My Lords, I welcome Amendment 6, proposed by the Minister. It makes a lot of sense but I do not think the House would be wise to support Amendments 7 or 9. Amendment 7 is about collaboration with Euratom in future in research and development and the import and export of qualifying nuclear material. I think we will benefit from greater flexibility by making our own decisions about research and development and committing our own funds. Of course Euratom will be an important and continuing partner for us in nuclear but we will be freed of the obligation and in the position where we will own our own research material, which of course in the JET and ITER programmes we do not. We should caution against overoptimism on what ITER is likely to bring; I understand that there is considerable scepticism in the industry about whether it is really worth the massive amount of money that it costs, and that there is some chance of a demonstration operation by 2045 if all goes well. If we were to commit funds to SMR research, by contrast, in which we in this country have several notable qualified players, we would own the outcome and could get ourselves back into the lead in nuclear by selling our new technology to others. We would have greater flexibility and the freedom not to be committed—
Nuclear Safeguards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Viscount Trenchard
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 20 March 2018.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Nuclear Safeguards Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
790 c215 Session
2017-19Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2018-03-29 13:51:08 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2018-03-20/18032062000033
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2018-03-20/18032062000033
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2018-03-20/18032062000033