New Pylons: East Anglia

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew). I extend my sympathies to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), whose parents enjoyed their later years in my lovely constituency. The whole town extends its love to him and his family over these next weeks.

I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. I am sure he will remark that many hon. Members have met him on several occasions recently. We are grateful for that engagement, but I will leave him with the thought that that is our engagement so far. As he has heard from my right hon. and hon. Friends, this system is not suitable for our constituents. Arguably, given our recent challenges with energy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland pointed out, we need to future-proof ourselves and understand what we need for the country.

My main focus is on how the proposals fail to offer choice and the lack of meaningful consultation with my constituents. Like many, I fully support the work being undertaken to achieve net zero. Indeed, looking at the temperatures that we are currently working in and enjoying, it is essential to move towards adaptation as well. Low-carbon energy production has a crucial role, and the contribution of the east of England is likely only to grow, given the likelihood of Sizewell C, further offshore generation and the new generation of sea-tethered wind farms that could give us greater capacity. Our 4,100 MW of generation today is destined to rise to 25,000 MW by 2030, but as my hon. Friend pointed out, we have slightly put the cart before the horse. I would gently say that we are talking about energy resilience and critical national infrastructure, so we should take a step back and think about what we are doing here.

The National Grid’s proposals display little thought or care. In the meeting yesterday, for which we were all extremely grateful, it straight away blamed the current regulatory framework—the national policy statement. The reason that it could not offer anything other than pylons was that that was the most economic and efficient way of doing it. I put it to the Minister that we need to halt and understand the problem. We need to look at the NPS and its criteria in relation to energy, add the east of England to the holistic network design, and offer true choice.

As it stands, Bury St Edmunds faces having 50 metre-high pylons tearing through it, as do the constituencies represented by my right hon. and hon. Friends. From the maps that the National Grid has provided, one could be forgiven for thinking that the stretch from mid-Suffolk had been drawn by merely placing a ruler on the map and drawing a pencil line down one side.

The electricity generated on the east coast is destined—demanded—to keep the lights on in London. While it is important to give that assurance for the east of England, we want protection for our communities, our countryside and the food that we produce for the nation. We are informed by those at NG ESO that multiple cables will be needed, but we have seen no impact statement or costings, so we feel that we are being taken for a ride. The only opportunity is for the deliverer, not our constituents. As announced yesterday, subsea transmission is good enough to pull energy from Morocco to the UK, and it is good enough for the north of England, so it should be good enough for us.

Our counties are not only good at generating energy; we are three of the nation’s largest producers of food to give our people energy. What assessment has been made of the impact on that? I have received a significant amount of correspondence from constituents who are incredibly concerned about East Anglia GREEN and their strong local objection is echoed throughout the route. My right hon. Friend the Minister will know from his own constituents how passionate locals are about infrastructure projects. Mine are no different. This is precious to us.

I have visited part of the affected area in my constituency. As I drove around my constituent Tom Rash’s farm, he pointed out the regenerative way in which he farms and how erecting pylons sat at odds with our objective of supporting food production and enhancing food security, and directly contradicts the objectives coming out of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. As I looked at Wortham Ling, a site of special scientific interest on Mr Rash’s farm that is overseen by Suffolk Wildlife Trust and managed as a nature reserve, the acid grassland and dry heath developed on glaciofluvial drift deposits—[Interruption.]—yes, one of those early in the morning—offer a unique area of natural beauty. As we look up at the big skies from Wortham Ling or the local well-attended tennis club or the church that stands adjacent to the farmyard, the pylons will bear down on us and give us no benefits in our community. This is precious to us; it is valuable.

The early opportunities team at National Grid appear to see the area as open land, free to cut through, and has given little consideration to anything but the bottom line and what the book says. Straight routes are cheaper; we are being serviced on the cheap. Due to the sparse population, we may be seen as an easy hit. Can the Minister confirm in his summing up if there has been a full impact assessment of overground and underground pylons, undersea options, the hit to food production and the environmental impact?

If we are just being seen as an easy early opportunity, that is unacceptable. From the correspondence that I and others have received, it is clear that subsea transmission is overwhelmingly preferred. However, I say again: we have not been given the chance to choose. Who is accountable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex asked? I share my constituents’ views, because offshore generation is only going to grow and we should ensure a system that is future-proofed. Indeed, looking at Octopus’s latest announcement on Xlinks, there is more likelihood that renewables will come to us from different parts of the world. The Dutch are very high generators of renewables. Surely the ability to connect around the country would be a much more sensible approach?

Allowing those interconnectors to be put offshore would be a move forward, but I am led to believe no alternatives to the Norwich-to-Tilbury proposals have been fully explored. They appear to have been discarded without a full explanation as to why they are not viable. The recent consultation by National Grid offered no alternative to overland transmission. Indeed, many of the questions were somewhat irrelevant as they were closed, such as “Do you want green energy?” Who is going to answer anything but yes to that? There has been no ability to put forward a different view. To be frank, it was a fait accompli. It serves no purpose but to reinforce a decision that has already been made—“Sorry, overhead pylons are the default and that is what you are getting”—and to silence that local voice.

To add to the local incredulity regarding the consultation, it has now become apparent that elsewhere in the country, as others have said, subsea transmission is being used precisely to avoid impact on local communities. This is all starting to feel incredibly unfair to the east of England, particularly given our status as a net contributor to Her Majesty’s Treasury: we give you our money, we give you our energy, we grow your food, yet we are not worthy of a proper consultation or protection.

I want to see complete transparency about the allocation of funding for subsea transmission, particularly as the east of England is a major power generator for the country, with connections to the continent to transmit energy when needed. It was not included in the holistic network design and that feels like a mistake. The Minister and I have discussed the meaning of “holistic” before: it means dealing with or treating the whole of something and not just a part. We cannot have a three-quarters holistic network design, which is what we have at the moment. More work on inclusion in the HND is required. We are not nimbyists in Suffolk; we are pragmatic. However, we want a fair consultation. All this can be avoided if we are treated in the same manner as other parts of the country, with subsea transmission replacing overland proposals, or we are at least given a choice.

My constituents and I want change. We want to be part of a holistic network design. We want a Government who stop and think and take stock. We want a Government who future-proof us. A sensible Government will do that. Demand will only grow as we need to be cool in the summer and warm in the winter. With any infrastructure investment, it is imperative to get it right first time. As the Minister knows, the local voice is important. Please listen to ours.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I join others in passing my condolences to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who made a brilliant speech in the circumstances. We are grateful to him for continuing none the less. We are also grateful to him for chairing OffSET; I think we have had an impact.

Let us be clear what we are not debating today. No one is debating the policy of pursuing net zero—all of us East Anglian MPs support that. No one is debating the need for sovereign sources of energy, given Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Actually, no one is debating the need for an offshore grid. That is now Government policy. When my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) held an Adjournment debate in November 2020, the current Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, then the Energy Minister, said to him:

“I would suggest that the argument for some form of offshore network system has been won. What is critically under discussion at the moment is the timing.”—[Official Report, 5 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 584.]

That was November 2020. In the summer of 2020, the discussion had not even started. That shows the progress OffSET made in persuading Government to buy into an offshore grid. Last May, in my last Prime Minister’s question before being promoted, I asked the Prime Minister about an offshore grid. He said:

“My hon. Friend is spot on in what he says about the need for an offshore grid.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2021; Vol. 695, c. 698.]

So, it is Government policy.

The question before us is about the extent to which an offshore grid is being taken into account in the real life in-flight decisions being made today that are affecting our constituents, which brings us to East Anglia GREEN. We have just had the consultation on this brand new proposal for huge pylons across Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. I attended those consultation sessions. Having met with my constituents, it is my view that they felt it was a predetermined consultation—what we would call a fait accompli.

My constituents were shown a narrow strip of land—I think it is called a swathe. The National Grid officials hoped that the discussion would be about where exactly the pylons would go within that very narrow swathe. However, my constituents and those of colleagues had envisaged that that informal consultation would be an opportunity to discuss the top-level options. Should the pylons go under the sea? Should they go over land? If over land, should they be underground just in the area of natural beauty, or elsewhere? Instead, constituents were presented with a final decision that the pylons were going in that swathe, on land—taking place, as I said earlier, as if in a parallel universe.

I also received feedback from constituents that when they asked the National Grid officials in the village halls doing the consultation about an offshore grid, they were told that it is not possible, not feasible and so on. I wrote to all constituents affected and pointed out that although officials were telling them that an offshore grid is not feasible, National Grid is committed to £3.4 billion of expenditure on undersea cabling off Scotland and the north of England, on two enormous bootstraps—undersea electricity cables.

In fact, we already have an undersea electricity cable off the west coast, from Scotland to north Wales, called the Western Link. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex said, the total mileage—built or committed—is about 800 miles. Off East Anglia, with Sea Link 1, which I referred to when I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), the mileage is about 80 miles—a ratio of 10:1. When I shared that with my constituents, they were astonished. They had been given the impression that it was not even possible; in fact, it is happening as we speak. Bootstraps have been built and others will be built. My constituents want to know why we could not get a greater share of that technology in our counties.

What particularly hurt was reading an email that was shared with me. I will not reveal the name of the person concerned—they are a member of the public. The email, which was sent to National Grid’s community engagement team on the northern project, asked:

“Would you know the reasons to go submarine rather than overground, there are many obvious advantages but would be interested to understand the primary considerations?”

The response from National Grid was:

“This is a good question. Routing the cable overground for hundreds of miles would likely require overhead lines that would cause disruption and visual impacts to many communities, ranging from County Durham to southern Scotland, where the route originates. By routing the cable under the North Sea, away from settlements, we significantly reduce its impact on communities.”

Just to be clear, the question was about the primary considerations. It is clear that, off Scotland and northern England, the primary consideration—those are the words National Grid responded to—was the protection of communities. Yet when National Grid came to Holton St Mary village hall to speak to my constituents, who said, “We want you to protect our countryside by going offshore,” National Grid said that that was not even possible—“And, by the way, we can’t even talk about it as part of the consultation.”

[Jo Churchill]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. If I understand him correctly, he said that in the consultation the value and worth of communities and environment was a strong rationale, but we are being told that we have to be bound by the rationale of the NPS, which is economic and efficient. Does he feel, like me, that we are not being treated fairly?

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point: we are not being treated fairly. We possibly got some explanation about that at the meeting that we held yesterday with National Grid, National Grid ESO and Ofgem. Unfortunately, it was a private meeting, inasmuch as it was not held with our constituents, but it was public to the extent that we can talk publicly about what was discussed. I would much have preferred that our constituents were involved in those discussions, but unfortunately the consultation has closed.

What is crucial is that, first, National Grid argues that the consultation covered offshore options. National Grid emailed me. It believes that it covered those options because, buried in a 120-page document that it circulated when people from National Grid were going to village halls, there is a page that says:

“The use of onshore technology. The potential for an offshore connection was considered as part of the process of defining the preferred reinforcement solution”—

it then goes through some detail—

“but concluded that the options were poorer performing on the basis of capability and poorer in cost benefit least regret terms.”

In National Grid’s view, that means that the consultation covered offshore options. When I ask whether it covered offshore options, I mean that, when my constituents went to Holton St Mary village hall, was there a picture on the wall of their preference and another picture of what an offshore option would look like? That is what a consultation means: people look at both options. Of course the option was not on the wall; it was buried in the small print.

My view is not predetermined. National Grid says that it consulted on offshore. This, therefore, is what I am going to do. I will write to all of my affected constituents and ask them, “Did you participate in the consultation, and if so do you feel that it covered offshore? Do you feel that you had a say in the top-level choice of going overground or under sea?” My thoughts are not predetermined—I will see what they say—but my view is that the consultation did not cover it. There was no transparency on the justification.

There is a reason that there is no transparency, which we discovered yesterday. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex is absolutely right that the people at National Grid are doing their job, and we should not cast blame. That is not the point; we are here to represent our constituents. National Grid said yesterday that given the concern about what is happening in Scotland and the sense of unfairness, it would publish a detailed assessment of an offshore option later in the summer. Why will that be published later in the summer? Because it has not been done. There has been no detailed assessment of an offshore option.

How on earth did National Grid conclude that it cannot go offshore? Let us figure that one out. That will answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), because I am pleased to say that the meeting was attended by Akshay Kaul, the director of networks at Ofgem. The argument from National Grid is that the framework precludes it from looking at an offshore option. The regulator, Mr Kaul, said that is not correct: the framework does not preclude looking at offshore options; all the infrastructure projects should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. That is what he said to us yesterday, very transparently. How can something be looked at on a case-by-case basis if the detailed work has not been done?

National Grid also said to us something that goes back to the brilliant point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew): that the work it will do will show that an offshore option is not possible. There is a word for that. I have only recently resigned as the courts Minister, and must be careful what I say—I am conscious of the judicial arm—but that is predetermination if ever Members have heard of it: “We will do the work, but here is the answer it will tell you.”

I would like that report, first, not to be undertaken by National Grid, but to be commissioned by the Government and undertaken by an independent expert who is not predetermined. Secondly, I would like it—as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland said—not to draw a line from the closest oceanic point next to Norwich down to somewhere in the south of England, for instance near Tilbury or the Isle of Grain, but rather to draw what we all want, which is a mesh of offshore connections: in other words, not just Sea Link 1, but Sea Links 2, 3 and 4, which would give us 6 GW, which is what the pylons would give us. Crucially, as my hon. Friend said, we would then have the nodes that give us the interconnectivity with the continent, so we can import and export, and be the Saudi Arabia of offshore wind.

In other words, we want the consultation to be reopened, not to look at this basic and expensive option, which has had no work put into it, but to ask an independent consultant, “What if we used this connectivity as the foundation stone for a proper offshore grid in East Anglia?”, which is what we believe Government policy should be.

There is one final thing that the report needs to do. It needs to include my constituents. We know constitutionally that none of us is here in our own right. We are here only by virtue of the fact that we have won an election and we represent our constituents. They have not been involved in any of the discussions. There was no meaningful consultation on offshore as far as I am concerned. This has to be reopened. That does not mean giving us a report; it means going back to Holton St Mary village hall with the results and explaining to people why it may not be possible to go offshore, but being transparent about that. That is what democracy is all about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Unfortunately I was not able to be at the meeting yesterday, but I will carefully look at a read-out of what was said at that meeting and study it. In any case I need to respond to his letter of 7 July, so I will make sure that I take on that specific point as far as I am able.

In general, my hon. Friend makes the good point that there is undersea cabling around the country. He rightly points out connections, for example, between Scotland and Wales, between Scotland and England and so on, but it is worth pointing out that East Anglia GREEN will deliver 6 GW of extra network capacity. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney made that point. The latest offshore cable technology is capable of carrying up to 2 GW of capacity. When we are looking at the sheer amount of energy that needs to be transmitted, it is not necessarily comparing like with like. To deliver the equivalent of East Anglia GREEN offshore would require at least three 2 GW cables. We can all look at a map and see where connections are, but that does not tell the whole story.

[Jo Churchill]

The nub of it is that we have not been given these options. The Minister spoke about environmental impact and the other considerations that were taken into account, but as the MP trying to help inform my constituents, I certainly have never seen any of that information or data; I do not know whether anybody else has. Yesterday it was definitely inferred that some of this acquiring of information would need to happen in short order.

[Greg Hands]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have spoken about yesterday, and I repeat my pledge to hold as soon as I can a further meeting with colleagues to consider what was said and the progression of these matters, while bearing in mind the quasi-judicial planning nature of the Secretary of State’s decision.

In July my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when he was Energy Minister, launched the offshore transmission network review, or OTNR, to improve the level of co-ordination in how we connect offshore and ensure that future connections are delivered in the most appropriate way. I think itwas my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland who asked, could we not have foreseen in 2015 the great need for this work? To some extent, that is not an unfair point. In many ways, in this country we are victims of our incredible success with our offshore wind capacity, which is the largest in Europe. It was the largest in the world until last summer, when China overtook us. It really is the envy of the world, and others come to see us. The United States is scaling up its capability and other European countries are coming to see us and so on. So he makes a fair point.

Earlier this month, we reached a significant milestone in the review with the publication of a major deliverable—the holistic network design, to which my hon. Friends have referred. In addition, we recently announced Nick Winser CBE as the UK’s first Electricity Networks Commissioner. He will play a pivotal role in ensuring that we have the right infrastructure to transmit electricity to where it is needed.

I pay tribute my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds for always being engaged on all matters environmental during her time at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. When it comes to commercial and industrial and energy resilience, which is very important, I refer her to the evidence that I gave yesterday to the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy, which goes into those matters in some detail.

The HND sets out the need for about £54 billion of onshore and offshore transmission infrastructure, new and upgraded, which will be needed to deliver our 2030 ambition. That is the first time that those have been co-ordinated to ensure better outcomes for communities, the environment and bill payers. Although a new requirement for onshore network reinforcement has been identified in the HND, no decisions have yet been taken on how best to do that. All projects that come forward as a result of the HND will be subject to the relevant democratic planning processes to ensure that local stakeholders get a say on the developments and that the impacts are mitigated as far as possible. I have already mentioned the pathfinder projects.

I will deal with three or four other points that arose in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland asked whether connection contracts were subject to planning. They are, but of course they are not yet in the planning system. There is a statement from the five projects in East Anglia that are working together on offshore co-ordinated options, as he knows, and utilising changes in the offshore transmission network review process. That will be supported by a £100 million offshore co-ordination support scheme, which will be launched later this year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds asked about the NPS, which will be reconsulted on later this year. I expect that that will apply to this project. MPs will have a chance to have an input on the NPS process. I expect both the current and future NPS to provide the flexibility for trade-offs between cost and impact and between offshore and onshore options to be brought forward where appropriate. That is a matter for National Grid Electricity Transmission and Ofgem. My hon. Friend also asked about the environment impact assessment for East Anglia GREEN, which will cover the impacts on agriculture. We expect farmers and landowners to receive compensation for any loss or impact on crop production.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk wants a study on the offshore grid to be done independently. In accordance with its transmission licence, it is NGET’s responsibility to develop and put forward options to reinforce the network. BEIS is the ultimate decision maker for those nationally significant infrastructure projects.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Lady will have studied the evidence that I gave to the Welsh Affairs Committee a couple of months ago on the national grid in Wales. When it comes to ensuring that we are equipped in renewable energy, we have just announced the results of last week’s contract for difference auction. I remind her that when she was a supporter of the last Labour Government, only 7% of our electricity was generated from renewables. It is now 43%.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

The east has offshore wind and nuclear to give the nation. London wants its power. Why should Bury St Edmunds, and the broader Suffolk, Norfolk and Essex, have 50-metre pylons tearing across its countryside? Up north, we have routed it under the sea. We in the east want a fair consultation. My right hon. Friend has listened to us; please listen to us again to get to the right answer.

[Greg Hands]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is right that I have met East Anglia MPs to discuss this matter—it has been impressed on me across more than 20 constituencies—and I am sure that I will have further engagements with her. I continue to work with National Grid as part of its processes to ensure that her constituents get the best possible deal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

No: if the hon. Gentleman reads the strategy he will see that there is a commitment to the biggest increase in research and development funding, both private and public sector, that we have ever had in this country. It has been the foundation of our success, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the progress we are making to be even better at it.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

Productivity in the construction industry is a key requirement of building houses. How will the Secretary of State ensure quality in on and offsite builds for the £1.7 billion investment in construction in the industrial strategy?

[Greg Clark]

I am glad my hon. Friend mentions that, because the construction sector is one of the areas in which there are big opportunities. It has a sector deal that has been concluded as part of the industrial strategy, and representatives of the sector have said that this represents a major opportunity, especially in offsite manufacture.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Jo Churchill Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 20th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and there are so many different circumstances—in certain circumstances, a funeral may be delayed. We need to consider that issue, and I am keen to hear views on it.

Eligibility is another area we need to have a debate on. In terms of my current thinking on who is considered to be a parent, the Government and I did quite a lot of consultation over the summer. It was apparent early on that the issue of who is a parent is key to ensuring the right people are reached and to the success of the Bill.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

Along with answering the question of who is a parent, will my hon. Friend please tell me whether the Bill will address the issue of who is an employee, in view of the Taylor report? Those who work on zero-hours contracts, those who are self-employed and others will need that same space for grieving, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) pointed out in his very powerful article in The Times. Not everybody is in the same situation. Was that considered as well?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes two good points in one—that self-employed people are treated differently in relation to various aspects of maternity and paternity leave, and that the Taylor review is considering some of these issues. We should consider this issue in the framework of the Taylor review. We should see what recommendations come from that review and then perhaps look to change these provisions if there is consensus on that.

An obvious starting point on eligibility is for the provision to apply to the biological parents of the child who has passed away. However, it is unrealistic to suggest that all family units look exactly the same; that is too simplistic an approach. As a society, we have clearly moved on from mum, dad and 2.4 children. Children now live in many different situations, with caring responsibilities divided up in different ways, depending on different life circumstances. A child could have a number of parental figures in their life, all of whom are equally attached to them and, therefore, potentially equally devastated if they pass away.

I will not be so bold as to say that pinning down a wider definition of “parent” is easy. I do not expect we will do that today or even during the passage of the Bill. We need to take considered opinion on the issue and to allow further debate on it. Therefore, in the Bill’s later stages, I propose that we take time for consideration and the submission of evidence, that we debate this point widely, and that we bring forward the necessary regulations, as provided for in the Bill, once that consideration has been undertaken.

First, we need to ensure that we put in place a clear framework so that everyone clearly understands whether the entitlement to leave applies under these circumstances. That will take a little more time. I am very conscious that many different issues can and will form part of the overall debate during the Bill’s passage. We are likely to hear about the desire for parity between the self-employed and the employed, and questions about what other measures can be put in place to support parents at such a devastating time. These issues, and no doubt many more, will form the basis for a wider debate about what can and should be done in this area.

I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House share my desire to ensure that the Bill succeeds and makes quick progress. As we all know, a certain fragility accompanies the private Member’s Bill process. I would like to navigate that as best and as quickly as I can, with the help and support of Members across the House. Collectively, we have the opportunity to effect real change. It is our duty to ensure that those who will need to rely on this provision are able to do so at the earliest opportunity.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Jo Churchill Excerpts

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

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady falls into a classic trap. I am not one who seeks to dismiss experts—as a non-expert, I always turn to experts for advice—but a concern that is wrong in fact does not become legitimate if it is raised by an expert. A person could be concerned about all sorts of things, and they could have as many letters after their name as they like, but they are not always correct. Some Opposition Members started to fan the embers of this flame about three or four months ago, and it does not appear to have caught.

I have received a briefing note, as I am sure have other colleagues, entitled “What about medical radioisotopes?” The import or export of medical radioisotopes is not subject to any Euratom licensing requirements. Let us seek to assure the experts who have concerns—their concerns are legitimate, and the House must address them—that Euratom places no restrictions on the export of medical isotopes to countries outside the EU. These isotopes are not subject to Euratom supply agency contracts or to Euratom safeguards, which means no special arrangements need to be put in place ahead of withdrawal.

Withdrawal from Euratom will have no effect on the UK’s ability to import medical isotopes from Europe and the rest of the world. It is in everyone’s interest not to disrupt patients’ timely access to treatment, and it is in everyone’s interest to ensure that cross-border trade with the EU is as frictionless as possible. I entirely take the point raised by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), that some of these products have a short shelf life, and clearly we cannot have these products sitting in an overheated metal container at the port of Dover or Calais.

Out of common sense I have to ask which country on God’s earth will set a tariff barrier regime and seek to take beyond its useful lifespan a vital component in the delivery of medical care. In the French Government, the German Government and the Belgian Government, we are not dealing with countries that have no interest in public health and healthcare, because of course they do, as do our Government. The idea that those countries will deliberately set up barriers that cause these products to pass their sell-by date, like a piece of chicken that has been sat too long on a supermarket shelf, is fanciful and compounds the allegation that I and several of my hon. Friends have made, that the Bill can be criticised for other reasons, but it is cruel, callous and unnecessary to criticise it at the expense of unsettling people who require medical interventions.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for largely making my point for me. He knows my deep interest in this area, and I draw to his attention the fact that not only has the Secretary of State reiterated those points today but that the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation firmly made them back in June.

Are the expert opinions that my hon. Friend is addressing recent, or are they historical?

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. These debates often get stuck in a groove on the gramophone, the needle gets stuck and we do not knock it forward. I think it was John Maynard Keynes who said, “When the facts change, I change my mind.” A concern is raised, it is addressed, it ceases to be a concern and we move on to something else. I am not saying there will be no other concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies). I join in this debate not as a Member who has a particularly close partnership with the nuclear industry, nor as someone with specific knowledge of Euratom. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) says that he voted to leave because of Euratom, but, a little like my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), I cannot possibly say that I voted to remain because of it. However, the nuclear industry and our nuclear future in all its guises is extremely important to us all. To that end, the Bill is a necessary measure in response to the decisions taken after the referendum—a plan B, as some have referred to it. I urge everyone to join me in giving the Bill an unopposed passage through the House this evening.

[Michelle Donelan]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, while membership of Euratom has served the UK well, it is only prudent and simply good governance that we are prepared for every eventuality? It is common sense, which is perhaps why there are so few Opposition Members participating in and listening to this debate.

[Jo Churchill]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that this is common sense. The Opposition argue that we are being presumptive, but we are just being thoughtful by ensuring that things are in place to ensure a smooth passage.

As has been said, this is about soft collaboration. It is an important opportunity to reiterate that the Government’s aim is to ensure that collaborative research and development continues, with close working relationships between universities, both in Europe and across the world, and other organisations.

It is clear that nuclear is a global industry, given the foreign investment in the UK nuclear industry from France and China. The issue is particularly pertinent in Suffolk, with EDF and Sizewell C due to come on stream. It is for that reason that our future relationship with the European Union is so important to understanding the future of the sector in the UK, as well as what it will mean for jobs, skills and businesses.

I am reassured by the Bill’s commitment to maintaining our current safeguards and standards under Euratom. By leaving those unchanged, the UK can guarantee a close working relationship with the Euratom community and those further afield. That is a wise decision to ensure close working with our natural partners, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and others have said.

Closer to home, Sizewell C on the Suffolk coast is under consideration, having completed stage 2 of the consultation process. Its potential is huge: it could power 6 million homes with clean, affordable nuclear energy and create 26,000 jobs and apprenticeships in the region. It would be at the cutting edge of the UK nuclear industry and receive significant international investment. That point was ably made by my hon. Friends the Members for Fylde and for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), who stated that the nuclear industry gives nearly £1 billion to the UK economy. It is important that we acknowledge its monetary significance.

West Suffolk College in my constituency is a national centre for nuclear and it is preparing for Sizewell C. East Anglia is fast proving its worth as a crucial region for skills, research and innovation, with Cambridge sitting at its heart.

I appreciate that the Bill does not cover EU research funding, but given that we are discussing the UK’s nuclear industry, it would not be amiss to remind the House that the UK is a world leader in the most promising nuclear fusion technologies, which is not something on which we intend to compromise on Brexit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde has said, we could be a world leader and it is important that we have the appropriate safeguards in place. That is why a smooth transition, which is contingent on continuity for the sector, is so vital.

The UK wants to explore ways in which continued collaboration, including in nuclear research and training, can be taken forward. For a vibrant region such as East Anglia, that is crucial not just for the possibility of major nuclear investment on our coast, but so that any investment opportunities are not lost on Brexit. Part of that understanding is that all our obligations on safeguards are met. We need to ensure that all systems are transparent and accountable with regard to material and how it is kept.

I will close my speech with two wider points thrown up by the Bill, and I hope the Minister will respond to them when he sums up the debate. On nuclear safeguarding in our communities, what assessment has he made of the role that my outstanding West Suffolk College and other colleges could play as centres of learning for any nuclear engineering apprentices working on my coastline and others, including Hinkley and the north-west? How will safeguards be built into that training? How will we future proof those people whom we will employ in the industry? How does the ONR cascade information through this system? Hinkley Point is a crucial model to learn from for future nuclear projects in the UK, especially in relation to its funding models.

As we leave the European Union, the need to draw skills and jobs to keep our nuclear sector vibrant becomes arguably more urgent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) said. That includes those whose skills lie in repositories. We must ensure that we are scoping for the skills needed as we withdraw from Euratom so that we have, as this Bill states, a seamless continuation of the high standards of this industry, and the UK maximises and, as the Secretary of State said, even raises the standards within the IAEA.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady knows that I have great enthusiasm for a deal in Ayrshire, and conversations around that are ongoing. I am sure that she will welcome the progress being made on the spaceport, which is important for Prestwick, and the £3.5 million support for the Halo project at the old Johnnie Walker bottling plant in Kilmarnock. A lot is being done in Ayrshire, but I would like that progress to continue.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

Has the Secretary of State considered rural enterprise zones? Small, targeted areas within small rural communities would help to drive business in those environments.

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent suggestion. There are particular opportunities for start-ups and smaller businesses to locate in rural areas, where premises may be more available than in towns. Clustering them together so that they can support each other is an excellent suggestion and I will take it forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

On the specific point of retail energy markets, a two-year investigation has been carried out by the CMA, and it is now for Ofgem to respond. I hope it will respond and eradicate that deficit; that is the test that Ofgem faces. We have made it clear that we will rule nothing out if it falls short, but I do not want to remove the obligation on it to respond in that way. I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome our intention to publish a consumer Green Paper and that she will contribute to it. This will look across the board—across other utilities as well—to see whether the existing regulatory arrangements are sufficient.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

T3. The life sciences industry is worth £64 billion to the UK, and Sir John Bell’s report last week indicated how important manufacturing was. Will the Minister therefore join me in welcoming the opening of the cell and gene manufacturing unit and welcome further jobs in this industry in the east of England, particularly in my constituency?

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

We indeed welcome that. Medicines manufacturing is key, which is why we have launched a £146 million medicines manufacturing programme under the industry strategy challenge fund. That includes £12 million for expansion of the cell and gene therapy manufacturing centre. The other centres, a vaccines centre, a medicines manufacturing innovation centre and three advanced therapy centres, are open to competition and could be located anywhere in the country, including in the east of England.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

I am afraid that I must completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s view of things. We are committed to supporting the development of a decommissioning industry. I think that there are significant opportunities. We are currently considering options for the delivery of a port and yard, and we will continue to engage closely with all relevant stakeholders as we develop our options.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

2. What steps he has taken to consult businesses on the process of the UK leaving the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

Since the referendum, I have held discussions with businesses, workers and local leaders across the UK, and investors all around the world. These will continue over the coming months, including my weekly meetings with the directors general of the five main business organisations. The Government are creating a new EU exit business advisory group to ensure that business is not only heard but is influential throughout the negotiations.

[Jo Churchill]

My particular interest is in the UK’s life science sector, which is worth some £30 billion to the economy and involves nearly half a million jobs, many of which are in my constituency of Bury St Edmunds. Will the Secretary of State tell me how he will ensure that there is continued support to this vital leading research and science sector as we leave the EU?

[Greg Clark]

I will indeed. My hon. Friend is a great champion of the sector. In our negotiations, we want to ensure that we can continue these successful collaborations, as well as making further investment in the future of research through our industrial strategy. The House may be interested to know that I can announce today that the Government’s commitment to underwrite the UK’s fair share for the Joint European Torus costs—the leading nuclear fusion facility in Oxfordshire, supporting 1,300 jobs—will be made. The facility is funded through a contract between the European Commission and the UK Atomic Energy Authority. In making this commitment, the Government hope to provide the certainty and reassurance needed for a mutually beneficial extension of the contract.

Industrial Strategy Consultation

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I strongly believe in the city deals and growth deals, and I thought the presentation from the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues showed a very good ambition, bringing together the industrial strengths and opportunities of their area, so I wish it every success. These deals need to be negotiated, but he will know that in Scotland we have a good record of making progress on city and growth deals.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

I welcome the statement. As the Secretary of State knows, the east of England enjoys an excellent ecosystem for life sciences. Does he agree that the strategy provides industry and business, particularly the life sciences sector, with the opportunity to bring their ideas to the door in order to truly drive their sectors and upskill our workforce? Also, may I invite him to Bury St Edmunds, which sits beautifully next to Cambridge and has both an enterprise zone and West Suffolk College, which would make an excellent institute for technology?

Higher Education and Research Bill

Jo Churchill Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 21st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

A university is an establishment where higher-level study, education and research are done. It is not somewhere where one would necessarily avail oneself of volunteering experiences, for example, or of the other things that the hon. Lady has listed. I contend that as we move into longer lifespans within which we may take degrees at different times, we may be looking merely to access a degree to enhance our careers rather than making it part of our lifestyle.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

The hon. Lady was on the Committee, and I am sure that she will recall that the things in the amendment are in addition to what we might call the core business of a university, which is to enable people to study for a higher-level qualification. The amendment is designed to ensure that we do not get a whole series of institutions that can use the title of university but that offer only a single course of study and a single qualification, because we think that that will dumb down the sector not only for UK students but, in particular, for international students. The hon. Lady will know that the sector is a highly competitive one internationally, and we want to ensure that our universities compete with the best in the world.

We have huge concerns about allowing an institution to say that it is a university when it does not have to provide any access to sports, recreation, cultural activities, volunteering opportunities, work-based learning experience or any of the other things that our universities do right across the piece. I hope that the hon. Lady is as proud as I am that our universities do so.

[Jo Churchill]

I concur, up to a point. I am hugely proud of universities, and I am hugely proud of what they deliver into our economies. But I would also argue that we have other great institutions; BT in Suffolk, for example, hopes to have a specific degree around research, learning and so on, and such things should be enabled for a future workforce that is fit for purpose. They should not just be wiped away because an institution does not offer the chance to play five-a-side football.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I, too, think that BT has a number of strengths as a company, but it is yet to be determined whether it is very good at running a university. We will only know that in due course. If BT runs a university, I want to ensure that it is a university as we would commonly understand it, not simply a company that offers a degree course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to colleagues for raising so many points that came up in Committee which particularly exercised me with regard to part 1 of the Bill. Because of the shortness of time, I will restrict my remarks to two issues concerning students and staff in higher education.

I welcome Government amendment 21 on student representation on the board of the Office for Students and the fact that the Minister has listened to the huge number of representations he has received from members of the Bill Committee, from student unions and from higher education sector leaders, who really value the contribution students make and want to see students on the board. It would have been perverse to have a regulator whose purpose was to protect the interests of students and that had the word “students” on its door and headed paper but did not have students around the table on its board. I am glad the Minister has moved on that particular point.

As the Bill progresses to the other place, I hope the Minister might consider moving further on the issue of student representation. In Committee we raised the issue of having student representation on the board of the designated quality provider and in drawing up the quality code, and also ensuring that students have representation in what, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) pointed out, could be a wide range of private providers. Whether an institution is a traditional university, a modern university or one of the new private providers, it is absolutely crucial that students’ rights are protected and their voice is represented at the top of the institution.

I also ask the Minister to address how he sees the issue of student representation playing out on the board of the Office for Students. The wording in Government amendment 21 is not quite what I proposed in Committee —that was slightly more prescriptive, specifying that the representative should be either a student, a sabbatical officer of a students union or an officer of the National Union of Students. I am slightly cautious about the amendment the Secretary of State has tabled, because we could define someone with “experience of representing … students” quite loosely. For example, a number of Members of this House, myself included, have experience of representing students, but I am sure that we would not expect to find ourselves, years later, on the board of the OFS. Perhaps the Minister will sketch out what that representation might look like.

[Jo Churchill]

Will the hon. Gentleman define what he considers a typical student to be, so that I can gauge his idea of someone who could represent, for example, me—I went to college as a mature student—or a lifelong learner, or whatever? We must not be too tight with the definition. The wording in the amendment gives us scope to have a looser definition and might be more appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Marsden]

I rise to speak to Labour’s new clause 5, which would revoke the Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which moved support for students from a system of maintenance grants to loans. I also rise to speak to Labour’s new clause 6, which follows on from the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) on new clauses 2 and 3.

At a time when the Government’s own Social Mobility Commission reported only last week that our nation is facing a crisis in social mobility, it is a travesty that I have to stand here today to talk about the problems caused by scrapping maintenance grants and replacing them with a further loan, disproportionately affecting students who come from a low-income background. As this House knows, students in the UK already face the highest levels of student debt in any European country. Figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that the average student in the UK will leave university saddled with £44,000-worth of debt, and the Sutton Trust has suggested that the figure could go even higher. This figure is only the average; for students from low-income backgrounds, it will be much higher, and these changes will make it higher still.

Labour Members have pledged to bring back the maintenance grant. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), in the Bill Committee and recently at the Labour party’s north-west conference, gave powerful testimony as to why that is. It is not just because we cannot afford to lose these people from our economic process, or just because it will help to aid social mobility generally; it is because by doing so we will empower hundreds of thousands of people who will otherwise lose their life chances, or be in danger of that, under this process. There were half a million students in the last year before the Government scrapped the grant, many of whom were in higher education in further education colleges. If a significant number of those students do not take out loans because, for a variety of reasons, they do not wish to do so or are unable to do so, we will increase still further the progressive weakening that this Government have put on to the higher education and FE sector, which is currently servicing some 34,000 students who got the grant in the last year before the Government scrapped it, including a significant number of people in my own constituency pursuing higher education at the excellent Blackpool and The Fylde College.

The Government—I give credit to them for it—have put into the Bill the ability for FE colleges to have their own degree-awarding powers, and Blackpool and The Fylde College is one of those, but it is rather perverse then to introduce something that will weaken the support for such colleges. The Government seem not to think in holistic terms about further education. Taking people in higher education in further education colleges out of the equation will weaken the economic and social base of those colleges. The Government do not give anywhere near enough attention to that.

[Jo Churchill]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gordon Marsden]

Briefly.

[Jo Churchill]

Will the hon. Gentleman allude to how Labour intends to pay for all these benefits, because I think I am right in saying that it was to be via corporation tax?

[Gordon Marsden]

The hon. Lady must be a mind reader because I am just coming to on that issue.

Bringing back the maintenance grant would help to enable over half a million students from low and middle-income backgrounds to go on to higher education. Rumour has it that in the autumn statement this coming Wednesday, the Chancellor is set to announce a further cut in corporation tax, helping only those at the top. We are asking the Government to reconsider this position. Our policy, which has been costed, of bringing back grants would be the equivalent of a rise of less than 1% in corporation tax. Do the Government not believe that this rise would be more beneficial to our nation as a whole—

[Jo Churchill]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gordon Marsden]

No, I will not—the hon. Lady has had one go. Let me proceed because we do not have a lot of time.

Do the Government not believe that that rise would be more beneficial to our nation as a whole than pushing ahead with a policy that benefits only a relatively small number of large corporations, and not even a big range? If the Government are serious about supporting social mobility, they need to do something about it. The Minister, in a rather Panglossian way, went on about all the terrible things that were predicted when loans were introduced not having come to pass, but that is actually not true, or certainly not true across the board. We have seen what a disaster the introduction of advanced learning loans for level 3 was for over-24-year-olds. Only 50% of the £300 million that was allocated for them was taken up, and that money has been sent straight back to the Treasury. Now, unabashed, the Government want to serve up the same recipe to 19 to 24-year-olds.

“Nudge” has been a fashionable word in the Conservative party in recent years—indeed, Lord Willetts wrote quite a lot about it—but it is possible to nudge people away from things as well as towards them. As the Minister well knows, the quality impact assessment on grants and loans let the cat out of the bag on the difficulties that would be faced by all the groups who desperately need access to higher education, such as women, disabled people, people from the black and minority ethnic communities, and care leavers. No wonder Ministers were so keen to bury this issue in a Delegated Legislation Committee. It took our efforts in bringing it to an Opposition day debate at the beginning of the year to have a decent debate on it.

The Government need to think again on this. I give notice that we will press our new clause 5 to a vote.

[Jo Churchill]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way for two seconds?

[Gordon Marsden]

For two seconds, yes.

[Jo Churchill]

How does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that covering the figure of £12 billion would mean a rise in corporation tax of between 4% and 5% rather than the 1% that he stated? Surely we need business and industry to be making money in order to create the jobs and opportunities for students once they leave education.

[Gordon Marsden]

That was a hell of a lot more than two seconds, but I forgive the hon. Lady. We need to look at this issue in the context of our proposal, to which I have already alluded.

New clause 6 deals with yet another regressive policy that has been highlighted during the passage of this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North spoke about some of the significant issues in this regard. The students affected will end up having to pay more than they were loaned as a greater proportion of their income. To those who have, more will be given, because they can pay their loans back more speedily; from those who have not, more will be taken. The Government seem to have been disregarding in their education policy the fact that there is a regional and demographic dimension to this as well. Constituents of mine taking up a graduate job in the past 12 months will have had a more reasonable ability to hit a threshold that was supposed to be uprated on a regular basis. Students in parts of the country where starting incomes for graduates are much lower than in London and the south-east will be particularly badly hit by this proposal.

Higher Education and Research Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Committee Debate: 13th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 18th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

I listened to what the hon. Member for Sheffield Central said, and I contend that it is purely by having a flexible, open system that the things he asks for are actually possible. The problems within the system that he articulated are often due to the inadequacies of the departments involved. I know that because I have been closely affected by it. Allowing institutions to work with these overarching bodies but driving quality from the institutions themselves is what is wanted. Furthermore, an individual benefits from being asked to teach. It is not always detrimental for a researcher to expand their skills in that way.

[Joseph Johnson]

In answer to the question from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central on the teaching excellence framework and postgrad research, in the first instance, no, it will not deal with the postgrad experience; it focuses on undergrad and part-time. The Bill sets out clear responsibilities for UKRI and the OFS, with the OFS being the regulator for all students, including at postgraduate level.

There are a number of areas that will require close co-operation between UKRI and the OFS, including on postgraduates, and it is vital that they are empowered to work together. The Bill does that through clause 103, which enables and ensures joint working, co-operation and the sharing of information. An emphasis on working together will run through the leadership and management of both organisations, supported by a legal framework that will be sufficiently flexible to deal effectively with areas of shared interest.