Justification Decision (Generation of Power by the RR SMR) Regulations 2026

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Justification Decision (Generation of Power by the RR SMR) Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 3 June. They will give effect to the Secretary of State’s decision that power generation using the Rolls-Royce small modular reactor is justified in the UK under the UK’s regulatory framework for practices involving ionising radiation. This decision has been taken within that regulatory framework. It is a step towards enabling a new form of reliable, low-carbon power generation in the UK, supporting our energy security, reducing carbon emissions and delivering economic opportunities, including for UK jobs and supply chains. It also has the potential to provide dependable baseload power for a more resilient electricity system, while supporting the development of a domestic nuclear supply chain.

The statutory framework, in place since 2004, requires that any new class or type of practice involving ionising radiation is assessed before it can be introduced. The key question is whether the benefits outweigh the potential risks to health from radiation exposure. In this case, the Secretary of State has concluded that they do.

It is important to be clear what this decision does and does not do. This is a generic, non-site-specific decision. It does not authorise the construction or operation of any reactor. Any future project would be subject to the UK’s independent system of scrutiny, including the need to secure environmental permitting, nuclear site licensing and planning consent before it could proceed. These processes involve detailed assessment by independent regulators, including bodies such as the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the relevant environmental regulators, to ensure that safety, security and environmental protection requirements are met.

The decision underpinning the instrument follows a thorough and proportionate evidence-based process. It draws on advice from independent regulators, statutory consultees and a public consultation, which was held in late 2025 and received 50 responses. Most respondents agreed that the Rolls-Royce SMR represents a new class of practice and that sufficient information had been provided to inform a decision. Taken together, the evidence provided a proportionate and transparent basis to support the Secretary of State’s conclusion.

The issues raised, including safety, radioactive waste, environmental impacts, cost and energy security, were considered alongside expert advice before the Secretary of State reached her decision. The assessment found that the Rolls-Royce SMR is expected to result in a low level of potential radiological health detriment, that the design can meet the UK’s requirements on safety, security and safeguards, and that radioactive waste can be managed within existing UK arrangements. Environmental impacts are considered manageable within established regulatory frameworks. Taken together, this provides a clear evidence base for concluding that the benefits, including reliable low-carbon power and support for energy security, outweigh the potential risk to health and radiation exposure.

Finally, I emphasise that this is only one part of a wider regulatory system. Any proposal to construct or operate a reactor would remain subject to detailed scrutiny by independent regulators at every stage. The instrument will give legal effect to a decision required by the statutory framework, while leaving decisions on siting, design and operation to the UK’s regulatory, planning and wider governmental processes. It is a proportionate step within a well-established system of independent regulation. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who took part in the debate. As was said earlier, it is important to point out that the matter before the Committee is this particular instrument, which is narrow in what it does. It gives legal effect to the Secretary of State’s decision that this class or type of practice—power generation using the Rolls-Royce SMR—meets the statutory test. A few questions were broader than that, particularly the noble Lord’s on woodland carbon capture and so on. I will focus on the questions on the statutory instrument, and we can perhaps pick up some questions more broadly. Quite a lot of work is going on in that area within the department and in other Ministers’ portfolios, and it might be easier for us to pick up some of those particular questions around carbon capture and so forth on another occasion.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, talked about the time it takes to bring in a new nuclear build. I understand why there is nervousness about timescales when we talk about building new nuclear energy, in whatever form. I have the scars on my back from working on the Hinkley Point C project—we initially had it coming online in 2019—so it is very problematic sometimes with these really big nuclear power stations.

I will make two comments on that. First, SMRs are a lot smaller and quicker to build. They can be more flexible in what they are, what they look like, how much they supply and so on. So it is an approach that is different from the traditional large power stations that we are used to seeing built. We fairly recently did the Planning and Infrastructure Act, which looks at bringing in nationally significant infrastructure projects—NSIPs—of which nuclear is part. So we are doing what we can to speed up the planning process to ensure that we can build these smaller and smarter nuclear power stations more quickly.

I reassure the noble Baroness that renewable energy is an absolute priority. I do not think anyone here would think that the Secretary of State for DESNZ does not have renewable energy as a priority. But we need a proper energy mix in this country, particularly if we are to meet our carbon targets, and nuclear energy plays an important role in that. As the noble Lord said, we want to move as quickly as we can on this, but that is not the purpose of the statutory instrument; it enables Rolls-Royce to take those SMR projects forward. As the noble Lord said, Wylfa is likely to be the first.

On the economy around this, one thing that Rolls-Royce SMRs have the potential to do is provide reliable and always-on low-carbon power, with a view to complementing renewables—you do not have to worry about the wind not blowing and so on. So it supports our energy security and it supports UK jobs, manufacturing and supply chains. We have some really skilled people in the nuclear sector here, and we need to support them as well.

On cost and value for money, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, we assessed the economic aspects of this, and that assessment considered economic and socioeconomic factors and concluded that the benefits outweigh any potential detriments.

On the public funding for Rolls-Royce’s SMR, the assessment also concluded that the socioeconomic benefits would outweigh the public funding associated with the delivery. But further decisions around funding for the Rolls-Royce SMR are taken separately from this justification decision; as I say, this is a very narrow statutory instrument.

Cost effectiveness is not determined through the process we are looking at today; that is considered separately as part of wider government decisions on energy policy and investment and what the priorities are.

On carbon reduction in particular, the assessment found that the Rolls-Royce SMR would provide low-carbon electricity across its lifecycle, and by doing that it would make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and thereby supporting the UK’s net-zero targets.

When bringing in this kind of legislation, you have to look at safety, waste, environmental impact and wider policy. Taking all that together, the evidence provided a clear basis for concluding that this class or type of practice meets the statutory test of justification. I therefore very much thank noble Lords for their support in bringing this forward so that we can move forward and build some SMRs, I hope in the very near future, because this has been an awfully long time coming.

Motion agreed.