Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Earl Russell and Lord Blencathra

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will very briefly respond on this amendment. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, for introducing it on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel. To be honest, we are unable to support this amendment for various reasons. I understand that is a probing amendment, but it does not come across as a fully figured out or good way of doing things.

I fully take the point that other noble Lords have made about the announcements today on the back of Trump’s visit about small modular nuclear reactors, which this amendment is about, in terms of their importance for the economy. Separately, I have tabled an amendment to this Bill about the need for energy efficiency and for small modular reactors. It is important that, while we grow the economy, we make sure that the new things that we are building are actually energy efficient and fit for purpose. We cannot just keep having new power-hungry technology and expect to get to clean power at the same time. We cannot let the AI beast get out of control.

First, just to respond to this amendment, I know that it is probing, but the key thing here is that the Government have not asked for any of these powers. Indeed, they have just recently updated a lot of their nuclear policies. We have had an update to EN1 and to EN7. At no point during that time have the Government requested any of the sweeping powers set out here.

The amendment proposes that the Secretary of State may, if “this is considered necessary” and appropriate, disregard the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Infrastructure Planning (Environment Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. That wording in itself is just a carte blanche for the Minister to do whatever they want whenever they want. It is not good wording. Moreover, the amendment slashes the page limits for environmental impact assessments to 1,000 pages. I fully get that some of these documents are too long and that that can delay things, but 1,000 pages seems an arbitrary figure: 1,001 is not acceptable, but 999 pages is. It cuts the consultation period to 21 days. Again, it strikes me that these are vaguely plucked out of the air and are not properly thought through.

This could undermine democratic accountability, and people being able to consult on these things. It could incur significant legal risk, as we have obligations under retained EU law, international treaties and all sorts of things. It is also a risk as we are transitioning to a completely new way of doing nuclear energy—dispersing it, having it run by companies, and, inevitably, its being situated closer to communities. It is important for delivering this transition that we take communities with us and, as we deploy a new technology, that this is done in a way that creates confidence and does not undermine the very thing that we want to do. As we start to roll this out, it is more important than at any other point that we do this properly and appropriately. My worry is that rushing to sweeping powers like this could do the exact opposite of what the amendment intends, and undermine confidence in this part of our energy transition, so I am not able to support the amendment.

I have raised this in the House before: whenever we have this conversation about nuclear, it is always put in opposition to solar, and solar has taken over the world. Actually, this week we have had the Treasury itself saying that the long-term geological store for our historical legacy of nuclear waste has gone on to the red list and is not deliverable. Nuclear energy comes with different issues and benefits, but also has big, non-associated costs that are not always put forward. It has a long-term historical legacy of highly radioactive waste that needs to be dealt with. We recognise that nuclear is part of the mix but, coming back to what I said on the previous amendment, if the Government feel they need more regulation in this space—they may well do—we will listen to that. However, that needs to be done in the round and, as we transition to a new form of nuclear energy, this stuff needs to be done very carefully indeed.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I wanted to speak briefly on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, made on regulatory alignment. I like regulatory alignment in principle, provided it meets the right level of agreed regulation. I am fairly certain with everything I read that British regulators are perhaps over-nitpicking and over-fussy here, and are causing delays at Hinkley Point by double- and triple-checking the welding. I am also fairly certain with what I read that American regulators are—I would not say sloppy—much more relaxed.

If regulatory alignment comes about from British regulation experts talking to American regulation experts and reaching agreement, I can live with that. What I could not live with is a political agreement on regulatory alignment. I admire the way that President Trump goes around the world fighting for American interests, and stuffs everybody else provided that American interests come first. My worry here would be that, at some point, he may offer a deal saying, “Okay, Britain, you want no tariffs on steel and whisky? I can go along with that, provided you accept American terms on regulatory alignment for our nuclear reactors”. It is the political deal that worries me, not any regulatory alignment brought about by experts. I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer that or comment on it; I merely flag it. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, nodding, and I am glad that we agree on this point.