Nuclear Fuel Manufacturing

Clive Betts Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Welcome, everyone, to this session at Westminster Hall. It is good to see you all in person. To begin with, I need to remind everyone of the guidance. It is not my guidance; it is Government guidance and guidance approved by the House of Commons Commission, encouraging all Members to wear masks when they are not speaking. Please will Members and members of staff give each other space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room? Also, could Members’ speaking notes be sent to Hansard by email, please? Similarly, could officials communicate electronically with Ministers? I understand that Ministers can read emails and texts, so that should not be a particular problem, and it helps to make sure that we follow the guidance. Thank you all for your co-operation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Menzies]

Indeed. If I may comment without embarrassing the right hon. Lady, she is a true champion of the workforce in her constituency, and she never misses an opportunity to make the case for investment in her area and champion that technology.

However, this new technology can be achieved only if the Government set out their vision for the UK’s future SMR fleet, including a regulatory framework and site proposals.

On SMR and AMR, I welcome the investment, particularly from the United States, but a way for investors to demonstrate their commitment is for them to promise to manufacture fuel in the United Kingdom. I strongly believe that a commitment to produce UK fuel for UK reactors must include all future UK projects and the possible transition of existing EDF contracts to Springfields. To achieve that, it would be a huge step forward if the Minister held meaningful discussions with EDF and US investors to work towards gaining such assurances on future contracts and to move some of the present contracts to the UK.

There are many ideas about the next phase, but one is that Framatome could manufacture at Springfields under licence, or that Westinghouse could manufacture Framatome fuel under licence, which would help to bridge the gap without a major renegotiation of EDF contracts. Indeed, having discussed this possibility—only yesterday, in fact—I know that EDF would be open to having a requirement for UK-manufactured fuel written in to contracts, as it works to solidify the long-term future of its key UK operations. EDF actually wants that clarity and certainty, which would go some way to securing Springfields.

As mentioned, there are huge opportunities on the horizon, but without the go-ahead from the Government, they remain something for the future. Therefore, it is key that the Government affirm their backing for UK nuclear and approve proposals for new reactors. With the spending review coming up and COP26 rapidly approaching, I cannot think of a better time for them to do that than now. However, we cannot just think about Sizewell C, which will provide opportunities for Springfields to fulfil the required contracts; we also have to consider the future, over the next 60 years, of what reliable nuclear energy looks like.

Support for other future opportunities, such as reprocessed uranium, is currently a growing area, and countries such as France rely on fuel imported from Russia. We are a neighbour and strategic partner of France, with a strong nuclear safety record, so with Government support and investment, this is something that Springfields has the expertise to commence work on in earnest.

To conclude, I cannot stress enough that, given the time-sensitive situation we find ourselves in, decisive action is needed at the earliest opportunity to protect this strategic national asset, and the Government must do whatever it takes to safeguard that asset’s future. Mr Betts, coming from Sheffield, you will know that Sheffield Forgemasters was regarded as a strategic national asset, and thank goodness action was taken to protect it. To stall further on nuclear would lead to irreplaceable skills being lost and facilities potentially closing. This is an industry with a great future, but it needs the certainty that Government support on investment and future projects can give.

The employees who I have discussed today are genuinely world-class; many of them are unique in this country in terms of what they do. However, they are ready to take on the new challenges that exist. Government must work with industry to guarantee that UK nuclear fuel will be produced in the UK, and give the go-ahead to the projects that will create those orders. If we do that in a timely way, both the workers and the plant would have a future, a national strategic asset would be protected, our journey towards low carbon would be a safe one, this country would achieve energy security, we would be able to export fuels, with the AMRs and SMRs, to many other countries around the world, and we would truly be heralding a golden era. I call upon the Government to seize this opportunity.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I think we have five hon. Members who want to catch my eye, which gives them about nine minutes each. I am not imposing a time limit, just giving guidance on how long to speak for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has articulated so many of the arguments and points in this debate so well. It was a great pleasure to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) to see the amazing facility at Springfields, and to get such a strong sense of how key it is—not just to our nuclear future, but in the framework of our energy future—and the importance of nuclear as a reliable form of energy. This, after all, is what the debate is about.

I not only met the organisation there; the National Nuclear Laboratory is sited there as well. I heard the powerful representations and views of the trade unions, Unite and Prospect. Their championing of the workers there, and the clear collaboration and close relationship between the management of the site, the workers and the union movement, is such an important thing for the future of any organisation. Working together is such a key part of the success and, hopefully, the ongoing future success of the site, but we need to understand what ought to be a fairly straightforward debate.

Fundamentally, we need clean, reliable and affordable energy to meet not only our current needs but our future needs as well. We do not know what the future will bring, but I would certainly like to see far more industry being located in Britain. China, India and many other countries around the world have been very competitive. We have been losing a great deal of heavy industry, and we need an energy supply that industry and heavy industry can use in an affordable way to be competitive with those countries, and with Germany as well. Germany is going down in terms of nuclear, but by doing so it is going up in terms of coal and other fossil fuels. That does not really fit in with what we normally hear about our European neighbours, which is that they are far more environmentally friendly than us. By turning their back on nuclear, they are embracing carbon emissions.

With our ambitions for COP26 and our leadership in this area, we ought to be looking at those sources of power that can reduce carbon emissions. It is the Government’s agenda; it is the international agenda. Nuclear is a key part of that, but we have to think about the steps that we need to take to get there. There was a bit of controversy recently about coking coal being produced in Cumbria rather than being imported for the British steel industry. It is so important that we take the effective and right judgments, and not only for the short term for British industry. Whether it is the Minister or the wider Government, we have to reassure industry and the nuclear sector that we have a future here, and will not export our industry overseas and feel good about exporting our carbon emissions to countries that perhaps have slightly lower expectations and standards than we do.

We need to support British manufacturing industry. We also therefore need to support reliable energy, baseload or firm energy, as I think the term is now, where we know, day or night, whatever the day of the year, we will have the energy that we need for industry and for homes—for cooking and for heating. We ought to be able to rely on that. As highlighted earlier this week in The Daily Telegraph, the UK produced a record of 14,286 MW of energy on 21 May, which is extraordinary, but earlier this week or last week we dipped down, just from wind, to 474 MW. That is not reliable energy that people wanting to keep a warm home in the middle of winter can rely on. It is not what industry can rely on, especially the steel industry. The next generation furnaces will be reliant on electricity. How can the steel industry run an arc furnace if it cannot rely on the energy supply?

It all goes together and the nuclear industry is key. This is technology that we have at the moment. We know how nuclear energy works. We know that we can produce stations that are reliable and cost-effective. We often hear about wind and solar energy, but there are significant technological problems with those forms of energy when it comes to providing firm energy. Until we have storage of that energy, so that when the peaks happen we can store the energy to take us through more difficult times, those forms of energy will not be as reliable as industry and homes need.

It is very positive that the Government have an increasingly strong hydrogen agenda. Again, that relies to a significant extent, it seems, on carbon capture and storage and that is not yet at scale or cost effective. Again, this is more technology that will probably be quite expensive and has not yet arrived. Perhaps in the longer term, we will need those technologies, but in the shorter term, we need more reliance on nuclear. That is where Springfields plays such a key part. It produces the fuels now and will produce the fuels in the future, but there is a short-term gap that needs to be bridged.

With more of our nuclear fleet being decommissioned in the very near future, we need to secure the future of the Springfields site. As My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde highlighted, we should perhaps renegotiate with the French nuclear industry to make sure that we can manufacture in the UK, perhaps under licence or whatever kind of relationship. We can do that. We also have the promise of massive investments in the nuclear fleet, because they are very expensive projects. That is some level of leverage we can use with the French, and I am sure we will be able to get a deal that ensures that we can keep those skills. That is such a key part: having Springfields there for the short, medium and longer term means we keep the skills in the United Kingdom.

Not only my hon. Friend but the team in Government and the COP 26 President have to have that ambition. We need to speak out more consistently. It is disappointing—I do not know how true it is—that the sense in Glasgow is that the nuclear industry is not being welcomed to participate in COP 26. It ought to be a key part of it. I hear the COP 26 President speak passionately on a regular basis about other forms of energy, but I do not hear the same passion about the nuclear industry. For the nuclear sector, for long-term investment, we need to hear far more about the British Government’s commitment to the sector—not just Springfields but the sector more widely—because that is what creates confidence. If people, whether from my constituency or more likely my neighbours’ constituencies of Fylde, Blackpool North and Cleveleys or even Preston, are to take up an apprenticeship, they must have confidence in the future. There are other companies—British Aerospace and others—that can take that talent, but Ministers need to give confidence to the next generation of engineers and scientists and other people coming through that this is a career for them.

We have to see the sector also within the framework of national security and strategic national interest. If we lose the skills and the businesses, it is very difficult if not impossible to bring them back. It is also a question of Hinkley C and the skills there. We need to have that certainty about building the rest of the nuclear fleet, when that is going to happen and what type of nuclear fleet we are going to have. If those engineers and that talent at Hinkley C do not have jobs to go to, they will use their talents in other projects around the country. When we get around to building the next nuclear power station, that talent will be gone. For reliability and effectiveness in terms of delivery, we have to secure that talent, just as we need to secure the talent in Lancashire. It ought to be seen as a key part of the levelling-up agenda, not just for championing Lancashire, the north west and the border, and the north of England, but even for Derby North. I do not know what kind of next-generation nuclear fleet we are going to have, but Derby is going to be a key part if we choose to have small modular reactors, perhaps of the Rolls Royce design. I am sure we have a strong voice in Government championing the cause. It would be lovely to hear it a bit louder.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Finally, but not least, Richard Graham. Just to say that we need to start the wind-ups at 3.28 pm at the latest.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Betts. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) on securing this debate and colleagues from around the House on joining in what might be called a celebration of nuclear, to which I know the Minister will respond positively.

My hon. Friend made absolutely clear his views of the future of civil nuclear fuel manufacturing in the UK at Springfields in his constituency, and made the case as strongly as any of us could have expected him to do, with a crucial role for Sizewell C. In the remaining minutes before the wind-ups, I want to touch on that crucial aspect of this debate, but then widen it fairly swiftly into the role of nuclear in the United Kingdom, as hon. Members have tended to do.

The crucial thing is that the case for nuclear has to be restated again and again, because it has not always been clear that this Parliament has supported it. Whereas nuclear energy itself has continued to deliver consistently throughout the past 60 years, political views have ebbed considerably over that time.

Ultimately, although the 103,000 jobs and important supply chains are clearly vital to the economy, that is not the fundamental reason why we need nuclear, which is, in summary, the only proven low-carbon power that does not raise emissions, even in extreme weather. Over the past 60 years, it has consistently delivered more than 20% of the UK’s electricity needs. We know that those needs will rise so it is crucial that we plan for the future. If the criticism of democracy is sometimes that we only think in terms of five-year election cycles, it is vital that nuclear is the exception to that short-term thinking.

I listened with interest to the thoughtful comments made by the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) about the sector about which he knows so much—engineering, nuclear and skills—but the fact is that unfortunately his own party’s failure to do anything for the best part of a decade led to a loss of skills, the sale of British Energy and our dependence thereafter on foreign investment and skills. Much has changed since 2010, of course. Crucially, with the construction at Hinkley Point, we have the opportunity for the first time in a very long time to build up domestic skills, which can then continue at Sizewell C. I hope very much that the Minister will indicate that there will be further opportunities in the future to build additional nuclear power stations, thus taking on the skills from generation to generation, reducing the cost, increasing our skills, possibly enabling us to become exporters of skills again, and reducing our dependency on foreign skills.

The mood music at the moment is encouraging. None the less, I understand that the 18 GW proposal at Sizewell C has not yet reached financial agreement. Anything the Minister can say on that would be welcome. Meanwhile, we have all been slightly sidetracked by the huge opportunities in renewable energy, not least offshore wind and the sector I have spent a lot of time on—marine energy. I encourage all hon. Members who are supporters of nuclear to look at what is being achieved by Orbital Marine Power off Orkney in the north of Scotland. It is a remarkable generation of marine energy. In a sense, all that complements what we can do with nuclear, because it opens another great opportunity, which is to generate hydrogen at or very close to our nuclear power stations. I would welcome it if the Minister commented on what progress we might make on that over the next two or three years.

My constituency of Gloucester has been the nuclear operational headquarters for British Energy and now EDF Energy for a long time, operating all the existing nuclear power stations in Britain. Of course, we hope to take our nuclear skills in a new and different direction with a bid to become the hub, at Oldbury and Berkeley, for the development of nuclear fusion. We are very keen to see the operation at Barnwood play a major role in the development of Sizewell C. As colleagues have mentioned, the opportunities for skills, careers and well-paid jobs in a sector that is so vital to everything we do is enormous.

Can the Minister give us any update on Sizewell C? When will the Government consider the next project thereafter and how fast we can take forward the development of hydrogen at our nuclear power stations? I hope that my comments supplement and complement what colleagues from around Westminster Hall have said in support of a sector that is so vital to our future.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

We now move on to the Front-Bench speeches. We have slightly more than the normal 10 minutes. We will allow two minutes for the mover of the debate to wind up at the end, so you have about 12 minutes. You do not have to take that time, of course. I call Alan Brown of the SNP.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I try to set myself a self-denying ordinance of not straying too far into wider issues such as firm power, but I would say that carbon capture and storage is very well developed already, and is up and running. I have actually been to see a carbon capture and storage plant operating at full scale in Canada.

However, it is not a question of whether carbon capture and storage can actually do the work, and it is not that the technology has not been developed to make carbon capture and storage perform the entire chain of activities—sequestration, storage, transport, and so on. It can do all those well and at scale; that has already been proven. It is a question of how quickly we can develop carbon capture and storage and put it into operations, so that it works from the day they start, with carbon capture and storage on the back of them, rather than developing operations that are carbon capture and storage-ready, but where carbon capture and storage is not on the back of that process. That is really a question of planning and investment, more than anything else, but it needs to be done in the right place at the right time. That is the end of my diversion.

The issue for Springfields nuclear fuel, therefore, is that there is clearly a substantial valley of death before what Springfields can reasonably expect for its work for the future. If we leave it at that, it is inevitable that, even if it eventually survives that gap and comes through well in the end, that may well be at the cost of all the skills in that organisation and most of the workforce; and, at a time when Springfields’ services absolutely will be required in the national interest, its ability to spring back may well have expired in the meantime.

As a country, we cannot let that happen. I therefore congratulate the unions, Prospect and Unite, for campaigning strongly for that view of Springfields as a company. It is beholden on the Government to take that view as seriously as the workforce do—and, I think, all of us in this Chamber do—in their responses and reactions to this particular issue.

When looking at the nuclear sector deal that was signed in 2018, I was interested by this statement from the Government on securing fuel capabilities:

“We will work with the UK nuclear fuel industry to ensure continued, commercial operation of their facilities and secure the long-term future of these important UK strategic national assets to deliver future energy security as well as ensuring the UK nuclear fuel industry continues to deliver long-term UK economic benefit”.

That is what they committed themselves to in the nuclear sector deal. However, as far as I know, nothing has yet been done about that.

Therefore, my first question to Government is: does the Minister intend that that nuclear sector deal commitment will actually be carried out? Are the Government looking seriously at ways in which Springfields nuclear fuels can be properly supported during this period of its existence and assured of remaining in existence as we move to whatever the next stage of our UK nuclear programme is?

My second issue is also important. Are the Government serious about moving on the programme for the already existing nuclear facilities and bringing in arrangements to give greater certainty on the development of Sizewell C? I refer to what hon. Members have also mentioned this afternoon: the regulated asset base arrangement or similar. If the Government do not like that arrangement, an alternative could give certainty to the development of Sizewell C in the next period. As I am sure the Minister knows, there is a row going on between Departments about whether the regulated asset base should be introduced for Sizewell C. That needs resolving. Something needs to come out shortly to get that programme under way. That is also relevant to the future of Springfields nuclear fuels in the way I have described it this afternoon.

I have two direct questions for the Minister, both relating to the future of Springfields nuclear fuels, which we want to see secured. We want to make sure that the Government play a full role in securing that future, so that we can say that that national asset is in good shape and in good hands. In passing, there is a question mark about the future ownership of Springfields nuclear fuels. As a national asset, perhaps it should be a Government agency, so that we can secure its activities for the future in a way that befits its importance to the country.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

If the Minister could allow a minute at the end for the mover of the motion to comment, that would be helpful.