Energy Security and Net Zero Committee
Wednesday 9th September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 1 week, 2 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:07
09:08
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Chris Denton, UK, director of the Fusion Industry Association, the global trade association for fusion sector. Good morning Paul. I'm chief executive of UK Fusion Energy Limited. That's the government owned company running the Step programme, trying to make Fusion Energy a global strategic success for the UK. Thank you.
09:08
09:08
Bill Esterson
-
-
Bill Esterson
Thank you very much. And thank you very much for hosting my visit a couple of weeks ago, along with the senior clerk, which gave us a very good sense of what happened at Culham and the exciting opportunities there, which I'm sure you will tell us all about in the next 45 minutes or so. And I'll start with a question about. The impact on the community of nuclear.
We we know that nuclear fusion development is better received in areas that have historically already hosted it. Do you think that we will have a similar approach for fusion, and that it's likely to go to the areas that have already hosted fission?
We we know that nuclear fusion development is better received in areas that have historically already hosted it. Do you think that we will have a similar approach for fusion, and that it's likely to go to the areas that have already hosted fission?
09:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, thank you, chair. I think it's going to go better than that. And I have one really good data point for that, which is what's happened so far in West Burton. So we selected that site for the Government Step programme in October 2022. And actually that was a volunteer process where sites came forward and put themselves forward to host fusion plant. And of course, there had been no fission plant there before. But what there had been is an incredible legacy of energy generation up and down the Trent Valley.
So there was a community really used to big infrastructure doing something that matters for the nation. And when we came along with the fusion programme, they really embraced it. And that has continued, and we've had a really great relationship with the local public and increasingly with the really important regional stakeholders, coalesced by the East Midlands Combined Authority and the Greater Lincolnshire Combined Authority. So our experience so far is it's even better. And I think that's because people understand that although the processes are nuclear, actually the hazards are very different.
So there was a community really used to big infrastructure doing something that matters for the nation. And when we came along with the fusion programme, they really embraced it. And that has continued, and we've had a really great relationship with the local public and increasingly with the really important regional stakeholders, coalesced by the East Midlands Combined Authority and the Greater Lincolnshire Combined Authority. So our experience so far is it's even better. And I think that's because people understand that although the processes are nuclear, actually the hazards are very different.
09:10
Bill Esterson
-
-
Bill Esterson
Yeah. Thanks. And we in our report, gridlock or Growth avoiding Energy Planning chaos, identified the problems of a lack of effective consultation in placing energy infrastructure. You've talked about the success you've had already at West Burton. What what are the lessons from West Burton with community engagement?
09:11
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, we're learning them as we go. But I would absolutely echo your point, that early engagement, sustained engagement is critical. I think we've done that. They are our first non-statutory phase of consultation for our development consent order, which which is going into the formal process next year, shows that that people really welcome the opportunity to get engaged. And we do too. This isn't just about a smoke screen of consultation.
It's critical to actually hear what people have to say. They've all got brilliant ideas locally. So our experience is that it's essential and having done it, that it works and people shouldn't be afraid of that early consultation and engagement. It's a really good thing to make your program better.
It's critical to actually hear what people have to say. They've all got brilliant ideas locally. So our experience is that it's essential and having done it, that it works and people shouldn't be afraid of that early consultation and engagement. It's a really good thing to make your program better.
09:11
09:12
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, I'd hope I'd hope most developers are doing this, but it's actually really simple to say be open, be honest, be completely transparent. If you don't take your community with you, then you are going to have a very, very difficult time and that is going to drive up schedule. It's going to drive up costs and it's going to reduce benefits. And if you take the communities with you on the journey and listen to what they have to say, you will be much more likely to have a success.
09:27
09:27
09:27
09:27
09:27
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well look at the one end of the spectrum. Developers don't want conditions because they just get in the way of delivery. However, I think there's there are circumstances bespoke to projects where conditions are really helpful because they drive certainty. So better to have a condition which is clear for a developer than the absence of a condition, which means there's a huge uncertainty to carry forward. So one example just to give is conditionality around, for example, apprenticeships or skills development in a region can be something that the local populace would really want and actually the developer would really want.
And it's, it's mutually reinforcing overly restrictive conditions, clearly unhelpful in terms of realising benefit. So I think it's horses for courses.
And it's, it's mutually reinforcing overly restrictive conditions, clearly unhelpful in terms of realising benefit. So I think it's horses for courses.
09:28
09:28
09:28
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think an example where we've asked for for strengthening within the N eight is around flood risk. For example the open siting criteria we we support because because of the lack of certainty in this space. But we do think there are risks around the length of the life cycle of, of developments and the potential for flood risks to change. Now, again, back to the to the issue about the comment about early engagement, I absolutely think that the how we address that is to be talking early to developers about what the length of, of the of the full life cycle of the site might look like, what the changes to flood risk might be through that period and make sure that that's built in early into the plans.
09:29
09:29
09:29
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So the regulatory landscape is simpler. It's ourselves and the Health and Safety Executive. As Paul said, the technology itself is very complex and developing . And some of the same challenges as for nuclear fission regulation in the advanced nuclear technology world, things are changing. Developers plans change. So so that's why. Is it
09:29
Mike Reader
-
-
Mike Reader
simpler? Is it because as yet, all those additional bits of regulation. We've had a private session. We had a spaghetti bowl full of organisations that have involvement in delivery of nuclear. They're just not involved yet. And will it get more complicated over time as this becomes a reality, a commercial reality? I
09:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
don't think so, because the basic physics is different. So we're talking about we are not talking about a system where you have the potential for a nuclear explosion, which is where a lot of the addition comes in around nuclear fission regulation. This is a different set of physics. There are risks associated with it. You know, we do have large amounts of tritium, radioactive materials. There are risks associated with with with the waste.
But again, we don't have that long term, really long term waste profile that we do for nuclear fission. So all that makes it easier.
But again, we don't have that long term, really long term waste profile that we do for nuclear fission. So all that makes it easier.
09:30
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Excuse me. So this is zero carbon at the point of generation. All energy technologies all activities have an embedded carbon element right. But the we represent around 50 companies looking at different ways of doing this. All of them are zero carbon at the point of generation. They are large scale. They are variable. There's a there's a range of models. You can have small. You can have large all at different stages of maturity.
Excuse me, but the the overwhelming consensus is that companies expect to be delivering commercial plants in the mid 2030s with zero carbon. At the point. Of
Excuse me, but the the overwhelming consensus is that companies expect to be delivering commercial plants in the mid 2030s with zero carbon. At the point. Of
09:31
09:31
09:31
09:31
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
let me let me be clear. Perhaps apologies if I was unclear. This is a low carbon technology just like fission, just like offshore wind. There is no carbon released at the point of generation. But like I thought I said apologies if not like all energy technologies there is baked in carbon and we should be clear about that.
09:31
09:32
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Because they're just fundamentally different technologies being developed by by very different industries. And I think it's worth. So the Planning Act 2008 was a fundamental enabler, I think, of a range of things, including including fish and development. But for fusion, we're looking at this and you've got an international sort of community that's coming forward to deliver plants at pace. When we look at the UK as a deployment market, and it is absolutely in the lead as one of the best deployment markets and as a British taxpayer, I'm delighted about that.
There's a range of things the government is putting in place to make it an attractive place to come and do business. One of those is clarity on the regulatory landscape. One of those is the forthcoming work on on market structures. But Ian eight gives absolute clarity and there is a bespoke and very applicable set of arrangements for for deployment through consenting. I think a lot of a lot of infrastructure sectors see consenting as a challenging area.
I think this is a very good national policy statement. I think it gives great confidence to technology companies and their investors and their developers. And that means that we can hopefully see the UK in the first wave of.
There's a range of things the government is putting in place to make it an attractive place to come and do business. One of those is clarity on the regulatory landscape. One of those is the forthcoming work on on market structures. But Ian eight gives absolute clarity and there is a bespoke and very applicable set of arrangements for for deployment through consenting. I think a lot of a lot of infrastructure sectors see consenting as a challenging area.
I think this is a very good national policy statement. I think it gives great confidence to technology companies and their investors and their developers. And that means that we can hopefully see the UK in the first wave of.
09:32
Mike Reader
-
-
Mike Reader
Is there not a pool? Is there not a bit of smoke and mirrors here in terms of the scale of opportunity we saw in inquiries on nuclear and SMR, SMR could be anywhere. It's going to be technology, it's going to transform things. And then we looked into Ian seven. And you start to narrow down around needing workforce and space and existing grid capacity and everything else. And you get down to, oh, we'll just put on the existing nuclear sites.
So why don't we just have Ian seven applying into this and have it all in the same place where there is the skills, the capacity, the land, the water you'll need and the existing local consensus to, to large scale power.
So why don't we just have Ian seven applying into this and have it all in the same place where there is the skills, the capacity, the land, the water you'll need and the existing local consensus to, to large scale power.
09:48
09:48
09:48
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yeah, that's a superb question. And the answer is yes. We don't want to try and do it all. There are elements of this technology. When you have a full plant that are actually we need to just have best in class from international international suppliers. But there are some things where the UK can genuinely lead in. The first of those is actually the integrated design and development. The experience we've got in the UK from operation of the jet plant for the last 40 years means that we can do that in a way that I think very few other people can.
And that's exactly what step is about. Underneath that, you've got the tritium fuel cycle. Huge opportunity for the UK. Again, building on that jet experience, we've got robotics. We are absolutely world leading in in complex robotics at Culham. That's an opportunity which the UK should pursue what we call breeding blanket. So how you get that tritium out of the lithium? Nobody's done that internationally yet. We've got some amazing engineering capability in the UK.
We should be all over getting that front and center, and there are a number of other supporting technologies and materials development as well. So not everything, but there are some really important things for the UK to go after and lead in and lead globally.
And that's exactly what step is about. Underneath that, you've got the tritium fuel cycle. Huge opportunity for the UK. Again, building on that jet experience, we've got robotics. We are absolutely world leading in in complex robotics at Culham. That's an opportunity which the UK should pursue what we call breeding blanket. So how you get that tritium out of the lithium? Nobody's done that internationally yet. We've got some amazing engineering capability in the UK.
We should be all over getting that front and center, and there are a number of other supporting technologies and materials development as well. So not everything, but there are some really important things for the UK to go after and lead in and lead globally.
09:49
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Yeah, I agree, I think the this is a global sector. The UK has got a tremendous offering and we've got a nice balance of capability in the national lab and the public sector. You've also got some wonderful private companies doing things like HDS, magnets, inertial confinement targets, looking at things like robotics. And I think there's a real press for the UK to make sure that we're getting the maximum collaboration between the public sector and the private companies, so that we commercialize those capabilities and ensure that we don't lose out on this, this national opportunity.
I think what we've seen is really sustained political support across multiple governments, multiple ministers over many, many years now, which has enabled global industry to have confidence in the UK and enabled UK companies to have confidence in our own operating environment. I think that that will that will see us forward. And within that, I think the business strategy published this March was really widely welcomed by industry because it laid out specific sort of tier two sectors where we could really lead, and it laid out a pathway to develop them.
And I think when we're, you know, looking across all sectors, when we're in a position where government policy is stable, there's a strong pipeline of investment, and industry is very well aligned to that. That's a really great opportunity to just sustain it and deliver together what government laid out in that strategy.
I think what we've seen is really sustained political support across multiple governments, multiple ministers over many, many years now, which has enabled global industry to have confidence in the UK and enabled UK companies to have confidence in our own operating environment. I think that that will that will see us forward. And within that, I think the business strategy published this March was really widely welcomed by industry because it laid out specific sort of tier two sectors where we could really lead, and it laid out a pathway to develop them.
And I think when we're, you know, looking across all sectors, when we're in a position where government policy is stable, there's a strong pipeline of investment, and industry is very well aligned to that. That's a really great opportunity to just sustain it and deliver together what government laid out in that strategy.
09:50
09:50
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Well, I think governments absolutely clear in the way I think everyone will see this long term being a private sector enterprise. There's lots of companies coming forward, and I don't think many people would want to see the entire sector owned and run by by governments, but that doesn't mean government hasn't. Sorry. Well, I think government has done fantastic projects on test. And I think if you look at Culham and everything that's down there, the legacy of jet, look, it's going in the materials research facility, the robotics facility, really great government capabilities.
But it's about now that that really difficult transition of those into private industry and as much of that private industry as possible being in the UK now, whether that's UK exports or foreign direct investment, likely a combination of the two. I think that's the that's the sort of hard yards for the next five years or so to put the UK in the best possible position. And we've talked about China clearly, a country that's spending a lot on this and trying to drive a programme forward.
And I think there has to be absolutely lockstep collaboration with partners in Europe, North America and beyond to to make sure that we as a whole can can develop the technology.
But it's about now that that really difficult transition of those into private industry and as much of that private industry as possible being in the UK now, whether that's UK exports or foreign direct investment, likely a combination of the two. I think that's the that's the sort of hard yards for the next five years or so to put the UK in the best possible position. And we've talked about China clearly, a country that's spending a lot on this and trying to drive a programme forward.
And I think there has to be absolutely lockstep collaboration with partners in Europe, North America and beyond to to make sure that we as a whole can can develop the technology.
09:52
Wera Hobhouse
-
-
Wera Hobhouse
And then just coming to the to the skills. You've already touched on that. I think we we understand that. Overregulating the whole sector is, is not what you are advocating for. Is there a different way to give private developers confidence in the ambition for the UK government with respect to fusion energy.
09:53
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
In terms of skills or. Well, look, I think I would say and it sort of builds off the last answer, I think, that the government is taking and does have a stimulus role here. I mean, we've got to start from the position that . Axiomatically there is no fusion market today. It's starting. And so the government's role here is market making. There's a market failure, if you want to put it in economics terms.
So we have to stimulate that through some demand. And what that does in skills terms is have that pull through the supply chain. So here we're going to build that initial demonstration plant that pulls through critical suppliers temperature superconducting tape, for example, that allows them to invest with confidence to build their skills base. It allows us to work with the universities to produce the right educational programmes. It also allows us then to work with regions to say, what are the whole panoply of skills that are going to be needed? So I think without that , pull through the system from the full scale plant down through all elements of the supply chain, you won't actually have that critical mass, which we definitely don't have in fusion technology, but we need it.
If you put it this way, in terms of skills, we need that pull through to generate. And I think that's where the stimulus role.
So we have to stimulate that through some demand. And what that does in skills terms is have that pull through the supply chain. So here we're going to build that initial demonstration plant that pulls through critical suppliers temperature superconducting tape, for example, that allows them to invest with confidence to build their skills base. It allows us to work with the universities to produce the right educational programmes. It also allows us then to work with regions to say, what are the whole panoply of skills that are going to be needed? So I think without that , pull through the system from the full scale plant down through all elements of the supply chain, you won't actually have that critical mass, which we definitely don't have in fusion technology, but we need it.
If you put it this way, in terms of skills, we need that pull through to generate. And I think that's where the stimulus role.
09:55
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Fusion or other energy. There's a partial overlap. So there are some areas in terms of material science, for example, where there's quite close parity. There are other. elements where the robotics where I would say that fusion is leading and fission could probably take some some learning and lessons from what goes on in fusion. And there are other areas like plasma physics, which are. completely different and unique. And then there are other generic technologies, for example, application of AI, which offers huge.
potential for both sectors, but in slightly different ways. So there are some overlaps. There are . Some
potential for both sectors, but in slightly different ways. So there are some overlaps. There are . Some
09:57
09:57
10:12
10:12
10:12
10:12
10:12
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Is able to do that. And the one thing I would just say on this, which I took on the fusion and nuclear parts of the brief just in July. So I've been sort of getting to know the industry. And this isn't just a future success story for Britain. I think it's important to say this isn't something the government is spending money on now for some future prize in the mid 2030s to 2040. It's already. delivering huge examples of British exports.
I saw just in Culham last week the the small and medium businesses, the spin outs from this, the work on robotics, the work on.
I saw just in Culham last week the the small and medium businesses, the spin outs from this, the work on robotics, the work on.
10:12
10:12
10:12
10:12
10:12
10:12
10:12
10:12
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And not least on on the science, on climate. I would say that I hope and I genuinely think this in terms of of mainstream political parties, there is real consensus on this as there is in nuclear. I think we have to hold on to that. We clearly are having a more fractured environment across the rest of energy policy at the moment. But actually on nuclear and infusion, the previous government credit to them did a lot to move this program forward.
They remain committed to this, and I hope that we can keep that consensus together, because it's important to give the long term signals to investment that this isn't just one . Government's
They remain committed to this, and I hope that we can keep that consensus together, because it's important to give the long term signals to investment that this isn't just one . Government's
10:13
10:13
10:13
10:13
10:13
10:14
10:14
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Separating out the hazard profile of fission and fusion is fundamental. And that is really key to why we've got this statement today. I think the second thing is it is around giving certainty about what the regulatory process for fusion will look like. Now we are very, very close actually, to projects coming forward that will require to go through the planning system for this. They're not. immediately before us, but having the.
certainty of . A
certainty of . A
10:14
10:14
10:15
10:15
10:15
10:15
10:15
10:15
10:15
10:15
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
We will look to incorporate them within planning statements where possible, where there is a significant body of evidence that says this does sit separately from anything else that we've currently got on the system, we will consider it. The aim is to try to keep planning statements to a minimum and as coherent as possible, so it's not to create a planning statement for every single.
10:15
10:15
10:15
10:15
10:16
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Further national policy statements on on different technologies? Yeah. So, I mean, I would concur with the principles that the minister has set out. Clearly, one doesn't want a. proliferation of such statements, but where there is a particular case for them, then we will we will consider them. So I would . Say that we
10:16
10:16
10:16
10:16
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Is a tension that might concern us. I think it's a fair challenge, and I think we do need to keep all of this under review. We've said that in terms of the broader planning system, we've reformed it to, to make it as straightforward as possible for projects to go through it. We'll continue to look at the wider Nsip regime. It's obviously the responsibility of of Mhclg to do that in its entirety. I think the energy policy statements do exist for a particular reason, and I think it is really important for those looking at building things in Britain, that there is a clear.
pathway that they understand particular to their technology. And obviously a lot of considerations are covered in in one generally for the the energy landscape. But for fusion, we did consider it was important to have a . Particular
pathway that they understand particular to their technology. And obviously a lot of considerations are covered in in one generally for the the energy landscape. But for fusion, we did consider it was important to have a . Particular
10:17
10:17
10:17
Mike Reader
-
-
Mike Reader
Thank you. Chair. I was just thinking about the UK benefit here because we've talked a lot in the first panel, also talked about UK benefit, but the NPS will only cover England and Wales. And I don't know what the position of the Scottish Government is. And I don't know whether you see you may know, Minister, whether there is support from the Scottish Government for this technology and that makes it easier .
For UK
For UK
10:18
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
benefit, or if it's resisted in Scotland and I'm being tested on on people's opinions that I'm not responsible for, I would hope that there would be support. I haven't asked specifically the Scottish Minister on the question of fusion. I obviously am have a strong case around nuclear with the Scottish Government, which they do oppose this. The regime for nationally significant planning infrastructure is different in Scotland to England and Wales, so it's not part of the national planning statements at all.
And so they obviously consider these things differently in Scotland. I would say, as there is with the nuclear supply chain, despite there not being immediate projects in Scotland, there are benefits in the supply chain in Scotland already and companies and and. universities very closely involved in, in this work. My hope obviously as as both Minister for energy for the whole of the UK and as a Scottish MP, is that the Scottish Government will wholeheartedly support fusion.
But .
And so they obviously consider these things differently in Scotland. I would say, as there is with the nuclear supply chain, despite there not being immediate projects in Scotland, there are benefits in the supply chain in Scotland already and companies and and. universities very closely involved in, in this work. My hope obviously as as both Minister for energy for the whole of the UK and as a Scottish MP, is that the Scottish Government will wholeheartedly support fusion.
But .
10:18
10:19
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
happened in the market that has meant that we now need this? What's changed? I might pass to David in a moment, because this work was started under the previous government, and we would support the journey that's been on. I think the one thing I would say is what I have been really impressed by is actually the pace this is now moving at. There is a sense, I think I have to admit, even from from the reading I did before I got this into my.
10:19
10:19
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
As a sense, this was much further in the future than it actually is. But the reality is we are closer than we've ever been and within touching distance of the. deployment and crucially, all the. parts to deliver it are now moving into place. I was saying to the chair earlier, we're already seeing spin outs, working on what's coming out of fusion technology, out of the laboratory and materials. All of that work is . Already
10:19
10:20
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
you suggested David may be able to answer. David, do you have an answer for that? Yeah. Thank you. Of course. So I would say two things. One is we have a UK. prototype power plant programme step, and that that will clearly be one important application of this. But the other thing I would say is we do get a lot of interest from the growing private fusion sector, including US companies and others, and they are thinking about where to site facilities, and they are already building some facilities in the US, and they're looking at where to build sort of second facilities.
And the UK is a potential source of investment for them. So it's partly the. attracting inward investment to the UK and providing a clear and. attractive environment . For
And the UK is a potential source of investment for them. So it's partly the. attracting inward investment to the UK and providing a clear and. attractive environment . For
10:20
10:20
10:21
10:21
10:21
10:21
10:21
10:21
10:21
Christopher Chope
-
-
Christopher Chope
To your answers. Thank you. Chris. Christopher, there's nothing in the national policy statement specifically about tritium, though. And why is that? Because my understanding is that tritium is the key component of the fuel, and it costs about £30,000 a gram. So surely we should have something in the national policy statement about . The
10:22
10:22
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Storage and. transport of tritium. Well, we don't use planning statements to cover all sorts of the detail on how projects are delivered or where things are that are relevant in the supply chain for things are this is tritium is is, as you say, absolutely critical, but it's already subject to appropriate regulatory regimes. So it doesn't have to be part of of the planning system. It is worth just remembering the NPS is about how we build it, in particular project particular pieces of infrastructure across the country.
The considerations are about the infrastructure that's being built. There
The considerations are about the infrastructure that's being built. There
10:22
10:22
10:23
10:23
10:23
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Which covers the storage and processing of radioactive material in waste. Some of it is covered in N one in more detail because that's more general across all technologies that use radioactive waste. And I would just say further to that, there is already a well established, a very well established regulatory process for radioactive waste within the UK. And it's worth also just making the general point around fusion has a much lower risk,
10:23
10:23
Christopher Chope
-
-
Christopher Chope
risk compared to to fission technology. Have you seen the evidence to our committee from . Lloyd's Syndicate? 1176 I haven't specifically I'm sorry, because that that syndicate has has given us evidence expressing concern about the risks not being covered off. And because that syndicate is key in the insurance industry. And what they they have said to us is that it should the it needs to draft EN8 needs to be strengthened by requiring applicants to integrate the complete site wide radioactive inventory, stored energy hazards and credible release mechanisms in one consequence assessment.
And they make other recommendations as well. They're they're centered around public confidence in the safety of this and the cost of insuring against those those risks. And ultimately, it's a question of what what happens if something goes wrong? Who's going to bear the third party liability, and who will pay the compensation if that was required? I mean, those are those are big issues. And I'm disappointed in the sense that .
The Lloyd's
And they make other recommendations as well. They're they're centered around public confidence in the safety of this and the cost of insuring against those those risks. And ultimately, it's a question of what what happens if something goes wrong? Who's going to bear the third party liability, and who will pay the compensation if that was required? I mean, those are those are big issues. And I'm disappointed in the sense that .
The Lloyd's
10:25
10:25
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
yet been absorbed by your department. Well, I say I haven't read the specific submission. I should say that every single submission is clearly looked at very, very carefully by by officials. And I'm sure David will say more about that in a second. Just two things, I suppose. On the public confidence point, you were absolutely right. Across everything that we build in this country, we want to maintain public.
confidence around safety. This is first of a kind technology, and so there is a role for us to make sure the public are absolutely clear around the safety of of these facilities as they're built. But our. assessment and all of the evidence points to the fact that there is a. considerably lower risk from this compared to other.
confidence around safety. This is first of a kind technology, and so there is a role for us to make sure the public are absolutely clear around the safety of of these facilities as they're built. But our. assessment and all of the evidence points to the fact that there is a. considerably lower risk from this compared to other.
10:25
10:25
10:25
10:25
10:26
10:26
10:26
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
fishing sector. David. David might want to say something about this. Yeah. Thank you. And good question. So I would say this is partly. It's partly a question of which what falls into the MPs, what falls into the regulatory regime and what what falls into sort of an insurance conversation. So for sure, developers need to produce a safety assessment. And that goes through the H SE.
But that's part of the sort of the regulatory part of it, rather than part of the the planning part on the insurance market. We actually have a good regular dialogue with the. insurance sector on this. And in fact, there's a panel on it at the at the summit that the minister referred to just coming up soon. We're very keen that the.
But that's part of the sort of the regulatory part of it, rather than part of the the planning part on the insurance market. We actually have a good regular dialogue with the. insurance sector on this. And in fact, there's a panel on it at the at the summit that the minister referred to just coming up soon. We're very keen that the.
10:26
10:26
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Gets up to speed on this so that it can understand the technology and understand the differences between this technology and efficient technology, because the risks aren't the same. So I would say my observation is the insurance industry is just starting to engage with this. But I would I would hope that it is something that they, they come to realise, has a significantly different risk profile to fission and one that they can think .
10:27
Christopher Chope
-
-
Christopher Chope
About perhaps more consistently with other areas. I think I think the insurance industry may find that response slightly patronising. Surely they should be in in the lead on, on this, assessing the risks and, and recognising the realities of, of having the cost of covering those risks. But leave that on one side and let's hope it's all resolved in the gathering next week. But is the the delays in the regulatory system increase the costs of development.
And if you put conditions on a development consent order, then is that any better than . Simply
And if you put conditions on a development consent order, then is that any better than . Simply
10:27
10:27
10:28
10:28
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
To consent does have value for local communities, for developers. But I think we do want to avoid, as a. government the additional regulatory burdens that are. unpredictable for developers. That has been one of the real challenges in the UK for a long time has been. unpredictability in the planning and regulatory process so that. investors make investment decisions to build things. And then it takes years, decades in some cases, for it to ever see the light of day again.
And some of that is the complexity we're trying to take out of the planning system. So where there are very clear cases for conditions, they are applied, but they should be rare, in my view, and not something that becomes a regular occurrence. Because the moment we start attaching.
And some of that is the complexity we're trying to take out of the planning system. So where there are very clear cases for conditions, they are applied, but they should be rare, in my view, and not something that becomes a regular occurrence. Because the moment we start attaching.
10:28
10:29
10:29
10:29
10:29
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
The issues around that by by having conditional consents, it will be built much less than that. I'm looking to an expert over my shoulder who will tell you just how much faster that. But certainly we will start to see construction very soon. In fact, the technology isn't yet quite there, but the building work of the civil work that will be required will start much sooner than that. And the aim, of course, when we announced funding into fusion was that we would have our first operational plant by.
10:29
10:29
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And we're obviously hoping it would be much earlier than that. But so it's much sooner than that, I think. And look, the point of trying of publishing this statement now is about trying to get ahead of where we've been with other infrastructure in the country where there hasn't been a clear. planning route for for development. We want to give that certainty right now so that projects can see what is coming in the future when .
They're
They're
10:30
10:30
10:30
10:30
10:30
10:30
10:30
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Significant local impacts. It's a it's a really fair question. I can't remember the exact timeline on this, but we consulted, I think, as part of the planning and infrastructure bill to change the SIP process so that across all energy projects, it was possible for. developers to move from the Town and Country Planning Act into the regime if they fell below the threshold. Partly that's to recognise that there are some projects that have nationally significant elements, even if the megawatt.
output is lower than what's defined. But we're also conscious in some areas, and this is also partly why we're introducing N eight now, the. upskilling of planning officers to deal with these complex cases isn't there. And actually, sometimes the planning departments just don't have the experience to deal with particular applications. So we've set the thresholds at. 50MW in England. 350MW in Wales. That was in consultation with the Welsh Government.
Obviously, this regime only applies in England and Wales. We think those are fair thresholds to begin with, but we keep them under review. But I think it is right that developers should have the opportunity to consider . What is a
output is lower than what's defined. But we're also conscious in some areas, and this is also partly why we're introducing N eight now, the. upskilling of planning officers to deal with these complex cases isn't there. And actually, sometimes the planning departments just don't have the experience to deal with particular applications. So we've set the thresholds at. 50MW in England. 350MW in Wales. That was in consultation with the Welsh Government.
Obviously, this regime only applies in England and Wales. We think those are fair thresholds to begin with, but we keep them under review. But I think it is right that developers should have the opportunity to consider . What is a
10:31
10:31
10:32
10:32
10:32
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
What what is that. Why the difference? Look, I think it is devolution. We we said when we came into government that we would. respect the devolved governments more than has been in the past, and that they should be able to have influence over processes within their jurisdiction. Planning is is one that is shared between Wales and the rest of the UK. It's separate in Scotland. And so we did consult with them and they came to that view.
I think there's also different factors that they would consider, why they would want to have a higher threshold, not least because they're responsible for . Transport
I think there's also different factors that they would consider, why they would want to have a higher threshold, not least because they're responsible for . Transport
10:32
10:32
10:33
10:33
10:33
10:33
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
permitting fusion reactors? Yeah. I think this is exactly the point of bringing this forward, actually, is to make sure that that upskilling is taking place. That has already been happening. But there's no doubt. First of a kind projects are the test point for whether that. There is a resource within the Planning Inspectorate to do it. They will have to get to that stage before the first project enters the pipeline.
So partly why we're publishing this now is to give a signal of intent, but also to sort of clear the make clear the pathway so that the Planning Inspectorate can start to upskill a workforce and recruit people into filling those roles. They're doing that across a range of technologies at the moment. If we take, for example, the knowledge that that exists around nuclear, that is already adapting into . New
So partly why we're publishing this now is to give a signal of intent, but also to sort of clear the make clear the pathway so that the Planning Inspectorate can start to upskill a workforce and recruit people into filling those roles. They're doing that across a range of technologies at the moment. If we take, for example, the knowledge that that exists around nuclear, that is already adapting into . New
10:33
10:34
10:34
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
planning officers are upskilled? Yeah, I can write to the committee with the exact figure, but the government has invested. significantly in planning departments. recognising part of the issue with the length of time it takes to make decisions is actually capacity, and local government has been struggling for a long time. And secondly, the. complexity of these projects is increasing significantly. There are technologies coming forward that planning departments and local councils will never have had to have dealt with before.
And so we have invested . Funding
And so we have invested . Funding
10:34
10:34
Claire Young
-
-
Claire Young
also in training programmes. And I can write to the committee with more detail. Okay. Thank you. And you've talked about why. Why you've got a separate MPs for fusion. Should the planning fusion reactors be a completely separate process from that of fission reactors, or is there a great deal the separate MPs documents aside, is there a great . Deal
10:35
10:35
10:35
10:35
10:35
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Clearly, across all of infrastructure that are that are shared aspects as well, not least the civil engineering parts and site management and transport and community engagement. And all of these things are all broadly similar, which is why Ian one covers more all encompassing areas, but we should consider them as separate technologies. And
10:35
10:35
10:35
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:37
10:37
10:37
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Technologies, we. Floating offshore wind, for example, is classed as a new technology. And we're supporting floating offshore wind as well. I don't think this is an either or. The pathways that will come through in the Strategic Spatial Energy plan will show a range of options. The energy mix we outlined in the Clean Power Action Plan. involved a mix of renewables but also nuclear. We think fusion will be part of that mix in the future as well.
But it is if we want to have a genuinely clean power system that we have security of supply and we will need a mix of fusion and fission that provides that firm power in the system and renewables, which are hugely important. We've got opportunity to deploy much, much more, but they are. intermittent and we get inherent benefits for the system from . Fusion
But it is if we want to have a genuinely clean power system that we have security of supply and we will need a mix of fusion and fission that provides that firm power in the system and renewables, which are hugely important. We've got opportunity to deploy much, much more, but they are. intermittent and we get inherent benefits for the system from . Fusion
10:37
10:38
10:38
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
not feeling as confident. Is that fair? No, I don't think that is fair. I think we are for CSE and hydrogen. We are going through a process. We've published strategies for both. We are keen on delivery for both. We are funding projects. We've funded more in this than any government has before. We are committed to those projects. I will be absolutely honest though we are committed to the R&D on fusion, there will come a point where there will be decisions about how much deployment there is when we're at that stage based on cost and.
affordability will be, well, certainly this government, I don't know where we'll be by. 2040 if we're deploying it then, but this government will be driven by decisions on affordability. But there is a point in every single bit of technology where the cost is significantly higher than it then becomes in the future. And fusion offers us an. abundance of . Clean
affordability will be, well, certainly this government, I don't know where we'll be by. 2040 if we're deploying it then, but this government will be driven by decisions on affordability. But there is a point in every single bit of technology where the cost is significantly higher than it then becomes in the future. And fusion offers us an. abundance of . Clean
10:38
10:38
10:39
Melanie Onn
-
-
Melanie Onn
10:39
10:39
10:39
10:39
10:39
10:39
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Yeah. How very . Goldilocks of, you know, I think I think it is an important I say that flippantly, but I think it is an important figure. Obviously, every penny the government is looking at spending at the moment is scrutinized incredibly closely. And so I'm sure the industry would call for more funding for it. But equally, it is a real statement of intent. It is a significant amount of. investment that says this government is squarely behind it, which is the thing .
That, of course,
That, of course,
10:40
10:40
10:40
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
of growth in every postcode? It does. I mean, I think this is where there are some. similarities with nuclear, in fact, in that the supply chain is much more localized than the UK than it is for other technologies. We're obviously at the forefront of fusion. And so the real opportunity, the same as I'm pushing on SMR.
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:40
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:41
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Government and the country as a solution for all of our energy woes. No, and I'm not sitting here saying this is the answer to everything. I think we need to be realistic. It is an incredibly important project for Britain right now, delivering economic growth and jobs and exports. It could play a really critical role in the future in terms of the deployment of abundant, clean, secure energy. But it's not going to.
immediately or even in the medium term, replace all the other technologies that we need on the system. This is about a mix. So I'm not here saying this is going to avoid us building offshore wind, onshore wind, solar, nuclear. It will not, but it will play a really important role. And I think if we are ambitious about this, it can be a critical part of . Our
immediately or even in the medium term, replace all the other technologies that we need on the system. This is about a mix. So I'm not here saying this is going to avoid us building offshore wind, onshore wind, solar, nuclear. It will not, but it will play a really important role. And I think if we are ambitious about this, it can be a critical part of . Our
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:43
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
about the fact that there's that base load within the energy mix. Yeah, I think that is really important. Both having a range of technologies, I think really matters. We don't want to put all our eggs in one basket on this. But the second thing is having a technology that is deployable in a in a range of different spaces. I mean, this is the real interest in SMRs and Amrs at the moment. It opens up much more opportunity.
I think there's the same for fusion reactors. It's why not just the Step program is of interest, but actually the private interest in projects as well is so important. Having a mix of, as I said, to, to, to Melanie of renewables, which will be the backbone of our system, but it has to be . Backed up
I think there's the same for fusion reactors. It's why not just the Step program is of interest, but actually the private interest in projects as well is so important. Having a mix of, as I said, to, to, to Melanie of renewables, which will be the backbone of our system, but it has to be . Backed up
10:43
10:43
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Are we more ready to progress this than the US and China? I'm not going to make a comparison with other countries other than than than what then? Sounds like a comparison to say that we are genuinely a world leader in this. We are having a global summit next week, which I think is an important moment to bring together everyone who has an interest in this. There are different approaches being taken to fusion in the US to to the UK, but there's a lot of shared research that is obviously important.
I was at the UK Canada summit yesterday talking about nuclear but actually about fusion as well. There's a real interest in Canada in this as well. So this will be an international. partnership of which I think we can be proud. We are world leading, but we will do it with the support of others as well. And then crucially, and I think you heard this from your panel earlier, when we do manage to crack this, it is a huge export opportunity for Britain.
So it's not just about our future energy needs,
I was at the UK Canada summit yesterday talking about nuclear but actually about fusion as well. There's a real interest in Canada in this as well. So this will be an international. partnership of which I think we can be proud. We are world leading, but we will do it with the support of others as well. And then crucially, and I think you heard this from your panel earlier, when we do manage to crack this, it is a huge export opportunity for Britain.
So it's not just about our future energy needs,
10:44
10:44
10:44
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
from China to try and make themselves the world leader? I make a general point about about China, which is what we have said as a government throughout, is that we we will cooperate with China where we can is important. There are huge economic player, but we also recognise we need to challenge them where we must. And we have made decisions recently that reflect the fact that we will take a robust approach to our national security. Our energy security and resilience is my number one.
priority as energy.
priority as energy.
10:45
10:45
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And we will not be blown off course by by any kind of technology race. Our energy security is absolutely critical. That's not just to China, that's to any players across the world. And we are seeing an increasing threat to our energy. infrastructure every single day. We have to respond to that. Partly that is why . Deploying
10:45
10:46
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Where do you think the UK will end up in terms of its position in this global supply chain? Make pasta David, if he wants to add anything to this. But what is really interesting is what I've already seen. I mean, Culham is a really good example. The chair and I have visited of, particularly in the robotics, the magnet space, the materials development as well, which we're deploying. And I saw some examples of how we're deploying that in steel at the moment already.
So there are things from fusion that the UK is already becoming a world . Leader
So there are things from fusion that the UK is already becoming a world . Leader
10:46
10:46
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
develop it, but David might want to add more. Yeah. Thank you. Minister. I'd add one thing that I think we have a particular strength in in the UK is whole plant integration. And how do you bring all the systems together and deliver a whole power plant. And I think the way that UK fusion Energy is working on bringing that together is a really unique, unique selling point that we have as as an export opportunity.
And then as the minister has referred to, there are a particular number of subsystems where we have particular.
And then as the minister has referred to, there are a particular number of subsystems where we have particular.
10:47
10:47
10:47
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Capability is strong enough. I think it could be stronger and I've reflected that to to Ofgem. They have a growth mandate as all the regulators now do, which was was passed to them when we came into government. I think Ofgem is leaning into that more than some of the other regulators, but there is more to do. And look, I do think the tension here is an absolute determination to build much more in the UK, but equally matched by a determination to bring down bills.
And there is a challenge in doing both of those things. So I think we will not be able to achieve everything we might want to if it involves putting up bills, because affordability is our number one, number one priority, I would say what's really good about this space is we are at the forefront of this. It's the same argument I'm making on SMRs. We have got a chance to do differently what we should have been doing with offshore wind 20 years ago, which was building the supply chains here in the UK.
We didn't do that. We missed an enormous opportunity. We're fixing that with the grid build out so much more. If that is built in the UK, we're fixing it with other renewable technologies, but we've got a real chance to get it right from the ground . Up with
And there is a challenge in doing both of those things. So I think we will not be able to achieve everything we might want to if it involves putting up bills, because affordability is our number one, number one priority, I would say what's really good about this space is we are at the forefront of this. It's the same argument I'm making on SMRs. We have got a chance to do differently what we should have been doing with offshore wind 20 years ago, which was building the supply chains here in the UK.
We didn't do that. We missed an enormous opportunity. We're fixing that with the grid build out so much more. If that is built in the UK, we're fixing it with other renewable technologies, but we've got a real chance to get it right from the ground . Up with
10:48
10:48
10:49
10:49
10:49
10:49
10:49
10:49
10:49
10:49
10:49
10:50
10:50
10:50
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I will be careful what I say for for legal reasons. But on the general point, we acknowledge that we should be thinking about what the solution is at issue so that we can build more onshore wind. That is an ambition that we have set. What we we want to do very carefully is go through a consultation process that isn't about building onshore wind at the cost of a seismic array. That is a critical part of our national defence.
10:50
10:50
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And that will always, always take. precedence over the deployment of renewables. So we are determined to try and bring forward, because I recognise the point that there are new technologies, there are new ways of monitoring and of, of, of being able to build things next to the array. But we will do it in a methodical way with our partners in the Ministry of . Defence
10:51
10:51