National Policy Statement for Fusion Energy Generation

Earl Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Grand Committee

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, for securing it. I welcome the chance to speak on what is a really extraordinary scientific journey—one that, as others have said, is vital to our long-term net-zero future. The running joke has always been that fusion is the energy of the future and is always 30 years away.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Or 15 years.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

Whether 15 or 30 years away, however, we are making progress, and that joke does not really apply anymore. We are trying to do something really extraordinary: to build a star here on earth, to heat hydrogen to around 10 times the temperature of the core of the sun, and to hold plasma in a chamber with magnets cooled to near absolute zero.

Britain is not sitting on the sidelines on this but is actually leading the world. The Joint European Torus at Culham has set records for fusion energy output. The MAST upgrade is the world’s largest operational spherical tokamak. Public and private investors, from the UK Atomic Energy Authority to Tokamak Energy, are pushing ahead and pushing each other forward. We have rightly earned our place at the heart of this.

The prize, as others have said, is incredibly large. The International Atomic Energy Agency counts fusion among the most environmentally friendly sources of energy: no carbon dioxide; no harmful atmospheric emissions; and it produces fuel from hydrogen and lithium, which are both widely available. We know that electricity demand here is expected to double, or more than double, by 2050, as we seek to electrify our heating, transport and industry. The UK Atomic Energy Authority believes that fusion could provide steady baseload power that would complement our renewables. If it works at scale, we could move from an energy politics of scarcity and competition towards abundance, and the global market has been estimated to be worth £12 trillion.

But we need to be honest about the climate argument, which is a point that the Commons Energy Security and Net Zero Committee also made. The earliest we will see this energy in production and viable is the 2040s, so we need to continue on our renewables journey and we need to cut our emissions. This energy will come late in the day in terms of meeting our climate targets.

That being said, we on these Benches back fusion. We support it, and we support the £2.5 billion invested so far and the £1.3 billion to be put into STEP. The Government are backing a winner, and I believe that it is justified, but the risk is also large, and the horizon is long. Ministers and the Government have a duty to be open about the costs and processes involved and to make sure that we are getting value for public money.

That brings me to EN-8. As the Minister said—I did not know this until she said so—it is the world’s first policy for energy fusion. Obviously, planning policy is our primary consideration here today. There is a lot here that we welcome and support, and my sense is that that is also the case for others around the Room today. We welcome the designation of low-carbon fusion energy as a critical national priority; the priority for brownfield and former energy sites; and the recognition that fusion’s low radiological risk means no population density limits. We also welcome the encouragement of collocation with energy-intensive users, such as data centres, and the 19 fusion-specific considerations on top of EN-1.

We also welcome the broadening of what can count as a nationally significant project. The Government are bringing in fusion infrastructure with thermal, or combined thermal and electricity, capacity over 50 megawatts, which recognises that fusion plants may supply heat as well as power. We also welcome the application of good design principles, which are key, and how the new plants will meet the very important climate-resilient targets—as we know, our climate is changing in the future.

As the Minister said, industry has broadly welcomed the draft. I thank the Minister for noting that the Government will look at the responses and points that have been made on that draft.

I have a few areas that I would like to explore while I have the chance to do so. In 2022, the Government decided that fusion would continue to be principally regulated by the Health and Safety Executive and the relevant environmental agency. As the noble Lord, Lord Khan, has already mentioned, of course we recognise that fusion is not fission, but the Commons Energy Security and Net Zero Committee was entirely unconvinced that removing the Office for Nuclear Regulation would reduce bureaucracy and warned that “the relative inexperience”—or, really, the complete inexperience—

“of the Environment Agency may lead to the excessive caution”

in this field. My question for the Minister, therefore, is: how will regulators be adequately resourced? What specialised staff are the Government seeking to recruit and what are the timeframes for ensuring that all this is done in good time?

I understand that fusion sits outside the nuclear siting and licensing regime of 1965; that makes sense, but questions remain about how third-party liability, insurance and—as has already been mentioned—long-term waste costs can be handled. As the industry seeks to invest, it will need further clarity on these points.

Can the Minister also say a little more on where we are at with the STEP programme? I understand that the aim is to submit a development consent application in 2029 and to start building in 2030. Even conventional schemes can take well over a year, so are we still on track for this timetable? It feels like quite a tight timetable for a one-of-a-kind plant.

Fusion plants will be strategic national assets and the supply chains behind them will depend on global supply chains. What considerations have the Government given to securing those supply chains, particularly when we will face a world of competition, particularly with the USA and China, which are particularly investing in this technology? What are we doing to make sure that those supply chains work?

The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee also called for non-proliferation guidance to be issued now, not at the five-year review. Will the Government accept that recommendation?

For me, another important point is that these are really big infrastructure projects and we want to support community benefits. What more are the Government doing to make sure that local economies, the wider economy and the people who live next to these big industrial sites will benefit from them? Is it still expected that STEP will support around 10,000 jobs? What work is being done to support the skills and apprenticeships that will go with that?

Issues have also been raised around how we talk to local communities about these projects. Obviously, this is a new, evolving and unknown technology, so there is a real need for the Government to put effort and consideration into how they communicate these projects to make sure that the public are reassured of their inherent safety.

Cooling water is an issue. Tomorrow, we will debate the Environment and Climate Change Committee’s report on drought. Obviously, we know that this is subject to forward plans, but it looks like we could be short by 5 billion litres of water per year by 2030. These plants have big cooling needs, and they may be collocated with data centres and other high intensity water and energy requirements. Given that collocation is mentioned in this document, will the Government give more consideration to desalinisation or other methods so that we can look at water usage? Water usage is quite a critical element of these projects.

There is still some debate about the relationship between EN-1 and EN-8; I understand what the Minister says, and that EN-1 is the overarching document. I welcome the fact we have developed a separate policy with EN-8, but there are some issues about the relationship between those two documents, which could do with further clarification.

I also want to ask about the energy spatial plan, which the Government are in the process of developing and should be published later this year. But this plan needs to work with the energy spatial plan. These plants, particularly at start-up, will require to draw huge amounts of energy from the grid—although, when they are up and running, they will supply energy back to it—so grid planning and siting are key issues.

I like the fact that we are at the forefront of this technology, but the technology is evolving and changing, and other countries are investing heavily in it. Just yesterday I was reading about the helicon current drive at the DIII-D national energy facility, which is a new development of an old technology that hopes to maintain a steady state for longer so that we can get closer to getting long-term energy out of these plants. That highlights that the technology is moving really quickly, so I guess there is a question about how EN-8 will develop with new technologies.

In the European Union, policy on fusion energy is still country based, and we are ahead of the EU now. But these are big, large-scale projects, and as part of our reset with Europe we should be looking for greater co-operation with our European partners. I think we are actually ahead of the game here, and on this document we could be leaning into Europe to develop better policies based on this. I would encourage the UK Government to include fusion as a key element of our European reset.

We are supportive of this national policy statement. We think this is a real opportunity for the UK to press home its technological advantages in this area. The development of and investment in this technology is really important towards providing our future long-term energy security and helping deal with the problems of energy use and climate change.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.