The Minister is being very helpful. It is the first explanation we have had as to why the Government are leaving. He talked a lot about the influence of the EU over Euratom’s activities, which is no doubt something that we can test and explore. But I do not understand what “close association” means. The Government clearly could not go for a formal association because the relationship would be one in which the EU would set the rules, and we know that the Government have drawn a red line against that. Does “close association” mean that we would basically subcontract the inspectorate from Euratom to work under the auspices of the ONR, with the ONR as the regulator? Does it mean that, despite everything that the Government have said, we hope that we can simply replicate Euratom rules and that it will somehow oversee it, which seems unlikely? Until we know what the Government want to get out of Euratom, it is difficult to know whether the Bill will meet the circumstances if no close association at all is agreed.
Nuclear Safeguards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 22 February 2018.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Nuclear Safeguards Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
789 c302 Session
2017-19Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2018-03-01 12:05:13 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2018-02-22/18022242000225
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2018-02-22/18022242000225
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2018-02-22/18022242000225