(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Curran
That the Grand Committee takes note of the initial proposed National Policy Statement for Fusion Energy Generation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Baroness Curran) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be with you this afternoon. At its heart, EN-8 is about preparing for a transformative new energy source. Fusion offers the prospect of abundant, low-carbon, safe energy. It has the potential to strengthen our long-term energy security, support economic growth and position the United Kingdom at the forefront of the emerging global industry. Fusion is already supporting UK jobs, supply chains and innovation. Efforts to commercialise it will enable us to capture a significant proportion of the emerging global market.
This debate is not about what specific projects should look like or where they should be located. Rather, it is about ensuring that our planning system is ready for the significant opportunities that future fusion energy projects may bring to local areas and to the UK as a whole. It is about signalling to the rapidly growing global fusion industry that the UK is open for business and that we are ready to support real-world fusion energy deployment.
EN-8 marks an important milestone in that journey. As noble Lords will know, national policy statements are statutory documents prepared under the Planning Act. They provide the principal framework for the assessment of development consent applications for nationally significant infrastructure. Once designated, EN-8 will be world’s first national planning policy dedicated to fusion energy infrastructure. It will sit alongside the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and provide the primary planning framework for nationally significant fusion energy projects in England and Wales.
It is important to be clear about what EN-8 does and does not do. EN-8, alongside EN-1, provides developers and decision-makers with clear policy for assessing nationally significant fusion energy projects. It establishes a proportionate approach that reflects fusion’s distinct characteristics, while ensuring rigorous assessment of relevant environmental and safety planning considerations. As fusion remains a rapidly developing field and future facilities may differ in design and operation, EN-8 provides for a deliberately technology-neutral framework that supports innovation and will remain relevant as fusion technologies develop.
What EN-8 does not do is approve any specific fusion energy development. Nor does EN-8 allocate sites for future fusion projects. Nor does it replace existing regulatory regimes that protect the environment, workers and communities. Rather, EN-8 provides much-needed clarity and transparency for decision-makers, as well as developers who want to build in the UK, reducing uncertainty and making the UK a more desirable place to invest.
Why is a stand-alone NPS needed for fusion, and why now? The simple matter is that it would not be appropriate to apply requirements designed for nuclear fission power stations to fusion facilities, given the differences in the technology. The two technologies are fundamentally different and have very different hazard profiles. Fusion involves joining light nuclei, such as hydrogen isotopes, to produce heavier ones, such as helium. Fusion does not use the fuels used in nuclear fission, cannot create a runaway chain reaction and does not create very long-lived radioactive waste. A fusion-specific national policy statement therefore provides the most proportionate and effective approach to planning for future fusion energy developments that supports innovation and investment.
With over 70 years of research and development and a world-leading regulatory framework separate to nuclear fission, the UK has already established itself as a leading destination for fusion research and development. In our March 2026 fusion strategy, we set the guiding objective to accelerate growth of our UK fusion industry. Major programmes such as the spherical tokamak for energy production—I think I got that right—which is our prototype fusion power plant programme, demonstrate our ambition to remain at the forefront of global efforts to commercialise fusion energy and provide the demand to grow a UK supply chain. We are also seeing private development such as the UK Infinity Fusion Consortium moving at pace and developing plans to deploy in the UK. Implementing a clear and predictable planning framework now is therefore an important part of creating the conditions necessary for investment and deployment.
EN-8 is therefore not simply a planning document. It is part of a broader effort to ensure that we are ready for the opportunities that fusion can offer. It provides certainty where certainty is needed, flexibility where flexibility is required and a proportionate framework that reflects the distinctive characteristics of fusion technology. EN-8 has been designed with these principles in mind.
EN-8 follows the structure of other technology-specific energy national policy statements and sits alongside the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1). EN-8 explains how EN-1’s generic assessment principles apply to fusion energy infrastructure and sets out the fusion-specific considerations that earlier consultation has suggested. It explains what, if any, additional factors need to be considered by developers of fusion energy infrastructure.
In addition, while the Nuclear Regulatory Review deliberately excluded fusion, given the differences in technology and regulatory approach to nuclear fission, we have nevertheless considered the review’s recommendations carefully and reflected those relevant to fusion in EN-8. The draft NPS does not exclude semi-urban locations and acts only where necessary, it supports socioeconomic benefits from fusion and it avoids unnecessary or duplicative requirements through proportionate, outcome-based assessment. EN-8 gives developers, regulators, communities and decision-makers clarity and confidence, while retaining flexibility for the future.
Between June and August this year, the Government consulted publicly on the draft EN-8. Respondents from industry, academia, regulators, councils and the public broadly supported a technology-neutral framework dedicated to fusion which is aligned with the wider national policy statement suite. Of course, respondents also highlighted areas where further clarification could be helpful, including on the interaction with regulatory regimes, the approach to phased or evolving fusion projects, the treatment of cumulative impacts, climate resilience and the wider socioeconomic benefits that fusion may bring. These are all important points, and the Government are carefully considering all consultation responses as part of the next stage of the process. I would like to place on record my thanks to everyone who contributed to the consultation and to the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for its scrutiny of the draft document.
Fusion remains a potentially transformative energy source, and commercial deployment is growing ever nearer. But if the United Kingdom is to maintain its position as a global leader in fusion, we cannot wait until projects are ready to be built before putting the necessary frameworks in place. I look forward to hearing the views of noble Lords in today’s debate. I beg to move.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the publication of the Draft National Policy Statement for Fusion Energy EN-8. We stand at a critical juncture in our transition to a clean energy future. Fusion energy offers the extraordinary promise of near-limitless low-carbon power without the long-lived high-level radioactive waste associated with traditional nuclear fission. By establishing a dedicated, streamlined planning framework today, we ensure that the United Kingdom remains a global leader in commercialising this revolutionary technology.
We can see the tangible reality of this ambition right now in Nottinghamshire with the pioneering spherical tokamak for energy production, or STEP, project at West Burton. This world-first prototype is not just a scientific experiment; it is an economic engine for the East Midlands, proving that the green transition can drive regional growth, create high-skilled jobs and revitalise our industrial heartlands. By providing a clear planning pathway through EN-8, we give the STEP project and the commercial ventures that will inevitably follow it the long-term certainty that they need to succeed.
I particularly welcome the Government’s decision to grant fusion projects critical national priority status, aligning them with our broader decarbonisation goals under EN-1. Furthermore, distinguishing fusion from fission by removing rigid population density restrictions is a sensible, science-led approach that recognises the inherent safety advantages of fusion technology, where a meltdown or runaway chain reaction is physically impossible.
However, while we must pave the way for innovation, we cannot afford to outpace our regulatory safeguards. A robust policy framework must answer the difficult questions before the concrete is poured. First, we must address the capacity and readiness of our regulators. The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee recently raised valid concerns regarding the relative inexperience of environmental regulators with first-of-a-kind commercial fusion. How are the Government planning to resource the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive so that they can rigorously assess complex systems such as STEP without administrative bottlenecks?
Secondly, while fusion does not produce high-level waste, it generates significant amounts of low and intermediate-level radioactive materials through tritium use and materials activation. What specific criteria would EN-8 enforce regarding lifecycle assessments and the long-term decommissioning of these facilities? Where and how will this waste be safely managed?
Finally, as prototypes scale up into commercial plants, we must look at the broader geopolitical and security landscape. How will this planning framework interact with non-proliferation considerations, particularly concerning the international supply chains for deuterium and tritium?
EN-8 is a bold, necessary and deeply exciting step forward. If we can resolve these pressing questions around regulatory resourcing, waste management and supply chain security, we will not only secure our own energy independence but pioneer a clean energy blueprint for the rest of the world. I thank the Minister for introducing the national policy statement and for her introductory remarks, and I look forward to her response.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, for securing it. I welcome the chance to speak on what is a really extraordinary scientific journey—one that, as others have said, is vital to our long-term net-zero future. The running joke has always been that fusion is the energy of the future and is always 30 years away.
Earl Russell (LD)
Whether 15 or 30 years away, however, we are making progress, and that joke does not really apply anymore. We are trying to do something really extraordinary: to build a star here on earth, to heat hydrogen to around 10 times the temperature of the core of the sun, and to hold plasma in a chamber with magnets cooled to near absolute zero.
Britain is not sitting on the sidelines on this but is actually leading the world. The Joint European Torus at Culham has set records for fusion energy output. The MAST upgrade is the world’s largest operational spherical tokamak. Public and private investors, from the UK Atomic Energy Authority to Tokamak Energy, are pushing ahead and pushing each other forward. We have rightly earned our place at the heart of this.
The prize, as others have said, is incredibly large. The International Atomic Energy Agency counts fusion among the most environmentally friendly sources of energy: no carbon dioxide; no harmful atmospheric emissions; and it produces fuel from hydrogen and lithium, which are both widely available. We know that electricity demand here is expected to double, or more than double, by 2050, as we seek to electrify our heating, transport and industry. The UK Atomic Energy Authority believes that fusion could provide steady baseload power that would complement our renewables. If it works at scale, we could move from an energy politics of scarcity and competition towards abundance, and the global market has been estimated to be worth £12 trillion.
But we need to be honest about the climate argument, which is a point that the Commons Energy Security and Net Zero Committee also made. The earliest we will see this energy in production and viable is the 2040s, so we need to continue on our renewables journey and we need to cut our emissions. This energy will come late in the day in terms of meeting our climate targets.
That being said, we on these Benches back fusion. We support it, and we support the £2.5 billion invested so far and the £1.3 billion to be put into STEP. The Government are backing a winner, and I believe that it is justified, but the risk is also large, and the horizon is long. Ministers and the Government have a duty to be open about the costs and processes involved and to make sure that we are getting value for public money.
That brings me to EN-8. As the Minister said—I did not know this until she said so—it is the world’s first policy for energy fusion. Obviously, planning policy is our primary consideration here today. There is a lot here that we welcome and support, and my sense is that that is also the case for others around the Room today. We welcome the designation of low-carbon fusion energy as a critical national priority; the priority for brownfield and former energy sites; and the recognition that fusion’s low radiological risk means no population density limits. We also welcome the encouragement of collocation with energy-intensive users, such as data centres, and the 19 fusion-specific considerations on top of EN-1.
We also welcome the broadening of what can count as a nationally significant project. The Government are bringing in fusion infrastructure with thermal, or combined thermal and electricity, capacity over 50 megawatts, which recognises that fusion plants may supply heat as well as power. We also welcome the application of good design principles, which are key, and how the new plants will meet the very important climate-resilient targets—as we know, our climate is changing in the future.
As the Minister said, industry has broadly welcomed the draft. I thank the Minister for noting that the Government will look at the responses and points that have been made on that draft.
I have a few areas that I would like to explore while I have the chance to do so. In 2022, the Government decided that fusion would continue to be principally regulated by the Health and Safety Executive and the relevant environmental agency. As the noble Lord, Lord Khan, has already mentioned, of course we recognise that fusion is not fission, but the Commons Energy Security and Net Zero Committee was entirely unconvinced that removing the Office for Nuclear Regulation would reduce bureaucracy and warned that “the relative inexperience”—or, really, the complete inexperience—
“of the Environment Agency may lead to the excessive caution”
in this field. My question for the Minister, therefore, is: how will regulators be adequately resourced? What specialised staff are the Government seeking to recruit and what are the timeframes for ensuring that all this is done in good time?
I understand that fusion sits outside the nuclear siting and licensing regime of 1965; that makes sense, but questions remain about how third-party liability, insurance and—as has already been mentioned—long-term waste costs can be handled. As the industry seeks to invest, it will need further clarity on these points.
Can the Minister also say a little more on where we are at with the STEP programme? I understand that the aim is to submit a development consent application in 2029 and to start building in 2030. Even conventional schemes can take well over a year, so are we still on track for this timetable? It feels like quite a tight timetable for a one-of-a-kind plant.
Fusion plants will be strategic national assets and the supply chains behind them will depend on global supply chains. What considerations have the Government given to securing those supply chains, particularly when we will face a world of competition, particularly with the USA and China, which are particularly investing in this technology? What are we doing to make sure that those supply chains work?
The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee also called for non-proliferation guidance to be issued now, not at the five-year review. Will the Government accept that recommendation?
For me, another important point is that these are really big infrastructure projects and we want to support community benefits. What more are the Government doing to make sure that local economies, the wider economy and the people who live next to these big industrial sites will benefit from them? Is it still expected that STEP will support around 10,000 jobs? What work is being done to support the skills and apprenticeships that will go with that?
Issues have also been raised around how we talk to local communities about these projects. Obviously, this is a new, evolving and unknown technology, so there is a real need for the Government to put effort and consideration into how they communicate these projects to make sure that the public are reassured of their inherent safety.
Cooling water is an issue. Tomorrow, we will debate the Environment and Climate Change Committee’s report on drought. Obviously, we know that this is subject to forward plans, but it looks like we could be short by 5 billion litres of water per year by 2030. These plants have big cooling needs, and they may be collocated with data centres and other high intensity water and energy requirements. Given that collocation is mentioned in this document, will the Government give more consideration to desalinisation or other methods so that we can look at water usage? Water usage is quite a critical element of these projects.
There is still some debate about the relationship between EN-1 and EN-8; I understand what the Minister says, and that EN-1 is the overarching document. I welcome the fact we have developed a separate policy with EN-8, but there are some issues about the relationship between those two documents, which could do with further clarification.
I also want to ask about the energy spatial plan, which the Government are in the process of developing and should be published later this year. But this plan needs to work with the energy spatial plan. These plants, particularly at start-up, will require to draw huge amounts of energy from the grid—although, when they are up and running, they will supply energy back to it—so grid planning and siting are key issues.
I like the fact that we are at the forefront of this technology, but the technology is evolving and changing, and other countries are investing heavily in it. Just yesterday I was reading about the helicon current drive at the DIII-D national energy facility, which is a new development of an old technology that hopes to maintain a steady state for longer so that we can get closer to getting long-term energy out of these plants. That highlights that the technology is moving really quickly, so I guess there is a question about how EN-8 will develop with new technologies.
In the European Union, policy on fusion energy is still country based, and we are ahead of the EU now. But these are big, large-scale projects, and as part of our reset with Europe we should be looking for greater co-operation with our European partners. I think we are actually ahead of the game here, and on this document we could be leaning into Europe to develop better policies based on this. I would encourage the UK Government to include fusion as a key element of our European reset.
We are supportive of this national policy statement. We think this is a real opportunity for the UK to press home its technological advantages in this area. The development of and investment in this technology is really important towards providing our future long-term energy security and helping deal with the problems of energy use and climate change.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Amey, Acteon and Buckthorn Partners. I welcome this national policy statement and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Khan, on his contribution. I will return to the specific points he raised as I think they are very important in the context of getting this policy right. We are in a period of consultation. The strategy aims, as we know, to accelerate growth in the UK fusion industry, building on the £2.5 billion in R&D provided by the previous Conservative Government. Today, this will be primarily achieved by investing £1.3 billion into the spherical tokamak for energy production—STEP—prototype fusion power plant. STEP, as has been mentioned, aims to design, develop and build a prototype fusion plant by the 2040s. The Conservative Government committed £240 million in funding towards the first phase of concept design in the previous Parliament.
Before I go into detail on a specific number of issues, which I would be grateful to the Minister to take into account, this is part of the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy, or EN-1. It was drawn to our attention in the statement that we should also read EN-1 and other relevant national policy statements. In reading it, I came across a section that I know will have the enthusiastic support of the Minister, because it talks about the need for new nationally significant infrastructure projects and new nuclear energy infrastructure. Also within the section is the acknowledgement of the
“need for new nationally significant gas infrastructure”.
Gas is noted
“as a reliable source of flexible generating capacity”.
We need to:
“Meet ‘peak’ demand for gas”,
and
“Allow for a sustained delivery of large volumes of gas, for example, demand over a particularly cold winter”
and also
“Provide access to the most competitive gas supplies”.
In the spirit of harmony across this Committee, I congratulate the Chancellor on announcing Jackdaw. On the subject of hydrocarbons, we on this side of the Committee welcome the approving and defending of the Sea Lion Field by the Foreign Secretary—now known as the MP for Port Stanley and the Government’s special oil envoy for the South Atlantic. I say that today because this is the first day of consideration by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, under the UN convention, in its hearing on the UK/Argentina dispute, of oil exploration in the Sea Lion Field. We wish the Foreign Secretary well in his strong defence of oil production in the South Atlantic.
Turning to the specific points in the Motion before us, particularly in terms of the House of Commons consideration of planning for fusion and the draft national policy guidance, I thought it would be helpful to outline some of the concerns and comments made by the private fusion companies and industries bodies. They welcome the draft National Policy Statement for Fusion Energy Generation but submitted several key requests for stronger political clarity. I very much hope that these will be taken into account by the Government.
They noted that individual private fusion companies did not submit stand-alone written evidence to the House of Commons Energy Security and Net Zero Committee’s inquiry. Instead, private sector views were channelled through representative bodies, primarily through the Fusion Industry Taskforce, or FIT, which represents more than 20 private engineering, supply-chain and fusion organisations, and the Fusion Industry Association, or FIA, which is the global trade body for around 50 private fusion developers. I would like to address some key points raised by the private sector representatives during the parliamentary scrutiny of draft EN-8 and ask the Minister to ensure that, if she does not fully respond today—which I would totally understand—all these points will be taken into account when the Government come to respond.
First is the question of unclear regulatory sequencing and timing. The FIA and FIT warned that draft EN-8 lacks sharp clarity on how the development consent order process interacts with regulatory justification decisions and permitting by the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency. Industry representatives stressed that unclear decision points prevent developers and their supply chains committing capital and signing contracts with confidence.
The second point, admirably raised by the noble Lord, Lord Khan, as well as by FIT, is the concern is that the HSE and Environment Agency currently lack enough suitably qualified and experienced personnel to evaluate what are diverse, first-of-a-kind private fusion plant designs. FIT warns that capability bottlenecks inside these regulators could severely delay plant approvals as the sector scales. This challenge is recognised across the Committee and I hope the Government will take it into account and respond fully when it comes to their public response.
The third point is ambiguity over long-term radioactive waste liabilities. FIT commented that the draft EN-8 note failed to define who holds long-term financial and operational responsibility for fusion waste disposal across a facility’s life cycle, specifically how liability is split among the developer, the operator and the Government. It noted that this uncertainty directly harms private investment cases and project profitability.
The next point is the absence of decommissioning funding mechanisms. Industry witnesses highlighted that separating fusion from nuclear fission under the Energy Act 2023 removed established fission decommissioning frameworks without replacing them. Private sector developers require a clear, proportionate mechanism for meeting future decommissioning costs rather than waiting until the Government’s target date of autumn 2027.
Then there is the very important issue of silence on third-party radiological liability and insurance. Supporting industry concerns, Lloyd’s Syndicate 1176 and sector witnesses pointed out that neither EN-1 nor draft EN-8 establishes substantive policy on third-party radiological liability, insurance or financial protection. Fusion is excluded from the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, so private developers cannot rely on existing fission insurance pools and therefore face uncertainty over early-stage risk coverage. That is another point that I hope the Government will be able to address.
There is also the very important point about the risk of planning consenting becoming the critical path. Industry leaders warned that if planning and consenting timelines are not streamlined alongside EN-8, bureaucracy rather than engineering would become the main bottleneck to building commercial plants in the 2030s. They stressed that planning frameworks must match the rapid commercial pace of private developers already selecting sites for pilot power stations. This is absolutely critical. I suggest to the Minister that more regulation and red tape can suffocate private sector development, and I hope she will be able to respond positively to the points that have been made on planning. One is on delaying commercial deployment: private developers, some targeting pilot plants by the early 2030s, have argued in planning consultations that overly prescriptive, multi-stage, statutory engagement rules risk slowing down first-of-a-kind infrastructure delivery.
Then there is the question of consent-based siting advantage. Take the example of West Burton; it was selected through a competitive volunteer-led siting process in an area—Megawatt Valley—with a 60-year heritage of coal power generation and strong local appetite for industrial renewal. Planning specialists point out that private developers acquiring commercial or greenfield sites without a prior local bidding contest face very different community dynamics that cannot be replicated simply by covering STEP’s outreach template.
There is then the question of reversing the Planning and Infrastructure Act. The Government recently removed rigid statutory pre-application consultation requirements from the Planning Act 2008, specifically to cut red tape and prevent developers running defensive box-ticking consultation rounds to avoid judicial reviews. Reintroducing a bespoke statutory consultation standard solely for fusion runs counter to the Government’s wider push for streamlined, flexible pre-application guidance. These two aspects of planning law need to be considered and, I hope, responded to by the Government.
There is a risk of gold-plating and regulatory caution from adding extra consent layers. In written evidence to the committee, planning stakeholders warned against creating additional consent letters or rigid procedural hurdles for nascent technologies. Critics argue that turning voluntary practice into strict statutory law invites legal challenge over whether a developer met subjective standards of “good” engagement, potentially recreating the exact planning bottlenecks that EN-8 is designed to prevent. At the heart of the questions that I put to the Government this afternoon are these critical planning issues that need to be addressed if we are to be successful in taking this technology forward.
Finally, I add one or two additional points that were made by those making representations on the note before us. One is a lack of a commercial market and off-take framework. In oral evidence, the FIA emphasised that planning rules alone would not deliver private fusion plants without a supporting commercial market mechanism. Private developers targeting competitive power prices need clear revenue and off-take structures alongside EN-8 to unlock private project finance.
Then there is the question of the need to support export and engineering ambitions beyond UK builds. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, alluded to—I was going to call him my noble friend, but he is my noble friend on this issue as we are agreement on this—the FIT argued that the draft EN-8 focuses too narrowly on domestic site construction, rather than positioning the UK as the premier global hub to develop, engineer and export fusion technology. It urged the Government to ensure that planning and regulatory frameworks reinforce sovereign supply chains and international exportability. If we develop the IP that is involved in this, that is a critically important point for the Government to look at.
Reference has also been made to the importance of securing long-term skills and supply chain certainty. Both the FIT and the FIA noted that private fusion firms are predominantly people-driven enterprises that require a predictable multi-project pipeline to attract talent and justify supply chain investment. They warned that, without clear policy signals linking EN-8 to a trained workforce and to skills programmes, UK firms risk losing engineers and manufacturing capability to competing markets such as the US and China.
Finally, in oral evidence, private sector representatives highlighted the challenge of transitioning public laboratory breakthroughs, such as those at Culham, into private commercial enterprises. They called for clearer pathways to ensure public/private partnerships and national test facilities actively accelerate private sector deployment, rather than keeping intellectual property and capability locked inside state programmes.
These are all reasonable points that have been made about the Draft National Policy Statement for Fusion Energy Generation EN-8, and which the committee in another place wisely looked at in its report Planning for Fusion. Given that we have not yet heard the Government’s response, I very much hope that this exchange in Committee is taken as part of the consultation exercise. I also hope that the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan, are considered as representations and fully responded to by the Government. I would not necessarily expect the Minister to respond today, as that would be unreasonable because many of these points are very detailed, but the Government should take them into account when they come to respond fully to the whole consultation exercise and, indeed, to the committee’s consideration of these issues in another place.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for a very substantial debate, and I very much appreciate the comments they have made. If I may begin with the very last comment made by the noble Lord, I can assure him that my view as a Minister, which I would be certain about, is that comments made in Parliament have very significant status. Particularly given the detailed consideration that has been given here today, I can guarantee that that will be fed into the concentration process; it will be given special status, because it is from Parliament, and it will feed into forming the view that the Government take to respond to that. I also thank the noble Lord for recognising that some comments here today are very detailed indeed, and I may not respond to all of them, but I guarantee that I will come back in detail to them and feed them in.
I also appreciate the noble Lord’s ingenuity because, in every engagement I have with him on the broadest range of energy topics, he squeezes in Jackdaw and the court case that is going on today. I recognise that, but he does that in great spirit because of his commitment to the issue, rather than for any other reason.
I will just make two broad points before I go onto the detail in front of me. The first is on the broad issue of planning. I recognise the substance of what the noble Lord said about planning issues and their relevance to the whole energy field. I think I have said in Parliament before that, in a previous life when I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament and when it was of a different persuasion, I was a Planning Minister. I took the importance of planning very seriously, as a mechanism to protect and support, but also as an opportunity. We need good, balanced planning systems. When regimes do not have that, often business does not thrive either, so planning needs that balance. It is there to facilitate and encourage, not for red tape. For this Government, it is not there to smother business in any way whatever. We want a lively planning system that is the servant of economic growth and development to make sure that we have coherence in the system and a level playing field, and that people have stability. That is part of what today is about: it is to give that coherence and stability, so that investors can have confidence that they know what the framework is, rather than haphazard, piecemeal support. I will engage with the noble Lord’s substantial points and look at them again, and make them a theme of how we look at the consultation.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, as he always does, made very substantial points about the link to clean energy, and the need to support the renewables industries and recognise the myriad challenges that we face at the moment. I assure him that we will continue on that journey and have many discussions about this. This is one part of that journey, but it does not take us off that path, because we know that this is a longer-term issue, not an immediate solution, and we will not argue that it is or put it forward as such.
I will now try to address some of the other points that were made that I have not addressed yet. Some of your Lordships made similar points, so forgive me if I reference one noble Lord and not another. I will make sure that I respond in writing to anything that I have not picked up.
My noble friend Lord Khan made a very useful, interesting and important contribution to this debate, and raised some very significant and substantial points. The regulatory framework around waste is vital, and I will address the point about public opinion and how we engage the public on this. The UK already has a robust regulatory framework in place, governing the treatment, storage and disposal of intermediate and low-level reactive and other harmful waste. We are recognised as having that as well. EN-8 requires developers to demonstrate how waste from their fusion facilities will be managed safely and in accordance with all existing legal and regulatory requirements, the right construction, operation and decommissioning.
The Government will continue to consider how waste from fusion facilities will be managed as the sector develops, which links to the very important point that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised about engagement with local communities and the public more broadly. The broader public are, understandably, perhaps not terribly well versed in the details of fusion energy, so we have a responsibility as the Government to be clear about what fusion is and that it is different from fission, and that, even with both energies, we have robust safe regulatory regimes in place. It is important that Parliament questions that thoroughly—that is why this process is so important—but we need to find mechanisms to ensure that local communities get the benefit of that but understand that planning gives them that protection and confidence. I take that point seriously.
I also welcome the support from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for enabling thermo-generating fusion plants to be considered as nationally significant infrastructure projects. I think that was also said by my noble friend Lord Khan.
The theme of regulator capacity came out quite significantly. Of course, we have looked at the committee report and will respond properly and in full. The Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive are heavily experienced in this sector. They have successfully regulated fusion facilities for decades, having, for example, regulated the JET facility at the UK Atomic Energy Authority in Oxfordshire. The Government will continue to fund these regulators to further build their fusion capability and provide access to subject experts at the UK Atomic Energy Authority. We will continue to support early engagement with developers and knowledge building across the planning and regulatory system and engage with investors to ensure they can have confidence that the skills and understanding capacity are there.
On fusion timelines and energy production, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, also mentioned that the timing of fusion energy will not impact short-term climate goals, which I recognise. It is unlikely to make material impact until the 2040s. However, the benefit of fusion energy development remains, with jobs, inward investment and the development of technologies, such as high temperature superconducting magnets, all adding to the UK’s economy well before the fusion energy does—notwithstanding the general points the noble Earl made about clean energy. In the longer term, as energy demand increases, as the noble Earl recognised, fusion will become a more invaluable source of baseload energy.
As my noble friend Lord Khan highlighted, non-proliferation and liabilities are vital issues that we are required to address. Although they are important, these are not strictly planning matters, which is why EN-8 does not directly address them. Outside of planning, the Government have committed in the fusion strategy to clarify third-party liabilities for fusion and believe that the conventional insurance market, rather than the nuclear market, is the most proportionate approach. The Government are engaging with the insurance market to understand the risks of fusion and develop bespoke insurance products. As part of this, the Government have also committed to identifying, by autumn 2027, a proportionate mechanism to ensure that decommissioning facilities can be met by fusion operators, rather than falling to the public.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised questions about STEP. I am happy to confirm that STEP is progressing well, and we still expect government investment in fusion to support over 10,000 jobs by 2030. Alongside that, we have invested £50 million into skills development through the FOSTER programme. STEP, as well as demonstrating that fusion is commercially viable, acts as a demand signal to the wider fusion supply chain. Earlier this year, a number of contracts were placed with the STEP programme, including the construction partners and magnet engineering partners. We know that there is much to do. It is a very large project, but we are ambitious. As we have recognised, we have got a lot of status in this, and we have to remain ambitious.
I also take this opportunity to note, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, set out, that the new strategic spatial energy plan is at the heart of the Government’s vision for our power system and will set out the blueprint for our future energy system. The UK’s fusion strategy commits to including fusion within that when fusion technology is sufficiently mature.
Moving on to water, I can confirm, and assure noble Lords, that water use is obviously an important planning consideration. Fusion energy infrastructure may use water for cooling, but this water is returned—just at a slightly higher temperature—and this is tightly controlled by environmental regulation. EN-8 will require applicants to set out their proposed cooling systems and apply the mitigation hierarchy to any significant environmental impacts. As I have said, obviously they are required to look at local impact considerations, including the social and economic impacts on local areas. As was said, it is vital that local communities understand that it is not just a government imposition and that they see the benefit.
I can also assure noble Lords that we have always been open to collaboration with the EU and other international partners, and that remains the case. We will continue to work on that.
I will address the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, as best I can. I think we all recognise that fusion is a fundamentally different technology to nuclear fission, with a different hazard profile. A dedicated national policy statement is therefore the most appropriate way forward, because this is so significantly different and has to be understood by the public to be so. We need an appropriate regime to provide a clear and proportionate planning framework for fusion that supports commercialisation while maintaining robust protections for workers, the environment and communities—and gets that balance right. EN-8 offers a better balance for investors and communities.
The fusion sector itself called for this national policy statement, and the responses to the public consultation are supportive. Of course, we will look at those along with the comments raised today. We will address that point. The Planning Act was updated last year to streamline the consenting process, in July new guidance covering all key stages of the process was published, and the Planning Inspectorate is redesigning its services to support the implementation of these reforms. This will include providing bespoke and technical advice to applicants, including fusion developers, at the early stages of the consenting process. I hope that addresses some of the issues that were flagged.
The national policy statements will now be reviewed and either updated or withdrawn at least every five years to ensure that they remain appropriate and reflect the Government’s priorities and ambitions. As I said, the Government will reflect on the committee’s report on the wider planning framework and respond. I very much appreciate the range of comments that were made today and the recognition of the opportunities that this energy can provide. We hope to address your Lordships’ very significant points.
Fusion has the potential to contribute to our long-term energy security, support both near-term and long-term economic growth, create highly skilled jobs and—as has been said—strengthen the United Kingdom’s position in a technology of the future. We are already a world leader in this. Through our fusion strategy, we are taking the steps needed to translate that scientific and regulatory leadership into long-term economic, commercial and strategic advantage. We see EN-8 as an important part of that approach, building on our global leadership by ensuring that the planning framework in England and Wales is ready to support the safe and sustainable deployment of fusion energy in a way that supports innovation and investment. As part of that process, we also listen to communities, business and industry.
I thank noble Lords for their comments. If I have missed any specific issues, I will reply later. I am sure that we will continue to discuss some of those broader themes.
Earl Russell (LD)
I apologise for intervening. I really appreciate those responses, but my point about water and collocation was not just about the fusion plants themselves. Since the Government have collocation at the heart of their documents and plans, and that includes AI data centres and other industries with very water-intensive use, it would be good to have further consideration of other processes of desalinisation, if circumstances allow. This is not something that the Minister needs to respond to me on now, but I recognise that for fusion it would be abstraction of water and there are regulations around returning that, but with this abundant energy there comes possibilities for doing things that we have not done before. I leave that there.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for that point. I will not respond specifically on desalinisation now to make sure that I get a proper briefing on it first. It may cover a broader issue. I take the general point, however: we live in technologically changing times; there is a lot of excitement about that and huge opportunities, but it raises significant questions. We raised this on the Floor of the House and have seen some very significant debate around it internationally. It is a legitimate question, and one we must keep on the agenda. I will respond to the specific question that he raised.