National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy Generation

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the very thoughtful speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and particularly to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, on her maiden speech, which was a tour de force. I am sure we will hear much more in the Chamber and that it will create discussion in all parts of the House. I wish her well in her parliamentary career in this House. She will find that being on the Opposition Benches is a little different from being in government—those of us who have never been in government know that even more, but we have to learn to live with it.

I thank the Minister for the manner in which he introduced this debate and, indeed, for his personal commitment to the nuclear industry. We know that what he is doing is very positively motivated to make sure that we get progress. In welcoming this debate, I should perhaps first spell out—some noble Lords will be aware of this —my background in nuclear energy. Many years ago I graduated from Manchester University with a degree in physics, with nuclear physics a key component—although I readily admit that I have largely forgotten that science.

During the university vacation, I worked on the building site of the Trawsfynydd power station, and for 27 years I was the MP for the Caernarfon seat—now part of Dwyfor Meirionnydd, as it has been recast—where Trawsfynydd is of course located. My constituency included the Dinorwig pumped-storage hydroelectric scheme, the third largest in the world when opened and with which I was closely associated during its construction phase. It was built in tandem with the Trawsfynydd and Wylfa nuclear power stations, with a lifespan that anticipated further nuclear energy investment in north-west Wales.

I have been a member of several cross-party parliamentary groupings on nuclear power and a firm advocate for the construction of additional nuclear power capacity, as indeed are two Plaid Cymru MPs in the other House, Llinos Medi and Liz Saville Roberts, who represent, respectively, the areas where Wylfa and Trawsfynydd stations are located. There have been local campaigns to use those two sites for new nuclear generation capacity, and possibly for industries associated with the production of medical radioisotopes needed in the treatment of cancer. I should make it clear that, like other parties, there are members of Plaid Cymru who do not support nuclear energy for a variety of reasons. Over recent decades, the party has accepted the compromise that the two existing nuclear sites should be developed for future nuclear power and associated industries, but with a presumption against the development of greenfield sites for such purposes.

I personally am fully persuaded that nuclear energy has a significantly lower carbon footprint in its electricity generation profile than other sources of electricity. Indeed, it is two orders of magnitude less than coal, oil and gas, and one order of magnitude lower than wind and hydropower. But it is not a question of either/or in relation to such renewables—we need both. Wind, wave, solar and estuarial sources of power certainly have a significant role to play, but in planning modern generation facilities we have to provide a source of energy that meets baseload requirements, and I have no hesitation in advocating nuclear power for those purposes.

It is worth noting that the great Welsh climate scientist, Sir John Houghton, seen by many as the father of the campaign alerting the world to the dangers of carbon warming, who died in 2020, revised his attitude towards nuclear energy in the latter years of his life. A few years before his passing, he came to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that nuclear energy is part of the solution, not the problem, though he advocated in the fifth edition of his book In the Eye of the Storm, published in 2013, that the first port of call for the necessary nuclear material should be from the reworking of existing nuclear weapons. That is a viewpoint with which I have considerable sympathy, although that is of course not the sole source of the necessary nuclear material.

We have, at Wylfa and Trawsfynydd, two sites that are already licensed for nuclear purposes. Decommissioning work commenced some years ago, but both sites will, of course, need to be safeguarded and monitored into the future. In these circumstances, rather than build brand new nuclear facilities on greenfield sites, which will need both new town and country planning authorisation and clearance by the nuclear safety authorities, it seems basic common sense to locate new nuclear generation facilities on these existing sites. This can be achieved more expeditiously and at lower cost.

The original planning application for Wylfa B was in 1989—I emphasise that the application for the second Wylfa station, for which we are still waiting, was given back in 1989. Apparently, the Government have removed the existing list of designated nuclear sites, including Wylfa, from their approved planning policy. I am not quite sure why that has happened.

Their decision to consult on a new planning policy is creating totally unnecessary uncertainty at Wylfa. Surely recognised locations such as Wylfa should be given a swift go-ahead, while any new sites are rightly put through the rigorous planning and safety-check process. As things stand, it seems that the Government are content to see the whole process slowed down to allow the speed of the slowest, most complex site to determine the speed of the entire convoy of new nuclear stations. To my mind, this is an absolute nonsense.

Both Wylfa and Trawsfynydd are ideal locations for new small modular reactors, which we hope will get the go-ahead very soon. I commend Rolls-Royce on its pioneering work. Wylfa could also accommodate a larger nuclear power station—such as an AMR, which we heard about earlier—as its seaboard location gives it a ready source of coolant. Trawsfynydd is constrained by the size of the lake nearby as a source of coolant, so it is probably better suited for an SMR and to radioisotope production facilities.

The Welsh Government have indicated their general support for both locations, though obviously both will need detailed planning consent when firm proposals are mature for consideration. The Senedd has also supported initiatives to see whether a project related to the medical use of radioactive technology could be developed at Trawsfynydd, and I believe that it has allocated £40 million for that initial work.

I remind colleagues participating in the debate that there is an approaching crisis because of the shortage of radioisotopes, both as tracers for the identification of cancers in the human body and for the treatment of such conditions. At present, there is a critical shortage of such material, and the NHS will face a crisis if it is not soon sorted.

There are also several excellent sites for further pump storage schemes similar to Dinorwig but on a smaller scale, one of which has been developed by the site owners—who come from Worcestershire, I am glad to say—who are doing excellent work, at the old Dorothea slate quarry at Talysarn near Caernarfon. This will create much-needed work in the Nantlle valley. I hope that GB Energy will be in a position to give the go-ahead to this and similar pump storage schemes. They are highly relevant, both to nuclear projects, such as Trawsfynydd and Wylfa, and to estuarial, tidal and wind-generated electricity, which is an essential ingredient in the basket of power sources needed to meet current and future demand. This dimension will be greatly expanded by AI and other computer technology, which will require a far greater availability of electricity than that which can be facilitated by existing sources within the grid.

I also point out that Bangor University, located about half way between Wylfa and Trawsfynydd, has a significant level of nuclear expertise. The vice-chancellor Edmund Burke—a fine parliamentary name—came to Bangor from the University of Nottingham and is a physicist himself. He is excitedly awaiting the go-ahead for these sites, with a mission to train the nuclear scientists, technologists and engineers who are much needed for these schemes and, indeed, for other nuclear energy projects in other parts of these islands.

It is against this background that I address the National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy Generation EN-7 before us. It is no doubt full of worthy, carefully considered provisions relating to the rollout of the new nuclear energy programme, but nowhere does this document come anywhere near to conveying the urgency of making decisions on new nuclear, and making them now, if we are to have any chance whatever of meeting our net-zero carbon targets by 2050.

All the environmental, social and legal screening of new projects seems to be geared to slowing down their rolling out. Successive Governments, of both political persuasions, have dithered and prevaricated on this issue for three decades and longer. The time is surely now ripe for firm decisions to be taken. The proverbial Mrs Jones Llanrug, as we say in Wales—or perhaps Mrs Smith of Smethwick, as would be said in the Midlands—has a right to expect that, when she flicks a switch, there will be electricity running through her light bulbs, electric fires and water heaters. If the day comes when she flicks that switch and nothing happens, there will quite rightly be holy hell to pay. It is the duty of this Parliament to avoid shirking, yet again, the vital decisions needed on these matters.

Future generations have the right to expect that we shall generate electricity from a balanced combination of renewable, tidal, estuarial, solar and wind power, underpinned by a baseload capacity of clean, new nuclear sources, including, eventually, electricity generated from fusion technology. I therefore call on the Government to step up to the plate, to grasp the duty that faces them and to announce the approval of a new programme of nuclear power construction with minimal delay. I hope that the Minister, who I know shares our concerns about these issues, is in a position to give news of when such go-aheads will happen, either here today or within a timescale that does not run beyond this parliamentary Session. I hope that he will not disappoint us.

Energy Grid Resilience

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that an essential tool in balancing UK electricity network capacity is the availability of a significant additional number of pumped storage hydro schemes? Will he urge GB Energy to accelerate the pumped storage projects currently under consideration and reconfigure grid capacity to facilitate this?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. I certainly accept that pumped storage energy has a role to play. I shall make sure that Great British Energy is apprised of the views he has taken. He knows that we wish them to operate independently within the strategic framework, which we have debated extensively, but it is a very apposite point, which I will pass on to the chair.

Wales: Nuclear Power Generation

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend and congratulate him on his outstanding leadership in Wales, particularly for the support from the Welsh Government for new nuclear. As far as Wylfa is concerned, I know that it is considered by many to be one of the best potential sites in the UK for new nuclear development. We will set out our plans in due course but, as a Government, we are strongly committed to nuclear energy as an essential baseload to our future mix.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, if the Government are serious about developing nuclear power with urgency in Wales, will they please take a twin-track approach, with priority being given to those sites which already have nuclear accreditation, such as Wylfa and Trawsfynydd, which the noble Lord mentioned, being developed as quickly as possible for climate and energy purposes, and for any other new site, which may need brand new planning safety approval, to be seen as a possible future site geared to economic growth objectives?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I take the noble Lord’s point. EN-7, on which we are consulting, gives us a much more flexible policy on siting, but those sites identified in the current planning statement, EN-6, clearly have very favourable attributes, and this is where I think Wylfa has to be considered. His overall welcome support for new nuclear is to be acknowledged and welcomed.

Scotland: New Nuclear Power Generation

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, there has been a reset and we have been in close discussions with the Scottish Government on a number of energy matters, but the fact is that the Scottish Government are opposed to new nuclear development. I agree with the noble Lord—and Anas Sarwar said it too—that the refusal to allow new nuclear power plants is costing Scotland billions in investment and thousands of jobs, which will go to England and Wales instead. I agree with that, but the fact is that we are dealing with the Scottish Government, who, at this stage, are not prepared to go for new nuclear.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, in view of the difference of opinion on nuclear power in Scotland, demonstrated by both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will the Minister accept that, in Wales, there is a widespread wish to see the former nuclear power stations of Wylfa and Trawsfynydd being used? That brings together the Labour Government in Cardiff and the Plaid Cymru-run local governments in Anglesey and Gwynedd. Given the strong feeling that this should happen, not least in the context of medical isotopes, can the Government give particular attention to bringing investment to those two sites?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the department rejoices in the approach of the Welsh Government, and indeed of the noble Lord. I well understand the potential for new nuclear developments in Wales and think it is a tragedy that the proposals in Wylfa did not go ahead. The noble Lord knows that, in the siting policy currently in play, Wylfa is listed as a site of great potential. The new siting policy is more flexible, but, undoubtedly, Wylfa in particular still has great potential.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I will speak to government Amendment 8 about community energy supplies. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said that, when she was at Eton, there was nobody there who wanted to have a small modular nuclear reactor near to their home. This is something that I think may be more widespread than just Eton. I suspect that many people will be looking at the value of their houses and thinking that if they have a small modular reactor power station nearby, the value of their house may drop.

Therefore, I ask the Minister whether his idea of community energy supplies includes offering either cheap or free energy to people who live in the locality. That would make an awful lot of difference to the acceptability of SMRs—I once again declare my modest shareholding in Rolls-Royce—because then you might well have a situation where a buyer of a house that is slightly close to a small modular reactor gets a deal for either cheap or free energy. It is very important to make these things acceptable to people in the locality. I suspect that, if it is possible for the people who are putting in the small modular reactor to say to people locally that they can have cheap or free energy, that may well go an awful long way to making these things acceptable in a way which they otherwise would not be.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

Before the noble Member sits down, will he address the point that many of the sites that have been earmarked for SMRs are existing nuclear sites? Any effect on property values has probably already happened, and those sites clearly have an appeal for such SMR projects.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I totally accept that fact, and people have certainly got used to having much bigger reactors on those sites and so will not worry about it. I have ambitions, though, for SMRs that go way beyond existing sites. There are not that many of them in this country, and I hope that we will have an awful lot more. When I come to move my amendment later on in the evening, I will be making reference to the fact that we might have a small modular reactor for specific purposes.

--- Later in debate ---

This amendment puts it to Parliament: do we want a slavery-free green transition, or are we content to allow the Government’s objectives to be achieved through forced labour in a state accused by the House of Commons of genocide? It should be inconceivable that the UK, which did so much to end the scourge of slavery around the world, would today accept or be willing turn a blind eye to products made by a state with an imposed system of forced labour. Good does not rest on the shoulders of a wrong. I beg to move.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

I intervene very briefly to support the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, moved. I thank him for the campaign he has run on this issue for several years now, and for the way he has defended those who are enslaved or used in other countries—China in particular, but in other parts of the world as well. It is right and proper that we bear this in mind when we legislate and when we set up an organisation of the sort we are discussing.

I do not think that any of us, in any party in this House, would want to see us benefiting from the sort of suffering that has happened in other countries. The noble Lord mentioned China, but there are other countries where this happens. It is a consideration that should come into the deliberations we have as we build a new organisation with immense responsibilities and resources at its disposal. Those should not—in any shape or form—be used to support people who are being exploited in the way that they are in some overseas countries. I have no doubt that the Government would agree with that as an approach; the question is how we turn it into practice.

In supporting this amendment, I say that I too have links with Siemens. I am sure that we would not want to paint it with a brush of what happened during the war. Many other companies that have emerged in the post-war world would not want to have too much exploration of what happened during the Nazi regime. Having said that, I very much hope that there is some way in which the Government can respond to this amendment and that some guidance can be given to Great British Energy to ensure that no advantage is taken of those who are not in a position to defend themselves.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I offer Green support for Amendment 18 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and a range of other distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House. I will also speak to my Amendment 19, which goes further than the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, but which demonstrates just how moderate and reasonable his amendment is. Your Lordships’ House, the British Government and many parts of British society have long expressed their absolute horror at modern slavery, so surely we can put this into this important Bill, where it is such a crucial issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, identified.

The noble Lord mentioned the Democratic Republic of the Congo and how the issues of modern slavery there, as well as child labour amounting to modern slavery, are very much an issue in terms of the energy supply chain. My amendment refers to

“credible evidence of deforestation or human rights abuses”.

I will take human rights abuses first. Much of what is happening in the Democratic Republic of the Congo might not fit the definition of modern slavery, but it absolutely fits the definition of human rights abuses. I note that I was at a briefing today with the DRC Foreign Minister, Thérèse Kayikwamba Wagner, who gave us the news, which has since been more widely reported, that, sadly, the ceasefire that had been called in the eastern Congo had been broken by M23, backed by the Rwandan Government. We have already seen nearly 3,000 people killed and some 3,000 people injured, and we heard from the Foreign Minister that, sadly, they expect those figures to rise very significantly. These are violent human rights abuses—there is simply no other term.

To tie this to the Great British Energy Bill, it is worth noting that the DRC produces 70% of the world’s cobalt, yet it somehow disappears without trace and reappears out the other side as legal, apparently appropriately sourced material, without any traceable chain to account for that. Of course, the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo do not benefit financially from that. It is others—damaging, dangerous, aggressive forces—who benefit from it.

I wrote the amendment in this particular way because it goes back to the passage of what became the Environment Act, during which a number of noble Lords here today had much the same debate, with the tying together of deforestation and human rights abuses. One of the issues here is that indigenous people are responsible for protecting huge amounts of the world’s forests, and abuse of their rights is very much tied to the destruction of deforestation. I will note just one stat: if deforestation was a country, it would be the third-largest emitter of carbon behind China and the US. Much of that deforestation is of course linked in particular to agriculture. But in the DRC and parts of Latin America in particular, mining and deforestation are intimately linked.

So, your Lordships’ House has before it two amendments. I do not plan to push mine to a vote, but I offer the Green Party’s strongest support to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his amendment. How could we not vote to ensure that there is action on modern slavery?

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 27 I will speak also to government Amendments 28 to 32 and 34. They relate to Clause 5 and the role for the devolved Governments in developing the Secretary of State’s strategic priorities for Great British Energy.

Clause 5 currently requires the Secretary of State to consult respective devolved Governments before including any references to matters within devolved competence in a statement of strategic priorities. Throughout the passage of the Bill, and through positive discussions with devolved Government Ministers, the case has been made to me and my ministerial colleagues that this requirement to consult should be changed to a requirement to obtain the consent of the devolved Governments.

Clearly, it is fundamental to the success of Great British Energy that it can operate across the UK. These amendments, to require the consent of the devolved Governments in relation to matters within devolved competence in a statement of strategic priorities, demonstrate our commitment to close collaboration and a resetting of relationships with the devolved Governments.

As I have previously set out to your Lordships’ House, Clause 5 is not a power to legislate in respect of devolved matters but rather enables the Secretary of State to provide Great British Energy with guidance on where the company should focus its activities. It is clear that we need to work together across the UK to achieve net-zero ambitions and drive economic growth. Given this, and the strength of feeling on this issue in the devolved nations, we have agreed with the devolved Governments to bring forward these government amendments.

I want to state for the record, on the related matter of Clause 6 and the process for issuing directions, our view that, where a direction relates to a matter that is within the legislative competence of one or more of the devolved legislatures, the relevant devolved Government would be considered an appropriate person under Clause 6(3)(b) and would therefore be consulted before a direction was issued by the Secretary of State.

I am pleased to share with the House that Motions for legislative consent for the Great British Energy Bill have been passed by the Senedd, the Scottish Parliament and, this morning, the Northern Ireland Assembly. This is good progress, and I hope noble Lords will agree to support these amendments. I beg to move.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I welcome the progress that has been made on these issues. There will be times when there may be differences of opinion, but on devolved matters it is right that the devolved authorities should have the proper say. I welcome the change being proposed by the Government.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling these amendments on devolution, which I welcome. They follow concerns that we raised in Committee. I emphasise that it is important that consultations on devolution are published. Amendment 27 proposes a significant change to the current wording of Clause 5, and we agree that we need to move away from “consult” to “consent”.

The key tenet here is the Sewel convention, which we know well in this House. It is not a trivial matter of semantics; it reflects the principle that the devolved Administrations must have a genuine say in matters that affect their legislative domain. At the end of the day, the Scottish Parliament in particular has responsibility for significant aspects of energy policy, including renewable energy, energy efficiency and environmental protection. We have mirrored that in Amendment 29 for the Welsh Government.

All in all, we think that by requiring consent from the Scottish and Welsh Governments we can ensure that the energy priorities are developed in a way that respects the distinct needs and perspectives of each nation. I urge the Government to monitor those relationships carefully.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I apologise for coming in late. I am here at the behest of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who apologises to the Committee that she cannot be here to speak in support of Amendment 91, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I very much support the points that he made.

The noble Baroness has asked me to make a brief contribution to the debate. I wholeheartedly agree with the points she has asked me to raise. These relate mainly to the importance of tidal power in both its devices, which we heard analysed a moment ago. Tidal range is one part of the possibility of creating tidal power; tidal stream is the other. Tidal stream has not yet been well developed and that could be something for the future, but tidal range most certainly has been. There is a predictability about it which gives it a tremendous advantage.

Tidal range devices use water height. The differential between high and low levels in the Severn, for example, is an enormously important factor. Using the same principles, there are locations suitable for lagoons as well—certainly around the coastline of Wales, in Swansea Bay and up around Anglesey. I understand that the Marine Energy Council recommends reaching a gigawatt of tidal stream capacity by 2035. This would be an enormous contribution.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke about the possibility that 7% of the UK’s electricity needs could come from the Severn Barrage. That would have the advantage of providing very important construction work, which could make a massive contribution to the south-east Wales economy. Given what has happened recently to the steelworks in Port Talbot, those jobs are very much needed. I hope that the Government will look seriously at this.

The case for this type of electricity generation is overwhelming. I hope the Government will give it the attention it deserves.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly, first to declare my interest and secondly to comment on some of the amendments in this group.

I have sat in the Minister’s chair, so I understand that he will not want to add a long list of exclusions or inclusions to the objects of the Bill. Even with that in mind, I hope that he will have listened carefully to the issues that have been raised. They are important and there is a theme to them.

I support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. Two issues have come out of the debate for me. The case for energy efficiency, insulation and heat pumps was made very powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is important that GB Energy looks to how it can provide a long-term, consistent environment for the policies that each Government pick up and put down. Industry, which has to be a key partner, finds this so frustrating and retrenches from investing in the skills training and expansion that are needed if we are effectively to retrofit the millions of homes in this country.

As we said in the debate on a Question earlier today, this is important not only for carbon reduction. We saw what happened from 2014: emissions from buildings fell by two-thirds after the change in policy. It is therefore really important that someone is boosting this and making sure that it is there for the long term to provide that stable environment. GBE will be in a position to do that, particularly if it is tied in with what we discussed in the Question earlier about the planning framework, again providing a clear and consistent road map for those who will need to invest in this.

The other thing that came out of the debate was that we have to be innovative, look to our strengths and be open-minded about sources of renewable energy. We have to understand that some of those sums that we had in our heads 20 years ago, about the cost of wave power, tidal power or whatever, have changed. They have changed financially but also in other dimensions, such as energy security and our priorities in energy. It is important that GBE is in there supporting those things.

I absolutely support Amendment 17. It may not be for the Bill but, as part of the innovative thinking we need from GBE, we need to look at such things as financial instruments. When we know that solar panels or heat pumps will pay off over the years but people are not going forward with them simply because they cannot afford the capital expenditure, it is important that we look not only at upping the government grant—helpful though that is in some instances. Houses can have mortgages on them for 10, 20 or 30 years. The costs of that investment can be spread in other and innovative ways, so I hope that the Minister can respond supportively to that amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my energy interests in the register. I will speak to my Amendment 19 and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her support of that amendment. This amendment is very straightforward and we have had some discussion already in the second group around cost and the importance of cost and reflecting that, but I will put a bit of a different slant on that.

Noble Lords will be very familiar with the energy trilemma and balancing the competing demands of cost, sustainability and security. Any public organisation that has energy system responsibilities should be focusing on and balancing these objects. We look at NESO, for example. This was set up in the Energy Act 2023 with a cost, sustainability and security duty. Likewise, Ofgem has cost and security considered in its consumer duty and a sustainability duty was added as part of that 2023 Act as well.

However, when I reviewed the objects—I was very grateful for the education provided by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on the difference between objects and objectives and that is certainly something we need to come back to—cost was conspicuous by its absence. My first point is that we really should be considering system alignments and consistency across all those UK energy system organisations in terms of their objects and duties. Cost, sustainability and security should be running as a golden thread through all of them so that all those organisations are aiming at the same thing. Great British Energy is a central player in the energy system. It will be making significant investments of public money and aiming to crowd in private investment. Through these investments it will presumably be aiming to lower the cost of energy, which is a key government objective, as well as decarbonisation and security objectives.

My second point is on the importance of cost. We have already heard about the UK having the highest industrial electricity prices in the developed world. They are now four times those in the US. This not only has the obvious impact on bills but is a real brake on growth. I have spoken to a number of industrial companies recently which want to set up in the UK but cannot make the numbers stack up in their business cases because of our high electricity prices so are taking their business elsewhere. For the Government to achieve their number one mission of economic growth, they need to have a laser focus on reducing electricity prices and I know the Minister and the Government are very focused on this area. I hope the Minister can consider this small change and come back with a government amendment on Report which would really help align GBE with the critical priorities of the Government.

My Amendment 34 seeks to clarify the definition of security of supply. I look at Clause 3 and can see clear definitions for “clean energy”, “distribution”, “fossil fuel” and “greenhouse gas” but cannot see a definition for “security of supply”. Noble Lords have made the point in earlier debates about the importance of energy security. It is important to clarify this term: first, because the definition can be very broad; and, secondly, because it can mean different things to different people.

I have some personal experience here in that I recently chaired an energy security task force for the Midlands region and we spent a fair bit of time debating what we really meant by energy security. It is not as straightforward as it first appears. Many when considering this term would jump straight to fuel security and having sovereign energy so that we are not dependent on foreign states and can avoid the energy price spikes that we saw following the invasion of Ukraine. Of course, there is also price predictability: we could have fuel security but volatile prices remain. System reliability is also key so that people can access energy when they need it. Cybersecurity and physical security are other important aspects.

It is very important that in the primary legislation we are clear on what is meant by terms and help guide stakeholders, including business and industry, on how GBE will undertake its duties. I would welcome some further engagement with the Minister on how the Government would define this term and I again hope that he can consider this and come back with a government amendment on Report.

Finally, my Amendment 20 relates to local area energy planning. Great British Energy could play a really important role in energy system governance and I have been encouraged to hear from the Government the renewed focus on local planning, with a potential role for GBE in local power plans and local area energy plans which could bring in the focus on community energy, spoken to earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux.

Given the role of GBE, the Government have an opportunity with the Bill to set out in more detail how energy system governance will work at a local level. The story of net zero so far has been a top-down one—in essence, central planning from the Government, which needs to be done—but that transition will not succeed unless this is matched by a bottom-up governance approach from local areas to regions to the national level. So much of the knowledge rests in those local areas; for example, the condition of housing stock relating to energy efficiency measures, and local energy infrastructure.

Local area energy plans could be the foundation of how energy system governance is planned and undertaken at a local level. The issue we have seen over recent years with local area energy plans is their patchwork nature. We have many in place but with varying levels of quality and robustness in how they are set out within local authorities. I note that only 31% of local authorities are covered by local area energy plans. These plans need to be delivered to a consistent standard, with robust data and analysis, and consideration should also be given to how this can be aligned to meet the input requirements necessary for regional energy strategic planning to undertake that flow-up of governance.

Three things are needed: guidance from government on what a local area energy plan is, as has already been set out in Wales; funding for stretched local authorities to develop these plans; and an oversight function to co-ordinate and ensure that those local plans are joined up. There is a really good opportunity here. If GBE is the organisation that is going to take on all or some of those roles, setting that out in the Bill would be an excellent step forward in firming up that crucial local governance function to stakeholders, and unlock local planning of energy. I would be grateful if the Minister could perhaps give us more detail on the role of Great British Energy in this area.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I will just intervene very briefly indeed in support of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, with regard to Amendment 34 and the question of system reliability. In my previous incarnation I represented a constituency that had the Dinorwig pumped storage scheme. That scheme was brilliant in terms of being able to help guarantee the availability of electricity when it was needed. Half-time in the cup final was a traditional way of interpreting that, when there was a surge of demand. It had the capability of going from zero to full output in eight seconds.

The economic benefit of that is obvious in having a system that does not need to match the total maximum demand. The peaks of that graph are cut off and equalised in a way that makes a lower capacity, and therefore lower total capital investment, a viable proposition. The point I put to the Minister is this: a number of pumped storage schemes are being developed at the moment. There is a significant number in Scotland, including some of the larger ones, but they are also in Wales. They have been waiting for years to get the necessary information on which to base investment decisions. There is one using an old slate quarry hole in Talysarn in my former constituency. It is raring to go but, until it gets the details of the prices that will apply, it obviously cannot make an investment decision. We are talking about tens of millions of pounds, possibly hundreds of millions, and a benefit to the overall system.

In responding, can the Minister give any comfort by way of the timescale by when the framework for such decisions can be made? We really need to get on with it. I am quite sure that those in charge of Great British Energy will also need this information.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have always been a great supporter of small nuclear reactors, because it strikes me that they have the enormous advantage of supplying a locality and not getting involved, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, with massive transmission costs. That would be all cut down, which has enormous advantage. Of course, Rolls-Royce is making small nuclear reactors to go into submarines, so we are probably better on the technology than most other people might be.

I have always had a worry that local people would react adversely to a planning application for a small nuclear reactor, because they would see it as devaluing their houses. Despite all-party support in Parliament, this will not stop local concerns raising their heads. I refer back to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said on that. I thought the answer was quite simply to offer people in the locality free electricity, and so immediately they would have an advantage. But from what the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said when speaking to his amendment, that would not actually work. That is why I want to be absolutely clear about this. He seemed to say that wiring up all the local houses to the nuclear reactor—oh, he is shaking his head. Now I am confused. Could the noble Lord intervene and explain what he meant?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I very much take that point. Clearly, my department is cognisant of costs. Much of our discussion with His Majesty’s Treasury on the resources made available obviously takes in those constraints. The point I made earlier is simply that we believe—and we are supported by NESO, the Committee on Climate Change and the OBR—that the best way to secure stable prices in the future is to charge on to clean power net zero.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

Could the Minister give some comfort to those waiting to invest in pumped storage schemes about the timescale on which information will be available to enable them to do so?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord chapter and verse today but will certainly write to him with what we can say in public.

Great British Nuclear: Modular Reactors

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord will know that we have already agreed internationally to go for a 2030 cut-off. I have had correspondence from the noble Lord and I know that others would argue that we should bring it forward, as the US has wanted to do. We are in very serious discussions about that.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, the Minister will know about the global shortage of radioisotope supply for treating cancer. Is he aware that the Welsh Government, in co-operation with the Egino company, have financed a feasibility study into establishing a radioisotope production plant on the existing Trawsfynydd nuclear site, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jones, referred a moment ago, and for which an SMR would be highly relevant? Does he accept that such a project would help meet the UK healthcare needs, facilitate valuable exports, help the existing nuclear site to be managed and provide much-needed high-grade jobs? Please will he link up with colleagues in Cardiff to see what can be done on this through GB Nuclear?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand the point the noble Lord is raising. My department is exercised by the advantage that could be brought. We are in discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government and my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care. I cannot say at this stage whether we can bring this to a successful outcome, but I certainly see the merits in what he is arguing.