Troubled Families Programme

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

Monday 12th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right about the dangers of silo working. We have sought to obliviate that programme by broadening the criteria. In relation to the number of families being assisted, it is the aim of the second programme that by the end of this Parliament 400,000 additional families—on top of those in the first programme—will have been helped. In the first year, we have so far helped 145,000 families.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister assure me that his department is concerned with the accuracy of the report, rather than seeking to change either its recommendations or its conclusions?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, as always, government departments are minded to ensure that the report is accurate. That is true of the civil servants who are working on this. Of course that is the aim; we want the proper information in the public domain. In the meantime, we have learned some of the lessons from the first programme. I believe that the first programme was a success and the second will be even more successful.

Nuclear Reactors

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

Monday 23rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I find myself in total agreement with the noble Lord opposite; I think that it is both, and that is the Government’s intention.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, what impact will the development of this technology and its use have on the disposal of nuclear waste? Can the Minister say where we are with the selection of a site for deep geological storage?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, once again, the supposition behind the question is that it will be plutonium-based; it may well not be or it may be part of the mix, but I say again to the noble Lord that we are running ahead of ourselves. We will scrutinise all these issues, but, of course, decommissioning will be discussed at length in the dialogue that follows those expressions of interest.

Hinkley Point: Chinese Investment

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

Monday 2nd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I was not aware of the noble Lord’s background in this field but I readily acknowledge it. It is true that in the past this has been the case. Sadly, over a period of time under successive Governments, the research and development in this area was run down. We are now making agreements which are subject to stringent security and safety precautions to ensure that we move forward with what most noble Lords will acknowledge is an important part of the energy mix—namely, nuclear. We already take 20% of our energy needs from nuclear. That will continue. We are satisfied, with the conditions that we have in place, that this is the best way forward for the country.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, surely the point raised by the noble Lord is exactly why the integrity of the future UK supply chain is so important. My noble friend Lord West raised the issue of Bradwell and future developments. Can the Minister assure me that the UK Government will have enough leverage to ensure that, in relation to Bradwell, the size of the UK supply chain contribution can be protected and enhanced? That is a security question as much as it is a question about the industry and jobs.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I readily acknowledge and accept that it is important on both bases. In answering the question I sought to say that we have not yet begun any detailed negotiations on Bradwell. However, new procurement rules are in place which help us in Europe and with the supply chain. We have got a good deal in relation to Hinkley Point C. I have indicated that I hope that that will be a template for what we do in Bradwell. However, it is very early days and I do not want to mislead people into thinking that we are already in that degree of discussion—we are not.