Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit and Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Debate between Lord Vallance of Balham and Lord Moynihan

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the Committee to introduce these regulations. I am particularly pleased to be opposite him for the first time on these issues. I hope we will have many similar exchanges in the years to come. I am glad to say that, on this occasion, we are in agreement. There is little I can add to the excellent contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

A strong, independent nuclear safeguards regime is vital for our civil nuclear industry to function effectively. However, the Government must support nuclear site operators and other nuclear industry partners to ensure that they are not placing unworkable burdens on the nuclear industry. As the Minister said in his introduction, the instrument will implement most of the recommendations from the post-implementation review in 2019, so it is largely Conservative Party policy.

The Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are the current regime used to demonstrate that civil nuclear material is not unlawfully diverted into military use. Also relevant are the Nuclear Safeguards (Fees) Regulations 2021, which regulate the fees payable by operators to the Office for Nuclear Regulation—ONR. This instrument will amend both to remove regulations related to the transition from Euratom, as both previous speakers have said, which are no longer applicable or do not apply to the UK context. We agree with that.

A new offence corrects an oversight, when the NSR 19 was originally implemented, relating to non-compliance with the requirements of the particular safeguards provisions. We also support that. An offence has been added related to non-compliance, with a new provision requiring operators to declare to ONR where there is a change in the type of facility. It also ensures that the regulator has a sanctions regime for non-compliance.

The main change, as the Minister made clear to the Committee, is to replace Euratom’s basic technical characteristics—BTC—questionnaire, which assesses how nuclear site operators account for their nuclear material, with the IAEA’s design information questionnaire, or DIQ. It also reduces the design information changes reporting time, as the Minister stated, from 30 to 23 days. He also stated that it requires operators to give the ONR more notice of imports, from four to seven days, and of exports, I believe from seven to 13 days. I may have missed that in the Minister’s comments, but I understand that that is the case.

It was interesting to see concerns over some of the changes made by nuclear site operators and other nuclear industry parties who were consulted. This includes changes to notification timings for the import and export of nuclear material, with operators questioning why the ONR needed more time to report this information to the IAEA, and the adequate number of staff needed to fulfil accountancy and control plans for nuclear material, with operators concerned that this was not clear enough, having previously questioned the rationale for the plans. Maybe the Minister will be able to comment on that.

In summary, the impact of the costs on business will be about £200,000 to £300,000. The transition period for changing forms from BTCs to DIQs was lengthened, with the ONR still accepting BTCs for the first year and DIQs for the second year. The notification timings for reporting design change, imports and exports were also amended to give operators more time than originally proposed, while still increasing the time the regulator has to quality assure. This instrument introduces changes largely supported by the consultees and initiated by the previous Government, as I mentioned. Therefore, we thank the Minister and are supportive of the proposals he brought before the Committee.

I have a question related to his portfolio. Events of recent days have suggested that the energy Bill may be delayed. I do not imagine that the Minister can possibly comment on that, but I suggest to him that that would be regrettable because the Fingleton recommendations are really important. It would be helpful to the Committee if he could comment on that, if he is in a position to. I am grateful to the Minister and conclude by reinforcing my support for the recommendations he brought forward.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for the support and the useful additional questions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his wish to be opposite me for a long time. I cannot make any guarantees on that.

I agree with some of the points made, which largely support what I said. As I said, these amendments strengthen our position and make things easier. They will support trade and operations that are central to the sector’s work. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked why there is a gap in closing the offences part. The answer is that a statutory instrument was needed to do that, and this is a statutory instrument to achieve that. It is important that we are now closing those gaps. These amendments remove what has been a long transition agreement that really is not needed any more, given where we are domestically. The industry has largely welcomed this.

By bringing our design reporting requirements in line with those of the IAEA, we will make it simpler for both domestic and international new entrants to the market. That includes, on the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the SMRs, which are crucially important for where we go next.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised operator concerns. There is no doubt that the operators expressed some concerns about the move, for example, to use the IAEA questionnaire so quickly. We listened to that and introduced a longer transition period, to give them a chance to familiarise themselves with the process and to develop the new reporting format. Importantly, the ONR will work very closely with them to facilitate that change. It now has a year of the old system and then two years to make the transition.

Similarly, when operators noted concern about the timelines for reporting—an important point that both noble Lords picked up—there was no time allocated to the ONR. Strictly speaking, the operators could go right the way up to day 30 and hand the information over to the ONR. It then had to get it in by day 30, otherwise it was in breach of our international obligations. Initially, the proposal was to give half and half. We listened to the concerns and changed it so that the ONR will take five working days and the operators have the rest. That is an appropriate and proportionate response to the concerns.

It is particularly important that, as a nuclear weapons state, we demonstrate that we are complying with these safeguards and do not have any mechanism to divert civil nuclear material for military use. This will strengthen our ability to do so. In making these safeguards, we will encourage other states to follow suit, which will support the wider non-proliferation regime.

Two extra questions were asked. On the question about the SMR rollout, which I have partially answered, I can absolutely reassure the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it is a high priority for us to get that moving. I do not believe that what is in here in any way impedes our ability to do that quickly. That leads on to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised about what we are doing on the Fingleton review. That legislation will be introduced in this parliamentary Session. We are committed to try to drive the Fingleton recommendations through to completion by the end of next year, as we said when they were first introduced.

I hope that answers the questions that noble Lords have raised and that I have provided the necessary assurances to allow them to approve the regulations before us today.

High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors

Debate between Lord Vallance of Balham and Lord Moynihan

Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

The point raised about the heat production of HTGRs is very important. This is not just about the electricity; it is about the heat and what can be done with it. It is why we are keen to encourage advanced modular reactors in the UK. There is also an opportunity to make them much smaller and to site them in different places, which will free up the link directly to industrial purposes. The advanced nuclear framework lays this out very clearly and encourages the private sector and others to join in putting forward new technologies.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, given that the Minister has mentioned new technologies, is he aware that the Japanese high-temperature gas-cooled reactors operating at 950 degrees—he mentioned the importance of heat—produce hydrogen at scale and at reasonable cost? Would it not be beneficial to co-operate further with the Japan Atomic Energy Agency on multi-purpose nuclear heat applications, especially hydrogen production, using its high-temperature engineering test reactor, since the low-cost production of energy should be our overall policy objective?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

We have had two collaborations with the Japanese over the last couple of years, one on HTGRs and one on coated fuels, and we have an ongoing one on robotics. The point made about heat production is crucial. The Japanese, through our collaboration with them through UKNNL, have the demonstrator HTGR ready to go in 2028, specifically focused on hydrogen. We will keep in close contact with them over that, because that production of green hydrogen through nuclear is a very interesting opportunity.