Draft Electricity and Gas (Powers to Make Subordinate Legislation) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Chris Green Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 General Committees

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.

I will not rehash in detail the function of this statutory instrument. In her comprehensive speech, the Minister gave us a good landscape of what the measures do. Essentially, they are part of the ongoing process of establishing EU network codes and guidelines through the third energy package in member state and UK legislation. As she says, some of those guidelines are completely in UK legislation; some are in UK legislation but have not yet become active; and some are in neither category. Clearly, there is a position where a number of those codes will no longer be completed on EU exit. That includes arrangements relating to networks in a number of other areas as well.

That process is not particularly in dispute. The question is rather more about what needs to be done at the point of exit to make sure the process is as smooth as possible. The procedure that has been chosen in this SI to do that is a little strange. I note that the SI did not fall foul of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and came through without reference. However, I would point out that the structure of the SI, which is a secondary piece of legislation, enables the Secretary of State to make further secondary legislation on the back of the first bit of secondary legislation. To my mind, that is a deeply unsatisfactory way of making legislation.

The Minister assures us that changes would be made in the form of affirmative SIs and would therefore be debated in this Chamber. She is obviously fully aware that those are not amendable, so we would, effectively, have a process outside primary legislation, where the Secretary of State would make regulations and the most that could happen is that we would have a debate and raise our concerns, but that would be it.

The question is how those new regulations would be advanced, with what kind of discussion and through what authorities. There is nothing on the face of this SI that indicates how arrangements would be undertaken. It says merely that the Secretary of State can make regulations in the absence of the continuing implantation in UK legislation of the EU network codes and guidelines procedure, and effectively place this within a GB remit, but clearly there is rather a lot more to it than that.

It is a question of what has happened already in terms of those EU network codes and guidelines being established in UK legislation. That has been done, for example, through extensive discussion with industry and the long-established joint European stakeholder group. There is no mention of that procedure and how it would work as far as these arrangements are concerned; there is merely the idea that the Secretary of State can do these things because he or she can. The construction of the legislation is pretty unsatisfactory in terms of how the procedure will work.

The first question for the Minister is therefore whether she is satisfied that the SI, as it stands, tells the whole story about the UK’s implementation of these arrangements for the future, or does she intend to bring forward a further SI that clarifies them and creates a more rounded and satisfactory arrangement for the future?

The second issue is the status of these changes. Are they, in the form of an SI, contingent measures that—depending on what negotiations are undertaken with the EU as regards not only exit day but the transition period that follows—might fall should we not arrive at suitable negotiated arrangements, such as continuing membership of, or close association with, the internal energy market? If there is continued membership of the internal energy market or close association with it, my understanding is that these changes will not be necessary. Indeed, a note sent out by Ofgem to all interested stakeholders in July 2018 stated:

“Our initial conclusion was that we had found nothing in the current licence conditions that would appear to become inoperable on exit day”.

On the SIs that relate to changing those operating terms, Ofgem said:

“The terms of those Statutory Instruments depend on the outcome of the UK-EU negotiations. Those Statutory Instruments will amend the law that governs the regulation of our licences and so the specific changes to our licences cannot be finalised until it is clear how the law that they operate under is changed.”

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

In the post-EU relationship that we are looking forward to, is the hon. Gentleman concerned more about the relationship between the United Kingdom and France on the undersea interconnectors or about the energy market on the island of Ireland, where there is that common framework?

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman slightly anticipates one or two things that I will say, particularly about Northern Ireland. There is substantial concern about that issue, and it ought to be addressed through the SI, but I do not think it is.

The hon. Gentleman rightly raises the issue of how interconnection will work when there are different codes at each end of the interconnector. I do not think that makes a great deal of difference to the interconnector’s efficient operation. I have other concerns about interconnectors and the UK’s relationship with the EU once we are not a member of it, but that is not an issue for today.

As far as the relationship with France is concerned, we must look at that in the wider context of how we will operate the arrangements that are already under way, such as the internal energy market and the Trans European Replacement Reserves Exchange—Project TERRE—which is an EU-wide, inter-country balancing mechanism that would be under severe strain if there were not a negotiated agreement to allow those arrangements to continue.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because it brings me to my next point. Ofgem concluded that

“any necessary licence and industry code modifications can only be fully implemented once the changes to retained EU legislation have taken effect in GB law…We consider that the potential changes identified in our initial analysis are likely to be straightforward, seeking to remedy any technical deficiencies arising from EU exit, and as such would not justify the use of an SCR”—

a significant code review. Has the Minister had discussions with Ofgem about its original position? Has its original position changed and, if so, how?

Ofgem appears to be telling us that, although it would be a nice idea to have made these changes by exit day, they are not essential to the running of the market, with one exception. Therefore, does this SI signify an intention to have no further negotiations with the EU about the internal energy market and things such as Project TERRE? Does it represent the end of the intention to negotiate further and place into law things that make a clear break with the current arrangements? Or will the Minister clarify whether, like a number of the pieces of secondary legislation relating to Euratom, these are purely contingency devices that can be set aside if new arrangements come forward to continue the relationship?

[Chris Green]

My understanding is that it is very much along the lines of the legislation that the Department for Transport has prepared. It is preparation in case, but there is no expectation that it will be applied. Does the hon. Gentleman read it similarly?

[Dr Whitehead]

Again, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, inasmuch as I am not sure which way I read this. There is certainly nothing in the SI to guide me clearly, whereas there has been in legislation, including secondary legislation, relating to membership of Euratom, for example. At the very least, I would hope that the Minister could clarify the position substantially; ideally—this would be a rather better idea—we would have an SI that set that out.

Another question follows on from the issue of whether this is a contingent break or an actual break with existing arrangements. If it is an actual break, what authorities are likely to be involved in implementing additional SIs to bring into UK legislation European legislation that is, as the Minister said, halfway in and halfway out? Would it be National Grid? Would it be Ofgem? Who would it be? At the moment, there is nothing in the SI to indicate what arrangements there would be—it says just that the Minister would be able to do these things.

I am reassured a little that the procedure would be affirmative, but there is nothing to guide us on how things would happen; indeed, Energy UK has raised concerns about how the arrangements would work. I mentioned the long-established joint European stakeholder group. Would that be the vehicle under which new SIs were looked at and agreed? What arrangements, other than “The Secretary of State can just do it,” would there be to allow for a satisfactory and transport procedure in the future? It is very unsatisfactory that we do not have that sort of guidance in this SI.

The final point I would like to raise is about Northern Ireland. Of course I understand that we are making legislation at the moment in the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive, but the position, if these changes are made by Parliament here in the absence of that Northern Ireland Executive, is that, on exit day, we would have one grid in Ireland running on two codes. The code for Northern Ireland would be clearly distinct on exit day, inasmuch as we are seeking by this SI to repeal all those pieces of EU legislation that may complete their passage through to UK legislation in the long term. Therefore, this is not a question of contingency, long-term considerations or otherwise; it is a fact that, on exit day, that will be the situation with EirGrid.

That is a matter of some concern, inasmuch as we would at the very least need assurances that it would not, in itself, undermine the integrity of EirGrid in the future, and that the difference in codes would not mean, metaphorically, that a gentleman would have to arrive at the border with a large pair of bolt cutters and snip the link to make sure that we were integral as far as codes and arrangements were concerned. I sincerely hope that nothing like that would happen, but it is clearly a matter for considerable further negotiations. There is a big question mark against whether we have jumped the gun in terms of those negotiations by putting these issues into practice here in the UK Parliament.

To summarise the Opposition’s concerns, we find this SI pretty unsatisfactory on a number of grounds. However, we understand that it is probably necessary to do a number of the things that it does as we move towards exit day. As the Minister is aware, there are no circumstances under which we can amend secondary legislation. What I would like to have done was to table an amendment to clarify some of these points. I therefore think we will have to signify that we are not happy with the SI and that we would prefer it to be written in another way by not supporting it this morning. That does not mean that we do not understand why a number of these things are taking place.

It would be good to hear from the Minister a specific response to the points that I have raised, to clarify why this SI is necessary right now, what its purpose will be and how that purpose can best be undertaken in the future—things I would like to have seen on the face of the SI. It may be that light can be shed on those things this morning in a way that causes us not to vote against it to indicate our displeasure. I trust the Minister will understand the position we are in, and I hope that one way or another—whether by the institution of a further SI or by further correspondence—we can clear up a number of these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Green Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position. I was around his constituency on Saturday helping to launch the RSS Sir David Attenborough—what a fine place he represents. He is absolutely right to focus on these basic maternity protections. This Government are continuing to improve paternity and maternity rights. We want to get that right and that will be part of our response.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to support the commercialisation of universities’ research.

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

We want the UK to be the place where innovators, researchers and entrepreneurs turn ideas into reality. Our universities have a strong part to play within this, alongside business. That is why we are funding, through United Kingdom Research and Innovation, support for research collaborations between universities and business. We also have the industrial strategy challenge fund, as well as higher education innovation funding and our Connecting Capability funding. All of those will help universities work together with business.

[Chris Green]

The research partnership that exists between the University of Tokyo and Imperial College London is an excellent example of how the UK can benefit from sharing innovation and technology. What more will my hon. Friend do to ensure that we continue to strengthen academic networks and communities post Brexit?

[Mr Gyimah]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Our research and innovation collaboration is important in what we do with the EU, but also globally in what we do around the world. That is why UKRI has established a new £110 million fund to explore and develop international partnerships with leading science and innovation regions. We will also bring forward an international science strategy in the autumn.

Nuclear Sector Deal

Chris Green Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen, and to follow the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), who highlighted many important areas. He focused especially on jobs. We ought to have a good distribution of quality, secure jobs right across the country, and the energy sector in the north-west of England is vital for providing such jobs. I appreciated that on my numerous visits to the Copeland constituency during the by-election campaign—a fourth reason to visit Cumbria. The importance to the local economy of the nuclear sector jobs at Sellafield and elsewhere ought to be recognised. The high-skilled, stable, long-term jobs that the nuclear industry provides are vital not just to people in Cumbria but to many of my constituents, because Cheshire and Warrington are another centre—albeit a very different one—for the nuclear industry.

The focus on nuclear is increasing because demand for electricity will increase in the years ahead, for a variety of reasons. There is also a focus on carbon-free energy production, for a range of good reasons, including the need to control carbon emissions due to concerns about climate change, and concerns about where our oil and gas come from. There are certain parts of the world that we would rather not be dependent on for our energy—we have only to look at the problems Russia caused a few years ago by shutting down gas supplies to eastern Europe. To have security and independence of supply would hugely benefit the country. That is a reason for going nuclear.

We also need to look at our base-load supply. At certain times, such as the middle of winter and at night, solar panels and wind turbines do not provide much energy. There is a significant focus on those technologies, but we do not have the ability to store energy if we over-produce at certain times of the year, week or day. We must therefore ensure that we have a base-load supply. If that is not going to be carbon, we must look to nuclear.

On increased demand for electricity, the Secretary of State for Transport recently made a positive announcement about the next development in our focus on electric vehicles. If we are going to have more electric vehicles—whether they are charged at home, at businesses or in other places around the country—we need to look at power sources to ensure that they can be charged rapidly. We need to look not just at the production of energy, but at its distribution. I would welcome the Minister’s comments about the distribution of energy as we move into an era of more electric vehicles and other demands on the energy sector. Jobs are a key part of that, and whether we go for small modular reactors or full-scale nuclear power stations, we ultimately need cheap, affordable energy for our consumers and businesses.

Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill

Chris Green Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

I appreciate the point about the coffee shop and the mechanical process of producing coffee, but would my hon. Friend accept that a far more subtle process is needed to assess social skills before an offer of employment is made?

[Chris Philp]

I agree that it is a subtle process.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Chris Green Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 16th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

It is abundantly clear, especially from the Westminster Hall debate secured by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), that Euratom is intrinsically entwined with our membership of the European Union. Legal advice says that, as does the Commission itself. That has been abundantly expressed during this debate, and no doubt it will be expressed again on many other occasions.

The tone of the Westminster Hall debate, and the contribution it made, was fantastic. Unfortunately, some aspects of the issue, as we have heard today, are actually a little more disturbing. The way the debate is going on medical isotopes—radioactive isotopes for cancer and other medical treatments—has been extraordinary, given that it is absolutely clear that this does not form part of the Bill. The impact of leaving Euratom will not be to stop people receiving such cancer treatments.

[Albert Owen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for referring to the debate I led on 12 July. There was consensus in that debate in the Grand Committee Room that we should have associate membership of Euratom. That was the general theme of what was said by Members from both sides of the House, and we need to move towards it. In particular, I do not think that the Bill provides the lifeboat necessary for us to leave Euratom. Many of us are arguing for a transition period so that we will remain in Euratom until we get either associate membership or third-party agreements.

[Chris Green]

I appreciate the broad consensus in the Grand Committee Room, but not everyone had an opportunity to speak in that debate. No doubt there will be a transition period of some sort, but whether we have an associate membership or just a very close association at the end of it—like the association we will have with the European Union—we will look at what the EU does and how it goes about things, and we of course want similar standards. We are not looking to leave the European Union and then to reduce and cut all kinds of standards.

[Drew Hendry]

Will the hon. Gentleman advise us what kind of transition he would propose?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Green]

We are very early on in the negotiations, and I am sure the Minister for Climate Change and Industry and the Department for Exiting the European Union will look at that.

The extraordinary aspect of this debate is that some people are saying we will go off a cliff edge and valuable radioactive isotopes will no longer be available. What does that suggest about our friends in the European Union—that they will no longer sell these products, or that they will choose not to allow those products to be sent over to the United Kingdom? It is extraordinary to suggest that such sales will cease.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that is not about the EU wanting to give us radioisotopes, but about half-lives? The radioisotopes we are talking about have extremely short half-lives, so any delay at all at the border means fewer patients will be able to benefit from them.

[Chris Green]

Yes, I understand that some half-lives can be as short as six hours, so the efficacy of the isotopes will diminish in an incredibly short period. However, to say that the European Union and the British Government are not fully aware of that and that getting such materials from Europe over to the United Kingdom cannot or will not happen is extraordinary.

[Alan Brown]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Patricia Gibson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Green]

I have already given way on this issue.

It is absolutely extraordinary to suggest that these materials will dry up overnight. Clearly, we are going to have a good relationship with the European Union and there are going to be sales of these products.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that implying that the Bill will have an impact on the supply of medical isotopes is shameful scaremongering that could deeply upset and distress seriously ill people in this country?

[Chris Green]

Absolutely. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. As has been highlighted, 500 medical procedures a year, involving 10,000 people in the United Kingdom, depend on these products, yet we hear that they are going to be withdrawn and taken away, or that they will be held at the ports.

[Rachel Reeves]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Green]

No, I have already given way.

That is an extraordinary thing to suggest, and since this is outside the scope of the Bill, it is clearly scaremongering.

[Rachel Reeves]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Chris Green]

No. I am going to make some progress.

As we leave the European Union, we want to continue research relationships with it on many projects. We will see through Horizon 2020 to the end, and we must consider what kind of relationship we will have on the successor programme—framework programme 9. We need a close relationship with the European Union on Horizon 2020, but we must also consider what relationship we need or want on framework programme 9, and we must be mindful of the direction of travel with the European Union.

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the period beyond 2020. All things being equal, this Parliament, being a fixed-term Parliament, will last until 2022. Should the Government not already be signalling how much money they will put towards future funding?

[Chris Green]

There will be an ongoing consultation on the relationship the university and scientific sector in the United Kingdom wants on the successor programme. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know, Horizon 2020 really focuses on top-end research—the things that we often do very well in the United Kingdom—which is why this country has a disproportionately large share of the Horizon 2020 money. On the successor programme, however, the moneys may be directed towards capacity building, which would favour other regions of the European Union more and the United Kingdom less. We must look into that and watch the direction of travel in the European Union. This is not set in stone, and we should not think that the successor programme to Horizon 2020 will merely “cut and paste” what we have today.

My big concern about where we go from here, post-Brexit, is the migration to the United Kingdom of European Union citizens and people from across the world who want to take up jobs in the nuclear industry. There is a huge opportunity in this, post-Brexit, for trained and qualified staff who currently work in Euratom to come across and work in the United Kingdom or for us to recruit and bring in people from across the world. Once we leave the European Union, we will have an opportunity to set the skill requirements we need in this country.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making some interesting points. I have consulted the powers that be in my constituency, where I have two universities, and there is concern about the consequences for science of ending the free movement of labour, certainly in relation to the specialists who come in to help train people. Experts very often come from Europe to teach science and technology, and there is concern because if we do not get this right, those people may well not be available for those universities.

[Chris Green]

That is a fair point, and why we have to ensure that we have as close a relationship as possible, consistent with having left, with the European Union post Brexit. Universities will be one of the prime sectors that the Government look to to ensure that we have that co-operation. It is such an important sector for the UK.

When thinking about who we need in the UK, people often focus on the highly qualified—professors, lecturers and so on—and the technicians that universities need can be overlooked. They are often paid significantly less, but we need them to come over, too.

Finally, will the Minister comment in the winding-up speech about arrangements for co-operation with countries outside the EU, such as the United States and Canada?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)]

It is, perhaps, less pleasurable than it should be to follow so many of my colleagues, because it means that no one on the Opposition Benches is bothering to speak, which is very disappointing. [Hon. Members: “There are some Scottish National party Members here.”] You guys are very committed: well done.

It is absolutely understandable that there is concern about the approach that the United Kingdom will take to nuclear safeguarding when we leave the European Union and Euratom in 2019. That is why the Bill is so important. It is about ensuring that we maintain our current high standard of safeguarding, and ensuring that the Government are able to develop any future obligations that are placed on the UK by the international community.

The hysteria with which the Bill has been met by Opposition Members is bemusing. They seem adamant and convinced that the Government plan to rip up all their international obligations post-Brexit, although what is on paper in the Bill is the exact opposite: it represents a commitment to continuity, and is vital to our wider negotiating position in Europe. As for the concerns raised about the industry itself, there is absolutely no reason why new and possibly more favourable trade agreements cannot be struck with the countries that supply the UK once we leave the EU. In talks with the Government, many of those nations have been effusive about establishing post-Brexit trade deals. This summer the Prime Minister secured a pledge from Japan, which currently supplies Oldbury nuclear power station, to commit itself to a trade deal when Britain leaves the EU.

Given those positive soundings, I think that the move away from the EU has the potential to spawn more fruitful international relationships for the UK nuclear industry. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) made it clear that the EU’s interest in nuclear power is waning. Countries are rowing back on their nuclear commitments, setting time limits on when they want to get out of nuclear power, so perhaps we are better off out of it.

It cannot be denied that the EU’s support for research and development in this field has been instrumental in driving innovation. As Opposition Members have been keen to point out, we have received money and support from the EU, but they often forget that it does not come free of charge, and that we pay for our membership of that club.

[Chris Green]

Does my hon. Friend agree that as we look towards moving from Horizon 2020 to framework programme 9, there is a strong possibility that the European Union will emphasise a move away from cutting-edge research to capacity building? Will that not cause us a problem?

[Ben Bradley]

I entirely agree. It is vital for us to be able to safeguard our national interests and the skills that we have in great numbers, so that we can support the industry and continue to go from strength to strength in the UK, regardless of what the Germans tell us we should be doing.

The Joint European Torus programme in Oxfordshire is a key example of the positive support that we have received. The Government have pledged to underwrite the UK’s share of the cost of the project until 2020 to meet our international obligations and ensure the success of the project. The same applies to Horizon 2020. That willingness to participate in such projects is a clear indication that the UK will not turn its back on commitments with the EU at the expense of scientific progress. The desire to support the sciences domestically will also filter down into immigration policy. The Government have already made it clear that they are keen for the brightest and best people from the world of science to continue to come and work in the UK, and that is not going to change.

The simple fact is that the UK is leaving the EU and, necessarily, Euratom. The European Commission has made that pretty clear. There can be no watered-down half-membership, as Euratom comes with commitments to the European courts and free movement that my constituents would never go for. While the Bill does raise questions about the future of the nuclear industry—all things are uncertain when it comes to a huge negotiation on the scale of Brexit—it is clear that its intention is to promote continuity and ensure that Britain’s high standards of nuclear safeguarding are maintained after we leave. It is a vital contingency plan to ensure that if we do end up with no deal—which no one wants, blah blah blah—[Laughter]—we are ready for that eventuality. That was not meant as a “filler”, but there is no point in going over the same old argument again.

As many of my colleagues have said over many months, we are leaving the EU. That is right and necessary, and it has to be a clean break, but we are not leaving Europe, and we want to continue to co-operate on many aspects that are beneficial to the UK.

It appears that the Opposition are not even going to vote against the Bill. They are playing a dangerous political game with an important decision—talking about the nuclear Armageddon that will inevitably come from the passing of the Bill yet not bothering to vote against it. I am not quite sure where they are coming from. It seemed clear even from the opening statement from the shadow Front Bench that this is not about the content of the Bill; it is an attempt to refight the referendum over and over again, and to talk about how they did not want to leave the EU at all.

The scaremongering about how this might affect medical isotopes or safety and numerous other aspects during the lengthy discussion of this Bill bears no resemblance to what is down on paper. The Bill is about delivering continuity for the industry in the UK and giving us the opportunity to forge ahead in this field in the future.

Euratom Membership

Chris Green Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) on securing this important debate. He made a clear case for the importance of remaining either a full or an associate member of Euratom. Many hon. Members spoke about their own constituency interests, and I will mention a couple of those. One of the most telling comments came from the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who said, “If you ask people on the doorstep why they voted leave, would it be because of Euratom?” Of course people are unaware of what Euratom does; they are probably unaware even of its existence. However, it is fundamental to our everyday lives.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady really saying that we can develop a list of all the organisations that were not mentioned in great detail during the referendum campaign, and that we must remain part of them just because we have not had that full and open debate? Actually, we voted to leave the European Union; that is what the British people voted for. We have to do that, and if it entails leaving Euratom, so be it, but we will do it on the best possible grounds, with a transitional period.

[Carol Monaghan]

The hon. Gentleman’s first point is the correct one: yes, give us a list of everything that we have agreed to leave, and let us start working out the mess that we have created.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Green Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are very short of time. We need to speed up.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

T8. Our emerging technology and universities sectors welcomed our manifesto commitment to increase R and D spending from 1.7% to 2.4% of GDP, but it was not in the Queen’s Speech, so what has happened to that commitment?

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

Fear not, Mr Speaker, legislation is not required to deliver on that commitment. It remains a priority for the Government and for the delivery of our industrial strategy. We want to get to 2.4% of GDP for our R and D spend, and we have a longer-term ambition of 3% after that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Green Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

The small business world must feel more love from this Government than it would from Labour, were it to take our place in government.

On the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, I know that the FSB lobbied hard on a number of points, including national insurance, business rates and the quarterly reporting of tax accounts. On the latter two, it was very pleased with what the Chancellor provided. With regard to national insurance, the hon. Gentleman knows that more than 60% of people who are self-employed will actually benefit from the changes mooted by the Chancellor last week.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking to improve the UK’s energy infrastructure.

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

Just yesterday I was a few miles away from my hon. Friend’s constituency in Carrington, opening a new combined-cycle gas turbine plant. A few weeks before that, I was in Folkestone to see the new interconnectors being built through the channel tunnel. Both schemes remind us of the Government’s commitment to the UK’s energy infrastructure, underscored by a capacity market and contracts for difference. We are also investing £320 million in new heat infrastructure, which underlines the size of our whole commitment.

[Chris Green]

Base load energy supply is fundamental to delivering our energy needs. Solar and wind power do not provide base load, and there is a pressure not to increase the consumption of hydrocarbons, so does my hon. Friend agree that, in the absence of energy storage capacity, future investment must go to the nuclear industry, especially small modular reactors?

[Jesse Norman]

As my hon. Friend knows, we are spending a great deal of time working with developers, with new investment, alongside the plans that are already being executed at Hinkley. Small modular reactors could be part of that conversation. However, there are many possible storage technologies that might come on stream over the next decade or two; undoubtedly, they will also be an important part of the picture.

Exiting the EU: Science and Research

Chris Green Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

Scientific research is one of the United Kingdom’s biggest assets, and we must ensure that Brexit provides us with an opportunity. We are in a position to critique and improve on aspects of EU legislation that hold back our development, to adopt the policies that have benefited us, and to create a Britain that is increasingly outward-looking and pioneering in science and research.

Many sectors claim that their people are their greatest asset, but this is most clear in the area of scientific research and innovation, where individual qualities count for so much, skills need to be developed over a period of years, and there is a great deal of specialisation. The search for and recruitment of talented engineers and scientists is already very challenging, and the potential for a barrier to go up between the UK and the EU is a great concern. I was pleased that the Prime Minister attempted to resolve this problem to enable the 1.3 million British subjects living in the EU to remain there and the 3.3 million EU citizens to remain here, but disappointed that Donald Tusk, playing politics with peoples’ lives, rebuffed the proposal.

When discussing migration, especially in the context of Brexit, we have to get the tone and values right. During the referendum campaign, I talked to hundreds of people about what it would mean to leave the EU, and controlling our borders was a significant concern, although not the greatest. I did not meet anyone who thought that we should stop scientists and engineers from coming to and settling in the UK. There is a desire that Britain should control her borders but also enable those with most to contribute to come here. It should be of huge reassurance to members of the scientific community that the British people greatly value their contribution, no matter from where they came.

Our universities sector is world-leading, with three in the top 10 of the Times Higher Education world university rankings. There is only one other European university in the top 10 and it is Swiss. To maintain our global position, it is vital that, post-Brexit, the whole of the UK universities sector not only maintains its attractiveness to EU students, but enables more students to come from countries such as India by removing barriers. Given that students come for a set period of time and for a specific purpose, they should also be taken out of our immigration figures so that the numbers reflect those seeking to remain here.

Although the vote to leave the EU has caused some to raise fears that it will result in our becoming an inward-looking nation, cut off from the world and its opportunities, most prefer to be optimistic. Brexit is an opportunity to ensure that people with the skills and talents that we need come to Britain so that we have an immigration system that works for everyone.

The UK has been a net beneficiary of EU funding for research, benefiting from the collaboration opportunities offered by EU programmes such as Horizon 2020. However, we need to be clear that our overall contributions massively outweighed any financial returns in this particular sector. Some countries receive most of their Horizon 2020 moneys in structural funds to build up their science base, but Britain largely receives money based on excellence. We ought to be clear that scientists from across the EU gain enormously from collaborating with us. We ought not to think that we are in a weak, dependent position, because we are not.

Funding concerns have been raised by the Science and Technology Committee in its seventh report of this Session. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response in the new year. Like many, I was encouraged by their recent announcement that there would be guaranteed funding for participation in Horizon 2020 projects, even if the project finishes after our departure from the EU.

The Prime Minister’s announcement of an additional £2 billion a year of funding by 2021 for science and innovation through the new industrial strategy is welcome, but I would like clarification on where that money will be spent. Given that we will no longer be a member of the EU, we will not receive any funding from the successor to Horizon 2020. Is it possible or expected that a proportion of that £2 billion will be used to buy into, in part or in full, the successor to Horizon 2020? According to the European Commission’s rules, Britain can participate in Horizon 2020 outside the EU, just like Tunisia, Norway and Israel.

Brexit offers an opportunity to correct any failings in EU policy for science and research. For example, the EU clinical trials directive, which was approved in 2001 and introduced in 2004, is widely seen as being a failure due to increased costs, delays and differing interpretations across the EU. It is due to be replaced by the clinical trial regulation, which is widely expected to be much better and is currently due to be implemented in October 2018. That demonstrates how slow the EU can be in amending and changing regulations, with that process taking nearly 20 years.

In conclusion, I am glad to hear assurances on the future of British science and its funding, but the whole scientific community has a responsibility to secure the future of British science. It is for each and every one of our scientists to go across the world and tell everyone that we are open for business and that science has a bright future in the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Green Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming and congratulating the workforce, trade unions and the employers on their very constructive set of discussions. It is important that the membership is consulted, but this is a positive step forward and he is right that this will provide greater comfort to employees this winter. The hon. Gentleman will know that it is right and proper for the independent Pensions Regulator, rather than the Government, to approve and be content with pensions arrangements. It would be wrong for the Government to intervene in that.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

22. One of the best ways to support the British steel industry is for the Government to invest in infrastructure. Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the work of Severfield Steel, based in Lostock in my constituency, which is building the world’s first “squashed tennis racket style” railway bridge as part of the Ordsall Chord in Manchester?

[Greg Clark]

I will indeed congratulate Severfield Steel, which is a very successful company, not only on the Ordsall Chord but on winning a global award in recent weeks. It was also responsible for construction of the Olympic stadium, the Shard, and Birmingham New Street station. Many of the buildings that we admire and have in our minds are constructed with British steel by British companies.