to leave the EU; we did not vote to leave the EU. The legislation as it stands is insufficient, not only by our standards but by those of others.
As I was saying, some of our most globally renowned brands, such as Scotch beef, Scotch lamb and Scottish farmed salmon are among the 14 protected food names in Scotland, along with the Arbroath smokie, Dunlop cheese and Stornoway black pudding. Those are among the localities to have been given PGI status. In any trade deal after Brexit, we must be able to protect those Scottish brands. Scotch whisky is an important example. It is the UK’s biggest export and, quite frankly, we are getting a bit fed up with that trade propping up the UK Government and their economy.
Last month, the SNP Government published a legislative consent memorandum outlining why they do not intend to lodge a legislative consent motion in relation to the Bill. We firmly believe that policy responsibility and expertise for matters within devolved competence lie with the Scottish Government, who are accountable to the Scottish Parliament and to the Scottish people. We take democracy seriously in Scotland, and we do it pretty well. When we had a referendum in Scotland on independence, we had the widest possible participation. We included the future of our nation in it—the 16 and 17-year-olds who were sadly left out of the EU referendum but who will reap what is being sown by Brexit. We also had a proper timescale for the debate. We asked people what kind of nation they wanted to live in and be part of, rather than trying to exclude some people from society, to “other” them, and to blame them for the failures of the UK Government’s austerity plans.
This trade Bill is lacking in detail. It takes some serious and worrying paths, and it is just the starter for 10. We are told that there is going to be a further Bill later, but why not get it right now? Why not be bold and stand by that old adage that Scotland is leading the UK, not leaving the UK? The Government could have put forward proposals for the devolved nations to have Trade Remedies Authority offices and their own permanent commissioners. A truly collaborative approach could have been possible.
Exiting the European Union: Sanctions
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Hannah Bardell(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hannah Bardell
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and think he may have been reading my mind, as will become clear from my next point.
If the UK Government cannot agree among themselves on a transition policy for Brexit and a deal, as we have seen this week with the vastly differing approaches of the Chancellor and the International Trade Secretary, I and others seriously doubt their capacity to design sanctions architecture, let alone agree on what and where those sanctions should be imposed. And even if they do, the effectiveness of UK-only applied sanctions will be severely diminished.
The UK Government’s own White Paper sets out, in pretty stark language:
“The UK needs to be able to impose and implement sanctions in order to comply with our obligations under the United Nations (UN) Charter and to support our wider foreign policy and national security goals. Many of our current powers flow from the European Communities Act 1972 so we will need new legal powers to replace these…It is not possible to achieve this through the Great Repeal Bill, as preserving or freezing sanctions would not provide the powers necessary to update, amend or lift sanctions in response to fast moving events.”
And events are moving fast; we have a short period, so the Government need to think very carefully and give us a response on that transition period.
Any new legislation must be clear about how these powers will be developed and implemented and, further, what infrastructure and regulation will look like to support those new powers. Additionally, the Law Society of Scotland has raised a number of pertinent points in relation to the UK Government’s White Paper. These points are significant because they highlight the complexity—as the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) has just said—and scale of the task at hand, not to mention just how many sectors and areas of competence will be impacted by exiting the EU, and the need for a new set of rules and regulations. It is clear that lawyers, accountants and consultants will be very busy over the next few years—and, no doubt, considerably richer. But what estimate have the Government made of the cost of training lawyers and accountants to deal with the new laws and regulations, and what provision has been considered for the teaching of the new regulations and laws at our universities, colleges and institutions? We need a workforce that will be ready to go when those new provisions arrive.
An interesting point about cross-border jurisdiction also arises on page 23 of the Government’s White Paper. The Law Society of Scotland is very concerned about this. The White Paper identifies special advocates as
“barristers in independent practice of the highest integrity, experience and ability, from civil and criminal practices. They are bound by the ethical standards of the Bar Council.”
I know that many in the profession would like clarity and assurances that special advocates should be able to be drawn from the ranks of not only the Bar in England and Wales but the Bar in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and from suitably qualified solicitor advocates in all those jurisdictions, but it appears that the UK Government have again—whether by accident or intent—failed to recognise at the most fundamental level that the devolved nations exist.
According to the Law Society of Scotland, the Government’s proposed additional power to seize funds and assets in order to freeze them appears to be unrelated to the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. This therefore seems like a curious thing to sneak in. Will the Secretary of State clarify why this has appeared at this juncture? It concerns me and, I am sure, others that the UK Government would introduce new legislation that is potentially unrelated to the UK exiting the EU. This is not good practice, and we need to understand the rationale behind it. It is clear that the UK Government are going to have very little, if any, time in which to do their day job as they deal with the enormity of Brexit, but they have some serious questions to answer on how they will manage and develop their sanctions policy. It is key to our reputation on the global stage, and to how we will work with the rest of the world.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I call Mr Andrew Lewer to make his maiden speech.
Economy and Jobs
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Hannah Bardell(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I could seek your guidance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) has just exposed, the Government and the Chancellor did not know about a decision on HMRC offices and jobs. Would it therefore be in order for him to come to the House as soon as possible and make a statement on the HMRC closures and the jobs in our constituencies?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Lady has cleverly used her point of order to make the political point that she wished to make. I think she knows, as the House knows, that it is not a point that I can answer from the Chair. If, however, she is endeavouring to bring the Chancellor to be held account to the House, then I can tell her that that is exactly the process that we are currently undertaking. The Chancellor of Exchequer is here, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will be able to make her point in debate later in the day.
BHS
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Hannah Bardell(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank you for indulging me and hope you will excuse my possible ignorance of the parliamentary process, but I am somewhat confused by the Minister’s responding halfway through the debate, before all Members have had the opportunity to bring forward the concerns of their constituents.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Lady has herself made clear in asking that question that she has not served for very long in this House, so no one would expect her to have a perfect knowledge of procedure. However, this is a Backbench Business Committee debate, so the Minister and the spokesmen for the two main Opposition parties can choose at what point they wish to enter the debate. The spokesman for the Scottish National party has already entered the debate, and the Minister has come into the debate now. The spokesman for the official Opposition will come in at a later stage. It is entirely up to them and to the occupant of the Chair as to when that happens. I want to ensure that there is enough time for the Minister to take on the points that have been made and those that will be made later in the debate.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Hannah Bardell(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hannah Bardell
I could not agree more. The two- child policy will hit more than 872,000 families who receive support for third and subsequent children. The Government’s own national child poverty strategy recognises that the risk of poverty is much more significant in larger families than in smaller ones. Currently a third of children living in poverty live in families with three or more children. Perhaps that is why the Tory Government seek to airbrush child poverty from the statute books.
It is easy for this Tory Government to espouse theories and claim that reducing financial support to just two children will make poorer families rethink their “financial choices”. That is based on the falsehood that all children are planned and that it is possible to financially plan for children. I am sure we are aware that that is not the case. What if a second pregnancy turns out to be twins or even triplets? What about the many families who are supported or led by kinship carers? Perhaps the Tories need a biology lesson, or a simple lesson in humanity.
Such eventualities cannot be planned for, so are we telling families across these nations to stop having children, just in case? I have raised many times in Committee, and many of my colleagues have raised on the Floor of the House, the sensitive issue of children resulting from rape and the insensitive Government plan to make women justify their children in front of DWP caseworkers. Many domestic abuse charities have expressed grave concerns, and Rape Crisis Scotland has warned that the plan is “inherently unworkable”. It has asked how DWP workers will prove whether someone has or has not been raped, and said that many women would find explaining that situation extremely uncomfortable. Many women do not report to the police that they have been raped, or go years without reporting it or speaking about it, so they cannot be expected to explain it to a DWP worker.
What training will a DWP worker have to deal with rape victims? It is clear that this is an unrealistic, ill thought out and unhelpful proposal. In evidence before the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, stakeholders described it as “unpalatable”, and the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) wrote in The Guardian recently:
“A rape test for welfare is a chilling way to save money”.
I could not agree more. It just goes to show that at the height of the Tories’ insensitivity, they will quite literally leave no vulnerable group untouched in their scramble to, as they put it, balance the books. The policy will ultimately result in a complete abuse of rape victims’ privacy, leading to potentially serious emotional damage for children should they become aware that they are a child resulting from a rape. The SNP amendments would see the policy abolished, and we urge the Government to remove the two-child policy from tax credit and universal credit to ensure that no victim or child goes through the torment associated with having to justify a third child due to such an horrific crime being inflicted—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady is about to conclude.
Hannah Bardell
If we as parliamentarians are in this place to legislate for those we represent, let us legislate well and with compassion and good conscience. The proposals do not make good legislation. They are wrong for our society and wrong for this generation, so I ask Members to think again and vote with us.