National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
As far as whistleblowing is concerned, I can speak only to this particular episode, but I point to the Government’s response—or, rather, the response of NESO and other bodies—in developing very rapidly a forum in which whistleblowers can confidentially and without any concerns about their own future or safety participate in an inquiry into what has taken place. Indeed, the separation of that inquiry from senior management underlines how seriously the Government take this issue but also how they wish to make sure that whistleblowers are given the proper protection and status that their concerns merit.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, first, in welcoming my noble friend’s response, can he confirm that there was no loss of supply to customers on the occasion of the incidents referred to? Secondly, in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in which he attacked the Government’s investment in wind and solar, will the Minster reflect on the national security assessment published earlier this year? That report stated:
“Global ecosystem degradation and collapse threaten UK national security and prosperity”.
Does that not make it so much more important that we continue with the decarbonisation of our energy supply?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
Yes, that does make it very important that we continue decarbonising our energy systems to make sure that they are very resilient in a different climate that we will have in the future, and that the consequences of, for example, continuing to provide energy via high-carbon fossil fuels are countered by the systems being thoroughly low-carbon in the future. This has a bearing on the recent episodes as far as energy margin notices are concerned. We have had a period of extreme heat in the UK that is very likely the consequence of climate change, and this has produced some system resilience issues. However, the system was easily resilient enough to cope with that particular issue: there were no blackouts, there was no loss of power for customers or industry, and the stability of the system was maintained at around the 50 hertz mark at all times.
Climate Change Act 2008 (International Aviation and International Shipping) Regulations 2026
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I very much welcome the regulations themselves; they have been a long time coming, but it is good that we are now including aviation and maritime within the sixth carbon budget. It is going to be challenging, and I certainly understand the need for flexibility in methodology. The Committee on Climate Change has set out some of the challenges we are going to face, but that we should do it I am absolutely convinced.
This debate follows last week’s rather dispiriting debate, when the Conservative Opposition essentially turned their back on net zero and on any concern about climate change. In criticising the Government last week, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said nothing about the impact of climate change and nothing about what they would do in relation to net zero.
The Commons debated last week’s and this week’s SIs together, and I read the debate. The shadow Energy Secretary, Claire Coutinho, made not one mention of what the Conservatives would do to mitigate or adapt to climate change. Instead, her sole response was to get rid of carbon tax and repeal the Climate Change Act—as noble Lords here will know, we were the first country to establish a long-term, legally binding framework. Are the Conservatives really serious about wanting to axe this landmark piece of legislation? In 2019, they beefed it up with commitments on net zero under the noble Baroness, Lady May, and the last Conservative Prime Minister stated that energy transition and net zero were among the greatest opportunities facing this country.
We come back to the issue of economic growth. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was absolutely right: the real catastrophe to prosperity and economic growth is climate change, not the actions we are taking to try to mitigate and adapt to them. Noble Lords will have read the CBI report that came out a couple of weeks ago, looking at the green economy. It is massive. It is one of the only sectors which is really growing in this country, and we can add aviation and maritime to that. We now have a £105 billion net zero sector and 1.1 million full-time equivalent jobs—and they are good-quality jobs as well.
The issue of other countries taking advantage of the UK taking leadership is absolute nonsense. There is huge advantage to the UK in being a key player in a net-zero economy. We know from the work of the International Energy Agency that actually, despite what some leaders say, many countries are speeding on with a transition to net zero. We need to be part of that, and aviation and maritime need to be part of that. So I very much support the statutory instrument. Tonight, we are seeing that, around the House, there is a strong consensus in favour of dealing with climate change and moving to net zero as fast as we can.
Carbon Budget Order 2026
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate so far. I thank my noble friend for his very detailed explanation of the order before us. I am not sure that we are spending much time on the detail of the order, as he requested, and we are clearly turning this into a debate about net zero and climate change. Although the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, acknowledged climate change, I must say that, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, it is very difficult to square what is being said tonight by Members of the party opposite—and, I suspect, by rather a few more of them as the debate ensues—with what the Conservative Government did. After all, it was the Conservative Government who legislated for net zero. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, did not vote for it, but it was their responsibility. They signed the Paris Agreement. The Sunak Government made a bold statement that
“energy transition and net zero are among the greatest opportunities facing this country”,
as indeed they are. We may hear a little bit about North Sea oil and gas, as the party opposite now seems obsessed with that. It is worth pointing out that, between 2010 and 2024, production in the North Sea halved under the Conservative Government’s stewardship.
I come back to the pertinent point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. Both the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, have criticised carbon budgets and the whole net-zero approach by the Government, but what is the alternative? It is rare now for members of the Conservative Party to say that they do not believe in climate change, but it is almost, as St Augustine said, “Oh Lord, deliver us from sin, but not yet”—“We will tackle climate change at some point in the future, but let us carry on with our obsession with oil and gas”.
I turn to business. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, referred to the CBI report, but this is one of the most thriving sectors of our economy. In fact, looking at the last year of the Conservative Government, it was the one sector that actually gave us some growth in the economy, yet they want to snap it off, whereas our competitors have seen that the impact of the green/net-zero economy can be profoundly changing and progressive and give so many opportunities to people. The CBI report says that the net-zero economy now supports 1.1 million full-time equivalent jobs—and they are good jobs, jobs that our young people can go into.
On China and the international experience, we are lectured that, somehow, by going into a leadership role in relation to decarbonisation, we are letting other countries take great advantage. If noble Lords look at the reports of the International Energy Agency, particularly its 2025 report on renewables, they will see that there is a huge advance in the use of low-carbon energies globally. China currently accounts for 60% of global renewable capacity growth. It is going to meet its targets way ahead of schedule, in 2035. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben: it tends to set conservative targets and then meet them much more quickly, so to talk about China as if it is simply carrying on with oil, gas and coal is misleading.
The North Sea, if I can just end on that, has been a tremendous asset to our country. If only we had set up a sovereign wealth fund to invest in our infrastructure, like Norway did, I think we would be in a much better condition. The people working there are brilliant people, but if noble Lords look at the North Sea Transition Authority’s estimates, it reckons that only around 10% of the basin’s historic output could be recovered in the future. Analysis by the University of Oxford’s Smith School, using pre-crisis price data, suggests that households powered fully by renewable energy could save up to £441 per year on energy bills. By comparison, maximising North Sea oil and gas extraction was estimated to reduce household costs by around £16 to £82 per year. As we know, increasing UK production—and it would be a marginal increase in UK production—would not directly reduce prices, because we do not influence global prices and we buy on the global market.
I also point out that the Conservative Government, over 14 years, issued many licences for expropriation and extraction in the North Sea. That actually led to only 20 developments, which, I understand, would produce the equivalent of just 36 days of extra gas. So the challenge for the party opposite, it seems to me, is to stop running down the approach and the consensus that we have on net zero, and if it is opposed to it, it should come up with some suggestions about how we might go forward.
Energy Markets
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I may have to write to the noble Viscount on aspects of that question that I am not fully sighted on. If he is referring to the Fingleton review, for example, then a great deal of work is being undertaken on that. Part of the issue with that review is how it translates itself into legislation for the future, and that is being fully considered. However, I assure the noble Viscount that that is not a particular cause of delays; it is a question of getting it right and making sure that what is in the review can properly inform the debate for the future.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, can we come back to the North Sea and the Opposition’s obsession with it? Can my noble friend confirm that between 2010 and 2024, production in the North Sea halved? It is a super-mature basin that, even if new licences were to be granted, would have a marginal impact. On the issue of gas being used to substitute for renewables when the wind is not blowing, would we not be in a much better position if the Opposition, when in government over 14 years, had actually managed to open one single nuclear power station?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
My noble friend is right that the North Sea is not just a mature field but a very mature one. Indeed, as we are seeing, one of the opportunities for the North Sea is not so much getting oil out of the ground but putting carbon back into it, in terms of exhausted fields that are presently near their demise or thereabouts.
There is no magic wand that we can wave to suddenly produce lots of new oil and gas in the North Sea; we are talking about small pools, small fields and so on, if at all. The emphasis clearly has to be on making sure that production continues, not on ensuring that exploration—chasing a bit of a will-o’-the-wisp in terms of the field—is under way.
My noble friend is also right that the previous Government did indeed fail to produce a single nuclear power station during the entire time of their regime, whereas now we are on the cusp of making sure that small nuclear modular reactors are a thing of the future and that we have the sort of nuclear economy that is fit for a low-carbon economy—generally dispatchable, smaller, nimble and part of the energy economy.
Carbon Budget 6
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
We do not have the announcement of carbon budget 7 until the summer. The noble Baroness might care to think about what the process of looking again at carbon budget 6 was after those legal judgments. Indeed, the Government have taken a much more robust approach to developing the plan, which has allowed us to make a much clearer and more rational assessment of the savings that will enable carbon budgets to be met and to quantify them fully.
We have also quantified a number of real-world trends that are rather important today, and which are shaping our society and economy. That means our assessment reflects how we would expect the world to change as we accelerate towards net zero. None of these things were done when the previous Administration set out carbon budget 6—indeed, they were part of the legal challenge to those budgets. That is the reason why we consider that carbon budget 6 can be met, in addition to which a number of new policies and directions have come forward since this new Government took office.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, if we are going to meet our carbon budgets, clearly, the challenge of getting low-carbon electricity generation as quickly as possible is crucial. The latest figures I have for Q2 2025 suggest that nuclear power was about 15.1% of electricity generation. How do you square that with the Greens’ manifesto, which says that they want to get rid of nuclear power in this country?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The continued presence of nuclear power as a low-carbon power source is, and will be, an integral part of carbon budget 6 being met. It would be very difficult to catch up with those carbon budget 6 figures without nuclear power. It will come and go a little bit, in terms of retirements of nuclear power stations by the mid-2030s and new nuclear power stations coming online, but it will come back to at least that 15% figure. It is very difficult to see how carbon budget 6 might easily be met without that power in place.
High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
My noble friend is right that there are many different technologies coming along, and one of the reasons why we put the advanced nuclear framework together is to make it possible for all those technologies to have a pathway through to production in the UK. This is an important moment, when private-sector leadership of nuclear is real and can happen because of the new designs. We welcome all the different technologies as part of that framework, which, as I say, will be published shortly.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps in contrast to my noble friend, I congratulate the Government on the final investment decision on Sizewell C and the SMR programme by Rolls-Royce at Wylfa. This is the foundation for a fantastic new nuclear industry in the UK. But does he agree that in welcoming private-sector investment, we need to look at siting policy and making it more flexible, as the recent taskforce recommended?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
On the first part of my noble friend’s question, he should partially congratulate himself, because he was very involved in making that happen, and I join him in congratulating him. We have a very significant nuclear programme with SMRs coming along; and the Fingleton review and a series of other processes, including EN-7, which was laid on 18 December, make planning and other aspects much easier. Siting is very important. A siting review, by GBN, is going on at the moment, looking at potential sites for future gigawatt production as well; it will report in the autumn.
COP Climate Negotiations: Cities
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend—and, I assume, with his consent— I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for the Question. I was so eager to answer that I was up before he asked it.
The Government recognise the essential role that local places, including cities, play in accelerating to net zero and taking climate action. The Government regularly engage with C40 cities and other interested non-governmental and civil society organisations on the international climate negotiations. This engagement helps to inform our negotiating mandate each year for the COP—the Conference of the Parties. The UNFCCC and the governing bodies comprise more than 190 states and the European Union, which are signatories to the respective treaties. As a multinational treaty body process, negotiations are therefore primarily among parties’ government representatives. In giving this Answer, I pay tribute to the immense work that the noble Lord, Lord Rees, has done in this area, in terms of cities within the UK and on an international basis.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I endorse the Minister’s tribute to my noble friend Lord Rees. Does he agree that when it comes to countries such as the US, where the Administration have set their face against policies in relation to both mitigation and adaptation, the role of states, local authorities and businesses in flying the flag for determined progress in relation to climate change is vital and that, as a country, we should therefore engage as much as we can with local authorities in those countries because of the contribution they can make?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I heartily endorse that sentiment, particularly given that there are 14 US cities in the C40 group and over half of US states already have climate change commitments and net-zero mandates within their areas. We can see that even if the United States has decided at the federal level to take its bat home as far as climate change is concerned, there will still be a lot of work done at state and city level. As a country, we should engage fully with all those actors at the various levels of the United States administration.
Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) (Specified Periods for Disclosure of Protected Material) Regulations 2026
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, these technical regulations were laid before the
As set out in the Energy Act 2023, carbon storage licensees are responsible for complying with various obligations, including the reporting of information and samples obtained through the conduct of licensee authorities to the NSTA. We believe that the wealth of data that carbon storage licensees gather during exploration or storage activities is a national resource and its publication will accelerate the deployment of CCS in the UK. That is why we introduced the Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage) (Retention of Information and Samples) Regulations 2025, which came into force in May 2025. These regulations specify the types of information and samples that carbon storage licensees must retain and the periods for which they must retain them.
The regulations we debate today set out when the NSTA can publicly disclose carbon storage information and samples provided to it by carbon storage licensees, and which types of information and samples may be disclosed. They also amend when the NSTA can publicly disclose information on the drilling or operation of wells under offshore petroleum licences. The timeframe for this was set out in the Oil and Gas Authority (Offshore Petroleum) (Disclosure of Protected Material after Specified Periods) Regulations 2018—try saying that in one breath—and this amendment to the 2018 regulations will bring the NSTA disclosure powers across CCUS and offshore petroleum into alignment.
Information and samples play a very significant role in the UK carbon dioxide storage industry, and access to high-quality data for the NSTA, industry, academia and the public will enable efficient use of the UK’s storage potential. The carbon storage information and samples published will support sharing of knowledge and lessons learned, including best practices and innovation, ultimately leading to cost reductions and advancement of the sector. This includes accelerating the North Sea energy transition. The NSTA helps drive this transition by realising the significant potential of the UK continental shelf as a critical energy and carbon-abatement resource. These regulations will further provide opportunities for the industries based offshore, with the very significant potential that exists for storing carbon dioxide in depleted oil and gas fields and other geological formations in the UK continental shelf.
The NSTA has consulted on both the carbon storage and offshore petroleum aspects of these regulations. The consultation on the amendment of well data confidentiality closed in September 2022 and a response was published in February 2023. The consultation on the proposed regulations for the disclosure of carbon storage information and samples closed in April 2024. That consultation will ensure that the regulations are effectively introduced. A response was published in October 2025. This means that the feedback received from those consultations was positive and has been carefully considered in shaping these regulations to ensure that they reflect industry needs and best practice.
CCS is not optional; it is essential for Britain’s energy security and industrial competitiveness, and for our clean-power future. These regulations may be technical, but their impact is profound. They unlock a wealth of data that will accelerate deployment, drive innovation and maximise the UK’s carbon storage potential. This is about making Britain a clean energy superpower, safeguarding jobs, securing investment and delivering net zero in a way that strengthens our economy. I urge the Committee to approve these regulations without delay.
The regulations reflect extensive consultation and positive engagement with industry and stakeholders. They are practical, robust and future-focused, designed to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of clean energy technology. This is about more than disclosure; it is about delivering on our net-zero commitments, safeguarding energy security and creating opportunities for growth and jobs in the industries of tomorrow. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the regulations and totally agree with my noble friend about the importance of CCUS to meeting our net-zero targets. Only a few weeks ago, the Whitehead review made the same point about GGRs: you cannot achieve net zero without this. I look forward to my noble friend responding to the Whitehead review and no doubt accepting all its recommendations.
These regulations seem to fall within what the review said about regulation. Certainly, I very much agree that this is an important element for market investment and certainty. Paragraph 5.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the UK continental shelf holds
“an estimated 78 billion tonnes of theoretical CO2 storage capacity”.
Clearly, there is huge potential for the UK. The Explanatory Memorandum mentions that, potentially, there are many countries that we could reach agreement with for storage in the UK continental shelf. So, can my noble friend tell the Committee the extent to which we are now in discussion with some of our European neighbours about the huge potential of storage in the North Sea?
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we welcome these regulations, which seek to establish a necessary legal framework for the public disclosure of protected carbon storage information and samples. These are crucial steps towards fostering a transparent culture in the UK’s nascent carbon capture, usage and storage—CCUS—industry. As has been said by others, CCUS is essential for the UK to meet its net-zero carbon targets and budgets—particularly as set out by the Climate Change Committee—and the sector is projected to support up to 50,000 jobs and significant future economic growth. As has also been pointed out, the UK’s continental shelf is estimated to hold up to 78 billion tonnes of theoretical CO2 storage capacity, so this is essential in helping us meet these targets and creating the green jobs and growth of the future.
We support the principles of transparency set out in Parts 2 to 4 of the regulations, which govern the storage data obtained by the OGA, operating as the North Sea Transition Authority—the NSTA. We welcome the approach, as set out, of clarifying data based on levels of commercial sensitivity; this is sensible and pragmatic. We also welcome the decision that non-commercially sensitive items will be published straightaway. For more sensitive material, the NSTA has established clear and time-limited protection periods before disclosure. For example, detailed well information, protected carbon storage samples and computerised model information may generally be disclosed, but only after a period of two years. These two years are designed to protect licensees with sufficient exclusivity for the data they have paid to acquire.
On the regulations that relate specifically to the two-year period for the disclosure of computerised model information—relating specifically to the creation of CO2 storage models that stimulate flows of fluids in storage complexes—the NSTA has acknowledged the need for further detailed consultation. Does the Minister know when those further consultations might be completed?
Other data is classified as highly sensitive, particularly in relation to storage resource information, quality of CO2 that could be stored and substrate geology—that kind of thing. I note that the NSTA provides the ability, but not the obligation, to disclose protected material, so licensees will have an opportunity to make representations concerning the delay or withholding of disclosure. That protective mechanism is important, and I recognise the need for it in the regulations, but I simply ask the Minister: what is the minimum timeframe for representations that the NSTA will guarantee to licensees before commercially sensitive protected material is disclosed?
We generally welcome these regulations and think that they are crucial for the development of this sector. This instrument is crucial for safety and for ensuring that there is a balance between the sharing of information and protecting what is commercially sensitive. We feel that, in general, the balance is in the right place here. We support these regulations as they will help underpin the successful, transparent and efficient development of the UK’s potential CCUS industry. But we urge the Government to address these essential questions of implementation, technical definition and scope, in order to ensure that the regulations achieve their full potential.
Drax
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
No, I do not agree that the various connections relating to Drax could be better used for an SMR programme, because of the particular location of Drax within the cluster in the north-east of the country, which is particularly important for carbon capture and storage, and, indeed, hydrogen. Drax plays a part in that process in that area. The noble Baroness perhaps ought to read the report that is before us very carefully, because it does not actually say that Drax has sourced old-forest timber. Timber is sourced from third parties, goes into the Drax pellet facility, and may or may not to Drax’s knowledge include old-forest material—which, by the way, is outlawed by the Government of British Columbia. There are a number of questions to answer, but not necessarily for Drax. There are a number of people who perhaps have questions to answer as well.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, on the subject of questions to be answered, does my noble friend not think it surprising that the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, intervened, given that it was the party opposite—the Conservatives—that, in government, signed contracts with Drax? The scale of the subsidies as a result was very large indeed.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very sound point, in that the new contract that has been signed costs taxpayers half as much as the old contract did. It is on more sustainable terms and, as I have said, makes Drax move towards being a dispatchable plant, which is much more in line with the power grid generally, than any of the things that were done under the previous Administration.
National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy Generation
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the Grand Committee takes note of the proposed National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy Generation.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the new National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy Generation EN-7, which was laid before the House on 6 February. In particular, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, who is making her maiden speech. Redditch is not a million miles from Kings Heath, and it is great to welcome a fellow West Midlander to your Lordships’ House; I am sure we anticipate her contribution very much indeed. I am aware that the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Inglewood, have both withdrawn because they wish to be present for the EU-UK summit Statement, which is to be made shortly.
The Secretary of State and the Government have been clear that nuclear has a crucial role to play in powering Britain’s clean energy future. We see it as making an important contribution to helping the UK become a clean energy superpower, which in turn is a core part of the Prime Minister’s plan for change. For nuclear to play that crucial role, we need to support the construction of new power stations, including by improving how the planning system deals with such proposals. We have already introduced important reforms in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which I understand will be before your Lordships shortly. These will help us to consent to major infrastructure projects more efficiently—for example, by streamlining consultation requirements, providing flexibility in what consenting route is used and removing unnecessary elements of the judicial review process. We are also supporting the production of a strategic spatial energy plan by the National Energy System Operator, which will assess the optimal locations and types of energy infrastructure required to meet energy demand in future.
One of the most important ways we can support major infrastructure development is through national policy statements. These establish the type of infrastructure that is needed and the rules on site selection and mitigating impacts on communities and the environment. The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy, called EN-1, makes it clear that low-carbon energy infrastructure, including nuclear, is a critical national priority. In a context where electricity demand is expected to double by 2050, even with energy efficiency, EN-1 makes clear that the planning system places no limit on the amount of generating capacity that should be built. This new national policy statement, EN-7, will complement EN-1 and enable nuclear to play its crucial role in four ways.
First, EN-7 states the clear and unambiguous need for new nuclear to achieve energy security, support growth, and mitigate and adapt to climate change. Stating this fact in a national policy statement ensures that it shapes development consent decisions by the Secretary of State.
Secondly, EN-7 will allow, for the first time, developers to consider deploying the full range of nuclear fission technologies at any site in England and Wales that meets its criteria. This brings nuclear into line with other energy subsectors, where businesses routinely explore new growth opportunities without being restricted by assumptions about the scale or location of deployment. This flexibility will support new uses for nuclear, such as combined heat and power, hydrogen production and direct supply to high-demand users, such as heavy industry or AI data centres.
Thirdly, EN-7 imposes a single set of criteria appropriate to nuclear deployment at any scale and in any location. Infrastructure benefits everyone by providing the energy, transport connections, water and waste management capacity we need, but it can impact neighbouring communities and ecosystems. EN-7 supplements the impacts section of EN-1 with nuclear-specific detail on key areas including population density, flood protection and the use of water for cooling.
Fourthly, EN-7 goes further than previous national policy statements in clarifying the development consent process beside regulatory licences. Industry tells us that it is unsure of when and how to engage the various planning bodies and regulators, and that this is driving up costs and slowing delivery. This requires a multifaceted response, but EN-7 plays its part by clarifying that, first, the Secretary of State may decide that the low-carbon energy benefits of nuclear outweigh the residual risks remaining after mitigation; and, secondly, the Secretary of State should grant development consent if they are satisfied that there is no good reason why the project will not eventually gain regulatory approval.
Some of the responses have asked what EN-7 means for the sites listed in the previous national policy statement, EN-6. I want to make it clear to noble Lords that those sites will not be disadvantaged by EN-7, because both national policy statements have consistent criteria. Any of the advantages of the sites listed in EN-6 that are evident in a development consent application will be given great weight by EN-7. For example, EN-7 clearly requires a connection to the grid or end-user. This is what matters in practice when applications for development consent are being decided.
Our public consultation so far has found that stake- holders agree that EN-7 is a positive step forward. We received 77 responses from across industry, local authorities, campaigners and private individuals. A clear majority agree that EN-7 is future-proofed to deal with advancements in technology, applies the criteria properly and takes a sensible, pragmatic approach to population density requirements. A majority also agree with keeping the scope of EN-7 to nuclear projects with a generating capacity of at least 50 megawatts in England or 350 megawatts in Wales.
I also note that most respondents believe that we could do even more to support industry through the consenting and regulatory process. EN-7 could never solve this challenge on its own, which is why we are developing supplementary information for potential developers on the development consent process. Alongside the designation process for EN-7, we will seek input from industry and planning experts over the summer to develop it further.
We are also reviewing the regulatory regime in depth through the nuclear regulatory task force. This is examining measures to better support growth and innovation, including faster approvals of new reactor technology designs; international collaboration, potentially including the recognition of designs approved by other trusted safety regimes; and improved ways of working between regulators and industry. The regulatory task force is progressing swiftly. It completed its call for evidence on Monday this week, and in October it will report to the Prime Minister, the Secretaries of State for Energy and Defence and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It is time limited in that respect.
We have received strong support for EN-7. The question of how to site nuclear power in light of small and advanced modular reactors has been pressing for years. We have consulted extensively with industry, planning and environmental experts, as well as the public, and now is the time to implement it.
In the time that I have been in this job, it has become clear that, compared with when we took the decision to go back to new nuclear in 2007, there has been a sea-change in support for nuclear. I believe there is a critical mass of support that recognises that nuclear is the essential baseload for a clean energy system and that we have a huge opportunity to grow and innovate in this country to develop a UK supply chain. I know that there is a certain frustration about a number of critical decisions that have to be made over the next few weeks. None the less, I hope that, as we go through that, we can make positive announcements that will lay the foundation for moving forward. EN-7 is clearly one of the policy statements that underpins the advances we want to make.
I look forward to the contributions of Members of the Committee to this interesting debate. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, is very experienced and knows that departmental spring is not entirely consistent with meteorological science. I very much take the point, however, that we all want to see a final investment decision on Sizewell C—except the noble Lord, Lord Howell—and great progress on the SMR programme.
This has been a really interesting debate, and I just make it clear that the contributions that noble Lords have made today will be fed into the consideration of our final version of EN-7. In a sense, the debate does not finish here; we will make sure that the contributions are considered very carefully by officials before we receive final advice on the contents.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, on a very lively, excellent maiden speech. We look forward to her future contributions. She will discover that the West Midlands is not overrepresented in your Lordships’ House, so it is very good to see her here. I did not know about Redditch tights—I now know—but I do know about the potential of Redditch. I also share her view about the need to encourage the aspirations of young people in Redditch, and I know about the work being done on the educational system there to try to improve aspirations, including through access to higher and further education.
This debate has been very encouraging. When I last had this job in 2008 to 2010, there was much more of a mixed view, inside and outside Parliament, about the role of nuclear. There has been a huge change in attitudes and in support for nuclear. We know that from the regular polling that my department has done on public attitude following Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Among experts and political parties, there is generally now a baseload of support for nuclear, which is really encouraging. Given the long lead times of investment decisions and build for nuclear, having stability for the companies that wish to take this forward is absolutely crucial, as it is in terms of building a UK supply chain. This kind of debate is therefore very encouraging in that respect.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was disappointed with EN-7. On future demand, there is clearly a range of estimates for what we need based on assumptions including the extent of electrification, the role of hydrogen and the growth of artificial intelligence. I assure him that we are not wedded to a single estimate, but we clearly have to flex the supply of electricity generation according to how we go forward in relation to the future.
On EN-7 and his argument that it insufficiently mentions SMRs, we believe that EN-7 caters to SMRs throughout. We do not refer to broad categories such as SMRs as planning decisions will reflect the facts of each set of plans rather than what they are called. The different characteristics of SMRs are addressed, particularly when it refers to phased development and cooling, where we recognise that different stations may be cooled in completely different ways.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, made a number of remarks about Sizewell C that I do not think other noble Lords agree with. I know that he thinks that the replication of Sizewell C in relation to Hinkley Point will not lead to improvements in productivity, but I point him to the improvement in productivity between unit one of Hinkley Point C and unit two. To be fair, we know that Hinkley Point C has had many challenges, and clearly we are all anxious to see further progress made, but it has made progress. There is no doubt that it has learned about how to build on a huge site using the modular approach in many ways. I am convinced that Sizewell C will benefit hugely from it. Pulling the plug on Sizewell C and saying that we will put all our eggs in the SMR basket would be greeted with consternation within the industry. That is not the way to go forward.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, about the RAB model. That was an important consideration. I was interested in what she had to say about the coalition agreement in 2010, and I still remember the decision made to withdraw support from Sheffield Forgemasters in 2010, which I think was a big mistake. I pay tribute to Sheffield Forgemasters, the work it is now doing and its potential.
On the financing of SMRs, there are plenty of companies which are knocking on our doors saying, “Just give us the green light. We can develop all this. We do not need any public money”. Allow me to be a little sceptical, particularly when it comes to first-of-a-kind development. Coming back to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, about the share of GDP spent on public finances, et cetera, nuclear is one of those areas where you need public and private partnership. Of course we will develop our policies over the next few months, in particular in relation to advanced modular reactors, and look at the best way we can encourage private finance, because clearly we need the private sector to finance the development of AMRs in future. However, at the moment, and we have seen this with Sizewell C, public finance will be involved with the development of SMRs. Public finance is involved.
Clearly noble Lords are impatient for us to get to the end of the current programmes. We have basically inherited GBN’s assessment of SMRs. We cannot intervene now. It is working as hard as it possibly can to get decisions to government very quickly. Of course it is then tied into the spending review process, as it has to be, but the spending review outcomes are going to be known within a very short space of time. I do not accept that we are at risk of falling behind. I know from various discussions that I have had with other countries that there is huge interest in the GBN process. I hope that at the end of the process we will have a decision that will enable us to go forward with confidence and with the huge opportunity of developing a UK supply chain.
On the various contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, I first thank him for all the work he has done in the Midlands, showing the potential that we have in the Midlands, both east and west. He and his colleagues, uniquely, have brought the east Midlands and the West Midlands together, which as he and anyone living in the Midlands will know, is one of the greatest challenges known to men and women. Even though Brum is only a few miles away from Derby and Leicester, pulling them together is hard. He and his colleagues have done that and my department is very interested in the work that he is doing. I have already met him and I hope that he will carry on this work. It is worth saying that we already have huge assets. For instance, at the grid in Warwick, we have great skills and I am sure that we will contribute more in the future. That is probably not a departmental view, but noble Lords will know where I stand on these matters.
On community support, I very much take the point. It is an unknown quantity at the moment. With the existing sites that are listed in EN-6, we know that there was broad support in the local community for the development of new nuclear. We do not really know what the appetite will be in those areas that are new to nuclear. I take the point about the need for communications—mainly by the developers but I accept that the Government have a role. I should say that today we published our Community Benefits and Shared Ownership for Low Carbon Energy Infrastructure working paper for consultation, which may be helpful in encouraging communities to host infrastructure, receiving high-quality benefits in a consistent manner by building on existing voluntary approaches to community benefits.
On the noble Earl’s point about the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan, this will not be limited by EN-6 but will be consistent with it, as it obviously should be in EN-7. He asked about the threshold of 50 megawatts in England and 350 megawatts in Wales. This applies to planning applications, so it would naturally incorporate entire projects and entire sites. We think it unlikely that a developer would split a complex nuclear project into multiple planning applications to try to game the system. If they did, we could call in the applications and treat them as nationally significant infrastructure projects. I think that, given the scale of investment that is concerned, that is very unlikely.
I turn to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I take her point on population density. We had a lot of discussions about that before we published EN-7 and we are continuing to look at it in the EN-7 consultation. Any change we make has got to be broad-based and based on strong evidence. There is obviously a balance between safety, certainty of industry and public confidence. We are still considering this point. We are of course reviewing the national policy statement at least every five years and the review will give us an opportunity to revisit this as evidence develops and we gain experience of community attitudes in, say, urban populations, which we do not really know at the moment.
A very important point was made about water. EN-1 requires applicants to consider water quality and resources in detail, covering both construction and operation. Obviously, they need to engage early with the Environment Agency and water companies, but it is a substantive point. Of course, we have the more general issue of the need to build reservoirs, and I am well aware of some the discussions taking place about this at the moment.
My judgment on Sellafield, having revisited it after a gap of 14 years, is that it has made considerable progress. There is a long way to go, but I pay tribute to the work that is being done, the current leadership at Sellafield and the good relationships it has with the workforce. My judgment is that we need to see Sellafield as part of the future rather than just a legacy of the past. The skills developed at Sellafield—and, generally, in nuclear decommissioning—contribute to the industry as a whole. Confidence in the future and new nuclear depends on our being seen to deal with waste and decommissioning as effectively as possible.
We did not know that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, was such an expert and had such experience. His constructive approach to new nuclear in north Wales is very much appreciated. He has made the point to me, and I very much accept it. He will know that Wylfa offers many attributes; that is why it is listed in EN-6. I also understand the issue about Trawsfynydd and isotope production. Isotopes are a matter for my colleagues in the Department of Health, and I encourage the noble Lord to talk to them about that.
I visited Wylfa in 2009 and met many people in the workforce there. At that point, they were very keen to see nuclear development continue. It is a matter of great regret that the Horizon project fell apart, but we certainly consider Wylfa to be a site that offers many attributes.
On the issue of the sites listed in EN-6 that missed out, we are saying, in essence, that we have those sites and they continue to have much to offer, but we want a more flexible siting to allow more areas to come in. Before this was published, I was very keen not to suggest that, suddenly, the sites we listed in EN-6 were being overlooked, because they are not. Clearly, they offer many advantages.
My noble friend Lord Browne made a number of important contributions. On Scotland, it is interesting that, between 2004 and 2021, nuclear energy accounted for 25% to 43% of annual electricity generation. Scotland has this hugely rich heritage, and it is a tragedy that, at the moment, we cannot see new nuclear developments in that country. Let us hope that we see a change.
My noble friend’s remarks on the COP declaration on nuclear energy—on the risk of proliferation and the security issues that arise—were very important. The COP declaration itself and the addition of a number of countries—which, as he mentioned, was announced in the previous COP—are to be encouraged.
We are strong supporters of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has such a vital role to play on nuclear deproliferation. Its work in Ukraine over the past year or two has been amazing and the people involved in that deserve great credit. The UK is one of its strongest supporters and is acknowledged as such. I have had a series of meetings with the agency to talk about these matters.
I totally agree with my noble friend about the UK’s potential with the SMR programme globally. I know that we need to make progress quickly, but we have not missed, and will not miss, the boat. We have a great opportunity.
I very much take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the energy needs of AI, which will make huge electricity demands but can make great contributions to improving our energy efficiency and the efficiency of the whole energy sector. We want AI to be linked to decarbonised energy. That is what is so exciting about what is happening in the US and the support that companies such as Amazon are giving to AI centres linked to nuclear power stations. We are looking at that carefully. Over the next few months, we want to work to ensure we have policies that make it as easy as possible for these to be developed using funding from private finance. The noble Earl asked me a question about one or two SMRs. He does not really expect me to be in a position to answer that. We will just have to be patient at this point.
Geological disposal is important, of course. EN-7 makes a number of points about waste, its importance and how it needs to be factored into the developers’ considerations and applications. I cannot give timelines on geological disposal. The noble Earl will understand that the Lincolnshire position is difficult at the moment, and we are not absolutely certain about where we are going with that. Clearly, the long-term future in relation to waste is geological disposal, but interim storage is of the highest quality and can assure safety. It fits into the general position. I cannot comment on the CNC role and security issues. All I will say is that security at our existing sites and new sites is crucial.
I fear I am going over my time, but I must refer to the important contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. We are totally agreed on the importance of nuclear energy and safety standards. Let me reassure her that our review of the regulatory system will not put safety at risk. I will make just one point about international collaboration. Surely we can do more to share knowledge and information. If in the US, for instance, a technology has been given approval, there must be ways in which we can have reciprocity. I am convinced of that. In relation to the collaboration between regulators, we need to do much more. A comment was made earlier about the roles of Natural England and the Environment Agency. We have to ensure that these regulators work together and in a timely way.
Perhaps I can pass on oil and gas, as we have debated that many times, but nuclear innovation is very important. The Prime Minister’s visit to the UK National Nuclear Laboratory in Springfields only a couple of months ago was a signal of the Prime Minister’s support for nuclear and our innovation.
I am sorry that I have taken so long, but this has been a really interesting debate. The contributions of noble Lords have been very helpful. They will be carefully considered by my officials before advice is given to Ministers.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I apologise to the Committee. I should have started my speech by drawing attention to my registered interests. I still have a small legacy involvement with a Canadian nuclear company.