Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Jamieson and Earl Russell

Committee stage
Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches we fully recognise the need for nuclear power and nuclear generation to be part of our baseload capacity, which is needed to combine with renewables as we transition to clean power. I have the utmost respect for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, his work and everything that he has done for energy transition. However, I am surprised that he calls these regulations “ludicrous”, “arcane” and “wasteful”. It may be that the broader landscape needs reform and he is able to raise his points with an amendment, but clearly an amendment is not a way to look at the reform of this stuff.

I worry that, were we to rip up regulation in haste, we would repent at leisure. These measures are completely different from the planning process. They are designed for new types of nuclear generation technology, to check whether new designs are safe and fit for purpose. I do not see them as duplicative; they are separate to the operation of the planning system and fulfil different functions. My worry is that, were these two to go ahead in this way, they would serve to undermine confidence in the safety and security of the nuclear processes that we have in this country. Indeed, this is an international standard that is recognised by the ICRP and in the EU and is used around the world.

It takes up to 18 months to undergo these processes, but they start before planning. I do not see exactly how, even if this amendment was successful, it would do much to speed up the new nuclear generation that is needed. The noble Lord’s central argument is that these are duplicative—I do not agree; I think that they are separate—and that passing this amendment would speed up the process of getting new nuclear power. Since the process at issue happens first, I do not think that is the case either.

We will not support the noble Lord’s amendment. Obviously, all regulations need to be kept under review and, if the Government want to do that, we are open to it. However, I do not think that an amendment here is the way—other than to pressure the Government—to look at these things with a broader scope, so we will not support the noble Lord on his amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 53B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, proposes a sensible and pragmatic change to the current requirement that, before a nuclear power station is built, an assessment must be made as to whether the social, economic and other benefits outweigh the health detriment caused by ionising radiation. The amendment seeks to disapply this requirement in cases where planning consent has already been granted.

This change is both timely and necessary. We must look carefully at how to prevent nuclear power projects from being blocked or delayed, especially in the context of a wider energy landscape. Notably, the Government are currently presiding over the highest prices for offshore wind in a decade, which highlights the urgent need for diverse, affordable, reliable and resilient energy sources. Nuclear power stations provide that critical alternative—one that is essential to the UK’s growing demand for electricity in a cost-effective and secure manner.

Noble Lords across the House can agree on the vital importance of nuclear energy to our energy strategy. Nuclear energy remains a cornerstone for delivering a cheap, stable and low-carbon supply of electricity. It is crucial not only to meet our ambitious climate commitments but to safeguard energy security in an increasingly unpredictable world. The reliability of nuclear power provides a steady backbone to the electricity grid. As such, it is an indispensable part of our efforts to build a resilient energy system.

We acknowledge that we need rigorous planning and regulatory processes, but these are already in place for nuclear projects. These processes thoroughly assess health and safety concerns, including the risk posed by ionising radiation. While I might not go as far as some other noble Lords today about “wasteful”, “useless” and “byzantine” regulation, I certainly believe that it is duplicative. We therefore do not need to do it again, if planning consent has already been granted and has already assessed those risks. It would create unnecessary complexity and delays, without delivering any meaningful public benefit.

Where planning consent has already been obtained, following comprehensive scrutiny, it is entirely reasonable to disapply this further requirement. Doing so would streamline the development process, reduce unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles and support the timely delivery of vital infrastructure projects, which are so central to the UK’s energy future. For these reasons, we hope that the Minister has listened carefully to the concerns raised in relation to this amendment.

Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Jamieson and Earl Russell

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Grand Committee

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we are in favour of and support these proposed changes. The original regulations allowed the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning—OPRED—to recover the eligible costs of providing regulatory services from the offshore sector rather than the taxpayer. It is entirely appropriate that those who benefit from these services bear the associated costs.

The regulations before us simply propose to increase the hourly rate for offshore workers: for environmental specialists from £201 to £210, and for non-specialists from £104 to £114. As the Minister said, the current rates have been in force since June 2022 and these regulations have been updated in the past. OPRED has reviewed its cost base and concluded that these revised rates are necessary to reflect today’s costs for regulatory services, calculated in line with His Majesty’s Treasury’s Managing Public Money guidance.

I have had a chance to look through the statutory instrument, the methods used to calculate the costs and the chargeable hours calculations, and they all look fine to me. This is basically an inflationary upgrade, and we are happy to support it to ensure that people who fulfil these specialist, vital jobs are adequately recompensed for their work. I made the mistake of looking at the debate in the other place on this, and I was a little surprised that a simple fees increase managed to be described as ideological and destructive madness driving us closer to economic decline. I wish to make it clear from these Benches that nothing could be further from the truth.

Since we are here, I will ask the Minister a couple of very quick questions. The changes are minor. I recognise that there was no need to consult this time, that industry was informed and that there were no responses, but can I confirm that there is a process for consultation if there are larger changes in future? I notice that a lot of micro and minor industries are associated with this, so will the Minister confirm that, as far as the Government are concerned, there is no cumulative impact of such fee increases on them? I assume that there is not, but I take the moment to check. However, these Benches fully support this basic upgrade in people’s wages.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this may appear to be a narrowly focused measure but it speaks to some wider strategic choices being made—or not being made—by this Government on energy, the environment and industry. It revises the fees charged by OPRED for its regulatory oversight. The current fees have been in place for a while and are being updated in line with revised cost assessments and Treasury guidance for full cost recovery, with the new rates being £210 for specialists and £114 for non-specialists, with the aim of ensuring that the industry, rather than the taxpayer, bears the cost of its own regulation. We on these Benches accept the principle that the polluter pays, and we recognise the importance of cost recovery where it is applied fairly and transparently.

However, although we do not oppose the principle of updating these fees, there are several areas where greater clarity from the Government would be welcome in the broader sense. First, there is strategic clarity. This comes at a time when the Government are shutting down the North Sea oil and gas industry. A windfall tax remains in place and the long-term future of the basin is uncertain. In this context, even modest fee increases risk sending mixed signals. How do these changes align with the Government’s stated ambitions on energy security, net zero and investment in our own homegrown energy?

Secondly, there is investor confidence. The Government may argue that this is a minor adjustment but, for businesses already navigating a complex mix of fiscal and regulatory pressures, predictability matters. Offshore Energies UK has said that the sector could invest up to £200 billion this decade across offshore wind, hydrogen and carbon capture. Can we be confident that the regulatory framework and its associated costs are evolving to match that ambition?

Thirdly, there is the role and future of OPRED. OPRED was designed to regulate the offshore hydrocarbons industry, yet its remit is expanding to include the regulation of net-zero activities, such as offshore wind, hydrogen storage and carbon capture. How will OPRED be restructured and resourced to meet this broader role? Are the cost recovery mechanisms fit for that future?

Fourthly, on fairness across the sector, the Government invoke the “polluter pays” principle, and rightly so, but is this principle being applied consistently across the offshore space? Are our non-hydrocarbon actors, such as offshore wind developers or electricity interconnectors, contributing equitably or is the hydrocarbon sector being left to shoulder a disproportionate share of the regulatory cost?

Fifthly, on employment and skills, the offshore energy sector supports approximately 120,000 jobs across the UK. To preserve and grow the workforce through the energy transition, we need continuity not just in investment but in regulation. What assurance can the Government give that the fee policy is not operating in isolation from the broader industrial skills strategy?

Finally, on transparency, the Explanatory Memorandum notes that OPRED reviewed its costs and consulted with the industry in February 2025 but no responses were received. Should this be interpreted as assent, or does it point to confusion—even disengagement—from an industry uncertain about what to expect from the Government?

In conclusion, although the SI may be modest in scope, it prompts important questions about how we fund and structure environmental regulation in a rapidly evolving energy system. We on these Benches do not oppose the measure, but we urge the Minister to place it within a broader strategic vision—one that balances accountability with long-term investment, climate ambition and energy resilience. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.