Ukraine

Debate between Clive Lewis and Richard Graham

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak after so many interesting and varied speeches so far. Let me start by saying unequivocally that the Ukrainian Government and their people have every right to wage armed resistance against this unmentionable Russian invasion, which I believe is included under the UN charter. That is the first thing I wanted to put on record, but from now on some of my speech may find disagreement with Members in this place. I support the Government and their arming of Ukrainian resistance but, as I mentioned in an intervention, I also have questions. One of the roles of the Opposition and one of the roles of us in this place is to ask the questions that we think the Government are not asking or do not want asked. That is our job here and that is what I want to do today in my speech.

In my intervention, I asked whether we were doing enough to put in place precautions about the billions of pounds of arms that are going into Ukraine. Some of them— Stinger missiles and anti-tank weapons— are quite lethal. We know from our recent history that those weapons can be turned against us. I can go into a shop and find a tracking device to follow my bike, my iPhone or any device I have. There is software that can be shut down with kill switches. The more lethal and complex the technology, the easier it is for us to do that. I do not need the details—we do not need the details in this House—but I want to know that the Government are thinking a few moves ahead and that is what I want to talk about today. I want to talk about thinking beyond the immediate, trying to be strategic and thinking about the consequences of our actions now. Those actions are right—arming the Ukrainian people is right—but there are other actions that will come from this, so how do we make sure we learn from the lessons of the past?

I think it is time to pause and reflect: where do we want to be in six months, in a year, in 10 years? I want to ask some questions that have been raised by an organisation called Rethinking Security. I will quickly go through them now; there are about seven.

Do we see military might as inherently wrong, delegitimised because of Russia’s actions in Ukraine, or do we merely see it discredited in the wrong hands and validated in the form of our valiant allies and armed forces? Do we recognise the horror of all humanity caught up in war, or do we decide that, like malaria and cholera, this is some African or Asian malady that intrudes intolerably into safe, civilised Europe? Do we recognise that oligarchic interests have captured and corrupted our own political, economic and media structures, or do we make examples of a few Russian playboys and declare mission accomplished?

Do we really want to break our easy addiction to imported carbon, or do we just want to find a new dealer? I say that noting that the Prime Minister is on his way to Saudi Arabia, a country that has just executed 81 people and is conducting a brutal war in Yemen—I am smelling some inconsistencies here. Do we believe that Ukraine, Belarus and Russia are all integral to Europe, and commit to their eventual inclusion within a secure and just peace system, or do we decide that a new iron curtain is the best way to divide and subdue a continent at arms? Those are the questions we need to be asking, beyond the immediate.

I want to come now to the role of the oligarchs and their interests. This is the rot that is at the heart of our politics and economy. We have heard repeatedly how the Benches opposite are bankrolled by the richest, including oligarchs. That is who they represent. This is writ large in their policies and policy choices. But do not take my word for it. An investigation by openDemocracy in 2019 revealed that, in a decade of austerity, the Conservatives took £130 million in donations and 80% of their 2019 general election funding came from the elite Leaders Group, with exclusive access granted to group members for a fee of £50,000. There are other examples. Overseas territories, British tax havens, are responsible for 29% of the £245 billion in global taxes that the world loses to corporate, according to the Tax Justice Network. We know that donors and elites can essentially purchase a permanent seat in the House of Lords. Look at the owner of the Evening Standard, who, I am pleased to say, our own leader refused to be photographed with. We know that elites in our own media own 90% of UK-wide media and print and it is controlled by just three companies.

[Richard Graham]

This is an incredibly important debate for us all. Feelings are very strong and a massive amount is being done by our constituents and by the Government in a series of different sectors. The hon. Gentleman has so much to contribute and so many valuable thoughts. I wonder whether he really needs to focus on an argument about the funding of different parties as his key contribution to the debate.

[Clive Lewis]

I think the reason many of us on this side want to focus on this is because, at the heart of what is going on, we understand that, for many years, Putin—the same man, the same circle that devastated Russia and asset stripped it—planted that money into the City of London. This was their city of choice. That happened on the watch of successive Governments, but the hon. Member’s Government as well. I think it is critical that we understand Putin and the people around him, and how they have enriched and engorged themselves and made themselves powerful. We have to understand how that has happened if we do not want it to happen again. We also have to understand how our democracy is being corroded by interests similar to those of the people in control of Russia.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Debate between Clive Lewis and Richard Graham

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 10th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Richard Graham]

May I answer the intervention from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) first? We are more interested in what has been tried and tested here in the United Kingdom than in what may not have succeeded in a different model in a different sovereign country. Obviously, this is the first time it has been used for nuclear power here, but let us not forget, as I have pointed out, that there was a whole generation in which no nuclear power stations were built at all. When it came to the funding for Hinkley C in around 2010-11, I remember well the debates that we had at that time and, of course, the uncomfortable truth that we had lost the expertise to build these things ourselves, so we needed to bring in both foreign finance and foreign expertise. The situation today is different, because we are building on what we have already learned and achieved so far in the process at Hinkley Point.

I agree with the Government that this is a time to choose to move to regulated asset financing, because the crucial difference is that the businesses involved will be able to finance at lower rates and, as I understand it, two thirds of the cost of electricity from Hinkley Point C will come from the cost of capital. Making access to income available during the construction period will both reduce the costs of the project and make it more attractive to institutional investors, who are quite happy with a lower but steady return on their investment. I believe that that is the key reason—and I am comfortable with it—for adopting that approach to this nuclear power station and, I hope, others to come in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I was coming on to what seems to be a curious irony in the position of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, particularly the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), for whom I have a lot of respect on energy issues. It seems ironic that, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, amendment 2 would make it virtually impossible for a company partly or wholly owned by a foreign power to build and run a nuclear entity. Of course, since British Energy was sold by the last Labour Government in 2009, it is not possible for a company that is entirely British owned to do the work. In that context, the amendment seems rather ironic. Perhaps the fact that it would be a UK subsidiary of EDF answers the question; otherwise, I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend that amendment 2 should be ruled out immediately by Members on both sides of the House on the basis of it being wholly impractical.

I am conscious that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham wants to intervene, but I think the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) was first.

[Clive Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous. Some of us on the Opposition Benches consider energy to be a public good, and therefore if we are talking about the optimal way of funding this public good, it would be via the state. The RAB system that he is talking about is very complex and is actually being backed by the state, not the market. Ultimately, if he wants to bring the costs down and make the system more cost-effective and to be optimal—that is the term he used—we would have the state funding this area fully, as well as the rest of the energy roll-out that he is talking about.

The final point I will make is that the hon. Gentleman gave some examples about Heathrow and other large-scale projects, but the difference here is that the system that he is advocating will mean that bill payers will foot much of the risk and much of the bill if there is an overspend. The problem is that that proposal is regressive—it is like a poll tax on energy. The far more progressive way to fund things would be through progressive taxation.

[Richard Graham]

We may be straying a bit from the subject and scope, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will try to come back to the road of virtue as quickly as I can, but the hon. Member raises interesting points about what structure of ownership is required to develop nuclear power stations effectively. To be honest, it was his party that decided to sell—to privatise—British Energy. I think it is too late to try to row back on that and recreate that situation, unless he is proposing an interesting new Anglo-French argument over nationalising EDF Energy in the UK. We have to accept that things have moved on, and we must focus on the amendments proposed today.