division_name: Nuclear Safeguards Bill &#8212; Agreements required before withdrawal
motion: <p class="indent" pid="b611.2/2" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;it is vitally important that the new domestic nuclear safeguards regime, to be run by the Office for Nuclear Regulation, is as comprehensive and robust as that currently provided by Euratom. The government has therefore decided that it will be establishing a domestic regime which will deliver to existing Euratom standards and exceeds the standard that the international community would require from the UK as a member of the IAEA.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="b611.2/5" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;expected to depend on the existence of a mutually acceptable UK safeguards regime. Witnesses were concerned about any potential gap between leaving Euratom and setting up new arrangements, which would cause considerable disruption to nuclear supply chains&#8221;.</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="b611.2/7" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;nuclear cooperation agreements with the US, Canada, Japan and Australia will be crucial for maintaining existing operations and should be prioritised.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="b611.2/9" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;well advanced and&#8230;would be completed in time for our departure.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="b615.2/14" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;put the United Kingdom at the forefront of the industries of the future&#8221;.</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="b615.2/16" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;Nuclear is a vital part of our energy mix, providing low carbon power now and into the future. The safe and efficient decommissioning of our nuclear legacy is an area of world-leading expertise.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="italic" pid="b621.0/3" pwmotiontext="yes">The House divided:</p>
  
  <p pid="b621.0/4" pwmotiontext="yes">Ayes 306, Noes 278.</p>