National Policy Statement for Fusion Energy Generation

Debate between Baroness Curran and Earl Russell

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for a very substantial debate, and I very much appreciate the comments they have made. If I may begin with the very last comment made by the noble Lord, I can assure him that my view as a Minister, which I would be certain about, is that comments made in Parliament have very significant status. Particularly given the detailed consideration that has been given here today, I can guarantee that that will be fed into the concentration process; it will be given special status, because it is from Parliament, and it will feed into forming the view that the Government take to respond to that. I also thank the noble Lord for recognising that some comments here today are very detailed indeed, and I may not respond to all of them, but I guarantee that I will come back in detail to them and feed them in.

I also appreciate the noble Lord’s ingenuity because, in every engagement I have with him on the broadest range of energy topics, he squeezes in Jackdaw and the court case that is going on today. I recognise that, but he does that in great spirit because of his commitment to the issue, rather than for any other reason.

I will just make two broad points before I go onto the detail in front of me. The first is on the broad issue of planning. I recognise the substance of what the noble Lord said about planning issues and their relevance to the whole energy field. I think I have said in Parliament before that, in a previous life when I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament and when it was of a different persuasion, I was a Planning Minister. I took the importance of planning very seriously, as a mechanism to protect and support, but also as an opportunity. We need good, balanced planning systems. When regimes do not have that, often business does not thrive either, so planning needs that balance. It is there to facilitate and encourage, not for red tape. For this Government, it is not there to smother business in any way whatever. We want a lively planning system that is the servant of economic growth and development to make sure that we have coherence in the system and a level playing field, and that people have stability. That is part of what today is about: it is to give that coherence and stability, so that investors can have confidence that they know what the framework is, rather than haphazard, piecemeal support. I will engage with the noble Lord’s substantial points and look at them again, and make them a theme of how we look at the consultation.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, as he always does, made very substantial points about the link to clean energy, and the need to support the renewables industries and recognise the myriad challenges that we face at the moment. I assure him that we will continue on that journey and have many discussions about this. This is one part of that journey, but it does not take us off that path, because we know that this is a longer-term issue, not an immediate solution, and we will not argue that it is or put it forward as such.

I will now try to address some of the other points that were made that I have not addressed yet. Some of your Lordships made similar points, so forgive me if I reference one noble Lord and not another. I will make sure that I respond in writing to anything that I have not picked up.

My noble friend Lord Khan made a very useful, interesting and important contribution to this debate, and raised some very significant and substantial points. The regulatory framework around waste is vital, and I will address the point about public opinion and how we engage the public on this. The UK already has a robust regulatory framework in place, governing the treatment, storage and disposal of intermediate and low-level reactive and other harmful waste. We are recognised as having that as well. EN-8 requires developers to demonstrate how waste from their fusion facilities will be managed safely and in accordance with all existing legal and regulatory requirements, the right construction, operation and decommissioning.

The Government will continue to consider how waste from fusion facilities will be managed as the sector develops, which links to the very important point that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised about engagement with local communities and the public more broadly. The broader public are, understandably, perhaps not terribly well versed in the details of fusion energy, so we have a responsibility as the Government to be clear about what fusion is and that it is different from fission, and that, even with both energies, we have robust safe regulatory regimes in place. It is important that Parliament questions that thoroughly—that is why this process is so important—but we need to find mechanisms to ensure that local communities get the benefit of that but understand that planning gives them that protection and confidence. I take that point seriously.

I also welcome the support from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for enabling thermo-generating fusion plants to be considered as nationally significant infrastructure projects. I think that was also said by my noble friend Lord Khan.

The theme of regulator capacity came out quite significantly. Of course, we have looked at the committee report and will respond properly and in full. The Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive are heavily experienced in this sector. They have successfully regulated fusion facilities for decades, having, for example, regulated the JET facility at the UK Atomic Energy Authority in Oxfordshire. The Government will continue to fund these regulators to further build their fusion capability and provide access to subject experts at the UK Atomic Energy Authority. We will continue to support early engagement with developers and knowledge building across the planning and regulatory system and engage with investors to ensure they can have confidence that the skills and understanding capacity are there.

On fusion timelines and energy production, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, also mentioned that the timing of fusion energy will not impact short-term climate goals, which I recognise. It is unlikely to make material impact until the 2040s. However, the benefit of fusion energy development remains, with jobs, inward investment and the development of technologies, such as high temperature superconducting magnets, all adding to the UK’s economy well before the fusion energy does—notwithstanding the general points the noble Earl made about clean energy. In the longer term, as energy demand increases, as the noble Earl recognised, fusion will become a more invaluable source of baseload energy.

As my noble friend Lord Khan highlighted, non-proliferation and liabilities are vital issues that we are required to address. Although they are important, these are not strictly planning matters, which is why EN-8 does not directly address them. Outside of planning, the Government have committed in the fusion strategy to clarify third-party liabilities for fusion and believe that the conventional insurance market, rather than the nuclear market, is the most proportionate approach. The Government are engaging with the insurance market to understand the risks of fusion and develop bespoke insurance products. As part of this, the Government have also committed to identifying, by autumn 2027, a proportionate mechanism to ensure that decommissioning facilities can be met by fusion operators, rather than falling to the public.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised questions about STEP. I am happy to confirm that STEP is progressing well, and we still expect government investment in fusion to support over 10,000 jobs by 2030. Alongside that, we have invested £50 million into skills development through the FOSTER programme. STEP, as well as demonstrating that fusion is commercially viable, acts as a demand signal to the wider fusion supply chain. Earlier this year, a number of contracts were placed with the STEP programme, including the construction partners and magnet engineering partners. We know that there is much to do. It is a very large project, but we are ambitious. As we have recognised, we have got a lot of status in this, and we have to remain ambitious.

I also take this opportunity to note, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, set out, that the new strategic spatial energy plan is at the heart of the Government’s vision for our power system and will set out the blueprint for our future energy system. The UK’s fusion strategy commits to including fusion within that when fusion technology is sufficiently mature.

Moving on to water, I can confirm, and assure noble Lords, that water use is obviously an important planning consideration. Fusion energy infrastructure may use water for cooling, but this water is returned—just at a slightly higher temperature—and this is tightly controlled by environmental regulation. EN-8 will require applicants to set out their proposed cooling systems and apply the mitigation hierarchy to any significant environmental impacts. As I have said, obviously they are required to look at local impact considerations, including the social and economic impacts on local areas. As was said, it is vital that local communities understand that it is not just a government imposition and that they see the benefit.

I can also assure noble Lords that we have always been open to collaboration with the EU and other international partners, and that remains the case. We will continue to work on that.

I will address the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, as best I can. I think we all recognise that fusion is a fundamentally different technology to nuclear fission, with a different hazard profile. A dedicated national policy statement is therefore the most appropriate way forward, because this is so significantly different and has to be understood by the public to be so. We need an appropriate regime to provide a clear and proportionate planning framework for fusion that supports commercialisation while maintaining robust protections for workers, the environment and communities—and gets that balance right. EN-8 offers a better balance for investors and communities.

The fusion sector itself called for this national policy statement, and the responses to the public consultation are supportive. Of course, we will look at those along with the comments raised today. We will address that point. The Planning Act was updated last year to streamline the consenting process, in July new guidance covering all key stages of the process was published, and the Planning Inspectorate is redesigning its services to support the implementation of these reforms. This will include providing bespoke and technical advice to applicants, including fusion developers, at the early stages of the consenting process. I hope that addresses some of the issues that were flagged.

The national policy statements will now be reviewed and either updated or withdrawn at least every five years to ensure that they remain appropriate and reflect the Government’s priorities and ambitions. As I said, the Government will reflect on the committee’s report on the wider planning framework and respond. I very much appreciate the range of comments that were made today and the recognition of the opportunities that this energy can provide. We hope to address your Lordships’ very significant points.

Fusion has the potential to contribute to our long-term energy security, support both near-term and long-term economic growth, create highly skilled jobs and—as has been said—strengthen the United Kingdom’s position in a technology of the future. We are already a world leader in this. Through our fusion strategy, we are taking the steps needed to translate that scientific and regulatory leadership into long-term economic, commercial and strategic advantage. We see EN-8 as an important part of that approach, building on our global leadership by ensuring that the planning framework in England and Wales is ready to support the safe and sustainable deployment of fusion energy in a way that supports innovation and investment. As part of that process, we also listen to communities, business and industry.

I thank noble Lords for their comments. If I have missed any specific issues, I will reply later. I am sure that we will continue to discuss some of those broader themes.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I apologise for intervening. I really appreciate those responses, but my point about water and collocation was not just about the fusion plants themselves. Since the Government have collocation at the heart of their documents and plans, and that includes AI data centres and other industries with very water-intensive use, it would be good to have further consideration of other processes of desalinisation, if circumstances allow. This is not something that the Minister needs to respond to me on now, but I recognise that for fusion it would be abstraction of water and there are regulations around returning that, but with this abundant energy there comes possibilities for doing things that we have not done before. I leave that there.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl for that point. I will not respond specifically on desalinisation now to make sure that I get a proper briefing on it first. It may cover a broader issue. I take the general point, however: we live in technologically changing times; there is a lot of excitement about that and huge opportunities, but it raises significant questions. We raised this on the Floor of the House and have seen some very significant debate around it internationally. It is a legitimate question, and one we must keep on the agenda. I will respond to the specific question that he raised.

Gwyndod Project

Debate between Baroness Curran and Earl Russell

Thursday 29th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

That was interesting and challenging, as ever, from the noble Lord. I do not know how well people know this, but I am not really on record as being frightened to upset the Scottish Government—I do not think they would have that view, either.

The noble Lord raises a very serious point. There have been discussions about nuclear power in Scotland. The Green Party had a debate at their conference, and it has resisted it, unfortunately, and the SNP has stood against it. They have missed huge opportunities to contribute to the development of clean energy in Scotland and across the UK. They are also turning their back on huge opportunities for investment and infrastructure development, and the development of skills. Of course, we have high standards of safety and security, overseen by independent regulators, and we have made enormous progress on this. The SNP has been very backward in its attitude, so I will use every opportunity I can to pursue this issue with the SNP Government—and I am not frightened to do so.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches, we very much welcome the progress that has been made on this important project at Gwyndod. I ask the Minister to give some further information on the skills pipeline needed. We recognise that there is the opportunity of 300 apprenticeships and 3,000 jobs, but what action are the Government taking to ensure that local Welsh residents, including Welsh speakers, are able and empowered to apply for these jobs and that they turn into long-lasting opportunities?

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

It is really important to make the point, too, that Wales must be part of this. Often, we have seen projects in the past that have not emphasised that connection to the local community, and we must take those opportunities to do that—so I agree with noble Earl’s emphasis on that. Also, as the Chancellor, John Healey, said yesterday, we must make investment work twice, and we need to make sure we do that in the energy department too, so we get a skills bonus as well as a delivery bonus. We agree that it must represent the most significant industrial investment in the region in Wales for a generation. As I have said, it will support 3,000 jobs. There is a nuclear skills plan, focused not simply on growing the nuclear workforce but on creating a strong, sustainable pipeline of skills, and it is something we will keep under close attention.

Jackdaw Gas Field

Debate between Baroness Curran and Earl Russell

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we recognise the logic of this decision, but approving a new gas field in a climate crisis is proof that Britain has not moved nearly fast enough to cut demand for gas in our homes and transport. Jackdaw was licensed decades ago. The decision is late because the Conservative Government failed to do the necessary preparations, and North Sea workers in the industry have paid the cost ever since. We accept that gas will be needed for decades during the transition, but burning fossil fuels causes climate change, and this summer’s wildfires and heat waves show us the true cost.

Although we could have properly invested in our transition towards cleaner, cheaper and more efficient energy, successive Governments—some more than others —have instead left the UK in a state of energy insecurity. By scrapping insulation schemes, the Conservatives built around 1.6 million homes to lower efficiency standards, costing families in those homes an extra £5 billion in bills between 2017 and 2025. The Conservatives also blocked onshore wind and cancelled zero-carbon homes, leaving us far more exposed to ever-rising global gas prices.

The Conservatives and Reform still talk about the North Sea as though it were a magic lamp. The fact is that it is a basin in terminal decline. The Conservatives’ latest so-called evidence is the Onward report, which Carbon Brief’s fact check found assumes that gas prices will fall back to pre-war levels and stay there for 20 years. One Imperial College professor said that the modelling

“has more holes than a Swiss cheese”.

Even on its own terms, it would mean an extra 524 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide and slower electrification. The Climate Change Committee estimates that a single fossil fuel gas spike on the scale of 2022 could cost as much as the net additional cost of reaching net zero across every year to 2050.

Jackdaw will not bring energy bills down. It can only add to the margins of our energy security. Jackdaw can play a short-term role only if it displaces the most polluting LNG and if it leads to more technological green investment. What guarantees are there that this will happen? Will the Government publish the evidence and report on it each year?

Rosebank, on the other hand, is different. The vast majority of it is oil and is sold on the international market, so it will not lower our bills, and the evidence shows that it fails the climate test. We await that decision and we will hold the Government to account.

The Government have also said that tax revenues will go into the new energy wealth fund to invest in green technology, which we welcome. However, the OBR forecasts North Sea tax receipts falling from £4.1 billion in 2025-26 to just £100 million by 2030-31—a 98% drop that Jackdaw cannot reverse. How will Parliament know how this money is spent?

The real answer to energy security is having homegrown renewable power the price of which we control and electrifying everything at speed. This Government are slipping ever further behind. Labour cannot argue that we need more gas because we failed to transition at speed while slowing their own electrification ambitions. The vehicle mandate requires 80% of new cars to be electric by 2030. Reports suggest that Ministers are leaning towards cutting that target to 60%. Does the Minister accept that this would be a disaster, sending the wrong signal to manufacturers, charge point investors and drivers? I ask the Minister to rule out any weakening of the 2030 target and to say when the review will report.

The target for heat pumps has been cut from 600,000 a year by 2028 to 450,000 by 2030. We are among the slowest in Europe because electricity costs are so much higher than gas. On insulation, the warm homes local grant has upgraded just 5,470 homes as of July—0.1% of the 5 million target by 2030. The Government must commit to a national electrification strategy and to a 10-year emergency home upgrade programme, starting with free insulation for the lowest-income households.

I welcome the commitment in the Statement to take levies off electricity bills, but Ministers have committed to remove only two-thirds of the renewable obligation and for just three years. We must remove it fully and decouple the price of electricity from that of gas.

I am concerned that new North Sea production, airport expansion and new data centres are adding emissions, while developing the grid, electric vehicles and heat pumps are falling behind. When will the Government receive the Climate Change Committee’s advice and will they commission a fundamental new assessment of our carbon budgets? The just transition is not delivering for North Sea workers and their communities. Labour should establish the just transition commission that we have called for.

Jackdaw must be the very last. This may be a pragmatic decision, but it must not become a precedent. The only lasting route to security and human survival is to enable the end of our addiction to oil and gas.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Baroness Curran) (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for those substantial contributions, and I will do my best to address them as much as I can. I am sure we will have countless opportunities to address them again.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, began by mentioning a number of other North Sea oil and gas projects. As noble Lords will know, I cannot comment on other projects as they are undergoing relevant quasi-judicial processes. However, I lodge the general point that he made, and I am sure it is one that we will continue to discuss.

On Sea Lion, as the Government have said in this Chamber before, the Government maintain a consistent position on the right of the Falkland Islands to develop its natural resources. This is integral to its right of self-determination, which is grounded in international law. UK oil and gas licensing policy does not apply in the Falkland Islands.

I turn to some of the noble Lord’s general points, and I want to be absolutely clear. He began on quite a positive note. I did get some congratulations, so I register my appreciation of that, even if it did not last very long. The North Sea remains a vital asset. It supports jobs, communities and our energy security. Even on the path to net zero, the UK will still require oil and gas for decades to come as we make the clean energy transition.

I think the fundamental disagreement between our positions today is that—I return to the challenge that the noble Lord has given me—he failed to mention the challenge of climate change. After the summer that we have had and all the signs that surround us, I think that is a dereliction of duty. We cannot look at just the production of gas and how we consume gas. We have to look at our carbon emissions, and we have to have a plan to deal with that. That is why this plan, this decision, is vital.

Jackdaw will start supplying gas to British homes and businesses in the coming weeks. At its peak, it is expected to increase UK domestic gas production by around 6%. It is a meaningful production, but it is still in line with our climate change commitments. Those climate change commitments are central to the policy of this Government, which is why our approach to the North Sea goes hand in hand with our ambitions for a managed, orderly and prosperous energy transition. As confirmed by the Prime Minister, who I agree with—and noble Lords should wait until the Prime Minister or any Minister makes formal decisions—this Government will hold to the target of reaching net zero by 2050 to meet the climate challenge and transition from fossil fuels to renewables and nuclear.

Let us be clear that the Jackdaw project will not prevent the UK being able to meet its legally binding limits on carbon emissions or achieving net zero by 2050, but, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, indicated, Britain is a price taker, not a price maker. The price we pay for gas is determined ultimately by international markets, so while domestic production supports our energy security, producing more gas cannot, by itself, protect British consumers from volatile international prices. That is the charge I return to the noble Lord. He talked about the challenge of relying on renewables, but he does not take responsibility for the impact that volatile gas prices and their knock-on effects have had on British consumers.

We talk about developing the North Sea and continuing to do so. I remind the noble Lord that under the previous Tory Government 70,000 jobs in the North Sea were lost, which indicates that there are challenges there. Just increasing production there cannot be seen as a solution.

I turn to some of the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I appreciated his introduction to his questions, which was quite interesting. We have heard very little from the Conservatives about the Onward report, and very little about their cheap energy plan. These have been questioned quite significantly in relation to the thinking and the figures behind them, but I am happy to return to that discussion if the noble Earl wishes to do so. He indicated some very useful stats in relation to that.

The noble Earl mentioned the energy wealth fund, which was announced alongside the Jackdaw decision. Its purpose is to use Britain’s energy wealth today to invest in the clean energy industries of the future. It will invest in renewable and low-carbon energy infrastructure across the UK, helping to unlock growth and supporting the low-carbon economy.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, also talked about the zero-emissions vehicles mandate. On 14 August, the Government launched the mandate review consultation, which sought views from the public and stakeholders to consider the ZEV mandate and ensure that it is fit for purpose. The consultation forms an important part of the long-committed mandate review and has just closed. As your Lordships know, the Government have a long-standing commitment to publish that review to ensure that we are taking a pragmatic and balanced approach to the transition for transport. The Government launched the consultation so that views from stakeholders and the public could properly inform the review. No policy decisions have yet been made, but I assure noble Lords that the Government remain committed to the zero-emissions vehicle mandate.

The noble Earl also mentioned the warm homes plan. The warm homes plan represents the biggest ever programme of home upgrades in history and is already helping households to cut their energy bills, through solar panels, batteries, heat pumps and insulation. On heat pumps, to which he referred specifically, under the boiler upgrade scheme, the Government have supported over 90,000 heat pump installations and issued over £600 million in grant funding to homes in England and Wales.

I take the general point the noble Earl made about the renewables obligation, the work that we have done on that and the de-linking that we need to undertake in this country. Britain has already moved from gas setting the price of electricity for about 90% of the time in the early 2020s to around 60% today. So we are on that journey, and it is a journey that we want to continue to be on. Through the Government’s clean energy mission, it is estimated that gas will set the wholesale price for around half the time in 2030.

I return to the general point about the decision itself. The Jackdaw decision is fundamental to the decisions that we are making as a Government. It does not affect prices, but it will help with production and give a small but meaningful contribution to energy security. I re-emphasise that Britain has a secure gas system that has consistently met demand, including during periods of global market disruption, and will continue to do so this winter. We have also emphasised the economic benefits to Britain. The developer estimates that Jackdaw will support nearly 300 jobs and contribute around £2.9 billion to the UK economy. I am very pleased that most noble Lords have welcomed the decision today, for which I thank them.

Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas Fields

Debate between Baroness Curran and Earl Russell

Monday 7th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Curran) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his warm welcome. We know each other, and I know that we both welcome robust discussion—which is just as well because I think we will have a few disagreements along the way. He made reference to the enormous contribution of my noble friend Lord Whitehead to this portfolio and the work that he has done. I have learned a lot, and will continue to learn a lot, from my noble friend.

On the substance of the issue the noble Lord raises, he will know that the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields are each subject to a live regulatory process. The public notice period is closing on 10 and 17 August respectively. We are part of that regulatory process. The Secretary of State will consider the representations received and make separate decisions on each project in due course. It would be inappropriate to comment further on either project because it is important to maintain the robustness of the process and not pre-empt or predetermine the decisions.

I note the detail of what the noble Lord asked me in relation to the Falklands. I refer him back to the comments of my noble friend Lady Winterton, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on that.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness on her appointment, and I look forward to working opposite her. I also pay tribute to the outgoing noble Lord, Lord Whitehead.

I know the Minister is unable to comment before the decision, so instead I ask if she agrees with me that the Onward report, through which the Conservative Party has argued that we should abandon our net zero targets and could save £320 billion, is not worth the paper it is written on, as it is based on an incorrect underlying assumption that future gas prices will be low and stable and would result in an extra 524 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl for that question and for his welcome, and I pay tribute to his work on this issue in the House. Again, I have learned a great deal and will continue to do so from listening to his speeches. I recognise and appreciate the point being made about the Rosebank and Jackdaw decisions. I recognise the interest in them, but I cannot be drawn on that.

On his wider point, the noble Earl is right about the Onward report, the general disappointment people feel at the breaking of the consensus we have seen from the Conservative Party over recent months, and how significant that is. He will know that climate scientists and energy industry bodies have overwhelmingly challenged the report’s methodology and logic as applied to grid and infrastructure costs, and how it has costed the high volatility of gas along with its political and economic costs.