Nuclear Power

Richard Graham Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I totally agree that starting the negotiations with Horizon, based in the Gloucester business park, to secure replacement nuclear capacity and to deal with increased demand for electricity is a very good thing. I wish my right hon. Friend all good luck in securing a balance of advantages to the taxpayer between a lower strike price on the one hand and—no doubt—some cost and construction risk on the other. The aspects he highlighted—greater security, low carbon, greater diversity, jobs, supply chains—all apply equally to the fabulous tidal lagoon project mooted for Swansea. I do hope he can secure a positive response to the Hendry review as soon as possible.

[Greg Clark]

I anticipated the direction in which my hon. Friend was heading. He will know that, as we have done in this case, we need to offer and obtain value for money for the taxpayer and the consumer. Just as in this case, that is part of the assessment to be made of the tidal lagoon proposal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I will look very carefully at the report of the Committee and that will be one of the pieces of evidence that I will seriously consider.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has said that his door is still open to discussions about the benefits of green energy, so will he commit today to seeing Charles Hendry—the author of the Hendry review, which is still awaiting a response from the Government 14 months on—me, as chair of the all-party group on marine energy and tidal lagoons, and representatives of Tidal Lagoon Power and TidalStream?

[Claire Perry]

It is always a pleasure to respond to my hon. Friend, who is an assiduous campaigner for this form of energy. We continue to commit to supporting our marine energy industry. I refer him to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave at the start of questions. We continue to exchange information with the Welsh Government, and we have to understand what is on offer. We want to reach the right decision on behalf of low-carbon technologies, but also British bill payers and taxpayers.

Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill

Richard Graham Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

What a pleasure it is to contribute to the debate, because there is so much to respect about the process by which Ministers have guided the Bill forward. It starts, of course, with the crucial truth that many of our constituents feel strongly that their energy bills are not fair. From there, similar solutions were set out in the two largest parties’ manifestos. We had the report from the Competition and Markets Authority, the letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), which I supported very early, and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee’s report and pre-legislative scrutiny. Today we have seen an unusual cross-party consensus, echoed among Opposition Members by the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), and by all my colleagues on the Government side of the House. This has been a model of how to build support, not least because we all want to do something to help so many of our constituents.

Interestingly, the Bill does not target the most vulnerable, because broadly speaking they are already on fixed or prepayment tariffs, which are already capped. The Bill provides for a temporary, absolute cap for 20 months, starting in time for the winter of 2018-19—I know that it feels as though we are still in the winter of 2017-18—which will affect a slightly different category of our constituents: the 11 million who are on standard variable tariffs, many of whom have been on them for many years, paying roughly £300 more a year than they need to. There are twice as many of our constituents on such tariffs as there are switchers.

I wish we had the data on standard variable tariffs. I believe that the Government’s statutory instrument will make the data available—I hope that the Minister can confirm this—so that we can see what the details actually are in our constituencies. My guess is that in Gloucester, which is part of the huge west midlands energy region, about 25,000 of my constituents are on standard variable tariffs. What we do know from the west midlands energy statistics is that 20% of electricity customers and 34% of gas customers are actually served by their legacy supplier, and have therefore been on a standard variable tariff for a very long time.

I also guess that many of our city’s hard-working residents—we have the fourth highest employment rate of any city in the country—who are on relatively modest salaries, with an average salary of around £25,000, do not have enough time to switch. The Bill will therefore have the greatest impact on hard-working families and individuals, and it will enable them to budget for their family’s biggest cost after council tax. It is to them that the Bill is effectively dedicated.

There is a bit of an urban myth among Opposition Members that nationalisation is the real answer, but that is simply not backed up by history. We know that when energy companies were owned by the state, there were twice as many power cuts as there are now, and we know that energy prices fell after privatisation, only to rise between 2000 and 2008—we know which party was in power then—due to lax control of the regulatory environment.

What is needed today is for the balance of interests between the Government, the regulator, energy companies and customers to work above all for customers—our constituents. The Bill sorts the one major issue for 11 million people—the standard variable tariff—for now, and allows the Government and the regulator to focus on how in the longer term we use innovation, better smart meters, better and easier ability to switch, and a greater use of renewables to ensure that the energy market works as best it can.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Richard Graham Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whitehead]

Yes, indeed. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I are going to agree substantially on this. We regard the Bill as necessary in the context of the possibility that, after Brexit, no arrangements can be brought about with Euratom, either associate membership or full membership. The Bill will then ensure that the nuclear industry is clear about its future and that the arrangements for our international obligations can be properly carried out in the absence of those arrangements. We have indeed been constructive and helpful during the Bill’s whole passage through Parliament. However, that does not detract from our thinking that a number of its procedural elements should be strengthened in relation to what we do while it is gestating and coming to potential fruition after the point at which the things that we are doing may not have had any success.

The hon. Gentleman will see that in some of our amendments we are also trying to make sure that Parliament is fully informed of what processes are under way while we get to the position that the Bill could, or could not, come into operation. That is important for Parliament’s sake. After all, we are in new territory with regard to this Bill, and we therefore have to do a number of new things in legislation that fit the bill for our future arrangements. That is essentially the beginning and end of what we are trying to do through this group of amendments.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I am puzzled why new clause 1 is necessary. All its ingredients are issues that form part of the transition negotiations that our country is going through with the European Commission. It therefore seems bizarre to try to legislate that

“conditions under which the UK is a member of EURATOM before exit day shall continue to apply”

during the transition. On that basis, we would be legislating for all sorts of things that form part of the negotiations to continue during the transition. What would the hon. Gentleman say to that?

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman has slightly got ahead of me, because I started by talking about new clause 2, and I am about to start talking about new clause 1. He thinks that new clause 1 may be superfluous. I would suggest that because this Bill is about procedure as much as fact, the new clause sets out a procedure that we need to undertake in the event of certain things not happening, and it is important that a number of those possible events are covered in the Bill. Should it not prove possible to remain a member of Euratom, for various reasons, it is important to consider the idea of a transition period after which we would then be in a position to fully carry out our obligations to the IAEA and other agencies separate from Euratom. That, indeed, is what the Bill is essentially trying to bring about. The Bill is predicated on the notion that membership or association with Euratom will not be possible, and it is therefore necessary to recreate the arrangements for nuclear safeguarding that have served us so well in a solely domestic form and thereby enabled us to negotiate separate voluntary arrangements with the IAEA and, indeed, separate bilateral agreements with a number of other countries, including the United States, Australia, Japan, and Canada.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I would have thought that the Bill, in whatever form it eventually emerges, demonstrates the opposite. Yes, there are a number of negotiations to be undertaken. We do not yet know the results of those negotiations. We have not left Euratom, which, it is generally agreed, has served our purposes very well. The new clause would enable us to signal, in the event of all those negotiations not working, that we are nevertheless still able to fulfil our obligations to the IAEA and to show it that we have a regime in place that does the business with regard to nuclear safeguarding from the point of view of the IAEA’s concerns. Putting forward this Bill as a contingency measure, as the Secretary of State said was the case, is important in the uncertain position we are in at the moment. Nevertheless, we will need certainty, over a relatively short period, with the bodies that are responsible for policing and organising the nuclear non-proliferation treaties and the whole arrangements relating to nuclear safeguarding. I think, if I may say so, that that is the right way to do it as far as putting a Bill before the House is concerned. The Opposition do not dispute that: we think it is right to have the Bill as a contingency. Our concern, however, is whether there are sufficient elements to the process part of the Bill to ensure that it works as well as it could. That is really the point of difference on the Bill at the moment.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Gentleman knows that this is incredibly important to him and several of his colleagues, and it is incredibly important to me, with EDF Energy’s operational headquarters for nuclear in my constituency and Horizon just down the road, so we are all coming from the same point. His specific proposal—I am talking about new clause 1 again—is very specific. It even mentions a period of two years, although the transition period that is being negotiated may well come to an end at the end of 2020. In effect, he is asking the Government to legislate on something over which they do not have control. Surely the better approach is to plan for the contingency, as he has already agreed, and recognise that the other elements—Euratom and other agencies—are all subject to a negotiation that this House cannot, by its nature, control.

[Dr Whitehead]

That is a little strange in that the Prime Minister referred to transition periods for the overall EU negotiations in her Florence speech, and the Secretary of State did so strongly in his written statement on 11 January. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be assured, as far as the nuclear industry is concerned, that there will be a seamless transition at the point at which we are no longer a member of Euratom, I would have thought he ought to be strongly in favour of aspiring to a transition period. As he knows and we know, the process of recreating in the UK all the things that have been done by Euratom for 40 years—we will discuss that later—will be extremely difficult, lengthy and problematic. It will certainly, in the opinion of many people, be extremely difficult to achieve in the period ahead if we corral those negotiations and are to complete them by March 2019. If he thought about it for a moment, he would recognise that the last thing we could conceivably want is a period of, in effect, nuclear shutdown, or of defaulting on our international obligations because we are not ready to carry them out on Brexit. That is why a transition period may be so important.

[Richard Graham]

Yes, of course we all want a transition period, which is precisely a part of the negotiations. What I struggle to understand is that the scenario the hon. Gentleman describes is in effect not within our control. The transition we are seeking is being negotiated—in fact, the Minister and other Front Benchers have made it absolutely clear several times that we want to continue the relationship with Euratom as deeply as possible—but I cannot see the need, in a legislative context, for his proposed new clause 1. In fact, I do not believe it would be possible for any Government conceivably to agree to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen]

Well, let us clear this up now. I invite the Minister to say on behalf of the Government whether it is his intention—or their intention, if he is not in his post at the time—to negotiate associate membership. Yes or no? Otherwise, we are just guessing that the Government will negotiate some form of associate or third-party membership. I need to know these things from the Government, because we do not have anything in front of us. What we have today is a group of new clauses and amendments that would give us the certainty that we need. The industry is crying out for that, so I want to hear from the Minister.

[Richard Graham]

rose—

[Albert Owen]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman cannot speak on behalf of the Minister, but I will be interested to hear what he has to say.

[Richard Graham]

It strikes me as bizarre that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are taking their current line. I can only assume that that is either because they want to try to make the political point that the Government and the Conservative party do not want to have a future relationship with Euratom, which is clearly wrong—the Minister will confirm that when he speaks—or because the hon. Gentleman wants to score a political point with an industry that I know is dear to his heart by suggesting that, somehow, he is being more supportive by trying to write into law something that cannot be written into law. What is needed today—we will hear this from the Minister—is absolute confirmation of the Government’s intention to continue to have as close a relationship with Euratom as possible. That is what will be negotiated. It cannot be legislated for, otherwise we would do the same thing for all the many other organisations in Europe with which we might want to have a future relationship. All of that will be covered in the transition talks in Brussels.

[Albert Owen]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He knows me quite well, and I do not think he would accuse me of scoring political points. I have said consistently since before the Bill was introduced that we need clarity, whether we have full membership of Euratom, associate membership, or a third-party agreement.

Draft Higher Education (Access and Participation Plans) (England) Regulations 2018

Richard Graham Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 General Committees

[Mr Gyimah]

We need clarity to be effective, so of course I support absolute clarity in this respect.

The board composition was touched on. The hon. Member for Blackpool South has been looking for much longer than I have at the detail of this. The OFS has quite a wide remit, and board members are bringing different experience from different places to the board so that it can fulfil its wide remit.

I will draw my comments to a close. A very important issue is what happens to access and participation plans in the event of a change of control or ownership. A provider must have an access and participation plan approved by the OFS if it has a fee cap and wishes to charge higher fees. If there is a change of registration or any change of ownership, that would remain in place.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

May I highlight one very important aspect of the regulations, which the hon. Member for Blackpool South may have highlighted in earlier sittings? It is the avoidance of some of the duplication that was happening between the director of fair access and HEFCE. The new OFS will replace the degree of overlap that there was between those two bodies and increase consistency. I would be grateful for a brief comment from the Minister on that.

I also hope the Minister will have a chance to visit the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, which is the Ofsted of higher education and happens to be based in my constituency. It has an important role to play, particularly in terms of student feedback on some of the issues that the regulations cover. Since the burden of payment for higher education has shifted from taxpayers in general to students, and the regulations clearly build in student involvement on access and participation, a discussion with the QAA about how it can contribute to student analysis of the higher and further education model would be very useful.

[Mr Gyimah]

My hon. Friend makes a forceful point. He is right to say that in bringing together HEFCE and the fair access parts of the regulation of higher education institutions, we remove a significant amount of overlap, but it goes further. Funding for higher education has changed, so the regulatory structure is now catching up to reflect the funding structure.

We have other challenges that need to be dealt with. This is about not only removing inconsistencies and bringing clarity but, I hope, making the regulation of higher education more effective. On my hon. Friend’s second point, I would be delighted to visit the QAA.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Higher Education (Access and Participation Plans) (England) Regulations 2018.

University Tuition Fees

Richard Graham Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Carol Monaghan]

I am happy to talk about PISA and Scottish education. It is amazing that throughout the world Scottish education is lauded as a shining example; it is only here that it is not. We come here and we hear about how awful Scottish education is, but Scottish education is ranked extremely highly.

As for the PISA tests, they look at pure knowledge—rote learning. They ask pupils to recall facts. That is not what the Scottish education system is about. There is an element of that, but it is also about problem-solving, employability, communication skills—in fact, it is about everything that employers are looking for that are not captured in any PISA tick-box tests.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I am interested in the arguments that the hon. Lady would use when meeting her constituents or others in Scotland about why those in vocational education should subsidise the children of their neighbours who are in higher education. One of the issues for many of us in England is that the huge rise in apprenticeships, whereby people are earning while they are learning and becoming self-sufficient, does not begin to justify those people subsidising their neighbours’ children. What does she say to that?

[Carol Monaghan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We place a huge value on vocational training as well and I invite him to join me at City of Glasgow College, where people are looking not only at degree-level courses but at vocational courses. Nobody there considers those students taking vocational courses to be subsidising anyone else. City of Glasgow College is a fabulous new facility right in the heart of the university sector in Glasgow; we have Glasgow Caledonian University on one side of it, with Strathclyde University on the other side, and Glasgow University just a mile and a half away. City of Glasgow College is now the shining example to all of those universities, and many young people at the college are the envy of those in the higher education institutions.

[Richard Graham]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again. I have been to Glasgow, although not for a few years, and I would be interested to see how the City of Glasgow College is doing things. However, at the end of the day, if we are going to reduce university fees in the way that she suggests, someone will have to pay for that. The truth about our system at the moment is that we have 20 of the best 100 universities in the world, not least because of the investment that has gone into them. We have overseas students who are effectively subsidising our students and if we lower the fees, someone will have to mind the gap that will be created. Who will that be?

[Carol Monaghan]

It is quite simple; once again, look north. One of my party’s fundamental principles is that education is about the ability to learn and not about the ability to pay, as I have already said. Paying for education is a duty of Government, of business and of society, which includes the taxpayer, to ensure that we have a well-educated population that can provide economic growth in different businesses and different sectors. Post-Brexit there will be a struggle to create economic growth. It is a duty of us all to pay our taxes so that those taxes can fund the higher education of our young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

I would just note that higher education is a devolved policy responsibility in the United Kingdom. Those parts of the United Kingdom that have the present level of fees that we have in England have been able to lift student number controls. Other Administrations, which have made their own policy choices, have not been able to lift student number controls. As a result, under those Administrations we have seen far lower levels of widening participation than we currently see in England. We genuinely think that returning to a cap on student numbers would be absolutely disastrous for young people from lower income backgrounds.

[Richard Graham]

One crucial element in danger of being overlooked is that the lifting of the cap on student numbers has been extended in a particular direction, very constructively across the country. I refer to the policy on nursing degrees, and the new policy of nursing associates that complements it. Were it not for that, frankly my county of Gloucestershire, and those like it, would have a net deficit of about 350 new nurses per year. With the new policy, the University of Gloucestershire has been able to offer nursing degrees. Over time, that will result in far greater numbers of home-grown nurses than previously, and I am grateful to the Government for that.

[Joseph Johnson]

My hon. Friend is right: putting the funding of nursing places on to the sustainable basis that other students are on will enable far greater participation, and result in an uplift in the numbers of nursing students in this country.

Taxpayers already contribute around half of the costs of the higher education system. We believe that it is right that graduates should also contribute, and that that contribution should be linked to their income. As I have said, that means that those who have benefited the most from their education repay their fair share. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) gave us interesting insights from Latin America, which I know is a source of great inspiration for those in the Labour party at present. We look with interest to see what other lessons he draws from Venezuela and countries from that part of the world, as Labour develops its ever-shifting policy on higher education.

Every year, the Government consider the appropriate maximum level of tuition fees, and sets a cap. The Government consider whether the maximum tuition fee amounts should be uprated in line with inflation, to support continued investment in course delivery. We are committed to ensuring the ongoing sustainability of our world-class higher education sector. The student finance system ensures that teaching in our universities is well funded, but that individuals do not pay until they are seeing a good return on their investment. As I said, continued investment in the higher education sector has seen funding per student per degree increase by 25% since the 2012 reforms.

What is more, funding per student is today at the highest level it has been in almost 30 years. The recent decision to freeze the maximum level of tuition fees in the 2018-19 academic year takes account of the views of young people, their parents and Parliament. We have evaluated the current position of our universities, and on that basis, we have decided not to uprate tuition fees by inflation for the 2018-19 academic year. Students will therefore see maximum fees of around £300 less than if the maximum fee had been uprated with inflation.

The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) mentioned that his constituents were struggling to repay the cost of their higher education. To help him put it in context, as a result of our decision to increase the repayment threshold to £25,000 with effect from April next year, if one of his constituents earns £30,000 per year, that constituent will be repaying about £1.20 per day. We think that is a reasonable amount for someone on that level of income to repay as a contribution towards the cost of their higher education.

[Joseph Johnson]

That is right. The amount that someone repays is linked to the amount that they earn in any one year, and the repayment will be more rapid for someone on a higher level of income.

The current student finance system removes the financial barriers for those hoping to study, and avoids students facing upfront tuition fee costs. We have maintained the universal accessibility of the system, which allows all eligible students to access the required finance, regardless of their background and financial history. Critically, monthly repayments depend on income, not on interest rates on their debt, or on the amount borrowed. From April 2018, we will increase the repayment threshold to £25,000, and adjust it annually in line with average earnings after that. That change will benefit around 600,000 borrowers, and will continue to benefit future borrowers. Many borrowers who have already graduated will see their monthly repayments reduced. That change forms part of a considered and costed proposal that reinforces the principles of our student finance system, and puts money back in the pockets of graduates.

[Richard Graham]

Those changes are important and will make a difference to a large number of people. There are, however, two matters on which my hon. Friend knows we do not entirely agree. One is the interest rate. When student loans revert to being repaid with normal interest, I do not see the argument for having them use the retail prices index as a base rather than the consumer prices index. My second point is a wider one. The universities themselves believe that they would be able to attract even more students from abroad—which would help the funding of our universities—were students to be excluded from the immigration numbers. Does he agree that that is something that we might look forward to one day?

[Joseph Johnson]

My hon. Friend raises some interesting points. A longstanding feature of the system has been that it uses RPI, as that includes costs that are relevant to the basket of goods and services that students consume, including housing costs and mortgage interest costs. That is why RPI has been embedded in the student finance system historically.

International students make a massive contribution to our higher education system, economy and society. They enrich the learning experience, and the Government welcome them warmly. We wish to see more international students come to study in the United Kingdom. Members will have seen some positive changes in the Budget, including an expansion of the tier 1 exceptional talent cap, and that route into the country. The Budget also contained measures to make it easier for students to flip into tier 2 after they have finished studying, which means that they can move into work straight after completing their studies, rather than waiting until they receive a diploma some time later. That will be particularly valuable for people doing postgraduate courses. The Government are taking steps to ensure that we have a competitive offer for international students, so that we continue to be competitive around the world in attracting international students.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North West suggested that the tighter controls on student numbers in Scotland were not restricting opportunities there. I know that she did not want to hear about the OECD’s PISA rankings, but she may be interested in taking note of what the Sutton Trust has said about student numbers in Scotland, and how, in its opinion, they have restricted the aspiration of young people in Scotland. The Sutton Trust recently stated that

“Scottish 18 year olds from the most advantaged areas are still more than four times more likely to go straight to university than those from the least advantaged areas”

in Scotland. In comparison, they are 2.4 times more likely in England. We obviously take note of the hon. Lady’s points, but she should not give the impression that social mobility in Scotland is being advanced by higher education policy there to a greater extent than by our policies in England.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

I applaud the work of the national Living Wage Foundation, but we have a crucial role to play in ensuring that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has the resources to enforce the minimum wage, where it needs enforcing. That is our priority, although obviously I respect the work of the Living Wage Foundation.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

16. What assessment he has made of the potential merits of the recommendations set out in the Hendry review on tidal lagoons.

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

As my hon. Friend knows, the issues raised by the review are complex. A lagoon programme could cost in the region of £50 billion. The costs of renewable energy are plummeting, and we need to consider the questions associated with deploying this technology in the marine environment. All programmes have to be considered with the following in mind: the cost, the export potential and the contribution to the green economy.

[Richard Graham]

The Hendry review was delivered on time by a distinguished former Conservative Energy Minister who started a sceptic and finished a convert, strongly recommending that the Government push ahead with a pilot project. Although none of us would want to see the Government rush into decisions of this kind— a global first—what are the chances of a formal response before the review’s first anniversary in January? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Budget is an excellent opportunity for a positive announcement?

[Richard Harrington]

My hon. Friend may be frustrated, and I know the Government have yet to respond to the review, but as I have said this is an extremely complex issue and we need to ensure that we make the right decision. All I can say to him is that we will be publishing our response in due course.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Richard Graham Excerpts

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

[Greg Clark]

Such consultation is the universal practice in the nuclear sector. The hon. Gentleman might serve on the Bill Committee, so perhaps he will be able to interrogate the issues he raises, but at every point the nuclear sector proceeds not through the unilateral fiat of Governments but appropriately, on the basis of expert advice. That is the culture of the nuclear industry and it will continue.

As I set out for the House in my written statement in September, our intention is for the new domestic regime to exceed the standard that the international community would expect from the UK as a member of the IAEA. The objective is for it to be as robust and comprehensive as that currently provided by Euratom. We are perfectly satisfied with the high standards that have prevailed under Euratom, so we do not want to take the opportunity to weaken them. As I have mentioned, we will also be agreeing new safeguards agreements with the IAEA. My officials have had meetings with officials from the IAEA at their headquarters in Vienna to take the discussions forward, and I am pleased to report that they are progressing extremely well.

On other aspects of the Euratom relationship, we have made it clear that we want to continue the successful co-operation. In June, I announced the Government’s commitment to underwrite the UK’s fair share of the costs for the Joint European Torus—the leading nuclear fusion facility in Oxfordshire—which supports 1,300 jobs, and we will continue to do that.

Let me briefly take the House through the clauses of the Bill. It is not a long Bill, as the House knows. Clause 1 amends the Energy Act 2013 to replace the Office for Nuclear Regulation’s existing nuclear safeguards purposes with a new definition. The ONR will regulate the new nuclear safeguards regime using its existing relevant functions and powers, so the measure is about clarifying its purposes. Clause 1 will also amend the Act by creating new powers so that we can set out in regulations the detail of the domestic safeguards regime, such as on accounting, reporting, and control and inspection arrangements.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The Nuclear Industry Association has made it absolutely clear that this legislation is necessary, but it has also spelled out that the best outcome would be for the UK to continue with some form of membership of Euratom. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an idea of whether he feels that the discussions so far with Euratom make it likely that we will be able to achieve some form of continuation of the existing arrangement?

[Greg Clark]

As I have made it repeatedly clear, we regard the arrangements with Euratom as having served this country well and we want to see maximum continuity. As far as I can see, all members of the nuclear industry regard that as being the case. This is a good example of where I hope it will be possible to agree quickly and with a maximum of consensus a regime that continues the high standards that we have observed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who confirmed that the Liberal Democrats will support the Bill tonight. Indeed, all Members worried about the possibility of the UK falling off a cliff-edge without future arrangements as a result of leaving the EU should support this Bill. It is an important step to avoiding that situation, and this plan B is precisely why the Nuclear Industry Association has described it as “a necessary legislative step.”

It is therefore not a little ironic that the party that wants to have nothing to do with nuclear power, is presumably worried about safeguards, and cannot make a speech without chanting the words “Hard Tory Brexit” appears to be against a contingency plan to prevent precisely that wild accusation from coming true for the nuclear sector. The points made against this Bill by the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), and, indeed, by the Labour party spokesman, the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), cannot therefore be about a lack of preparation for any possibility of disagreement about sensible third-party status with Euratom being secured by negotiation, and it must be clear that anyone voting against the Bill tonight will, indeed, be voting for a very hard Brexit for nuclear energy.

The truth is that we must leave to one side the bizarre positions adopted by the formal two leading Opposition parties, and focus on the Bill itself and the comments of individual Members of Parliament, including the hon. Members for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), and my party colleagues, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), who has worked in the nuclear industry.

This is a contingency Bill. We all want a form of associative membership with Euratom that replicates existing arrangements. That is the clear position of the entire sector, represented either by the NIA or EDF Energy, the operator of all our existing nuclear power stations, with its operational headquarters in Barnwood in my constituency. It is telling that EDF Energy has said, first, that it appreciates the Government’s “early and constructive engagement on this issue with us”, and, secondly—to deal with some elements of scaremongering —that the UK has extremely “robust” arrangements for safety and security, and, “whatever the status of our membership of Euratom, there is no question but that this will continue to be the case.”

The NIA calls this Bill a welcome first step, but it does raise some questions, and I would be grateful if the Minister, in winding up, responded to some of the following questions. First, will he confirm that a bilateral US-UK nuclear co-operation agreement would be put in place to secure US components for Sizewell B in the event of Euratom’s NCAs and common market not being available to us, presumably through a voluntary offer safeguards agreement with the IAEA? Secondly, will he confirm that our funding for the Joint European Torus—or JET—project, which continues to 2020, will be extended, assuming there is a new relationship with Euratom? Thirdly, will he clarify the contingency process for the movement of nuclear material, goods, people, information and services to be agreed with the Euratom Supply Agency? Finally, will he confirm that our preferred arrangement for the period of transition is as close as possible to the current status quo?

Two other points are worth mentioning. They are about matters that the Bill does not cover. First, the NIA has spelt out clearly that Euratom does not manage the safety of the UK’s nuclear sites, which is, and always has been, determined by the UK, overseen by the Office for Nuclear Regulation; it is important that all our constituents understand that. Secondly, as the Secretary of State spelt out earlier, the radioisotopes are not special fissile nuclear material and their availability will absolutely not be impacted by our leaving Euratom. That is incredibly important for anyone who is worried about the impact of this on our health service.

This is a contingency Bill. The Government recognise our clear goal of securing third-party status with Euratom so that we can have the continuity that is clearly being sought by the entire civil nuclear sector, but they are also putting in place legislative arrangements for the Office for Nuclear Regulation to carry out the nuclear safeguarding work currently done by Euratom if, for whatever reason, that does not happen. The arguments—that is a flattering word to use—put up by Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition were riddled with inconsistencies, as their own Members have shown. However, I would not disagree with anything said by the hon. Member for Leeds West, especially on transition and associate membership. I hope that, recognising the importance of contingency planning as she does, she and indeed all Members of this House will, like me, vote for the Bill tonight.

BAE Systems Military Air & Information Sites: Job Losses

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

The right hon. Gentleman is brave to mention the former Prime Minister’s name. Of course this is a whole-of-government responsibility. [Interruption.] In other countries, leaders of the official Opposition do not stand up in public and criticise exactly the sort of defence deals we are trying to sign, or put at risk the renewal of technologies such as Trident, which are absolutely vital to our technology and knowledge base. I suggest he has a word with the Labour Front Bench and then perhaps we can have more of a conversation.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

BAE’s huge contribution to skills, jobs and exports depends not least on cross-party political support for our exports to foreign Governments. Some on the Opposition Benches absolutely understand that, but the fact of the matter is that the Labour party leadership loses no opportunity to criticise what those of us in the Prime Minister’s trade envoy team are trying to do. Will the Minister confirm that although there will be job losses in some parts of BAE, there have been significant increases in other divisions, for example at least 350 new jobs in its cyber division?

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that this is a very dynamic business, which has to respond to globally changing conditions. It employs almost 36,000 people right across the UK. He is also absolutely right to point out other opportunities. It is absolutely critical that we back these British businesses, focus on export opportunities and work together. Many of us represent constituencies affected by these sorts of announcements and we all fly the flag for one the most successful companies in the world—BAE Systems. Let us get on and do it.

Tuition Fees

Richard Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I welcome my hon. Friend to this place. She makes an extremely important point. Ending nursing bursaries has had a negative impact on people applying to go to university to do nursing courses. As we look to exit the European Union, Members on both sides of the House know that we have to train and skill up our own workforce in order to provide all the nurses, doctors and other skilled workers we require. Conservative Members said during the general election campaign that they wanted to cut immigration. If they truly want to do that, they have to invest in young people in this country.

It seems that the Secretary of State believes that access to higher education simply ends with admissions. Figures from the Office for Fair Access show that the proportion of students dropping out before they finish their studies is at a five-year high. Disadvantaged students are nearly twice as likely to drop out than their more affluent peers.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I appreciate that this is a difficult day for the hon. Lady because she has come to raise some important issues, which we should debate, but her credibility is completely undermined by the difficulty of her saying that she speaks in the best interests of young people on the one hand, while on the other hand her party’s policy has changed to a position where today she says she has no plans to write off student debt. Therefore, her party’s word cannot be trusted on anything and young people will become more cynical about what politicians say.

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Gentleman knows that we are talking about the tuition fee rise that his party said it would not impose on students and that it is trying to deny us a vote on. I hope he will push his Government to ensure that we do get a vote and that he will vote with us not to hike up tuition fees for young people.

Social mobility is stalling and drop-out rates are rising. Student debt in the UK is the highest in the world and more than 75% of students will never pay off their debts. The fact is that the Government’s policy on higher education simply is not working.