Energy-intensive Industries

Chris Green Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) on securing such an important debate at such an important time. I wholly agree with and endorse much of what has been said so far.

One of the key starting points for energy-intensive industries—the focus of this debate—is having affordable energy, but we must have reliable energy too. One of my concerns is that the energy mix we get in the coming years must be reliable, not just in its provision—there are obvious concerns with wind turbines and solar panels—but in the costs. We ought not to be susceptible or vulnerable to these massive price fluctuations that can jeopardise businesses.

I do have a broad interest in the nuclear sector, as a north-west Member of Parliament. Much of the UK’s nuclear industry is based in the north-west of England, and the Springfields fuels centre, near Preston, is not too far away. Warrington is also a key centre. If we go down the small or advanced modular routes, the leadership scene in Rolls-Royce, in Derby, will also provide very powerful growth within the UK. If we can capture the market early on and have that manufacturing and intellectual property side in the UK, we can then sell further afield.

[Sir William Cash]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the nuclear delivery group is doing an extraordinary job? In the last two months, we have moved, very substantially, down a strong, stable route towards getting better nuclear delivery.

[Chris Green]

I agree entirely. It is welcome that the Government have renewed their focus on nuclear organisations, and that groups of colleagues within Parliament are increasingly giving that focus to the nuclear sector. I appreciate that is not universally appreciated, but the narrative and strength of argument is building up for the sector. If we want to have energy-intensive industries, we need that strong foundation of reliable energy. Even if it is a little more expensive than some alternatives, that certainty of production is immensely important, because if a business is going to invest, it has to have that confidence in the first place.

When we discuss levelling up, we have to think about the energy-intensive industries in the north of England and the midlands from ceramics to the steel industry, glass and chemicals. We have to think of levelling up as focusing in a significant sense on manufacturing—and heavy manufacturing—that requires that intensive provision of energy. It would be a positive thing if the Government set out more clearly their support for those sectors. I was concerned with the Cumbrian coal mine, which was going to produce metallurgical coal for the steel industry, but that has been challenged, not because it is going to produce thermal coal, which is a different type of coal used for different reasons. We have to have that clarity and be able to support the industry when it needs it.

We have had a trend over many years of offshoring manufacturing and allowing other countries, perhaps with lower environmental standards than ours, to take our manufacturing industry. If we are looking at COP26 and the agenda that so many countries around the world focused on and championed, we have to recognise that in recent years we have been exporting manufacturing, therefore manufacturing jobs, carbon and other emissions for domestic consumption. We do not have the emissions in the UK, but we are still creating those emissions overseas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) captured the sense very well when she talked about free markets. We all ought to champion and support free markets, but we ought to be cautious when other countries around the world do not champion free markets and do not have the same appreciation of a level playing field that we do.

I welcome the Government’s direction of travel. I wish they would be even more supportive. There will be many more ways, especially listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, to make it more competitive to invest in energy-intensive manufacturing in the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) on bringing forward the debate. At the outset, he rightly highlighted the energy supplier crisis. I am sure he agrees that the Government need to do more about this crisis. He highlighted coal and the bygone days of coal, and certainly that should be a reminder to Government in terms of the lack of support that was given when the coalmines were shut down. It still has a legacy, and it is a legacy that lives on in my constituency. It is something that cannot be repeated, and that is why we need a just transition commission for the UK Government, like the Scottish Government have. We need that support as we move from a reliance on fossil fuel towards renewable energy.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South is a vocal advocate for the ceramics industry, and he should be commended for that. I hope the ceramics industry has a strong future because we need to retain all the manufacturing that we can. Support like that is welcome, and hopefully the Government will listen. The key thing is that there needs to be support for decarbonisation. Other Members spoke about tariff reductions and reducing energy costs. Energy is too high at the moment, but the Government really need to be helping industry decarbonise, and proper investment and support from Government is required. That should put some of these industries ahead compared to those elsewhere. That is where, for me, the investment needs to come from Government to help them decarbonise.

We heard from the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), who is clearly a big advocate for the steel industry. I was pleased to visit the works in her constituency, and I repeat: investment is needed to help the steel industry decarbonise. That is the future. We talk about clean green steel, and that is where Government investment is needed.

The hon. Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis), who is not in his place, also spoke about the steel industry and highlighted the fact that there is not enough money in the UK Government’s hydrogen strategy by comparison with members of the EU. I agree with him that more needs to come from the UK Government in terms of the hydrogen strategy.

We heard from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who has also always been a strong supporter of the steel industry and a strong advocate in this House. His key message to the UK Government seemed to be that it is not a sunset industry, and I agree. In fact, that message was so strong that he said it twice—in an intervention and in his speech—and I agree: the UK Government need to support the steel industry.

The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) is another advocate for the steel industry—I am kind of repeating myself here, but investment in clean green steel and decarbonisation is important. I commend her for being the only one who got something out of the Prime Minister’s speech on Monday other than Peppa Pig, so congratulations on that.

We heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always turns up at these debates and always makes a useful contribution. Again, he highlighted the importance of manufacturing and Government support for decarbonisation.

What I took out of the speech by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) was that nuclear energy is indeed more expensive. He is an advocate of nuclear energy, but it is more expensive. We are talking about taking away tariffs for renewable energy, but nobody is talking about taking away tariffs for nuclear energy or addressing the eye-watering costs.

[Chris Green]

Energy costs are clearly important, but reliability and stability of supply is also a key feature, which nuclear power would provide. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that is an important feature that we should have?

[Alan Brown]

That inflexible reliability that comes from nuclear energy means that, while we talk about the wind not blowing, the amount of base-load it pumps on to the grid means having to curtail other, renewable energy sources, because nuclear is so inflexible. So no, I do not agree. That is the problem: nuclear is the wrong energy to mix with renewables, and it really is not the future.

I was talking about tariffs and the cost of nuclear energy. There is £1.7 billion in the Red Book just to develop Sizewell C, before we get to the final investment decision. Think what that £1.7 billion could do for the steel industry, the ceramics industry or decarbonisation—and that is only to get to the final investment decision, before the Government then rush to spend £20 billion on the capital investment for Sizewell C. Then that will be added to our electricity bills under the RAB—regulated asset base—model, for the 10 to 15 years of construction of the nuclear power station, and then a 60-year contract thereafter. So do not let us talk about taking away levies for renewable energy; let us look at what nuclear energy will cost us. I urge the Government to spend that money more wisely, rather than on nuclear energy.

Finally, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who is obviously another advocate for the ceramics industry, made an interesting point about the lack of ceramics from Stoke-on-Trent in this place. I suggest to him that he make an investment: buy a lot of mugs and pottery and donate it to this place. That will help the industry and promote it here.

I am coming to the end of my remarks, and I do not want to be too flippant, because this is a very important debate. We need to see support for ceramics and manufacturing, and we need to look at how we decarbonise. Carbon capture has been mentioned. I urge the Minister to reconsider the disgraceful decision to make the Scottish carbon capture cluster a reserved cluster. That should have been given the go-ahead and it should have been one of the track 1 clusters. It incorporates carbon capture, hydrogen production, which has been mentioned as part of the future of decarbonisation, and direct carbon capture from air. It is a really important, innovative cluster and it should have been given the go-ahead. Why was it not selected? I want the Minister to answer that. Equally, I would like to hear what proper investment will be made available to help and support the manufacturing sector to decarbonise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I have to make progress. If I have a moment at the end, I will happily give way. This is a diverse sector, but we are seeking to see what may be possible. Announcements will be made in due course, should they be possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South made a very good point about eligibility criteria. He is aware—it has been referenced already in the debate—that a review is under way at the moment. A consultation ran between June and August. There were more than 30 responses, and we will make further announcements in due course. He is absolutely right to highlight the longer term, as other hon. Members have done. The Prime Minister mentioned that point in his speech on Monday. He highlighted the importance of manufacturing, of energy-intensive industries and of making sure that electricity prices over the long term are in place, so that the viability and competitiveness of those industries are ensured. He highlighted nuclear. I know there are a range of views in the room about nuclear, although happily the majority of us seem to be in favour of making progress. I hope we can do so in the months and years ahead.

I want to give my hon. Friend a couple of minutes at the end of the debate to wind up, but I have a couple of points on the long term. Obviously, we are in a long-term process of decarbonising our electricity grid. That continues and will have a real impact over the long term for energy-intensive industries, and elsewhere. There is a lot of work under way, a lot of schemes, a lot of funding and a lot of Government subsidy that has already been announced, such as the £315 million industrial energy transformation fund, £40 million of which has already been awarded, including to steel companies such as Celsa, to brick manufacturers, to glass and to metal casting. The second stage will close on 6 December.

[Chris Green]

With the £96 billion investment in the railways—we have a debate on the headquarters of the Great British Railways to come—will the Minister do all he can to ensure that Severfield steel in my constituency gets its fair share of the contracts, whether that is for bridges or other infrastructure projects?

[Lee Rowley]

I thought I was about to be asked about the headquarters of Great British Railways. We are of course seeking to find an equitable distribution of support across the country.

On ceramics, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South will be aware of the establishment of a global centre for advanced technical ceramics, which is good news. We are also supporting some transformation in glass and there is extensive ongoing work on decarbonisation options, including in steel. We are working with trade bodies at the moment and look forward to announcements in due course.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this debate to the Chamber. I am grateful to all Members for their constructive contributions. The Government are aware of the strength of feeling in the communities represented here and more broadly. We acknowledge the importance of those industries for the regions and for our country as a whole. We look forward to working with you all in due course over the coming months to see what is possible on these important issues for our country.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Chris Green Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). It was interesting to hear the contrast between the position of the Liberal Democrats a few years ago and their position now, but we have to respect those views, which do change with time.

Part of the context of this debate is the concern over energy security, which is so important. Obviously, there have been spikes in gas demand and gas prices, but we need only look at the situation in Texas and California a little while ago to see how energy supplies can be affected, which is why we in the United Kingdom need to ensure that we have energy security. As with other European countries, we ought not to be as dependent on energy supplies from countries that are not as friendly as they might be to our national interests. We need only look at random events across the globe, such as the one that happened in the Suez canal, to see how supply chains can be so dramatically affected. We therefore need that secure energy supply, and nuclear is a key part of that for the United Kingdom.

We also need firm energy, or that baseload energy. We hear a great deal of discussion about solar panels and wind turbines, whether at sea or on land, but those provide intermittent energy. We cannot rely on that energy, although it does have an important contribution to make; that is why nuclear energy ought to form a key part of our reliable energy production.

There is a great deal of interest in this area in the north-west of England. Many of our skills are centred there, whether it be Sellafield, Warrington or Heysham, and that huge wealth of talent needs to be maintained. We also have the important Springfields site near Preston, which produces our nuclear fuels. We need to ensure that the site is secured. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that, when future contracts are given for nuclear power stations, the future viability of the Springfields site in the short, medium and long term is secured within the context of those contracts. Springfields does a huge amount of good for the local economy. It is also a wonderful source of apprenticeships. These are often very high-skilled and very well-paid jobs that we ought to be promoting and certainly protecting.

Hinkley Point C is at an advanced stage of construction. We need to look at the skills being developed at that site, and ensure that they are retained within the nuclear sector, so we need to be looking at when Sizewell C will be funded and brought online.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

That is exactly the point that Vulcain Engineering in Stroud has been explaining to me. We have a fusion bid in at the moment, which is an amazing opportunity, but the company is very clear that if we do not have another nuclear project in play we will lose so many of those jobs and skills—not only from the south-west, but from the whole UK. They will go abroad and will not come back.

[Chris Green]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We need to secure those jobs and we need, as early as possible, to give that reassurance to engineers and others and say to them, “Your future is in the nuclear industry.” In that way, people can be focused on sticking with the industry and looking for that next job. It is about building that fleet of nuclear power stations. Whether it is Sizewell or further power stations down the line—there are already eight sites that have been identified for future nuclear—we need to give workers the reassurance that their skills are needed within the sector.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend rightly referred to the phrase “a fleet of nuclear power stations”. Of course, in that context, Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C would be the aircraft carriers, as would anything in the future in Wylfa, but there are also opportunities for the smaller frigates. That is where the small modular reactors being proposed by Rolls-Royce could come as an extremely useful addition to those aircraft carriers. Does he agree?

[Chris Green]

That is such an important point. I agree entirely that we already have the larger-scale nuclear reactors and the established technology. It is so important that we look at SMRs and AMRs, and at the leadership that can be provided in a consortium by Rolls-Royce. If we get in early and develop that technology in the United Kingdom, we can export it around the world and create more wealth in the United Kingdom from this incredibly important source of energy and the power stations.

[Bob Stewart]

As I listen to discussions on the expansion of nuclear capability in this country, it slightly worries me that we have not talked about the security of those assets. My worry is that they could be interfered with by some foreign power in a cyber-attack. That must be part of all the planning for these places.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Green]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The physical security is one aspect, but the cyber-security, including firewalls and other protections, is immensely important to the sector. This energy provision is a key strategic interest and we cannot allow anything to interfere with it, but I am sure that the Minister and the experts in the sector are well aware of those threats.

[Alan Brown]

On security, I presume that the hon. Gentleman shares my concerns about China General Nuclear being involved at Hinkley and still being in the mix for Sizewell C.

[Chris Green]

I am concerned about the strategic national interest, but I think that most people at home would need to have reassurance on this: the security risk of the technical aspects, to which people might be more sensitive, is different from the financial aspects, which is what the Chinese involvement is at the moment. Those are two very different things. However, I do acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

[Mark Jenkinson]

On security, the Office for Nuclear Regulation is considered to be one of the best nuclear regulators in the world. I certainly have faith in its being able to do its job, but is not the reason why state-backed companies are involved in nuclear construction that they have the money to put in up front? Is not this legislation exactly what we need to remove the need for them to be involved?

[Chris Green]

I agree entirely that there are huge challenges for the private sector to come up with the cash for the nuclear sector, because of providing the money up front; it takes such a long time to build a power station before energy or electricity can be produced, and people can get returns for their money. That is why the regulated asset-based model is key. It has been used in other areas successfully, so it is now seen as a reliable way of financing large projects.

Now is the time to make progress in this area. We have the skills base, the national need and the national security questions. All these things come together at the same time to make a compelling argument, so I am pleased that the Government are bringing this legislation forward, whether it is for the larger-scale nuclear reactors or the smaller-scale nuclear reactors. Let me finally say to my hon. Friend the Minister—I know that he has an interest in this—that, in the slightly longer term, if we do develop the fusion reactors, perhaps this funding model could be used there.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green). I speak wearing my hat as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the environment, and I want to touch on some of the environmental issues addressed by some Opposition Members.

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima: the names of the world’s nuclear accidents haunt people around the planet to this day. Fears of lethal invisible radiation killing thousands of people and laying waste swathes of the planet—these are very audible concerns. But then there are the facts. No one died from Three Mile Island, and studies afterwards showed that there was no measurable increase in cancer rates. One person died from Fukushima. Again, post-accident studies showed no measurable impact on cancer rates.

Then there is Chernobyl. I have been to Chernobyl—to Chernobyl village itself. I went with the United Nations, which spent a long time studying the medical impact of the world’s worst nuclear accident for 15 years after it happened. There I saw the alarming sight of happy villagers who had refused to leave after the accident and were taking the opportunity to restore the beautiful Chernobyl village church; they took a delight in showing me around it. I met a mother in Chernobyl village who had conceived and given birth to a totally healthy baby. Yes, 41 rescuers died of acute radiation sickness in the immediate aftermath of the accident, and there was a measurable increase in childhood thyroid cancer, which is, luckily, vanishingly rare, but otherwise the UN scientists found no measurable negative medical effects from the nuclear accident itself and concluded they had been vastly exaggerated.

We have now had nuclear power around the world for nigh on 70 years, and it has proven to be just about the safest and greenest form of energy. Safety is measured in the industry in terms of deaths per terawatt-hour of energy production, taking all direct and indirect deaths into account, including through the supply chain. For coal, it is 24.6 deaths per terawatt hour; for oil, 18.4; for biomass, 4.6; and for gas, 2.8. For nuclear, it is 0.07. Yes, that is a bit higher than wind, solar and hydropower, although in roughly the same ballpark, but several orders of magnitude lower than other forms of power, and in terms of CO₂ emissions, nuclear produces less than hydropower. It is about the cleanest and safest form of energy in the world, and it is, as we have heard today, massively scalable.

So why have we not embraced it? I will tell you why:

“Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media.”

Those are not my words but those of James Lovelock, one of the most eminent environmental scientists, who founded the whole Gaia thesis. As a former environment editor of The Observer and The Times, and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the environment, I believe that the environment movement has been one of the most important and positive movements of the last half century. The fact that we are all environmentalists now—including the Queen, I note—proves the positive impact the movement has had. However, the environment movement made a major strategic error by campaigning so hard against nuclear power. Increasingly, many environmentalists agree. Even as Fukushima was still smoking, George Monbiot, the environmental leader, had a damascene conversion and started making the moral case for nuclear power.

If we believe that climate change is the biggest threat to the planet, we have to use every tool in the toolbox to combat it. We have a moral obligation not to campaign against the one technology that can probably help more than almost any other to get to net zero.

[Chris Green]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that with nuclear we have existing established technologies that can be used and rolled out, even though the timescale in the Bill is reasonably long, but other technologies that we would desire to come down the line in the future are not established and currently cannot work at the scale we need?

[Anthony Browne]

I absolutely agree. As I said, we have had nuclear for 70 years and we know that it works. The point I was about to come to, which my hon. Friend touched on earlier, is that the French have 70% of electricity produced by nuclear and they have a very well-established industry. It is not politically controversial at all. They have made it work and made it cost-effective. That is one of the reasons why France has far lower carbon dioxide emissions that we do in the UK. We should change to other technologies. We heard mention of tidal power earlier—yes, absolutely. However, there have been many projects to try to make tidal power work over the past few decades and none of them has yet quite succeeded, although we should still carry on trying.

As I have said many times in this House, the UK has had a really good track record in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, roughly halving them. Our per-capita emissions are now lower than those of many other countries, including green icons such as Denmark and Norway, but France has had lower emissions than us for decades because of nuclear power. I used to live in Belgium and got my electricity bills from France, and they used to have to say where the electricity came from: “nonante-neuf pour cent nucléaire”, which is—in Belgian French, not French French—“99% nuclear power”. That was always a delight for me. Driving around France, nuclear power stations are all over the place. It is not a political issue; people are very comfortable with it.

The environment movement has been very successful in demonising nuclear power beyond any scientific justification. That in part is why UK Governments have been so nervous, and it has meant as a country we have gone from being a world leader in nuclear power and one of the first to introduce it to being a straggler with a semi-clapped-out sector, as we have heard, with all these power plants going out and without much expertise, so that we end up depending on foreign companies and foreign Governments to be able to do anything. We have to build up our capacity again as a country. As we move away from nuclear fuels, we need a strong nuclear sector more than ever.

Nuclear Fuel Manufacturing

Chris Green Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has articulated so many of the arguments and points in this debate so well. It was a great pleasure to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) to see the amazing facility at Springfields, and to get such a strong sense of how key it is—not just to our nuclear future, but in the framework of our energy future—and the importance of nuclear as a reliable form of energy. This, after all, is what the debate is about.

I not only met the organisation there; the National Nuclear Laboratory is sited there as well. I heard the powerful representations and views of the trade unions, Unite and Prospect. Their championing of the workers there, and the clear collaboration and close relationship between the management of the site, the workers and the union movement, is such an important thing for the future of any organisation. Working together is such a key part of the success and, hopefully, the ongoing future success of the site, but we need to understand what ought to be a fairly straightforward debate.

Fundamentally, we need clean, reliable and affordable energy to meet not only our current needs but our future needs as well. We do not know what the future will bring, but I would certainly like to see far more industry being located in Britain. China, India and many other countries around the world have been very competitive. We have been losing a great deal of heavy industry, and we need an energy supply that industry and heavy industry can use in an affordable way to be competitive with those countries, and with Germany as well. Germany is going down in terms of nuclear, but by doing so it is going up in terms of coal and other fossil fuels. That does not really fit in with what we normally hear about our European neighbours, which is that they are far more environmentally friendly than us. By turning their back on nuclear, they are embracing carbon emissions.

With our ambitions for COP26 and our leadership in this area, we ought to be looking at those sources of power that can reduce carbon emissions. It is the Government’s agenda; it is the international agenda. Nuclear is a key part of that, but we have to think about the steps that we need to take to get there. There was a bit of controversy recently about coking coal being produced in Cumbria rather than being imported for the British steel industry. It is so important that we take the effective and right judgments, and not only for the short term for British industry. Whether it is the Minister or the wider Government, we have to reassure industry and the nuclear sector that we have a future here, and will not export our industry overseas and feel good about exporting our carbon emissions to countries that perhaps have slightly lower expectations and standards than we do.

We need to support British manufacturing industry. We also therefore need to support reliable energy, baseload or firm energy, as I think the term is now, where we know, day or night, whatever the day of the year, we will have the energy that we need for industry and for homes—for cooking and for heating. We ought to be able to rely on that. As highlighted earlier this week in The Daily Telegraph, the UK produced a record of 14,286 MW of energy on 21 May, which is extraordinary, but earlier this week or last week we dipped down, just from wind, to 474 MW. That is not reliable energy that people wanting to keep a warm home in the middle of winter can rely on. It is not what industry can rely on, especially the steel industry. The next generation furnaces will be reliant on electricity. How can the steel industry run an arc furnace if it cannot rely on the energy supply?

It all goes together and the nuclear industry is key. This is technology that we have at the moment. We know how nuclear energy works. We know that we can produce stations that are reliable and cost-effective. We often hear about wind and solar energy, but there are significant technological problems with those forms of energy when it comes to providing firm energy. Until we have storage of that energy, so that when the peaks happen we can store the energy to take us through more difficult times, those forms of energy will not be as reliable as industry and homes need.

It is very positive that the Government have an increasingly strong hydrogen agenda. Again, that relies to a significant extent, it seems, on carbon capture and storage and that is not yet at scale or cost effective. Again, this is more technology that will probably be quite expensive and has not yet arrived. Perhaps in the longer term, we will need those technologies, but in the shorter term, we need more reliance on nuclear. That is where Springfields plays such a key part. It produces the fuels now and will produce the fuels in the future, but there is a short-term gap that needs to be bridged.

With more of our nuclear fleet being decommissioned in the very near future, we need to secure the future of the Springfields site. As My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde highlighted, we should perhaps renegotiate with the French nuclear industry to make sure that we can manufacture in the UK, perhaps under licence or whatever kind of relationship. We can do that. We also have the promise of massive investments in the nuclear fleet, because they are very expensive projects. That is some level of leverage we can use with the French, and I am sure we will be able to get a deal that ensures that we can keep those skills. That is such a key part: having Springfields there for the short, medium and longer term means we keep the skills in the United Kingdom.

Not only my hon. Friend but the team in Government and the COP 26 President have to have that ambition. We need to speak out more consistently. It is disappointing—I do not know how true it is—that the sense in Glasgow is that the nuclear industry is not being welcomed to participate in COP 26. It ought to be a key part of it. I hear the COP 26 President speak passionately on a regular basis about other forms of energy, but I do not hear the same passion about the nuclear industry. For the nuclear sector, for long-term investment, we need to hear far more about the British Government’s commitment to the sector—not just Springfields but the sector more widely—because that is what creates confidence. If people, whether from my constituency or more likely my neighbours’ constituencies of Fylde, Blackpool North and Cleveleys or even Preston, are to take up an apprenticeship, they must have confidence in the future. There are other companies—British Aerospace and others—that can take that talent, but Ministers need to give confidence to the next generation of engineers and scientists and other people coming through that this is a career for them.

We have to see the sector also within the framework of national security and strategic national interest. If we lose the skills and the businesses, it is very difficult if not impossible to bring them back. It is also a question of Hinkley C and the skills there. We need to have that certainty about building the rest of the nuclear fleet, when that is going to happen and what type of nuclear fleet we are going to have. If those engineers and that talent at Hinkley C do not have jobs to go to, they will use their talents in other projects around the country. When we get around to building the next nuclear power station, that talent will be gone. For reliability and effectiveness in terms of delivery, we have to secure that talent, just as we need to secure the talent in Lancashire. It ought to be seen as a key part of the levelling-up agenda, not just for championing Lancashire, the north west and the border, and the north of England, but even for Derby North. I do not know what kind of next-generation nuclear fleet we are going to have, but Derby is going to be a key part if we choose to have small modular reactors, perhaps of the Rolls Royce design. I am sure we have a strong voice in Government championing the cause. It would be lovely to hear it a bit louder.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Finally, but not least, Richard Graham. Just to say that we need to start the wind-ups at 3.28 pm at the latest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Betts. Thank you for your guidance. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I have a funny feeling that it might not be a pleasure for other hon. Members to listen to my contribution, because, not for the first time, I might be presenting a minority and contrary view in the room. That said, I congratulate the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on initiating the debate. It is only right that an MP fights to retain and create jobs within his or her constituency. He has been ably supported in that by the hon. Members for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick), for Bolton West (Chris Green), for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) and by—from the adjacent constituency—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as well as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham).

It is clear that Springfields has been an important employer through the years, with highly skilled jobs that are well paid. It is clearly very important to the north-west region of England, which I appreciate. However, if we are looking forward, when we consider the need for the production of nuclear fuel within the UK, we need to look at the strategic picture. In that strategic picture, we have to ask whether nuclear energy is required at all.

Even more important, we need to understand the cost and risks of nuclear energy and the state of the nuclear energy generation market. There are too many false narratives from the nuclear industry, though it is very successful at lobbying. Briefings from EDF argue that it is the only proven reliable low-carbon technology—many hon. Members have said that today—but, by way of an example, last year, Scotland generated 97% of the equivalent of its electricity demand from renewable energy.

Looking ahead to Sizewell, EDF argues that, with Sizewell being a copy of Hinkley Point C, there will be cost savings in that building. That might be the case design-wise, but there are different access and construction logistics to consider at Sizewell and the fact that it is still mired in the planning and environmental impact assessments, before it can proceed on to detailed design, means that nothing is certain in terms of cost at Sizewell.

It is also nonsense to say that these projects are cost-comparable with other technologies. The reality is that Hinkley Point C has a strike rate of £92.50 per megawatt-hour, for a 35-year concession contract, compared with offshore wind, which now comes in at £40 per megawatt-hour for just a 15-year concession contract. At the moment, nuclear is roughly four or five times more expensive than onshore and offshore wind. Even if the Government agree a regulated asset base funding model for Sizewell, that will not account for such a cost differential.

[Chris Green]

I do not want to debate whether the hon. Gentleman ought to approve of nuclear, but there is a question about the reliance on wind or solar panels. Perhaps there is a surge or abundance of energy at one point, but if at night we have high pressure and no wind, how do we power things at that point? At the moment we would typically be reliant on gas or coal. What will the source of power be in those times?

[Alan Brown]

I will come on to that. The hon. Gentleman himself touched on carbon capture and storage. It has not been proven at scale yet, but it is nearly there. We are looking at hydrogen. The Government have their own hydrogen production targets, as have the Scottish Government. Hydrogen can clearly be used from storage. The regulatory regime should be changed for the capacity market so that storage can be collocated with renewables and used to access the capacity market. The Electricity Act 1989 should be changed so that electricity released from storage is not double charged as a generator, which happens at the moment. There are other things in terms of Government strategy and regulation that would help advance the situation.

[Chris Green]

It is not quite the same as nuclear fusion, which is always 50 years away—or that is what is always said. On the other technologies, be it battery storage or carbon capture and storage, is there any certainty about the dates when these will become viable technologies?

[Alan Brown]

I have to admit that there is not absolute certainty, but it is predicted that the first key carbon capture and storage plant could be up and running before another nuclear power station will be constructed. We are getting very close to the final investment decisions on these carbon capture and storage plants. That in itself will give the market an indication of where that is going. We will be looking at the next year or two for the final investment decisions.

Turning to the recent history of the nuclear sector in the UK, it is obvious there has been a market failure as well as a failure of Government strategy. Clearly, that has impacted Springfields in the demand for nuclear fuel. Hinkley point C is the most expensive nuclear project in the world. When the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) became Prime Minister, she threatened a U-turn on this project, but then caved in and signed the deal anyway. The cost for Hinkley is now estimated at £22.5 billion, which is an increase of 25% on the estimated cost when the deal was signed. The Government tell us that cost increases are tied up in the risk and that EDF carries that burden. The reality is that no company can afford losses of £4.5 billion or 25% of the original cost estimates, so electricity bill payers must be paying for it somewhere along the line.

The sign-off for Hinkley was supposed to send signals to the market to allow other sites to be developed to generate competition and bring down prices. Since then, we know that Toshiba has walked away from developing Moorside and Hitachi pulled out of Wylfa and Oldbury. The good news for us electricity bill payers is that £50 billion to £60 billion of expenditure has not been committed. From a UK Government perspective, that should have been the realisation that their nuclear aspirations were in tatters. Unfortunately for Springfields, that is three pipeline projects that they could have accessed now lost. Worse, Hinkley point C is now predicted to come online in June 2026 instead of 2025, but it is a possible 15 months away on top of that, so it could be September 2027 before unit 1 of Hinkley comes online. We will have to bear in the mind that the European Pressurised Water Reactors system has still not been shown to be successful. Flamanville in France is expected to generate in 2024—12 years late. Finland’s project is due to come on to the grid next year, but that is 13 years late.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Green Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

Different businesses and sectors have different views on furlough. UKHospitality is explaining that furlough is starting to become a problem, while other sectors want it extended further. On business rates and other support, the Chancellor deliberately went long in his Budget; he erred on the side of generosity. It was always about data, not dates, so that was always going to be flexible. The fundamental business rates review that we are conducting will report back this autumn.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to support UK research and development.

[Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to support UK research and development.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)]

The Prime Minister has reasserted our commitment to restoring the UK as a science superpower and to increasing Government investment in R&D to £22 billion. We continue to make progress on the R&D road map and are planning to publish the R&D people and culture strategy alongside the innovation strategy in the coming weeks.

[Chris Green]

The life sciences ecosystem is incredibly interdependent and clinical trials are a key part of it. Will my hon. Friend join me in meeting key stakeholders to discuss how we can maintain our position as a world leader?

[Amanda Solloway]

Our ambition for clinical research is for a world-leading clinical research environment that capitalises on innovation, is resilient in the face of future healthcare challenges and improves the life of patients UK-wide. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that ambition.

Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill

Chris Green Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 23rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who captured a number of key issues. He finished on the topic of national resilience, and there are so many areas in our economy and society in which we need to be more resilient. The covid crisis is a particular area of interest, but no doubt many other countries in the world and many organisations are looking at that. It may not be the opportunity on which the Advanced Research and Invention Agency might want to focus. Many other people have focused on the idea of disruptive technologies, which might be particularly well fitted to what ARIA is there to do. Those are areas where industry or sectors have perhaps become complacent, with old, established technologies, and it is about making the next-generation leap forward.

The debate has rather lent itself to the idea of the Haldane principle, going back 100 years or so—to the idea of having a research-led approach that is therefore taken away from the direction of politicians. That approach would be natural and healthy and would complement the wider research, innovation and development ecosystem. I was reassured by what my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) said; after he had conversations with a couple of his local catapults, they said that they are not worried that ARIA might step on their toes. It is a natural complement to so much else of what the Government are doing. This championing of science, technology, innovation and invention is immensely important, and it ought to be very reassuring to businesses and other organisations seeking to invest in the United Kingdom, and ideally also companies seeking to reinvest from the UK and into the UK. It sends the message right across the world that we are ambitious—the global Britain idea that we are not looking inward and downward but out to the world.

That is part of the reason for our ambition by 2027 to take our R&D spend to 2.4% of GDP. That is a stepping-stone, not the end point of the ambition. The ambition is to get to 3% in the longer term, looking to emulate other countries around the world who do that, and to be competitive. To be in the position we want to be in and ought to be in, we need to be seeking to reach that next level of 3% R&D spend, and ARIA is a stepping-stone towards that.

Ultimately we want high-tech, innovative progress in the United Kingdom. That is not an end in itself. Universities and other organisations are not an end in themselves; they are great generators of wealth to improve our standards of living, but ultimately what people around the country will be focused on is having good jobs. We want people right around the country to be ambitious: to seek jobs in this sector, and to be studying physics and mathematics and all sorts of other subjects that will come into this territory for research and development, invention and innovation.

It will be interesting to see how in future ARIA works on that invention side of things with UKRI, which is still relatively new, to get those inventions into innovation and into businesses, and to create those works and those jobs of the future. We could go on to mention so many different topics from nuclear fusion to the next generation of batteries to satellites. There are so many sectors that involve artificial intelligence and life sciences, and so many of them are in the UK. We are already in a leading position and we have the opportunity to make that leap forward. We do not know what sectors will be around in 10 or more years’ time, but this is the ambition—this is the timeline, this is the vision for the future that ARIA has.

The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), started off with a war of words about where the headquarters will be, and he suggested it might end up being in London. I am sure it will not; I am sure there is a huge amount of competition around the country, and I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) made a compelling argument for Bolton. I am quite modest in my ambitions and would not demand that the headquarters be located in Bolton West; I will sacrifice my personal ambition for Bolton North East—or even Bolton South East. Where the headquarters ends up is incredibly important as it is part of the Government’s levelling-up agenda, but will my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway), the science and innovation Minister, confirm that, wherever ARIA is based, it will be a collaborative organisation that will do so much for the United Kingdom?

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Green Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

The local restrictions support grants, additional restriction grants and Christmas support payments are all available now for businesses through their local authority. I know that the Secretary of State takes these businesses very seriously. Throughout this whole process, since back in March, he made sure that all his Ministers talked to local government to make sure that we do get those payments out promptly.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to support the life sciences sector.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)]

The Government have invested approximately £1 billion through two life sciences sector deals, helping to generate significant industry investment in the UK. Last year the industry had a turnover in the UK of £80.7 billion.

[Chris Green]

The life sciences sector is a truly international endeavour, as can be so clearly seen with the recent vaccine research efforts. With worries in the sector about our ongoing relationship with European countries and the European Union, would my hon. Friend confirm that the concerns of the life sciences sector are of paramount importance in the ongoing negotiations?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Clearly, the UK’s relationship with the EU is subject to ongoing negotiations, but as we leave the EU the life sciences sector will be supported through the life sciences sector deals that I mentioned, and a new, innovative regulatory framework. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has proven itself globally to be one of the finest regulators in the world, and new international regulatory collaborations are on the way too.

Charity-funded Medical Research

Chris Green Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) and the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist)—a couple of excellent speeches, capturing the key features of what we need to be thinking about in this debate, and what the Government ought to be redoubling their efforts to focus on. We only have a day before the spending review, so hopefully the Minister will be busy after the debate, pressing the case for that vital funding.

This debate on the importance of recognising and preserving the unique value of charity-funded medical research in the upcoming comprehensive spending review is incredibly timely and incredibly important. It represents an area that has not received much attention to date; covid and its associated lockdown have had an impact on so many other aspects of our society that this area has barely been looked at. However, the consequences of the impact on the sector are profound and will be realised over many years to come, not only in terms of what it does, what it achieves and the advances it creates, but also the people working in that sector and the treatments and medicines that come from it.

We should be cautious when the Government approach anything that has unforeseen consequences. They are pulling on strings, and we quickly realise how much is unravelling. We have seen other areas of society that are facing great difficulties get funding or other support. As the thread unravels further, we are coming to the charitable medical research sector.

We initially thought the national lockdown would be for three weeks, beginning in March. It seems that round every twist and turn of the road we see yet another deadline, yet another target being drawn out; the next target was expected to be November, and it has been pushed back to Easter. We will soon, after a fashion, be celebrating our first anniversary of national lockdown in one form or another, and the impact over that one-year period is profound.

We know that the direct impact, in terms of health, has already been about 5 million fewer hospital appointments, tens of millions fewer GP appointments and millions fewer cancer screenings. We know the impact on mental health as well. That is more cause for the charitable sector in medical research to redouble its efforts in terms of work and to gain the support it needs from the Government.

We have a sense of the economic impact, which is counted in the hundreds of billions of pounds. That is extraordinary—incomprehensible; but more locally it is affecting our high streets, of which charity shops are a key part. Many research charities gain a very significant amount of their income from high-street charity shops, as do many other charities, such as the hospice movement. So much of that income has been taken away.

We also see the terrible impact on education. Schoolchildren have lost about six months of the school experience. Many schools have done a great deal of good work to ensure that loss is not too great, but many others have not been able to do so. We know that those children have lost out significantly, and some children in my constituency—and I am sure those of other hon. Members—have already missed a couple of weeks, or perhaps two sets of missed weeks, of school when classes, or even year groups, have been sent home because of covid. Therefore many students have lost four weeks of education, and by Christmas it might be six weeks. This is going to carry on until Easter.

The impact on the university sector is enormous, disrupting education. Where will those children and young adults end up? Hopefully, many of them will end up as technicians, engineers or researchers in the charitable medical research sector. Their loss of education, of experience, will have an impact on that sector in the future, and it will have an impact on their ability to get those jobs—those skilled, brilliant jobs. Their ability to get such jobs will be hindered partly because the jobs will not exist if this situation continues, but also because they may not get the experience or qualifications they need.

We can see how this reverberates through our society. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) led a debate on the closure of sport and gyms, and the impact that their absence will have on health. In normal times, if we are told to jog on, or take a hike, that is seen as quite negative—at least, it always has been when I have heard it. However, for the medical research charity sector, jogging on and taking a hike—or doing sponsored walks or marathons—are a major source of income. That has gone. The London marathon this year was for élite athletes, and the Bolton marathon, which was to have been run for the first time in many years, was cancelled. Those opportunities—the core ways in which the charitable sector receives much of its income—have been taken away. Who would have thought that that would happen, when we were deciding in March to go down the route we did? I dare say none of us had any anticipation of where things would end up today.

It is important to understand the scale of the sector, which is enormous. For example, in 2018 the Association of Medical Research Charities invested £142 million into 640 rare disease projects. That is investment on a colossal scale. Probably tens of thousands of people overall are involved in clinical trials—particularly in the charitable medical research sector—so there is an impact on recruitment for clinical research, and although 3,203 or 49% of commercial and non-commercial studies are open to recruitment, only 26 have recruited a participant since 1 June. That is a huge loss of recruitment to clinical trials.

What does that mean? We have to think of the meaning and impact of those significant figures. It is about a treatment, in one form or another, that could and should be given to people for a clinical trial period. It might not be effective, but it might well be. A trial would give people hope of receiving treatment and support. That is particularly important in relation to rare diseases, where people often feel neglected because there is not the focus on those diseases that there is on higher-profile disease conditions. Medical trials give people hope that treatment for rare diseases is being focused on and supported and that, although it may take years, a treatment will arrive at some point. However, there is an impact on people and their families when clinical trials are closed down and that hope is taken away.

As the lockdown caused by covid rolls on, the period for restarting a clinical trial is pushed further and further back. That is not just because of the duration of the lockdown and difficulty in recruiting people to the trials, but because of funding. If there is no funding, the organisations cannot even start the process of clinical trials. The British Heart Foundation is funding more than 1,700 research staff, working on more than 800 research projects, and it also funds 440 early-career researchers. That is a huge number of people in the sector. The Francis Crick Institute in London has 1,500 scientists, students and support staff working across a variety of disciplines, and looking at illnesses such as cancer, heart disease, stroke, infections and neurodegenerative diseases.

Large organisations are often more resilient because they have better funding streams. Smaller organisations, perhaps more often looking at rare diseases, have less funding for what they are doing, so they are far less resilient. All of this, coming together, gives a clear and powerful reason why the Chancellor, the Minister and others need to act to ensure that this focus—this funding—is there on a sector of our society that is often neglected and not thought about but that, when our friends and our families are hit, is so highly valued and so highly prized.

I urge the Minister to ensure that life-saving medical research can continue throughout and beyond the pandemic lockdown. Government must establish a life sciences charity partnership fund commencing with a commitment in the spending review to an initial £310 million for 2021-22. That may have to continue into following years. It is estimated that, to recover, if Easter sees the end of the lockdown period, the challenge for the sector may carry on for another four years or more. The funding has to follow the sector for at least that period of time.

In conclusion, if we are—I do not like the phrase—to build back better and ensure value for money and the effectiveness of research, we must recognise that the north of England, and particularly Manchester and its surrounding areas, has great expertise in this area. When we are looking at value for money and cost-effectiveness, the golden triangle is magnificent in so many ways. However, when looking at investing in the future, the medical research sector and Government should be thinking about Manchester central, the city of Manchester and the wider area. I hope the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) will press the Minister on that point as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is pleasure to serve under you, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) on securing today’s timely debate and the Backbench Business Committee on granting such a debate.

“A statistic will never truly capture the devastating impact research cuts will have on all of us. Research is hope. Research is more time with your loved ones. Research is improved quality of life. Its value is immeasurable.”

Those are not my words, but those of Aisling Burnand, the chief executive of the Association of Medical Research Charities. We have heard much today about the investment the AMRC has put into lives of so many of our constituents. Some 151 charities, which have joined together with the public through their fundraising efforts, have spent £14 billion over the last decade in funding 17,000 research staff and driving 213 clinical trials, advancing the frontiers of medicine and enhancing lives as they go. As we have heard in today’s debate, they also bring resources back Not only does every £1 invested bring 25p back into the economy on a permanent basis, but charities save our NHS so much money through their early interventions and by advancing the frontiers of medicine.

However, covid-19 has disrupted the incredible story of how charities play a central role in advancing science and the UK’s global excellence in this field. That partnership really makes its mark in advances in medicine.

[Chris Green]

The hon. Lady is making some excellent points. Does she share the view that there is immense collaboration with the private sector, universities and research institutes, as well as the charity sector, and that that ecosystem, which is so often talked about, is key to our position in the world and our contribution to the world?

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The interdependence of the various sectors in coming together really puts the UK in a unique position in the way it advances so much medicine. Over recent months, in response to covid-19, we have also seen the incredible work of all the sectors, which have come together to try to beat this virus. Charities play that crucial role, and they are playing it today as they try to support individuals through this difficult time.

We know that a £310 million shortfall in funding will have significant consequences. Cuts always do. As we heard, it will take about four and a half years to recover from the downturn. Tragically, that will all be too late for some. This year alone, it is predicted that we will see a 41% decline in research spending. Many PhDs, fellowships and other opportunities will be denied, cutting vital skills in medical research. If postgraduate researchers do not have the opportunity to apply their skills and knowledge, we will be at risk of losing a generation of medical research. That is why significant investment is needed to save the sector.

With 34% of staff furloughed, clinical trials have been paused and delayed to protect research in the longer term. Without additional funding, there is little hope that those trials will restart. That means that families, such as that of a constituent who came to me, will never see the opportunity to extend their lives and to have a quality life for longer.

The sector is rightly calling for a life science charity partnership fund to fund the research part of its work. That would be built on a match funding principle and would start with a three-year programme of investment into research. The Medical Research Council is seeking a commitment of £310 million in its first year to match the funding it has lost this year due to the lack of funding resource. Not only will that research-driven approach help with economic recovery in the wider field and reduce unemployment, but it help us to continue to lead advances in medicine.

Like all charities, medical research charities have not been served well during this crisis. In fact, that has been a major oversight on the part of the Government. Medical research charities provide not just research but crucial support to their beneficiaries. Over the last six months, I have met many research charities, which have told me about the work they are undertaking, and that work has expanded during the pandemic.

Many organisations provide support services to the people and families who depend on them. The NHS is less accessible, so people have turned to the charities they know and trust for additional advice and support. Regular therapeutic interventions have often not been available on the NHS because of its focus on covid-19—we all understand that—and appointments have been cancelled. People have turned to the charities they know and the relationships they have to seek advice on issues such as where to get food, shielding, what protections they have for their health, and how to support relatives and family members at such a delicate time.

Other organisations, which would normally provide psychological support or respite support or perhaps fund parents to stay near their child as they receive treatment, have also been under great strain. Many of these organisations have described demand for their helpline more than doubling as people turn to them for support. However, they have not received additional support from the Government in response to covid.

Yes, the Government did provide £750 million to all charities, although we must remember that 168,000 charities have had to share that money. However, I must stress that that money was for additional support directly relating to covid-19. Of that money, £2 million went straight to the hospice movement, and rightly so, although that money is now spent, and more is needed. The rest is being divided between the larger charities, and there is a pot for smaller organisations. However, the majority of charities have not received anything over this time, and we have heard today that medical research charities certainly have not had their share.

This was all a direct response to covid, and we have seen more demands being placed on charities, as I have set out. That has also meant that more investment is needed by those organisations. Charities themselves may have direct funding for funded spend, but they are really struggling with their core costs. If their core costs are not met, the charities cannot deliver the specific outcomes we all know so much about from our constituents. It is vital, therefore, that the Government step up tomorrow with a package to address those core costs. Charities have already lost £10 billion in the last six months, and they predict they will lose 60,000 staff. Some 20% of charities will not be there if the Government do not make that investment. They say they value charities, but charities need valuing with resources, and without those resources, they will not continue.

We know that fundraising opportunities have all but dried up. We know that retail, which has been successful since its return, has now been locked down yet again, and therefore the income of organisations is in a perilous situation. That is why the Government need to step up at this point. Many charities did not qualify for the grants that were available, and of course have struggled and still have bills to pay. As the charity sector says itself, rightly and proudly, it has never been more needed, but I would add that it has never been more in need. That is why it is vital that, after today’s debate, the Minister goes back to the Treasury one more time to make the case for research charities and all charities, to make sure they have the research support, funding and investment they need.

Charities are not an optional extra. We know that because, as we have heard during today’s debate, the outcomes they deliver—in not only research but care support and civil society—transform people’s lives. Some 7 million people every year generously donate to medical research charities, often as the result of personal experience or the loss of a loved one. The paucity of the response compared with the public contribution needs to be addressed. Charities stretch their pound further than any other sector, and they provide the highest standards in research and care. They are essential, yet in just a few months’ time, they may no longer be there. We need a robust response from the Minister today, and we need a financial response from the Chancellor tomorrow.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (James Davies) on securing this important debate and raising the issues currently affecting medical research charities. I thank all hon. Members for the quality of their contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd spoke of how the work of the medical charities is invaluable—he mentioned the British Heart Foundation and Cancer Research UK—and of the practical benefits that those charities bring.

The hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist)—who I am sure would look very dignified in a pink boa, as have I, in my time—commented on the work of life sciences charities, specifically in relation to breast cancer. We recognise that work, which affects so many lives. The Government’s research and delivery parties are committed to trying to get the clinical trials started as soon as we can. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) talked about the varied work that is being done, and mentioned the marathon elite runners. I have run the marathon twice, although I am sad to say that this year I was not invited to join the elite runners. The work is incredibly important, and this medical research is constantly on my mind.

The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mentioned the work of the AMRC, also acknowledging what the charities do in giving advice. It is very important that we get that advice and I am sure that it has been welcomed.

The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) mentioned the work of the Teenage Cancer Trust. We have been able to retain the research that is needed, and we absolutely acknowledge the vital work that it does. We have indicated in our R&D road map that we acknowledge the work of these charities.

The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) mentioned the work of life science charities and their key role in medical breakthroughs, as well as the many medical research charities that are involved. I would like to acknowledge the work that is carried out by the thousands of charities, including medical research charities, across the UK. The people who work and volunteer for them demonstrate huge passion and a commitment to the incredibly important causes. I saw the passion at first hand during the time I was working at Help the Aged, which is now known as Age UK. I have also seen it in my time as a science Minister when working with the medical research charities over the last year. The research that they collectively support has a huge impact and improves our health and wellbeing, and the Government have been working with them over the past few months to see how the research can be best supported.

Science, research and innovation are central to the Government’s ambitions. As I have mentioned, we published our R&D road map in July to ensure the UK is the best place in the world for scientists, researchers and entrepreneurs to live and work. Although we recognise the challenging economic and fiscal climate, the Prime Minister only this month re-emphasised the importance of science and innovation to our future prosperity and our ambition to move towards investing 2.4% of GDP in research and development. The UK is a world-leading research base and has global expertise across a wide range of disciplines—not least in medical research, where we boast a vibrant ecosystem that brings together researchers in some of the world’s top universities to work collaboratively with their counterparts in leading pharmaceutical companies, clinical researchers in the NHS and those supported by medical research charities.

Charity-funded research has been a distinct part of the UK research system, and I am proud to say that the UK is home to many globally recognised medical research charities, which are an integral part of the world-leading life sciences sector. The health and wellbeing of millions of people in the UK and around the world depends on the medical advances that have come from research funded by charities. I want to take the opportunity to give thanks for the contributions made by research charities, both to the important areas of research that they fund and to the many brilliant researchers they support.

Additionally, the Government have provided significant support to research charities through investments in research infrastructure, such as Manchester Cancer Research Centre and the Institute for Cancer Research in London, which provided the facilities and expertise needed by Cancer Research UK to carry out its incredible work, and through collaborations such as the UK Age Research Forum, where UK Research and Innovation works with a range of charities, including the British Heart Foundation, Versus Arthritis and Alzheimer’s Research UK, to support research that makes a difference to the lives of older people. Through direct funding, Research England is providing £204 million this year to support charity-funded research in universities in England. Through the tax system, over £1.3 billion in tax relief on donations was received in 2018-19 through gift aid, benefiting all charities, including those carrying out vital medical research.

All that shows that we as a Government are committed to supporting research into diseases and conditions that affect so many people around the UK. I know the pandemic has been a challenging time for charities, and that all parts of society and the economy have been affected by the covid pandemic—medical research charities and the research that they support are no exception. We have heard during the debate that they have suffered a series of blows to their income. Many charity shops around the country have been unable to remain open. Fundraising events, which are so important for raising money for research and for raising the profile of these causes, have been cancelled or postponed. The impact of the loss of income has had an impact on the research programmes that charities are currently supporting; as we have heard, it will affect their plans for future research.

In response to the challenges, the Government have provided significant support both across the economy and to charities more specifically. The coronavirus job retention scheme has enabled charities to avoid making staff redundant and to continue their vital work. During these unprecedented times, however, the Government have depended on the expertise of our research base to respond to the enormous challenges we have faced. Our scientists and medics, including those supported by charity funding, have had a key role in taking forward our response to the pandemic. We established a vaccine taskforce to co-ordinate all the work going on across Government, academia and industry, and we accelerated the development and manufacture of covid-19 vaccines. Through the university research sustainability taskforce, we quickly gained a fuller understanding of the impact of covid-19 on research in universities, including that supported by charities.

Many hon. Members mentioned the SURE fund. As a result of the university research sustainability taskforce, we put in place the sustaining university research expertise fund to support university research that has been impacted by the pandemic and to secure researchers’ jobs in universities. The fund has now gone live, with expressions of interest from universities expected this week. Universities are required to pay particular attention to the medical research that charities have traditionally supported when allocating the funding. In addition, we have provided £60 million to support PhD students whose research has been affected or delayed by the pandemic, to give them the time they need to complete their work. We have also supported UKRI to commit more than £95 million to research to tackle covid-19 and we have repurposed research grants with a total value of £80 million to address the effects of the pandemic.

All of that sits alongside the road map we published in July, which sets out the Government’s long-term plan to bolster the UK’s world-class credentials in research and development and to deliver economic growth and societal benefits across the UK for decades to come.

[Chris Green]

For long-term research projects that take a great while to get off the ground and perhaps recruit people for clinical trials—including people studying at university at the moment—a £320 million commitment tomorrow would give a great deal of reassurance. Obviously the Minister cannot commit to that here and now, but will she reassure us that that is on her mind and that she will make her best endeavours with the Chancellor?

[Amanda Solloway]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which I will refer to in my remarks.

The Government’s goal is to further strengthen science research and innovation across the UK to ignite the UK’s economic recovery, boosting productivity, creating new jobs and improving people’s quality of life. Within that, we also have a commitment to the levelling up agenda. The road map sets out our wish to build on the UK’s strengths in the life sciences sector. I look forward to continuing that work with the medical research charities as we develop a more detailed plan for delivering the road map’s ambitions.

Medical research charities are an important part of the UK research landscape. As I have set out, the Government recognise that and already provide significant support through the tax system, the research funding system and the many measures introduced to counter the impacts of the pandemic. While it would not be appropriate to respond in detail at this stage about the spending review, I assure hon. Members that the issues they have raised have been noted and in the coming weeks we will continue to work with the Association of Medical Research Charities on how they can be addressed, how we can support this vital research and how we can maintain the UK’s excellent capabilities in medical research while recognising the challenging fiscal circumstances we face.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Green Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point, and I think we have all been appalled by what we have read and heard. He will know that the National Crime Agency is leading investigations right now into the current set of allegations. He will also know that a pilot operation was run in autumn 2018, bringing together a whole range of agencies. In the past 18 months, there have been more than 200 investigations. I confirm to him that the enforcement of the minimum wage is something that HMRC investigates, and in 2019-20 it has issued across the country 1,000 penalty notices.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for championing the life sciences sector and my hon. Friend the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth for championing the cause of universities and researchers, but we also have a superb charitable medical research sector in the United Kingdom. With the loss of funding due to covid-19, will my right Friend commit to working with the medical research charities to ensure that they can continue to work on creating the next generation of medical treatments for patients?

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Green Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Lady is mistaken if she believes that the review does not look at the managerial responsibility of all the people responsible for what has happened, and we need to listen to the postmasters’ rebuke. Indeed, yesterday I discussed the matter in a meeting with chief executive Nick Read and Calum Greenhow, chief exec of the National Federation of Subpostmasters. Nick Read committed fully to the review, leaving no stone unturned, which is why I hope that with everyone coming together I can encourage postmasters to engage in the review so that we can get the answers they and the hon. Lady are looking for, to secure the redress and the answers that they need.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to support businesses during the covid-19 outbreak.

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

What steps he is taking to support the business economy during the covid-19 outbreak.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)]

The Government have introduced an unprecedented package of support. This includes grants for small businesses, a rates holiday for businesses operating in the retail, leisure and hospitality sector, a range of loan schemes covering all sides of businesses, the furlough scheme, the self-employment scheme, and a range of tax deferral schemes, all designed to help businesses through this very challenging time.

[Chris Green]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Brian and Karen Tinniswood run the Provenance restaurant in Westhoughton, but they have a deep concern about social distancing, which makes it impossible to reopen their restaurant. What consideration has my right hon. Friend given to reducing social distancing from 6 feet to 3 feet, then getting rid of it altogether?

[Alok Sharma]

The issue that my hon. Friend raises is raised with me regularly by businesses, and I completely understand the economic rationale that his constituents have outlined to him. As he will know, a review is taking place, and we will wait to see its results.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Green Excerpts

Monday 4th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

I say to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have enormous respect, that one has to look at the sum total of what the Government are putting forward. He will know that about 4 million people are being furloughed under the job retention scheme and that support is available through grant schemes, which I talked about in my response to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). Of course it is important that we support businesses, and we will continue to do that.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to support (a) vaccine manufacturing and (b) the UK life sciences sector.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)]

I announced the new vaccines taskforce on 17 April, which will expedite efforts to research and produce a coronavirus vaccine. Last week, thanks to UK Government financial support of £20 million, the Oxford vaccine entered clinical trials in humans. I can update the House that as of today 601 people have taken part in that trial. We continue to talk to Oxford to understand its manufacturing needs, and colleagues will be aware it has announced a collaboration with AstraZeneca to ensure manufacturing capacity in the UK.

[Chris Green [V]]

British scientists are working with partners around the world to develop treatments and vaccines for covid-19. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is just as important that we take the same collaborative approach to manufacturing to ensure that, wherever treatments are developed around the world, they are made available in Britain and to people right across the world as soon as possible?

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. We are absolutely committed to working with international partners in tackling the pandemic, ensuring the UK is contributing to, and indeed benefiting from, efforts around the globe. At the global coronavirus response summit, which the UK is co-hosting, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has today confirmed the £388 million from the UK towards the global £8 billion target for research and development into covid-19.