Euratom Membership

Debate between Albert Owen and James Gray

Wednesday 12th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Members will have noticed that there are a large number of people here, and a large number of them have put in to speak. I do not feel inclined to apply a formal time limit yet, but roughly speaking there will be two or three minutes per Back Bencher. It would help if Members kept themselves to that limit; I reserve the option of bringing in a formal time limit later if they do not.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered negotiations on future Euratom membership.

I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear energy. I want to make it clear from the outset that this debate is not a rerun of the EU referendum debate or of the article 50 debate. This debate is about getting it right and ensuring that the UK remains a world leader in civil nuclear and in research and development.

We achieved world leader status by co-operating with others across the world under the umbrella of Euratom—or, to give it its full name, the European Atomic Energy Community. Euratom was established in the 1950s as part of the creation of the European Community. It provides the basis for the regulation of civil nuclear safeguards and control and supply of fissile material, and funds international research. The Culham Centre for Fusion Energy is one of the leading research centres in the world. The Government have indicated that Euratom and the EU are legally joined. Some say that we have to give the same notice to exit Euratom as we did to exit the EU through article 50. I disagree.

I was a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which held a comprehensive inquiry into how Brexit will affect energy. We looked at the single internal energy market, Euratom and meeting our climate change commitments. We heard evidence from across the board. Euratom was raised by many experts who work in the civil nuclear field and in research and development, as well as by academics. We received hard evidence that there is contradictory legal advice on the matter. In fact, the advice is diametrically opposed. Many believe that just because we are a member of the same institution, we must have the same jurisdiction. That is in dispute, and I put it to the Government that there are ways forward that would mean there did not have to be a cliff edge when the article 50 negotiations are complete. I sought this debate to ensure that we get the best deal possible, that we get some transitional arrangements, and that the industry is happy.

In the light of the new consensual politics that the Prime Minister has announced, will the Minister—I ask him to make a note of this—set up a working group with industry and academics, and consult Parliament, to ensure that we have the appropriate arrangements in place so that the nuclear industry and those involved in research and development can plan for the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen]

Absolutely. The hon. Lady was also a member of the Committee, and she knows the written and oral evidence we received that highlighted that point. It is important for a Select Committee to hold the Government to account, but it is also important to shape the framework and work with the Government. I urge the Minister to work with Parliament, the industry and all relevant sectors, so that we can go forwards, not backwards, and maintain the status of which we are all proud. The UK is a world leader. Let us put politics to one side and get the transitional arrangements right. Let us work together to ensure that the UK stays at the top.

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. My suggestion of self-restraint to two or three minutes per speech, until 10.30, when I intend to call the speakers who will wind up, starts now.

English Votes for English Laws and North Wales

Debate between Albert Owen and James Gray

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Albert Owen]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This debate is about North Wales, but there are important issues in South Wales and southern Scotland and England that need to be looked at, which is why we need a proper UK constitutional convention, so that we can deal with all these points properly and in a sober manner. We need decentralisation, but in a balanced way, rather than simply devolving powers from one capital city to another.

I agree with the point that the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) made about over-centralisation in some smaller countries after devolution. Instead of devolving power closer to the people, there is a tendency to have political control at the centre. I make no bones about it: in the 1970s, I was arguing against decentralisation. Some of the best devolution in the British state has been the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency move to Liverpool, the British Council move to Manchester and various bodies’ move to Scotland. Moving institutions helps to create local economies and a more balanced United Kingdom. I am certainly not happy with everything that has happened in the devolution settlement, but I believe that the response of the Conservative Government and the previous coalition Government is a sticking plaster that will cause more problems than it will create solutions. That is the reason for this debate.

I want a UK Parliament to look at defence and other issues if we are to have an English Parliament, but I am a realist and I do not think there is the appetite for that at the moment. However, the answer is not exempting Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish MPs from issues that Parliament is discussing. I do not think there is a Parliament anywhere that has different degrees of power within the legislature. Yes, some Parliaments have more than one Chamber to discuss things in detail, but the proposals in front of us, drawn from different reports and different exercises that the coalition Government put together, are wrong for a number of reasons.

I made the point that we are all elected equally on an equal franchise. We should have Second Reading debates where everyone can take part.In Committee where detailed amendments are discussed—for example, amendments dealing with health and how an English trust is run, which may affect my constituents, so they are important—I should have some input, or a chance to be on the Committee. If I do not get on that Committee, I can debate such measures on Report on the Floor of the UK Parliament. UK parliamentarians should be involved in that process. If we go down the road the Government propose, what is next on the agenda? What procedures will be passed upstairs that will exempt English Members from talking about different parts of England? That logic can be applied to the proposals as they stand, which is worrying.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Albert Owen]

I will give way one more time, because I want to hear the English dimension on this issue. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to speak for England.

[Mr Gray]

I speak as the person who was the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland for the shortest ever time: five days. That was a result of making untoward remarks on “Newsnight” in favour of some form of federal solution of the kind the hon. Gentleman describes. I want to pick up on the point he was making a moment ago on the importance of him having a say on health matters, because his constituents use the health service in England. That is true of course and I do not disagree with him, but my constituents may well use the national health service in Wales, and I can have no say in how the NHS in Wales is run. Why should it be one way and not the other?

[Albert Owen]

I understand why the hon. Gentleman makes that point, but I am talking about specialisms, not general hospitals or general practitioners. Hospitals in England used by patients from North Wales were built by North Wales people specially in those locations to serve England and Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. Let us be honest; we cannot have specialisms in every region of England and every part of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We have some of the best hospitals in the world in certain areas of the UK, and we need to be able to discuss them in the UK Parliament. It is not right to exempt MPs from that. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration at having no say on general health issues in Wales, but it is more important to look at specialisms and the reality of what our constituents face, rather than the theory to which he refers.

Fuel Poverty

Debate between Albert Owen and James Gray

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Albert Owen]

Yes. I will come on to the off-grid as well to provide some balance. I stress that Ofgem is doing a good job, but it needs more teeth. I know that we will have the opportunity to discuss both that matter and how we can beef up the regulator’s powers in forthcoming energy Bills.

I am a big supporter of winter fuel payments. The previous Select Committee included that matter in its report, to which this Government provided a response. Some people think that such payments should be modified, targeted or means-tested, but the benefit is a huge success. It is a substantial payment that is easy to claim and easily understood. I believe in universal benefits. As a nation, people contribute to the national pot, so that benefits can be given to people in need. I understand that we need a mixed package of targeted benefits in addition to the universal benefit. This particular benefit has been a huge success, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the Government have no intention of changing it. I know that there is a cost element to it, but the benefits far outweigh any negatives in this area.

I realise that there are other Members who want to speak, but it is important to highlight some of the points made by the hon. Member for Hexham about off-grid gas supply—indeed, a number of interventions have been about that matter. Households that are not connected to the gas mains experience a double whammy; many of them are in periphery areas and pay extra money for petrol and diesel, as well as having to pay more for domestic heating fuel. We need to consider that issue. For instance, liquefied petroleum gas is far more expensive than on-mains gas, and we have heard much anecdotal evidence in many debates about the huge rise in price for domestic oil and domestic LPG.

I do not believe that the Office of Fair Trading has been sufficiently proactive on this issue. I heard what the hon. Member for Hexham said about the importance of giving the OFT anecdotal evidence, which is one way forward although it is a cumbersome process. There should be a single regulator to look at gas and electricity prices, and it should consider both the grid and off-grid supply. We should have a single regulatory body, and I ask the Minister to consider that proposal for the future. There should be a single regulator looking at all domestic fuels with a view to regulating the off-grid supply as well as the grid supply, and that regulator should have real teeth and real responsibility to look after the most vulnerable people in our society, which is what the existing regulator was set up to do. In many areas, a huge number of people are not on the grid—in some areas, a majority of people are not on the grid—and they are suffering disproportionately as a result.

As the Minister may know, I have been campaigning on this issue for a long time. However, I have been frustrated by the responses that I have received from the regulator, from this Government and previous Governments, and from the gas distribution networks, agencies and energy retailers. There is no joined-up thinking on this issue—there is a blockage and things just do not happen. People who live within a short distance of gas mains are not connected to them. I am not talking about isolated properties. I am talking about villages of considerable size and hamlets that are close to the gas mains, but there is no incentive for them to be joined up, although to be fair to the Department of Energy and Climate Change the Government have had some schemes, agencies and partnerships over a number of years that have worked on that issue.

The differential between those who pay off the grid and those who pay on the grid is so great that there should be some real investment and a mechanism to provide connection to the grid, so that those people who are not on the grid can have additional choice. Choice is what I am talking about. If people wish to remain off the gas mains, it is a matter for them, but at the moment those people do not have any choice in the matter and are being hammered by domestic oil and LPG prices.

I hope that the Minister will act on this issue. I understand that new developments will need renewable sources of energy built into them when they are constructed, which I fully support—ground source pumps and other measures may be the future. However, we are talking about hamlets and villages that have been off the gas mains for an awfully long time. When coal was cheap, for historical reasons, it was okay for those communities; there was not the disparity that there is now between the price that they paid and the price that those on the mains supply paid. Today, however, because of the lack of regulation and the inability to connect people to the gas mains, there is a huge disparity between those who are on the mains supply and those who are not, and there is a huge amount of extra fuel poverty in those areas that are not on the mains supply. So it is something that we need to work on collectively. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that issue.

I want to make an overtly political point about fuel prices, which concerns the price of petrol at the pump in periphery areas. The extra fuel poverty that I have just referred to was made worse in January, because of the additional 2.5% hike in VAT, which is really hurting people. I am not talking about people who use their cars just for pleasure. I am talking about people who use their cars because there is a lack of adequate public transport in their areas and because they have to take their children to school or to leisure activities on a daily basis and the only means of transport is a larger car. Also, those people work in a communal fashion, as it were, by giving lifts to other people. Those people are paying—

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. We are drifting slightly away from the topic of the debate, namely fuel poverty, and it might be better to come back to it.