Extracts from Committee
stage (Lords) (day 2) of the European Union (Notification of
Withdrawal) Bill
(LD):..Trade in
parts and nuclear fuel and the movement of key people all rely on
our being a signatory to the Euratom treaty. That will be a
problem if we exit from Euratom. The UK does not have a
safeguarding authority, as it is known in these agreements.
Internationally, at the moment Euratom has some 11 core
agreements. There are 50 altogether, including with the United
States, Canadaand Australia. Without those, because we
do not have a safeguarding authority that has been approved by
the International Atomic Energy Agency, all that trading will
stop. We are reliant on nuclear fuel from Australia and we have a
number of important domestic nuclear issues with the United
States and with France in relation to Hinkley Point C, as well as
various other generating stations. We do not have a sufficient
amount of those fuels in this country. It is not just a question
of nuclear fuel; we need isotopes for radiology in hospitals as
well.
To sum up, I am not trying in any way to constrain Article 50 or
the referendum result, but there is no need to leave Euratom at
this stage. If we do not, we can ensure that the lights do not go
out some time around September 2019, we can avoid the political
risk of Austria and Germany vetoing future relationships with
Euratom and we can take our time to make sure that the UK has a
fully-fledged and effective safeguarding authority that will be
recognised by other realms, including, in particular,
Australia, Canada and the United States. But, most
of all, I ask again: why go down the route of giving notice on
Euratom now when as a country, as a Government and as a
Parliament we have a huge amount to negotiate over the next two
years? Let us give ourselves a break, think about it longer and
do this properly—not threaten our energy industry, our radiology
and all the other research that we undertake at the moment. I beg
to move...
(Lab):...As
the noble Lord, , has rightly said, if we were
to find ourselves in that position, it would not be comparable,
for example, to other aspects of the UK economy. If we leave on
only WTO terms, clearly trade would continue. In the
international nature of the nuclear industry, that would not be
so. If we were to leave without having these alternative
arrangements in place, it would not be possible for companies in
the United States, Canada, Japan, India, South Korea or many of
our nuclear allies, not least our European friends and partners,
to continue to trade with us in nuclear goods and services. We
tend to exaggerate for a living in this House—we cannot help
ourselves, bless us; many of us are former politicians—but this
would be a catastrophe for the industry and we should be under no
illusion about that...
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie)
(Con):...Let me seek to explain why, when we
trigger Article 50 and start the process of exiting the EU, we
will also start the process of leaving Euratom. We clearly
recognise that Euratom provides the legal framework for civil
nuclear power generation and radioactive waste management for
members of the Euratom Community. All Euratom member states are
EU member states, and vice versa. Of course, Euratom has
relationships with other countries such as the United States,
Japan, Canada and so on through the medium
of international nuclear co-operation agreements. At the present
time, Euratom is a party to those agreements, but it means that
that there is an international family of countries interested in
maintaining essentially the same standards with regard to civil
nuclear generation and related matters concerning trade...
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
Extract from Scotland
Questions
Ms (Ochil and South
Perthshire) (SNP): Scotland’s international exports have
increased by 41% since the Scottish National party Government
came into office in 2007, which is a fantastic success story for
Scotland. Will the Secretary of State therefore explain why the
UK Government failed to negotiate any geographical indications
for Scottish produce in the EU-Canada CETA trade deal?
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David
Mundell): I hope the hon. Lady’s approach on the EU-CETA
trade deal is more consistent than that of her parliamentary
group. On the Monday of the week when the Canada deal was
discussed, SNP Members voted in favour. By the Wednesday, they
somehow found that they were against.
