My Lords, we recognise the significant contribution that Wales has made to British nuclear power and value the experience and skills within the industry in Wales. We are committed to new nuclear, and I welcome interest in new projects in Wales. We have just consulted on a new nuclear planning framework, EN-7, which sets the criteria for development at previously designated sites, as well as empowering developers to identify new locations.
My Lords, some weeks ago in this House, there were questions about the reluctance of the Scottish Government to approve new nuclear power stations. Now, I am not here to defend the Scottish Government—thankfully—but I can say that, despite the full support of the Welsh Government, the last UK Conservative Government failed to deliver the new reactor at Wylfa B. Given that, will the Minister give an assurance that a more positive approach will be taken to any new applications at Wylfa and Trawsfynydd to avoid the empty rhetoric of the past?
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.
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?
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.
My Lords, some of us have been talking to the main SMR producers this very morning. Their general message is that wait, delay and obstruction are their findings in dealing with the British Government, unfortunately. They are waiting for site sales to be settled, for the GDA and DCO processes to be accelerated, and, obviously, for the government lead that they all need. They say that they could produce earlier, by years, than anything that could come from Sizewell C or other, larger developments. They point to the facts that they could do it without government money and that the order books are rapidly filling up in all other countries. There really is a sense of urgency if our nation is to reach our desirable goals on reliable, affordable energy. Please can the Minister get on with the job?
My Lords, I agree with the last statement by the noble Lord, but I do not agree with what he said. The Government are very focused on development of new nuclear. He knows that, in relation to small modular reactors, we have a process by Great British Nuclear, which is going through a detailed series of negotiations, with final decisions to be made over the next few weeks. We were bequeathed that process by the Government that the noble Lord supported. His party did not open a single nuclear power station. I can tell him that, as far as SMRs are concerned, I have been to many fora discussing this with companies. They are clearly awaiting the outcome of the GBN process, and we will make progress following that.
My Lords, I welcome the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Penybont. The Minister needs absolutely no reminder from me of how important Wylfa is to the people and economy of north Wales, but, since the Government’s own calculations say that the delay is costing £90 million a year in lost revenues and lost opportunities in the supply chain and others, can he tell me what steps the Government are taking to prevent further delays at Wylfa?
My Lords, I think I have said that we will set out our future ambition for plans in due course. We have focused very much on getting Sizewell C over the line, and we hope a final investment decision will be made over the next few weeks. We have the SMR programme, we are very keen to see the development of AMRs as well, and we will set out our ambitions in due course. But there is no question about our commitment to taking this forward; we took the decision in 2007 to go back to nuclear. What is so disappointing is that the last Government had 14—it is all very well for noble Lords to shake their heads, complaining about what I am saying. They do not want to hear the facts. They had 14 years to sort this out, and they did not.
My Lords, in the light of the outage in Spain and Portugal over the last 48 hours, are not devolved and diffuse sources of clean energy absolutely crucial to our security? What measures will the Government take on the back of what is happening in Spain and Portugal to ensure that we can disconnect from the grid if need be in order to maintain sources across the country?
I do not think we know the causes of what happened yet, so it is a bit early for noble Lords to start speculating on what direct relationship it has with this country. But I agree with what my noble friend says, that we want diverse electricity sources. That is what clean power is going to give us. We are going to have a number of renewable energy sources, we have nuclear as our baseload, we have gas, hopefully with carbon capture, with the ability to switch it on and off, and we will have clean, homegrown power. That is the way to energy security.
My Lords, the Inter-Ministerial Group for Net Zero, Energy and Climate Change met in March and issued a communiqué. The four Governments of the UK were represented there, the UK Government being represented by the Minister for Energy. In the section entitled “What was discussed”, four items are named, but nuclear energy is not one of them. However, it says that they talked about what would be mentioned at future meetings. This seems an ideal opportunity to discuss something which is at the core of net zero. Is the Minister able to comment on that and give an undertaking that, at future meetings of this important interministerial group, this will be on the agenda?
My Lords, that is a very good point indeed. Of course, one has to face up to the fact that the Scottish Government are not in favour of new nuclear development, despite the rich heritage there, and despite how much of Scotland’s electricity at the moment comes from nuclear development. But certainly, the noble Earl is absolutely right to say that, in these kinds of discussions, the role of nuclear is very important, not just for what it provides but for the growth it can bring to our economy, very highly skilled jobs and a lot of infrastructure investment as well. So the case for nuclear is very strong indeed.
My Lords, the Welsh Government are clear that the development of Wylfa has the potential to be the single largest investment project in Wales. I welcome the response the Minister has given, saying that work will be done on this in due course, but could he be clearer on what “in due course” means? Can I push him further? Will serious consideration be given to using these sites for either long-duration energy storage or for data centres if the Government decide that they are not fit for future nuclear?