National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy Generation
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the Grand Committee takes note of the proposed National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy Generation.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the new National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy Generation EN-7, which was laid before the House on 6 February. In particular, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, who is making her maiden speech. Redditch is not a million miles from Kings Heath, and it is great to welcome a fellow West Midlander to your Lordships’ House; I am sure we anticipate her contribution very much indeed. I am aware that the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Inglewood, have both withdrawn because they wish to be present for the EU-UK summit Statement, which is to be made shortly.
The Secretary of State and the Government have been clear that nuclear has a crucial role to play in powering Britain’s clean energy future. We see it as making an important contribution to helping the UK become a clean energy superpower, which in turn is a core part of the Prime Minister’s plan for change. For nuclear to play that crucial role, we need to support the construction of new power stations, including by improving how the planning system deals with such proposals. We have already introduced important reforms in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which I understand will be before your Lordships shortly. These will help us to consent to major infrastructure projects more efficiently—for example, by streamlining consultation requirements, providing flexibility in what consenting route is used and removing unnecessary elements of the judicial review process. We are also supporting the production of a strategic spatial energy plan by the National Energy System Operator, which will assess the optimal locations and types of energy infrastructure required to meet energy demand in future.
One of the most important ways we can support major infrastructure development is through national policy statements. These establish the type of infrastructure that is needed and the rules on site selection and mitigating impacts on communities and the environment. The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy, called EN-1, makes it clear that low-carbon energy infrastructure, including nuclear, is a critical national priority. In a context where electricity demand is expected to double by 2050, even with energy efficiency, EN-1 makes clear that the planning system places no limit on the amount of generating capacity that should be built. This new national policy statement, EN-7, will complement EN-1 and enable nuclear to play its crucial role in four ways.
First, EN-7 states the clear and unambiguous need for new nuclear to achieve energy security, support growth, and mitigate and adapt to climate change. Stating this fact in a national policy statement ensures that it shapes development consent decisions by the Secretary of State.
Secondly, EN-7 will allow, for the first time, developers to consider deploying the full range of nuclear fission technologies at any site in England and Wales that meets its criteria. This brings nuclear into line with other energy subsectors, where businesses routinely explore new growth opportunities without being restricted by assumptions about the scale or location of deployment. This flexibility will support new uses for nuclear, such as combined heat and power, hydrogen production and direct supply to high-demand users, such as heavy industry or AI data centres.
Thirdly, EN-7 imposes a single set of criteria appropriate to nuclear deployment at any scale and in any location. Infrastructure benefits everyone by providing the energy, transport connections, water and waste management capacity we need, but it can impact neighbouring communities and ecosystems. EN-7 supplements the impacts section of EN-1 with nuclear-specific detail on key areas including population density, flood protection and the use of water for cooling.
Fourthly, EN-7 goes further than previous national policy statements in clarifying the development consent process beside regulatory licences. Industry tells us that it is unsure of when and how to engage the various planning bodies and regulators, and that this is driving up costs and slowing delivery. This requires a multifaceted response, but EN-7 plays its part by clarifying that, first, the Secretary of State may decide that the low-carbon energy benefits of nuclear outweigh the residual risks remaining after mitigation; and, secondly, the Secretary of State should grant development consent if they are satisfied that there is no good reason why the project will not eventually gain regulatory approval.
Some of the responses have asked what EN-7 means for the sites listed in the previous national policy statement, EN-6. I want to make it clear to noble Lords that those sites will not be disadvantaged by EN-7, because both national policy statements have consistent criteria. Any of the advantages of the sites listed in EN-6 that are evident in a development consent application will be given great weight by EN-7. For example, EN-7 clearly requires a connection to the grid or end-user. This is what matters in practice when applications for development consent are being decided.
Our public consultation so far has found that stake- holders agree that EN-7 is a positive step forward. We received 77 responses from across industry, local authorities, campaigners and private individuals. A clear majority agree that EN-7 is future-proofed to deal with advancements in technology, applies the criteria properly and takes a sensible, pragmatic approach to population density requirements. A majority also agree with keeping the scope of EN-7 to nuclear projects with a generating capacity of at least 50 megawatts in England or 350 megawatts in Wales.
I also note that most respondents believe that we could do even more to support industry through the consenting and regulatory process. EN-7 could never solve this challenge on its own, which is why we are developing supplementary information for potential developers on the development consent process. Alongside the designation process for EN-7, we will seek input from industry and planning experts over the summer to develop it further.
We are also reviewing the regulatory regime in depth through the nuclear regulatory task force. This is examining measures to better support growth and innovation, including faster approvals of new reactor technology designs; international collaboration, potentially including the recognition of designs approved by other trusted safety regimes; and improved ways of working between regulators and industry. The regulatory task force is progressing swiftly. It completed its call for evidence on Monday this week, and in October it will report to the Prime Minister, the Secretaries of State for Energy and Defence and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It is time limited in that respect.
We have received strong support for EN-7. The question of how to site nuclear power in light of small and advanced modular reactors has been pressing for years. We have consulted extensively with industry, planning and environmental experts, as well as the public, and now is the time to implement it.
In the time that I have been in this job, it has become clear that, compared with when we took the decision to go back to new nuclear in 2007, there has been a sea-change in support for nuclear. I believe there is a critical mass of support that recognises that nuclear is the essential baseload for a clean energy system and that we have a huge opportunity to grow and innovate in this country to develop a UK supply chain. I know that there is a certain frustration about a number of critical decisions that have to be made over the next few weeks. None the less, I hope that, as we go through that, we can make positive announcements that will lay the foundation for moving forward. EN-7 is clearly one of the policy statements that underpins the advances we want to make.
I look forward to the contributions of Members of the Committee to this interesting debate. I beg to move.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, like the Minister, I look forward very much to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Maclean. With her reputation and past work, I am sure she will bring a fresh mind. Fresh minds are certainly needed in this area, where technology is changing extremely fast—faster than some people realise.
If I could find a word to sum up my feelings about EN-7, it would be one borrowed from the Prime Minister, who uses it quite frequently. I am afraid it is “disappointment”. I am disappointed. When I went to get EN-7 from the Printed Paper Office, I thought the office had failed to give me all the adequate paper, because when I read it through, I could not find very much addressing all the energy issues that are preoccupying the people of our nation and the industry. I am sorry to say that it left me very disappointed. It is not very different from EN-6, which mentioned SMRs. It is not all that different from EN-1, published back in November 2023, which also mentioned SMRs and so on. There is a difference: the move towards more criteria-based decisions for sites, which I will come to in a moment, and more references throughout to SMRs. They are included in the words, but not very much in the action.
I sound—and feel—negative. When I opened it, I found that the very first sentence of the entire document, about demand doubling, is wrong. It does not seem to be understood by the department that we are running at about 65 gigawatts of electricity—these figures are rough—which is 20% of our total energy use. The talk in the first sentence of the document is that demand will
“more than double by 2050”.
As I said, 65 gigawatts is 20% of total energy use, so double will be 130 gigawatts. That is miles below what will be required for an all-electric decarbonised economy. It will be well above 130: most people who examine these things closely say that it will be more like 250, and some say 300 gigawatts. That is the kind of clean energy volume we have to mobilise, and I totally agree with the Minister that nuclear is essential to it. With 3,000 hours of windless time around the United Kingdom and in this part of northern Europe, we will need a massive nuclear contribution, miles above what we have now or are likely to have in the next two or three years. The official figure is 24 or 25 gigawatts. I would like to take a bet—except I am not a betting man—that we will wish we had 50 gigawatts by the time we move into the 2030s. I am very glad to hear that, from the Minister’s and the Government’s point of view, there is no limit on what we should be building; it should be determined by other factors.
As for SMRs, which the rest of the world is busily ordering, I can find nothing here on the obvious siting differences arising between putting down on the ground sets of four, six or eight smaller reactors, depending on their size and the total required, and putting them down on different areas from the usual list, which appears on page 10 and is the list we have all been looking at for the last 20 or 30 years. It seems to miss out the possibilities of all the other abandoned, closed or still-suitable sites.
I am not arguing for a moment that the world is ready for individual SMRs to be placed at the end of this or that street or in this or that locality. I do not think the public are ready for that. There has been absolutely no education of or discussion with the public on the question of ionised radiation machinery being spread around the country. I am talking entirely about sites that either have been, are still or could be safely and securely nuclear. What about all the old Magnox sites? What happened to them? There are Trawsfynydd, Berkeley, Hinkley Point A and Sizewell A—followed by B, which was the only one that was rescued from the ones I announced in the lower House in October 1979 when we wanted nine new reactors, but only one emerged from that plan. There are Heysham 1 and Dungeness B, which I have visited and has, I think, already closed, and there are the old coal-fired stations. In California, industries are saying that they do not trust the grid any more and cannot feel safe with it. They are buying up old coal stations and installing SMRs in them, very small ones, to get the reliable electricity they need for their production, so nothing is needed there.
I am looking forward to EN-8. I hope it is now being drafted, telling us the possibilities of setting down sets of small reactors from the various producers telling us that they can produce fully operative, commercially competitive models by the early 2030s, which is years ahead of anything being considered for Sizewell C. They say that the new one at Hinkley C will be completed in 2029 but, quite honestly, heaven knows when it will be. The original idea from the then chairman was that we should cook our turkeys for Christmas 2019. I think that the original deals approved by the Cameron Government and the first contacts with EDF under Tony Blair’s Labour Government were talking about an original expenditure of £9 billion. Then it became £17 billion, then £19 billion, £23 billion and so on. The latest figures I have seen are £46 billion- plus. One figure says £51 billion. Obviously, inflation affects that, but the expansion of cost has been enormous. I marvel that we want to proceed with a replica in the rather charming belief that we will have learned all the mistakes from Hinkley C and therefore it will all cost less and be much quicker. I do not believe a word of it.
There is nothing on offer about a central point when you come to building and siting nuclear power stations, which is that SMRs can be fabricated in a factory. There is not that business of trundling trucks smashing up country lanes and destroying the environment for years and years on end, which of course is one of the driving forces of planning objections and delays. If you can bring in fabrication in the factory, you gain an enormous advantage, take a great deal of heat and tension out of local objections and probably cut years off the construction time. There is nothing on the advantages of a more distributed electricity system, which is what we are discussing and what many people are beginning to analyse, and which the use of SMRs and AMRs would greatly contribute to.
That means—and this is a very important planning thing—fewer pylons. If we can distribute our electricity—if we can get to the point at which we can convey North Sea electricity through switching stations into hydrogen by electrolysis, and move that in the same way that we move petrol today; and if we can then localise and get to market electricity or an electricity vector such as hydrogen—we will need fewer pylons. That would save years of planning objection, difficulty and political problems. I am amazed that there is nothing about that.
There is nothing on the fuel side. Some companies have said that they can manage perfectly well without enriched uranium at all. They are going to use already irradiated plutonium, of which we have a store at Sellafield, which we are guarding at considerable cost. That is a whole new possibility.
Above all—I know I am a little over my time—the factor that is really missing in this is finance, on which there is nothing. The fact is that small reactors can be financed profitably and will be in the future. There are several companies ready to do that without government money, whereas the big boys—the giant gigawatt machines—will cost the Government money, which means that they will cost the consumers, who are already overloaded, and the taxpayers money. Both Sizewell and Hinkley C, the big ones in the pipeline, are already in deep financial trouble. We remain to see and hear how they will get out of it.
The whole world is into this new design system. Countries are ordering and building SMRs. Canada is putting four in Ontario. Denmark has said it wants to start, after years of being anti-nuclear. Indonesia has ordered 20. Poland is in the business, as are Korea, Japan, the United States and, of course, China and Russia. They are all building small nuclear reactors. There is a very long queue building up, and we will be at the end of it unless we move very fast indeed—faster than this EN-7 indicates or suggests.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis in the nuclear industry. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean. It is great to hear that, like me and the Minister, she comes from the Midlands—and I will come on to the Midlands shortly in my remarks.
I thank the Minister for bringing forward this draft EN-7 policy statement for debate. It is great that we have the opportunity to review it in Parliament, and it is something that I very much welcome: a more flexible approach to nuclear siting is essential to maximise the benefits of new nuclear. In addition to the reasons that the Minister brought out, it enables more areas of the country to benefit from the skilled, well-paid jobs that result from nuclear. It is very important that those benefits are spread around the country.
One of the reasons I am so excited about EN-7 comes from some work that I do chairing an organisation called Midlands Nuclear. This is a partnership between business, local government and academia that has been set up to maximise the benefits to the Midlands region of the nuclear renaissance. We have a fantastic arc of nuclear capability across the Midlands, which goes from Derby, where we have the Rolls-Royce submarines business manufacturing nuclear steam raising plants for Royal Navy submarines, to nuclear component manufacturing and now the STEP fusion plant, which is being built at West Burton in north Nottinghamshire. But what we do not have in the Midlands are any operating nuclear reactors, and I hope that EN-7 will begin to change that.
When we started Midlands Nuclear, we asked the board to focus on some initial areas of study. A clear front-runner was siting: where in the Midlands we could locate new nuclear power stations. The Midlands has a rich heritage in energy generation—Megawatt Valley was the name for a chain of coal power stations running along the Trent—and we want to bring back that focus on energy for the region.
We commissioned a study with industry, which is due to report in the coming months. Using the EN-7 criteria, we selected a shortlist of 21 sites across the region. Of those, two sites then underwent a further, more detailed evaluation—a really specific look at detailed site options.
This is a really ground-breaking study that looks at the practical implementation of the flexible siting policy enabled by EN-7. I am very proud that the Midlands is the first region to explore these opportunities in detail. There could be some really good collaboration between the teams looking at the practical impact of EN-7 for potential sites in the Midlands and the Minister and his officials. Will the Minister perhaps meet Midlands Nuclear so that we can present the study findings and considerations to his team and assist in that further policy development?
One key area to consider from the study is the importance of community support. Something that the Government need to consider more broadly alongside EN-7 is the strategy for bringing communities on board with new nuclear sites, particularly for areas such as the Midlands that do not have that nuclear heritage and history of nuclear reactor siting. I would be grateful if the Minister could say how the Government will progress with ensuring that communities are brought along on the journey to support new nuclear developments.
I have a few more specific comments on the draft EN-7. Alongside community consent, the Minister mentioned the SSEP, the strategic spatial energy plan, in his opening remarks. There is a risk, I believe, that the SSEP takes the more traditional view to nuclear siting in line with the specific sites in EN-6. How are the Government ensuring that the SSEP is not limited by that thinking and is taking EN-7 on board and ensuring that those two areas of policy are joined up?
It is a minor clarification, but can the Minister also clarify whether the 50-megawatt threshold that he mentioned for nuclear projects to be brought within the NSIP regime refers to projects or sites? For example, if a site consisted of a number of reactors under 50 megawatts electric that added up to more than 50 megawatts of capacity, would that be inside or outside the NSIP regime?
An additional area of policy that the Government need to carefully consider alongside the opportunities of EN-7 is ensuring that the regulatory regime—specifically the thorny areas of judicial review and environmental regulation—support the building of new nuclear power stations. We could be in a situation where EN-7 opens up new site options but, unless lessons learned from current nuclear builds are brought in, the aspirations of the Government in terms of build rate simply will not be met. That is why it is so important that, as the Minister referred to, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill delivers.
There are some doubts emerging about the Government’s proposed approach of environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration fund. I am confident that it will deliver for housing developments and nutrient neutrality, for example, but if we look at specific projects, such as nuclear projects, there are doubts as to whether the approach of environmental delivery plans will really unblock the system. Some habitats issues will be known in advance and an environmental delivery plan could be agreed for those, but as work progresses on the site, further habitats issues could be uncovered, which of course would not be within the environmental delivery plan or the nature restoration fund. Also, the developer does not know whether an EDP will be agreed at the outset, so it may be that a twin-track approach will have to be pursued for those habitats issues that come up during the build. There is risk with those habitats regulations that I think needs further consideration by the Government. I will certainly come back to this later in the month when that Bill comes before the House, but I hope that the Government will seize the opportunity that the Bill presents to unblock large clean energy infrastructure. There are three interlocking areas of policy here—the EN-7, the SSEP and wider planning reforms—that need to be considered alongside each other to ensure success.
Finally, one of the key benefits of EN-7 is that it will start to enable the benefits of advanced modular reactors in providing industrial heat, data centre power and fuels production. A lot of progress has been made in recent years, with both large gigawatt-scale reactors and small modular reactors, but the Government now need to look to the future and get behind a clear strategy for AMRs and all the benefits they will provide. Two broad approaches could be taken here by the Government: they could either buy an AMR product off the shelf, as a number of those projects are ongoing, or develop a UK advanced modular reactor, using all our heritage, skills and supply chains to do so.
Because we took the decision, many years ago, to go down the advanced gas-cooled reactor route, while the rest of the world went down the pressurised water reactor route, we have developed a unique skill set in high-temperature reactors and materials, including graphite, that no one else in the world has. We have that supply chain and expertise, and we should make the most of them, because we will otherwise lose them as the advanced gas-cooled reactor programme winds down in the coming years.
There is a real opportunity here for the Government to get behind a UK programme and UK supply chains, leveraging our unique skills and experience as a country. As we are doing with UK SMR, we need to get the first-mover advantage and seize all the export opportunities on offer, while aligning with the ongoing HALEU fuels work. Can the Minister say what plans there are to progress the AMR programme to subsequent phases and to develop a clear strategy for the future direction of AMRs in the UK? How will we seize those opportunities as a country?
In conclusion, I look forward to further collaboration with the Minister and his team to unlock all the benefits that we have discussed for a more flexible siting policy and a future where many more communities across the UK can access the benefits of the stable, clean, secure energy that nuclear represents.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, what a huge honour it is to make my maiden speech. My 18 year-old self would be utterly stunned to see herself standing here and, frankly, 40 years on, I am still having to pinch myself every day. My deepest thanks go to the wonderful doorkeepers, Black Rod, the Clerk of the Parliaments and all the dedicated staff for their invaluable guidance. I wonder whether colleagues, like me, have found that Black Rod has some sort of magic powers about her. She looks at you and, all of a sudden, your nerves are quelled—so I thank her for that amazing talent.
I would love to thank my superb supporters. My noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston, who is in his place, is a tremendous colleague in our shared endeavour to renew our party. Without the guidance of my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington, I would never have become the Member of Parliament for Redditch. My debt of gratitude to her is shared by countless women all across our party, sitting on our Benches in the other place and in your Lordships’ House.
I am especially touched by the kind welcome from colleagues here today and over the previous days and weeks. I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey, who has given me much useful, practical guidance. I am particularly delighted to be among so many Midlanders, with Members from Kings Heath to Birmingham. As a Brummie myself, I feel very much at home, so I thank colleagues for easing my path.
I wish to thank my right honourable friend the leader of His Majesty’s Opposition for her kindness and friendship to me and her graciousness in bestowing on me the honour of taking my place in your Lordships’ House.
My dear and exceptionally supportive husband, David, unfortunately cannot be with me today. I know he is cheering me on. He has agreed to continue to be a political spouse for a lot longer than either of us expected. He definitely deserves my gratitude for that.
On the face of it, not very much links these red Benches with the town and constituency of Redditch, possibly except for the colour red; but it is the values that built Redditch—those Conservative values and those values of the British people—that were etched on my heart every day that I was privileged to serve those wonderful people. It is a town of small businesses, warehouses, manufacturers, leading expertise, market stalls, pubs, volunteer groups both large and small, parish and town churches, farms, high streets and village halls—and all are driven by the power of hard work, enterprise and love.
The values of personal responsibility, prosperity, hard work, entrepreneurship and family are the values that drive Redditch—and they drive me. They are at my core, and they are the heart of our Conservative philosophy. Yet, sadly, last year our party drifted away from these values, and we paid a heavy price.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, whom I am delighted to see in his place today, explains in his well-received books, Return to Growth, Volume One and Return to Growth, Volume Two—I recommend that noble Lords buy copies of them, although they are available in the Library—that excessive state spending chokes private investment and productive growth. Conversely, when this trend is reversed, growth rockets. But in Britain we are now at an unsustainable 45% of state spending to GDP. That is perilously close to a point where every private sector worker, in effect, funds one individual on the public payroll or receiving benefits. Astoundingly, we are spending £110 billion more annually than comparable developed nations. We simply cannot afford it and I am determined not to leave this economic legacy and this situation for my three grandchildren.
That is why serious, costed reforms are essential to comprehensively rewire the British state to tackle entrenched challenges that have existed for decades. That planning has already started, led by the leader of the Opposition, through the policy renewal programme that our party has started.
Just as Margaret Thatcher tasked Keith Joseph with articulating the moral case for capitalism in 1976, we must again present a coherent, robust and intellectually rigorous argument for our principles. We must break from the failed consensus that led to our defeat, and our future vision for our country will be founded on personal responsibility. That is the only way to genuinely reduce state spending. It will be centred on a strong, vocal and unapologetic endorsement of wealth creation. We will be backing entrepreneurs—I was one for 30 years before I became a Member of Parliament—because they are the architects of prosperity and security for our country. The vital role of family will be central to everything we undertake, because the state can never address society’s challenges in the way that stable, loving parents can.
Today’s business is the NPS on EN-7. I am glad to see that the current Government are continuing to build on the groundwork of the last Conservative Government. We Conservatives agree that the rapid buildout of new nuclear, including SMRs, is a common-sense energy policy that has the potential to cut our dependence on hostile regimes, and it puts British engineering, especially Midlands engineering, back in charge of our power supply. In short, it is a great example of a common-sense energy policy. If I may say so, it is in stark contrast to Ed Miliband’s unevidenced rush to net zero, which is straight out of the pages of a science fiction novel.
I add one more caveat, on which I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts. As I know from my time serving as Housing and Planning Minister, some regulators can hold up building essential infrastructure and the homes our country needs for very unconstructive and unhelpful reasons. I worry that giving Natural England and the Health and Safety Executive an effective veto is very unhelpful, and the NPS should make clear that, given the urgent need of new nuclear, their approval is not required and does not hold up the delivery of this vital infrastructure.
Whatever topics I contribute to in this place—and there will be many in which I have an interest from my time in government—I can promise noble Lords one thing: I will never forget or stop talking about my Conservative values that I learned while serving the wonderful people of Redditch, and I was privileged to serve them. I will always be proud to have represented Redditch in the beautiful county of Worcestershire and to have been born an Englishwoman. What a privilege it is to be British and to enjoy the freedoms of this great country—the freest and the greatest country in the world. That is truly a privilege matched only by being able to take my place today among your Lordships. With God’s help, I will do my best to serve my country and this place. Thank you, and God bless, Redditch.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour for me to follow my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch. As noble Lords have already heard, my noble friend is quite happy to spice things up a bit, but her principles are based on a genuine belief in family, faith and freedom. I am sure that we will hear those principles come through in many ways, as she contributes to the work of the House.
Family is certainly very important to my noble friend, and I am pleased to share that she recently became a grandmother for the third time. I know that your Lordships will say that she does not look old enough, but what a welcome blessing that is. I know how important her four children and her husband are to her. I was not going to include her two rescue dogs, but perhaps I should, as they are part of the wider family too. She will continue to be interested in a variety of those elements.
Something that also came out in my noble friend’s contribution is what we can do. Her family went with her when she and her husband set up a business together, a business that is still going strong. In publishing, it is now the largest company in the UK for technical and IT content. I hope we can share the experience that she will bring in our consideration of a number of pieces of legislation.
Family is important to my noble friend in a different way. It was her daughter who encouraged her to run for election because there were not enough women MPs. She did that, and she delivered. She delivered for the people of Redditch in a variety of ways, including the extensive efforts that she went to in keeping services in the Alexandra Hospital in Redditch so that people would not have to travel to Worcester.
It may not be known that my noble friend served in three different ministerial roles, although one of them was a joint role between the Home Office and MoJ. Tackling knife crime and violence against women and children was something about which she was particularly passionate. From speaking to people who have worked with my noble friend, I know that she goes deep into the detail and is not superficial. Candidly, that is something to be welcomed in people who are dedicated to being government Ministers.
One final point that might be worth sharing is that I am slightly surprised that my noble friend is dressed in just blue today because in the other place she was well known for being absolutely fabulous in the colours of her clothes. She normally has wonderful glasses, with bright, radiant elements in them. She was particularly known for her tights. I learned only today why they particularly stood out: they came from a factory in her constituency, so she was wearing Redditch at all times in the Chamber. I think she will continue to champion family, freedom and business, while she is also driven by her faith.
I still live in Suffolk, very near an operating nuclear power station, Sizewell B, and Sizewell C is being built as we speak. I have to say that it has been quite a long journey, but one that has needed to take time for reasons that I will explain. In thinking about what happened with EN-6—not for long, because I know that we are here to debate EN-7—we need to go back a bit and think about some of the context. Not only was Sizewell C cancelled, in effect, in the mid-1990s, but, to fast forward to going into a coalition Government in 2010, we were in a situation where the policy of our Liberal Democrat coalition partners was to oppose nuclear power. To try to make all this come together in order to get on with nuclear power, the coalition agreement was clear that the Liberal Democrats would not oppose the construction of nuclear power, but they certainly did not want to see any public subsidy. Candidly, this was one of the things that led to the creation of contracts for difference and to how expensive Hinkley has turned out to be. Fortunately, in the previous Parliament, the RAB model was extended to nuclear power, which is very sensible. I am sure it will be applied in many more nuclear or other energy generation sites going forward.
When I was considering this in the other place, I recall from the debate that several sites felt that they had lost out. I am thinking in particular of Dungeness, which was devastated; obviously, there was a site there. My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford asked about some of the other sites. Sizewell A is certainly still there. It has had all the nuclear fuel removed, but I am afraid it cannot be touched for quite some time, as we see aspects of the process continuing its natural way of, in effect, decomposing.
There are some risks. One reason I strongly supported Sizewell C was that we had already had nuclear power in that area. However, I should warn noble Lords that they should not be surprised if other sorts of electricity generation suddenly come along where they live. You start to feel almost dumped on, which is how many people in east Suffolk feel with the need for substations, more cabling and so on. This brings me to siting.
Something I want to explore is water, which I cannot quite work out, although I am sure it is here somewhere. One reason why it has taken so long for Sizewell C to get to the stage it is at today is that the water supplier suddenly said that it could not confidently guarantee that it could supply the water needed for the nuclear power station. Some quite complicated things were evolving. Some of this was the result of legal cases lost that started to impact how much water could be extracted from parts of East Anglia. That had knock-on consequences in other ways to the point that, not having had to think too much about the supply of the fresh water that is critical to nuclear technology as it is now, Sizewell C had to start thinking and to include desalination and building a reservoir, which bring their own challenges, so factors along the way have led to some of the hold-ups.
I am aware of the difficult construction process in terms of what is happening in Somerset. Nevertheless, in considering the important environmental factors to be taken into account, it is important for Ministers to be clear on how some of these places that have been chosen for siting are confident. I know that it is up to the developer to put this forward and to show that, but it showed that a critical issue that was not in the control of the promoter of Sizewell C caused it to reconsider its proposal. That is worth thinking about during further or final consideration by Ministers.
When I looked at the factors influencing the site selection, I saw that the Government have decided to retain the semi-urban population density criterion. I get that. When it all started, nuclear was probably a bit scary, even though we were leading the way, but it has meant that nuclear power stations are quite a long way from anywhere.
I know that the ONR, which split out from the HSE, has its critics. I should register, but not declare as an interest, that as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions I was, surprisingly, in charge of the Office for Nuclear Regulation. I felt I had to intervene at times to defend its integrity and independence because it is vital that we have good, effective nuclear regulation.
As an aside to noble Lords, when Fukushima happened in Japan, that was because there had been a breakdown. In effect, people were not prepared to reveal problems, perhaps from embarrassment, but the site had gone on for too long. Our chief nuclear inspector went out to Japan to address some of those issues on behalf of the wider, global nuclear approach. We should be confident that, while it may seem laborious and there are definitely improvements that could be made on how some of these situations are sped up or considered, it is important to recognise that we have very good nuclear regulation, and that is why we do not have issues.
Let us not pretend we are perfect in this country; we are not. There are parts of Cumbria now where, basically, people cannot go. Only robots can go into some of those sites. That is the reality of some ineffective nuclear regulation. It was early days, and we now know what we know. Given the long-term nature of these proposals, I caution that we make sure that, as and when ONR perhaps makes improvements in some of its processes, we do not forget what has happened in the past or around the world.
Having said all that, I am surprised that we are not thinking further about connectivity to the national grid. There is no doubt that this is causing a lot of grief around communities. If electricity is generated far from where it is used, transmission means that you end up losing electricity along the way unless you have a direct current cable, and I do not believe we have anywhere at the moment that has that. I believe we should be starting to consider whether it would be safer to move some of these future technologies. I appreciate that somewhere such as Sizewell C or Hinkley C is simply so big that it would be difficult to host it closer to the population, especially with the demand for water, but it is important that we start to consider the technology that we are seeing for the future. Some of the SMRs are still pretty big, but as this evolves we should be revisiting that, or at least starting to commission some research. I know about the issue of people getting away. I know that people in many towns and villages have iodine tablets. I know there are precautions to be taken, but I think it could be worth considering to make sure that we have energy generation close to where energy is likely to be used.
Overall, I think there is an effective interaction with EN-1, which went through in the previous Parliament. As has already been mentioned, there are some interesting elements coming up in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Trying to see quite how it works is proving quite interesting, not only the issues about biodiversity. I will be paying a lot of attention to Part 1 of the Bill when it comes to this place, as it includes, I think in Clause 2, parliamentary assessment of NPSs. This is not a criticism of the Minister—far from it—but it is not entirely satisfactory as it is, so we need to continue to look at it very carefully.
As a consequence, I support EN-7. It may seem a bit bland, but it is giving developers what they need, and that is to be welcomed. The quicker we can get on with additional nuclear generation, the better for the prosperity of this country, so I welcome this today.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the very thoughtful speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and particularly to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, on her maiden speech, which was a tour de force. I am sure we will hear much more in the Chamber and that it will create discussion in all parts of the House. I wish her well in her parliamentary career in this House. She will find that being on the Opposition Benches is a little different from being in government—those of us who have never been in government know that even more, but we have to learn to live with it.
I thank the Minister for the manner in which he introduced this debate and, indeed, for his personal commitment to the nuclear industry. We know that what he is doing is very positively motivated to make sure that we get progress. In welcoming this debate, I should perhaps first spell out—some noble Lords will be aware of this —my background in nuclear energy. Many years ago I graduated from Manchester University with a degree in physics, with nuclear physics a key component—although I readily admit that I have largely forgotten that science.
During the university vacation, I worked on the building site of the Trawsfynydd power station, and for 27 years I was the MP for the Caernarfon seat—now part of Dwyfor Meirionnydd, as it has been recast—where Trawsfynydd is of course located. My constituency included the Dinorwig pumped-storage hydroelectric scheme, the third largest in the world when opened and with which I was closely associated during its construction phase. It was built in tandem with the Trawsfynydd and Wylfa nuclear power stations, with a lifespan that anticipated further nuclear energy investment in north-west Wales.
I have been a member of several cross-party parliamentary groupings on nuclear power and a firm advocate for the construction of additional nuclear power capacity, as indeed are two Plaid Cymru MPs in the other House, Llinos Medi and Liz Saville Roberts, who represent, respectively, the areas where Wylfa and Trawsfynydd stations are located. There have been local campaigns to use those two sites for new nuclear generation capacity, and possibly for industries associated with the production of medical radioisotopes needed in the treatment of cancer. I should make it clear that, like other parties, there are members of Plaid Cymru who do not support nuclear energy for a variety of reasons. Over recent decades, the party has accepted the compromise that the two existing nuclear sites should be developed for future nuclear power and associated industries, but with a presumption against the development of greenfield sites for such purposes.
I personally am fully persuaded that nuclear energy has a significantly lower carbon footprint in its electricity generation profile than other sources of electricity. Indeed, it is two orders of magnitude less than coal, oil and gas, and one order of magnitude lower than wind and hydropower. But it is not a question of either/or in relation to such renewables—we need both. Wind, wave, solar and estuarial sources of power certainly have a significant role to play, but in planning modern generation facilities we have to provide a source of energy that meets baseload requirements, and I have no hesitation in advocating nuclear power for those purposes.
It is worth noting that the great Welsh climate scientist, Sir John Houghton, seen by many as the father of the campaign alerting the world to the dangers of carbon warming, who died in 2020, revised his attitude towards nuclear energy in the latter years of his life. A few years before his passing, he came to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that nuclear energy is part of the solution, not the problem, though he advocated in the fifth edition of his book In the Eye of the Storm, published in 2013, that the first port of call for the necessary nuclear material should be from the reworking of existing nuclear weapons. That is a viewpoint with which I have considerable sympathy, although that is of course not the sole source of the necessary nuclear material.
We have, at Wylfa and Trawsfynydd, two sites that are already licensed for nuclear purposes. Decommissioning work commenced some years ago, but both sites will, of course, need to be safeguarded and monitored into the future. In these circumstances, rather than build brand new nuclear facilities on greenfield sites, which will need both new town and country planning authorisation and clearance by the nuclear safety authorities, it seems basic common sense to locate new nuclear generation facilities on these existing sites. This can be achieved more expeditiously and at lower cost.
The original planning application for Wylfa B was in 1989—I emphasise that the application for the second Wylfa station, for which we are still waiting, was given back in 1989. Apparently, the Government have removed the existing list of designated nuclear sites, including Wylfa, from their approved planning policy. I am not quite sure why that has happened.
Their decision to consult on a new planning policy is creating totally unnecessary uncertainty at Wylfa. Surely recognised locations such as Wylfa should be given a swift go-ahead, while any new sites are rightly put through the rigorous planning and safety-check process. As things stand, it seems that the Government are content to see the whole process slowed down to allow the speed of the slowest, most complex site to determine the speed of the entire convoy of new nuclear stations. To my mind, this is an absolute nonsense.
Both Wylfa and Trawsfynydd are ideal locations for new small modular reactors, which we hope will get the go-ahead very soon. I commend Rolls-Royce on its pioneering work. Wylfa could also accommodate a larger nuclear power station—such as an AMR, which we heard about earlier—as its seaboard location gives it a ready source of coolant. Trawsfynydd is constrained by the size of the lake nearby as a source of coolant, so it is probably better suited for an SMR and to radioisotope production facilities.
The Welsh Government have indicated their general support for both locations, though obviously both will need detailed planning consent when firm proposals are mature for consideration. The Senedd has also supported initiatives to see whether a project related to the medical use of radioactive technology could be developed at Trawsfynydd, and I believe that it has allocated £40 million for that initial work.
I remind colleagues participating in the debate that there is an approaching crisis because of the shortage of radioisotopes, both as tracers for the identification of cancers in the human body and for the treatment of such conditions. At present, there is a critical shortage of such material, and the NHS will face a crisis if it is not soon sorted.
There are also several excellent sites for further pump storage schemes similar to Dinorwig but on a smaller scale, one of which has been developed by the site owners—who come from Worcestershire, I am glad to say—who are doing excellent work, at the old Dorothea slate quarry at Talysarn near Caernarfon. This will create much-needed work in the Nantlle valley. I hope that GB Energy will be in a position to give the go-ahead to this and similar pump storage schemes. They are highly relevant, both to nuclear projects, such as Trawsfynydd and Wylfa, and to estuarial, tidal and wind-generated electricity, which is an essential ingredient in the basket of power sources needed to meet current and future demand. This dimension will be greatly expanded by AI and other computer technology, which will require a far greater availability of electricity than that which can be facilitated by existing sources within the grid.
I also point out that Bangor University, located about half way between Wylfa and Trawsfynydd, has a significant level of nuclear expertise. The vice-chancellor Edmund Burke—a fine parliamentary name—came to Bangor from the University of Nottingham and is a physicist himself. He is excitedly awaiting the go-ahead for these sites, with a mission to train the nuclear scientists, technologists and engineers who are much needed for these schemes and, indeed, for other nuclear energy projects in other parts of these islands.
It is against this background that I address the National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy Generation EN-7 before us. It is no doubt full of worthy, carefully considered provisions relating to the rollout of the new nuclear energy programme, but nowhere does this document come anywhere near to conveying the urgency of making decisions on new nuclear, and making them now, if we are to have any chance whatever of meeting our net-zero carbon targets by 2050.
All the environmental, social and legal screening of new projects seems to be geared to slowing down their rolling out. Successive Governments, of both political persuasions, have dithered and prevaricated on this issue for three decades and longer. The time is surely now ripe for firm decisions to be taken. The proverbial Mrs Jones Llanrug, as we say in Wales—or perhaps Mrs Smith of Smethwick, as would be said in the Midlands—has a right to expect that, when she flicks a switch, there will be electricity running through her light bulbs, electric fires and water heaters. If the day comes when she flicks that switch and nothing happens, there will quite rightly be holy hell to pay. It is the duty of this Parliament to avoid shirking, yet again, the vital decisions needed on these matters.
Future generations have the right to expect that we shall generate electricity from a balanced combination of renewable, tidal, estuarial, solar and wind power, underpinned by a baseload capacity of clean, new nuclear sources, including, eventually, electricity generated from fusion technology. I therefore call on the Government to step up to the plate, to grasp the duty that faces them and to announce the approval of a new programme of nuclear power construction with minimal delay. I hope that the Minister, who I know shares our concerns about these issues, is in a position to give news of when such go-aheads will happen, either here today or within a timescale that does not run beyond this parliamentary Session. I hope that he will not disappoint us.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ Committee’s attention to my entry in the register of interests, particularly that I am vice-chair of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, for which I do consultancy work. It is a not-for-profit organisation with a global reputation based in Washington DC, and its work is focused on nuclear security and safety. It is the publisher of the annual Nuclear Security Index. It was in partnership with the Obama Administration in the nuclear security summit that he held after he made his famous speech in Prague that everyone remembers. That will influence my contribution to this debate.
It is an enormous pleasure to follow my friend and fellow Celt, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I had no idea of his qualifications in this scientific area, but I commend his speech; I will take it, word for word, to the members of his sister party in Scotland, the SNP, to remind it that nuclear energy is not what it thinks it is. I intend to take this message to Glasgow in another form shortly, and I invite him to come to take part in explaining to the people of Scotland that there is such a thing as safe and secure nuclear energy.
It was an enormous privilege and delight to be present while the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, made her maiden speech in your Lordships’ Committee. She will be aware that her family name has its origins in Scotland. It is a Gaelic name that means, in one interpretation, “son of the servant of John”. It is derived from the name of the 13th-century warrior Gillean. I shudder to give his full title, but I will—it is Gillean of the Battle Axe. The noble Baroness gave a speech of great clarity and passion, and while I did not agree with all of the policy suggestions that she made, she eminently has the ear of your Lordships’ House, and I look forward to hearing her speak again many times. Maybe on those occasions I will be more direct on the areas on which I disagree with her, and I look forward to doing that.
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to address this critically important issue and to commend my Government on the steps that they have already taken since coming into office. Mindful of the depth of expertise—which deepened when my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke—among other noble Lords participating this afternoon, I will make just a few observations on the international context by which the success of the NPS will be measured and will ask a couple of more specific questions.
Over the last few years of the Conservative Government, we heard much talk of Britain leading the world in a multiplicity of areas—rhetoric often untethered, as far as I could see, from any specific policy aims or objectives. Given the international context, this national policy statement is timely. COP 28 made the international direction of travel clear, with nuclear energy recognised, for the first time in a major COP decision, as among the solutions needed to keep the 1.5-degree goal within reach. Six more countries have opted to become signatories to the Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy by 2050, bringing the total to 31 and meaning that we will be faced with a swathe of countries bringing nuclear into their energy mix for the first time. That will generate potential non-proliferation challenges. If we do not make the same mistake that was made by what was called Atoms for Peace, by spreading material around the world which was for good purposes but became a potential source of challenge and recently had to be brought back very quickly, we will have done well—but there will be these challenges. The countries that have taken this on will need leadership and help and, in many cases, because of long-standing relationships, the UK will be called upon to give that leadership.
SMRs have begun to be deployed in China and Russia. The International Energy Agency—IEA—estimates that 80 SMR concepts are in development and two US SMR developers are currently in negotiations with their domestic nuclear regulator with a view to imminent deployment. However, this situation is fraught with risk as well as potential. Emerging nuclear energy countries will face the task of securing this critical national infrastructure as well as the potential political and logistical challenges inherent in the deployment of SMRs, which is an area in which the UK has the chance to assume—and maybe share—genuine global leadership.
This international context points to the necessity of an uptick in nuclear deployment and capacity in the UK. EN-7 explicitly identifies the importance of accelerating investment into SMRs and AMRs. The Prime Minister has publicly identified a goal of deployment in the early 2030s; planning regulations have already been eased with a view to swift approval for SMR deployment, and new nuclear technology has been cited as indispensable for the Government’s growth agenda.
In this context, and at a time when the issue of energy security is increasingly prominent, the new national policy statement gives us an opportunity to adopt a position of leadership, as well as enhancing our sovereign energy supply. With a national developer, a national insurer and a climate encouraging investment, the UK can ensure that it is well placed to assist other nations in risk mitigation and ensure that they do not become non-proliferation risks but are able adequately to ensure the security of SMRs and AMRs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, in an excellent speech, made reference to the need for proper regulation. We have in the United Kingdom, by international reputation, a first-class regulator. We have a very good history in relation to the regulation and safety of nuclear, being a nuclear-armed country, which is an additional challenge. I recognise the source of the Cumbrian problem that she identified, but that goes back a long way in history. Recently, we had—and, in the future, I predict that we will have—that strong regulation, and it will be the enemy of large parts of the world if this story that I am telling becomes a reality. Those countries will need help from us in that regard.
There are overt political challenges, including incentivising communities to accept local SMR deployment. The response to the first round of consultation on this national policy statement showed that around 40% of respondents remain concerned about the prospect of future SMR and AMR deployment, citing environmental concerns, concerns around the disposal of radioactive waste and opposition to nuclear energy in principle. Given that microreactors are likely to be ready for deployment by the late 2020s, they may have a critical role to play in assuaging the concerns of communities that would otherwise be cautious about the prospect of SMR deployment in their local area.
I live within about 20 minutes’ walk from two nuclear power stations, at Hunterston in the west coast of Scotland, which are being decommissioned at the moment. These nuclear power stations not only were partly built by local labour, although expertise was brought in, but have provided excellent long-term jobs to the people of the area, who would welcome more nuclear development at that site. The people of Scotland have welcomed the building of a disproportionate number of wind energy turbines: there are 11,000 wind energy turbines in this country, of which 4,000 or more are in Scotland; and Scotland, substantially through them, generates 25% of the renewable energy on these islands. This is welcomed by the people of Scotland, and I do not understand the opposition to this form of energy generation that seems to pop its head up everywhere I go in England. I quite often say to some of my English friends, “If the alternative is a coal-fired power station, I do not understand why you can’t live with these”.
I will share a story with noble Lords. When I was an MP in the west of Scotland, I had part of the largest onshore wind farm in Europe in my constituency. I had few problems. I had two people come to me, separately. One was concerned about the disturbance to planes landing at Glasgow Airport, because it was on the flight path. I brought somebody from Glasgow Airport to persuade him, very quickly, that it was not going to disturb the radar or the ability to land planes. Another was very worried about damage to birdlife, so I brought in an expert on birds from Glasgow University, who sat him down and said, “Birds are very interesting in the way they developed. It didn’t take them long, as they emerged, to be able to figure out how to avoid trees”. There are a series of explanations of that nature to people who are worried about this sort of thing.
As we have heard, SMRs have been explicitly identified as a critical component in the successful delivery of the Government’s AI Opportunities Action Plan. AI data centres are power intensive and will require a more resilient energy mix as well as an exponential increase in capacity. This challenge is one in which the Government are already engaging, but the scale of that challenge is clear, with an IEA report recently suggesting that the amount of electricity needed to power the world’s data centres will double in the next five years. The revised criteria for selection in EN-7 will open up far more capacity and diversity, taking into account emerging technologies such as SMRs and AMRs. Indeed, Energy UK’s response to the consultation’s second question makes clear its belief that EN-7 has been drafted in such a way as to future- proof for technological developments.
As Monday’s proceedings in your Lordships’ House made clear, time is very much of the essence for SMRs, especially if we are to ensure that they will be made in Britain with a UK supply chain. The Czech Government announced Rolls-Royce as their developer of choice, with a site already chosen for the first SMR deployment near the existing Temelín plant. As Great British Nuclear comes to the end of its evaluation process, I think that we would all be grateful for any information that my noble friend the Minister can give on the timescale within which an announcement will be made on the UK’s national supplier of SMRs. He engaged with us on this subject in your Lordships’ House earlier this week, but I would like to hear him do so again.
Finally, an update on the work of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce would be extremely welcome. EN-7 should prove a critical step in establishing a favourable regulatory framework to encourage the deployment of both on-grid and off-grid SMRs and AMRs. Assuming that this is achieved, it has the potential to unlock international investment, thereby addressing the skills shortage for nuclear infrastructure, enhancing the UK’s position on a global scale and enabling us to export our expertise to other countries. This is all in the service of increasing low-carbon baseload electricity at a lower price. For these reasons, my noble friend the Minister and the Government have my full support as this national policy statement is finalised and the associated legislation makes its way to your Lordships’ House.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne. My university career was spent studying nuclear strategy, so I welcome the work that the Nuclear Threat Initiative has done. It has also been fascinating to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, studied nuclear engineering. What expertise we have with former Energy Ministers around the Room.
I also very much welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, to the House of Lords. She talked about pinching herself—I have been here for two years, and I can say that it is worse after you have had a holiday. I congratulate and welcome her, and I know that she will make a valuable contribution to the House, as she did as an MP in fighting for her constituents.
I thank the Minister for bringing forward this debate. I apologise in advance that I will put several general questions to him, but I do not expect answers to everything that I raise today. I welcome this national policy statement on nuclear EN-7. Much of it is about SMRs and AMRs and about the energy we need—predominately for AI and data centres in the future. Indeed, if there is no energy, there is no AI. The alternative to small modular reactors is that they will turn to gas-powered turbines, which would be an absolute disaster for our net-zero ambitions.
This Government are clearly serious about taking this forward, which I welcome. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, remined us, the UK is in a global competition, and, as other Members have said, time is short, even though these things are happening at pace. Personally, I well recognise the need for nuclear energy as part of our energy mix, particularly for baseload power. I also recognise the role that SMRs can play for data centres and the harder-to-abate industries. This is obviously a moving space. If we were making counter arguments, we could say that the cost of renewables continues to go down and, as yet, we do not have a commercially operating SMR—we have many in development but not one in place already. However, I welcome this development, and I welcome nuclear as part of our energy mix to meet our net-zero goals.
EN-7 is about modernising our planning processes to make sure that they work, deploying projects after 2025 and ensuring longer-term planning. Can the Minister explain how EN-7 will be integrated with the energy spatial plans, when they are ready, and how they will fit together? EN-7 is designed to be more flexible and—as many noble Lords have said—it needs to be so in order to incorporate the new technologies. It is broader in scope, and it will enable site selection to be done by the developers themselves, whereas previously it was done by the Government—let us hope that that will speed up things. It will be done on a “first ready, first served” framework, once developers pass through a series of checkpoints.
EN-7 will supersede EN-6, but EN-6 will not be withdrawn and remains a material consideration. The removal of time limits and the focus on criteria-based selection aim to open up more sites. Generally, we welcome this policy, as I said. We welcome that the Government are taking it seriously and bringing forward new policies and plans to implement these new technologies and make this happen. The Government’s policy is better developed on SMRs than it is on AMRs—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, made quite strongly. Picking that up, what further work will the Government do to progress the AMR side of things?
Previously, before this policy, this country had only eight sites licensed for nuclear power. As we move to SMRs, we are moving to a completely different system where any site can potentially have small modular reactors if it meets the appropriate criteria. We need to acknowledge, in this Room and on the record, that this is a huge and fundamental change. I will come on to that later, but these are big and important changes.
The Government’s press release talked about slashing red tape,
“ripping up archaic rules and saying no to the NIMBYs”.
That is a bit unhelpful. We have new technologies and planning processes, and it is important that the Government take the time to explain, consult and provide reassurance. As we have a whole new system, with new nuclear power plants, we need a new way to assess the risks that this changed system brings with it. That is important, too.
My understanding is that SMRs are happening and should be going to tender by next March, which is welcome. Can the Minister confirm that it is still the Government’s plan to tender for two SMRs?
I wish to pick up some of the concerns from the consultation. Waste was one of them: the management of radiological waste and spent nuclear fuel and putting that in the context of the fact that we still lack a geological disposal facility. Depending on what design is chosen, it is possible that we will continue to generate waste from even small modular reactors. How will these challenges be met? How will this fit with the need for the geological disposal sites that are not ready? There will be allowance for interim storage. How will that system work? What do the Government mean by “interim” in that context? What general timeline are the Government working to for the GDF?
Who bears the cost here? Small modular reactors, in particular, could be from one commercial company providing energy. Where does the cost of the processing and long-term storage of waste sit? Does it sit with the state or with the company? These are fundamentally different, in that they are providing power to a company. Will the Government update EN-3 in relation to waste for SMRs and AMRs? Is that planned? I am not certain.
I turn to the site selection criteria. The semi-urban population density criteria remain, which is absolutely right, but is there a conflict between that and powering data centres? I may be wrong, but my understanding is that most data centres are in fairly urban populations. Do the Government know whether that is a tension? I know that they are thinking about reviewing that. If that policy is reviewed, could the Minister give some reassurance about how that might happen, including the processes, and that there will be some scrutiny around that?
On climate change, which is one of the key criteria that need to be looked at, we are in the middle of—until it started raining today—a dry spring. Water usage is one of those primary concerns, particularly the impact of abstraction on water bodies.
There is also the security of these sites. The Office of Nuclear Regulation used to provide security for nuclear sites. I think it is still not certain whether it will take up the role with SMRs. Is that still to be decided? How will that work? If there are more sites, more need to be protected. There will also possibly be more nuclear material moving around the country to fuel these sites. Is there a policy coming on that? Is that still to be determined? The response cryptically said that there was not uniformity of views on everything. Are there issues for the Government that come from the consultation? Were there particular areas where the consultation responses picked up issues? Will that be subject to further review?
The need for a skilled workforce has been mentioned. We have not built new nuclear for a while. We have the nuclear skills task force but the words were “careful future management”. The hope is that we can grow our nuclear industry. We have two nuclear engineers in this Room. This is important much needed jobs and skills and growing our economy.
The communication bit is important for me. This is new stuff and a change of siting policy. I call on the Government to work with communities and to communicate in more open and co-operative language around these matters—this point has already been raised here—and to provide community benefit where that is possible. It may not be possible in all cases, but providing community energy through waste heat might be an option in some dcases.
Does the Minister see a role for SMRs in helping with grid balancing and providing baseload where we are providing these this energy to data centres? Are there options in terms of stabilising the grid?
My final point, noble Lords will be pleased to know, is around AI and energy. As we transition to net zero, we need at least to double the amount of electricity by 2050, and noble Lords have made the point that that need might be much greater. At the moment, data centres consume 2.5% of our electricity, but that is going to rise to 10% by 2050. Against that background, the general demand for electricity is going to double. There is no doubt that nuclear and the need for data centres will rub up against our need for net zero, and there will be competition for resources, workforce, government time, money and so on. That needs to be looked at. We had a Question to the Minister in the House the other day. There are loads of opportunities for us to make better use of AI to become more energy efficient, run our grid better, run our industry better and use less energy across so many sectors of the country from manufacturing to transport and everything else. While I welcome the creation of the AI Energy Council, I call on the Government, if they are embracing AI and providing energy, to put as much energy into trying to make sure that AI is as energy-efficient and energy-saving to the country as it possibly can be.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will know that I always welcome every opportunity to talk about nuclear power in all its forms. I echo the appreciation by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, of the Minister’s support for the nuclear industry. Of course, I endorse all the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, about the obvious opportunities for nuclear power generation in Wylfa and Trawsfynydd in north-west Wales. I hope that this Government will work closely with their colleagues in Cardiff Bay to bring these projects about as speedily as possible.
It has also been good to welcome a new voice on these Benches. My noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch will certainly prove to be an enthusiastic Member of the House, as evidenced by her barnstorming maiden speech.
The importance of nuclear energy in securing the UK’s future cannot be overstated. It is essential for energy independence, affordability and achieving our climate goals. We must adopt a diverse and balanced energy mix, one that is secure, sustainable and capable of providing affordable, reliable power for generations to come. In this mix, nuclear power plays an indispensable role. It is clean, reliable and can provide the baseload power necessary to complement intermittent renewables such as wind and solar.
The updated national policy statement, EN-7, represents a welcome and crucial step forward in the UK’s energy strategy. It is vital that the future of the UK’s energy generation is guided by a long-term vision grounded in a pragmatic understanding of what the future requires. Nuclear energy is central to that vision.
Of course, we must be mindful that innovation in nuclear technology comes with challenges. The development of SMRs and AMRs requires significant investment, careful regulation and rigorous safety standards. To an extent, the statement acknowledges some of these concerns and I welcome the Government’s commitment to ensuring the highest safety standards. Nuclear power has long been one of the safest and most secure energy sources available, and it will continue to be so with the right regulatory framework in place.
Here I stress that it would be enormously helpful if regulation between the international regulatory authorities could be aligned, as the Minister suggested it might be, thereby cutting down the expensive and time-consuming duplication of processes.
Energy security is one of the most pressing challenges of our time and nuclear energy will play a pivotal role in tackling this reality. The geopolitics of 2025 mean that energy is no longer just an industrial policy but at the very heart of national defence. The UK now imports 70% of its gas, largely from Norway and the USA. Additionally, 20% of peak UK gas comes through the pipeline between Norway and the UK.
Despite this, to achieve the Government’s clean power 2030 target, we are shutting down our domestic production of oil and gas, which supports an entire sector of jobs, brings tax revenue to the Exchequer and encompasses part of that 72% of hydrocarbons which we still rely on and will continue to rely on through the necessary transition period. It is particularly concerning that industry bodies, particularly Energy UK, have questioned whether the Government’s focus on clean power by 2030 could actually divert resources away from nuclear projects in the short term.
The UK completely removed all coal-fired power in 2024. It was largely replaced by both gas and naturally unreliable renewables. Relying on any one technology makes an electricity grid less resilient. However, nuclear power is zero carbon and will be integral in stabilising the grid when so much electricity comes from intermittent renewables. Even the former Prime Minister Tony Blair has argued that:
“Nuclear power is going to be an essential part of the answer”
to net zero. Writing in the foreword of a report by his think tank, the Tony Blair Institute, he rightly acknowledges that small modular nuclear reactors, nuclear fusion and other advanced technologies can help lower the emissions of the electricity sector.
So we welcome the updated EN-7, which emphasises the development of SMRs and AMRs alongside traditional gigawatt-scale nuclear plants. SMRs, in particular, offer significant benefits such as smaller footprints, lower costs and faster construction, making nuclear power viable in areas where large-scale plants are impractical. As the Minister stated, AMR technologies offer the potential to co-locate safely alongside data centres and heavy industrial users of power, such as the Port Talbot steelworks, providing dedicated power outside the grid.
We can also look towards nuclear power’s capabilities in meeting the UK’s ambitious sustainable aviation fuel mandate. This requires 22% of sustainable aviation fuel use in total jet fuel demand by 2040. This must not be overlooked: unlike intermittent renewable sources, nuclear power provides the steady, reliable energy supply demanded by large-scale SAF production. I hope the Minister recognises that significant investment is required to ensure the scalability and sustainability of nuclear energy in this sector.
By supporting nuclear innovation, we can position the UK as a global hub for nuclear expertise and technology, attracting investment from around the world. This is not merely about energy; it is about securing the UK’s future growth and prosperity. It is about ensuring that Britain remains a leader in high-tech industries, while creating jobs and fostering growth in communities across the nation—particularly those left-behind communities in the Midlands, Wales and the north-east. A strong, homegrown nuclear sector is central to achieving this.
We must also acknowledge the UK’s role as a global leader in nuclear innovation. Many of these advanced reactor designs are being developed right here in Britain. With the support of EN-7, we can strengthen the UK’s nuclear sector, positioning the country as a world leader in nuclear energy, but may I first make a few suggestions to the Government?
NESO needs to prioritise the siting work for advanced nuclear technologies. Sites identified as having potential must be reserved as strategic national assets now. Many of these could be currently designated as brownfield, such as those being identified in the Midlands near water and transmission lines; they must not be covered over by houses or solar farms for short-term gain.
The Government need to share the heavy lifting on the production of the appraisal of sustainability. Having to evaluate all possible alternative sites and flood protection for the entire life of the project is an onerous burden for developers, as highlighted by my noble friend Lady Coffey. The Minister will know that I have concerns about the method of gaining community support. While this is important in general terms, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, outlined, endless contact between developers and communities with potential sites could become counterproductive—unless they are in Wylfa or Trawsfynydd, perhaps. Lastly, the Government should ensure that the Committee for Climate Change has a nuclear advocate—it has long been missing from its mix.
To conclude, the updated EN-7 represents a positive step towards a cleaner, more secure and more prosperous energy future for the UK. By embracing nuclear energy, we can achieve energy independence, stabilise our grid, reduce emissions and create economic opportunities across the country. Finally, I very much look forward to the end of spring—in six weeks’ time—as, I am sure, does the Minister.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, is very experienced and knows that departmental spring is not entirely consistent with meteorological science. I very much take the point, however, that we all want to see a final investment decision on Sizewell C—except the noble Lord, Lord Howell—and great progress on the SMR programme.
This has been a really interesting debate, and I just make it clear that the contributions that noble Lords have made today will be fed into the consideration of our final version of EN-7. In a sense, the debate does not finish here; we will make sure that the contributions are considered very carefully by officials before we receive final advice on the contents.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, on a very lively, excellent maiden speech. We look forward to her future contributions. She will discover that the West Midlands is not overrepresented in your Lordships’ House, so it is very good to see her here. I did not know about Redditch tights—I now know—but I do know about the potential of Redditch. I also share her view about the need to encourage the aspirations of young people in Redditch, and I know about the work being done on the educational system there to try to improve aspirations, including through access to higher and further education.
This debate has been very encouraging. When I last had this job in 2008 to 2010, there was much more of a mixed view, inside and outside Parliament, about the role of nuclear. There has been a huge change in attitudes and in support for nuclear. We know that from the regular polling that my department has done on public attitude following Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Among experts and political parties, there is generally now a baseload of support for nuclear, which is really encouraging. Given the long lead times of investment decisions and build for nuclear, having stability for the companies that wish to take this forward is absolutely crucial, as it is in terms of building a UK supply chain. This kind of debate is therefore very encouraging in that respect.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was disappointed with EN-7. On future demand, there is clearly a range of estimates for what we need based on assumptions including the extent of electrification, the role of hydrogen and the growth of artificial intelligence. I assure him that we are not wedded to a single estimate, but we clearly have to flex the supply of electricity generation according to how we go forward in relation to the future.
On EN-7 and his argument that it insufficiently mentions SMRs, we believe that EN-7 caters to SMRs throughout. We do not refer to broad categories such as SMRs as planning decisions will reflect the facts of each set of plans rather than what they are called. The different characteristics of SMRs are addressed, particularly when it refers to phased development and cooling, where we recognise that different stations may be cooled in completely different ways.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, made a number of remarks about Sizewell C that I do not think other noble Lords agree with. I know that he thinks that the replication of Sizewell C in relation to Hinkley Point will not lead to improvements in productivity, but I point him to the improvement in productivity between unit one of Hinkley Point C and unit two. To be fair, we know that Hinkley Point C has had many challenges, and clearly we are all anxious to see further progress made, but it has made progress. There is no doubt that it has learned about how to build on a huge site using the modular approach in many ways. I am convinced that Sizewell C will benefit hugely from it. Pulling the plug on Sizewell C and saying that we will put all our eggs in the SMR basket would be greeted with consternation within the industry. That is not the way to go forward.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, about the RAB model. That was an important consideration. I was interested in what she had to say about the coalition agreement in 2010, and I still remember the decision made to withdraw support from Sheffield Forgemasters in 2010, which I think was a big mistake. I pay tribute to Sheffield Forgemasters, the work it is now doing and its potential.
On the financing of SMRs, there are plenty of companies which are knocking on our doors saying, “Just give us the green light. We can develop all this. We do not need any public money”. Allow me to be a little sceptical, particularly when it comes to first-of-a-kind development. Coming back to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, about the share of GDP spent on public finances, et cetera, nuclear is one of those areas where you need public and private partnership. Of course we will develop our policies over the next few months, in particular in relation to advanced modular reactors, and look at the best way we can encourage private finance, because clearly we need the private sector to finance the development of AMRs in future. However, at the moment, and we have seen this with Sizewell C, public finance will be involved with the development of SMRs. Public finance is involved.
Clearly noble Lords are impatient for us to get to the end of the current programmes. We have basically inherited GBN’s assessment of SMRs. We cannot intervene now. It is working as hard as it possibly can to get decisions to government very quickly. Of course it is then tied into the spending review process, as it has to be, but the spending review outcomes are going to be known within a very short space of time. I do not accept that we are at risk of falling behind. I know from various discussions that I have had with other countries that there is huge interest in the GBN process. I hope that at the end of the process we will have a decision that will enable us to go forward with confidence and with the huge opportunity of developing a UK supply chain.
On the various contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, I first thank him for all the work he has done in the Midlands, showing the potential that we have in the Midlands, both east and west. He and his colleagues, uniquely, have brought the east Midlands and the West Midlands together, which as he and anyone living in the Midlands will know, is one of the greatest challenges known to men and women. Even though Brum is only a few miles away from Derby and Leicester, pulling them together is hard. He and his colleagues have done that and my department is very interested in the work that he is doing. I have already met him and I hope that he will carry on this work. It is worth saying that we already have huge assets. For instance, at the grid in Warwick, we have great skills and I am sure that we will contribute more in the future. That is probably not a departmental view, but noble Lords will know where I stand on these matters.
On community support, I very much take the point. It is an unknown quantity at the moment. With the existing sites that are listed in EN-6, we know that there was broad support in the local community for the development of new nuclear. We do not really know what the appetite will be in those areas that are new to nuclear. I take the point about the need for communications—mainly by the developers but I accept that the Government have a role. I should say that today we published our Community Benefits and Shared Ownership for Low Carbon Energy Infrastructure working paper for consultation, which may be helpful in encouraging communities to host infrastructure, receiving high-quality benefits in a consistent manner by building on existing voluntary approaches to community benefits.
On the noble Earl’s point about the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan, this will not be limited by EN-6 but will be consistent with it, as it obviously should be in EN-7. He asked about the threshold of 50 megawatts in England and 350 megawatts in Wales. This applies to planning applications, so it would naturally incorporate entire projects and entire sites. We think it unlikely that a developer would split a complex nuclear project into multiple planning applications to try to game the system. If they did, we could call in the applications and treat them as nationally significant infrastructure projects. I think that, given the scale of investment that is concerned, that is very unlikely.
I turn to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I take her point on population density. We had a lot of discussions about that before we published EN-7 and we are continuing to look at it in the EN-7 consultation. Any change we make has got to be broad-based and based on strong evidence. There is obviously a balance between safety, certainty of industry and public confidence. We are still considering this point. We are of course reviewing the national policy statement at least every five years and the review will give us an opportunity to revisit this as evidence develops and we gain experience of community attitudes in, say, urban populations, which we do not really know at the moment.
A very important point was made about water. EN-1 requires applicants to consider water quality and resources in detail, covering both construction and operation. Obviously, they need to engage early with the Environment Agency and water companies, but it is a substantive point. Of course, we have the more general issue of the need to build reservoirs, and I am well aware of some the discussions taking place about this at the moment.
My judgment on Sellafield, having revisited it after a gap of 14 years, is that it has made considerable progress. There is a long way to go, but I pay tribute to the work that is being done, the current leadership at Sellafield and the good relationships it has with the workforce. My judgment is that we need to see Sellafield as part of the future rather than just a legacy of the past. The skills developed at Sellafield—and, generally, in nuclear decommissioning—contribute to the industry as a whole. Confidence in the future and new nuclear depends on our being seen to deal with waste and decommissioning as effectively as possible.
We did not know that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, was such an expert and had such experience. His constructive approach to new nuclear in north Wales is very much appreciated. He has made the point to me, and I very much accept it. He will know that Wylfa offers many attributes; that is why it is listed in EN-6. I also understand the issue about Trawsfynydd and isotope production. Isotopes are a matter for my colleagues in the Department of Health, and I encourage the noble Lord to talk to them about that.
I visited Wylfa in 2009 and met many people in the workforce there. At that point, they were very keen to see nuclear development continue. It is a matter of great regret that the Horizon project fell apart, but we certainly consider Wylfa to be a site that offers many attributes.
On the issue of the sites listed in EN-6 that missed out, we are saying, in essence, that we have those sites and they continue to have much to offer, but we want a more flexible siting to allow more areas to come in. Before this was published, I was very keen not to suggest that, suddenly, the sites we listed in EN-6 were being overlooked, because they are not. Clearly, they offer many advantages.
My noble friend Lord Browne made a number of important contributions. On Scotland, it is interesting that, between 2004 and 2021, nuclear energy accounted for 25% to 43% of annual electricity generation. Scotland has this hugely rich heritage, and it is a tragedy that, at the moment, we cannot see new nuclear developments in that country. Let us hope that we see a change.
My noble friend’s remarks on the COP declaration on nuclear energy—on the risk of proliferation and the security issues that arise—were very important. The COP declaration itself and the addition of a number of countries—which, as he mentioned, was announced in the previous COP—are to be encouraged.
We are strong supporters of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has such a vital role to play on nuclear deproliferation. Its work in Ukraine over the past year or two has been amazing and the people involved in that deserve great credit. The UK is one of its strongest supporters and is acknowledged as such. I have had a series of meetings with the agency to talk about these matters.
I totally agree with my noble friend about the UK’s potential with the SMR programme globally. I know that we need to make progress quickly, but we have not missed, and will not miss, the boat. We have a great opportunity.
I very much take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the energy needs of AI, which will make huge electricity demands but can make great contributions to improving our energy efficiency and the efficiency of the whole energy sector. We want AI to be linked to decarbonised energy. That is what is so exciting about what is happening in the US and the support that companies such as Amazon are giving to AI centres linked to nuclear power stations. We are looking at that carefully. Over the next few months, we want to work to ensure we have policies that make it as easy as possible for these to be developed using funding from private finance. The noble Earl asked me a question about one or two SMRs. He does not really expect me to be in a position to answer that. We will just have to be patient at this point.
Geological disposal is important, of course. EN-7 makes a number of points about waste, its importance and how it needs to be factored into the developers’ considerations and applications. I cannot give timelines on geological disposal. The noble Earl will understand that the Lincolnshire position is difficult at the moment, and we are not absolutely certain about where we are going with that. Clearly, the long-term future in relation to waste is geological disposal, but interim storage is of the highest quality and can assure safety. It fits into the general position. I cannot comment on the CNC role and security issues. All I will say is that security at our existing sites and new sites is crucial.
I fear I am going over my time, but I must refer to the important contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. We are totally agreed on the importance of nuclear energy and safety standards. Let me reassure her that our review of the regulatory system will not put safety at risk. I will make just one point about international collaboration. Surely we can do more to share knowledge and information. If in the US, for instance, a technology has been given approval, there must be ways in which we can have reciprocity. I am convinced of that. In relation to the collaboration between regulators, we need to do much more. A comment was made earlier about the roles of Natural England and the Environment Agency. We have to ensure that these regulators work together and in a timely way.
Perhaps I can pass on oil and gas, as we have debated that many times, but nuclear innovation is very important. The Prime Minister’s visit to the UK National Nuclear Laboratory in Springfields only a couple of months ago was a signal of the Prime Minister’s support for nuclear and our innovation.
I am sorry that I have taken so long, but this has been a really interesting debate. The contributions of noble Lords have been very helpful. They will be carefully considered by my officials before advice is given to Ministers.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I apologise to the Committee. I should have started my speech by drawing attention to my registered interests. I still have a small legacy involvement with a Canadian nuclear company.