Civil Nuclear Road Map

Debate between Paul Beresford and Nigel Evans

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mark Tami]

I promise the hon. Member that I will not. As someone who is very pro-nuclear, I believe that one big issue is that we have loads of reviews, and identify all the problems and what we will do, and then never actually do it. If we do get around to building a station, we build one—not a number of them; just one. Then, a number of years after that, we might build another one, but to a completely different design. That is how we keep going in this country. Does he agree?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Mr Beresford, I think the name you were struggling to find was Ernest Rutherford.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

Sorry?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It was Ernest Rutherford. The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), is the genius, not me.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

Thank you. The Whip has saved me! I had actually worked it out and was going to bring it up. The other thing that rather kicked my memory was that when I went out to the same place last September, I stayed at the Rutherford hotel. Oh dear; my English and English literature are better than my physics, I concede.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). That is the point that KBR and others are making: this is an opportunity that we have the distinctly British possibility of missing. KBR is going in particular for AMRs. It has come back to me and complained, as it will to the Minister—just to prepare him for that meeting—about our clumsy development consent order, which delays everything, is bureaucratic and problematic, and could be considerably easier. As a result, we are slipping behind some of the rest of the world. For example, the United States advanced reactor and advanced modular reactor technology developer, TerraPower, has a financed match programme well under way that will achieve power generation in the US by 2030. We have that opportunity, and we have the right attitude, but we are not doing it.

I stop at this point, having made my complaint and missed Lord Rutherford’s name. We owe our nation the facilities to produce the extra 40% of power that we will need when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. The water will keep running, but that is a very minor part of our power. We do not have those facilities, and if we miss this opportunity, we will hand our children a low-grade state. While I welcome the road map, it is not enough. It does not move fast enough, and it does not contain the funding we need, but it does have the co-operation of the industry, which will bring its money bags with it. As such, I invite the Minister to come along and talk to some of the key people in a short roundtable discussion. Lord Rutherford will be there in the walls behind us.

Finance Bill

Debate between Paul Beresford and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford]

It is traditional to say that we have had a good debate, but we really have had a good one today; it has been stunning in a way. Most importantly, I do not think there is any Member who does not support the national health service. We are very much behind the national health service, and it is true of me even more than most Members of all parties, because I have worked in it, as well as working in the private sector and in a combination of the two. I am emphatically behind it, and I back the hospitals in my constituency.

The approach has, of course, been different. If the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) had not joined the debate, I would have felt that I had failed because we would otherwise not have heard a good red-blooded, left-wing socialist viewpoint. The difference, of course, is that Conservative Members support the national health service, but we also support the possibility of looking for alternatives or different ways of helping the NHS. That was my aim tonight.

I question the figures that the Minister provided, as we need to recognise that over a seven-year period from 1990, with the over-60s—not just the over-65s—having a full swathe of tax deducted, not just the basic rate, the relief was costing about £80 million. If the proposal in the new clause went through, there would be a progressive growth in the number of people claiming as time went on. I do not think it would be logarithmic, but it would certainly make a difference to hospitals in my constituency and others, particularly those down south. There would be a relief of the strain on those hospitals and an opportunity to redistribute the money.

I was putting my toe in the water this evening, trying to get some thinking going on the proposal, and that has happened. I will discuss the issues further with the Minister before the Budget and next year’s Bill, but in the meantime, I wish to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We now come to new clause 5. Fiona Bruce. Not moved?

New Clause 5

Transfer of personal allowances between spouses

‘After section 37 of the Income Tax Act 2007, insert—

“37A Transfer of personal allowances between spouses

(1) This section applies to an individual who is entitled to a personal allowance under sections 35 to 37 for a tax year if—

(a) the individual is a person whose spouse who is living with the individual for the whole or any part of the tax year, and

(b) the spouse meets the requirements of section 56 (residence, etc).

(2) If—

(a) the allowance exceeds the individual’s remaining relievable income;

(b) the individual makes an election, and

(c) the individual’s spouse makes a claim,

the individual’s spouse is entitled to an allowance for the tax year equal to the amount of the excess.

(3) The individual’s remaining relievable income is found by—

(a) taking the amount of the individual’s net income, and

(b) subtracting any personal allowance to which the individual is entitled for the tax year.”’.—(Mr Leigh.)

Brought up, and read the First time.