PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Nuclear Power: Investment - 10 June 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, I would like to make a statement about Government plans for investment in new nuclear power.

Sixteen years ago, in 2009, as Energy Secretary I delivered a statement to this House identifying potential sites for new nuclear. I said:

“We need to use all available low-carbon sources… New nuclear is right for energy security and climate change, and it will be good for jobs too”.—[Official Report, 9 November 2009; Vol. 499, c. 31.]

That was true back then, and it is even more true today. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the cost of living crisis that followed showed how vulnerable we are as a country because of our dependence on fossil fuels, at the whim of markets controlled by petrostates and dictators. The imperative of energy security and the demands of the climate crisis mean that we must shift as fast as possible to clean, home-grown power. The demand for that power, as we shift away from gas, is expected to at least double by 2050, so we need all the low-carbon sources possible to meet the demands we face.

The advice from experts, including the Climate Change Committee, is clear: we need new nuclear to meet our climate obligations. This Government support new nuclear because of our belief that the climate crisis is the greatest long-term threat facing our country and our world, not in spite of it; because of the imperative of energy security; and because of the good, skilled jobs that nuclear provides. In Britain today, there are too few industries that offer the secure, well-paid jobs with strong trade unions that the British people desire and deserve. Time and again, I have heard from people up and down the country about the importance of nuclear jobs to their communities. For all these reasons, the Government are taking decisive steps today to usher in a new golden age of nuclear for Britain.

First, back in the late 2000s, when I was Energy Secretary, I identified Sizewell as a potential site for new nuclear. It has taken 16 years, but I am incredibly proud that today we are announcing £14.2 billion of public funding for this spending review period to build Sizewell C, the first Government-funded and owned nuclear power station in Britain since the 1980s—a strategic partnership with France, with EDF intending to invest alongside us.

I recognise the contribution of my hon. Friends the Members for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) and for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) in advocating for this project and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for her advocacy for nuclear as a whole. I also acknowledge the work of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who is not in his place, when he was Minister for nuclear.

Sizewell C will power the equivalent of around 6 million homes with clean, home-grown energy for 60 years, and will be a jobs and growth engine for Britain, supporting 10,000 jobs at peak construction and creating 1,500 apprenticeships—well-paid, highly skilled jobs in East Anglia and communities across the country. I thank the GMB, Unite, and Prospect trade unions, which are brilliant champions for the nuclear industry. Sizewell has already signed £4.2 billion-worth of contracts with 311 companies, and will eventually work with 3,500 suppliers in all four nations of the UK.

This project is good value for money for the taxpayer, because there will be a clear economic return on the investment, and for the bill payer, because all the due diligence we have done demonstrates that the cost of the clean power it will supply will be cheaper than the alternative. We expect the final investment decision on the project, including through the capital raise from the private sector, to be completed in the summer, when we will set out further detail. This is a new generation of nuclear power, promised for years and delivered by this Labour Government.

Secondly, small modular reactors offer a huge industrial opportunity for our country, and we are determined to harness Britain’s nuclear expertise to win the global race to lead in this new technology. I can inform the House that following a rigorous two-year competition, today Rolls-Royce SMR has been selected as the preferred bidder to develop the UK’s first SMRs, subject to final Government approvals and contract signature. This initial project could create up to 3,000 skilled jobs and power the equivalent of around 3 million homes.

In the spending review, we are committing to the public investment needed to get the SMR programme off the ground, with more than £2.5 billion in funding over the period. The project will be delivered by Great British Energy Nuclear, a publicly owned company headquartered in Warrington—an allied company to Great British Energy, which is headquartered in Aberdeen. Subject to Government approvals, the contracts will be signed later this year. Our aim is to deliver one of Europe’s first SMR fleets, leading the world in the nuclear technologies of the future, with more good jobs and energy security funded and made possible by this Labour Government.

Thirdly, beyond the immediate horizon, nuclear fusion offers the potential of an energy-abundant future. Britain already leads, thanks to the pioneering work of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, but unlike in the past, we are determined to make the investments to stay ahead as a country. Today, we are pledging to invest more than £2.5 billion in nuclear fusion, including in the STEP—spherical tokamak for energy production—programme, which will help to progress the new prototype fusion plant at West Burton. I congratulate the Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, on her tireless advocacy for this project, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Jo White) and for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on their advocacy. This will be the first fusion plant of its kind in the world, and it will be on the site of a former coal-fired power station. Under a Labour Government, Britain will lead the clean energy transition and trailblaze the technologies of the future.

Fourthly, our nuclear ambitions do not stop there. As we move ahead on these projects, we see huge potential right across the country. That is why we are looking to provide a route for private sector-led advanced nuclear projects—advanced modular reactors and SMRs—to be deployed in the UK. And we will task Great British Energy Nuclear with a new role in assessing proposals, with the National Wealth Fund exploring potential investment opportunities. My message to the private sector is that if it wants to build new nuclear, Britain is open for business.

I can also tell the House that, following the incredible campaigning work of my hon. Friends the Members for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), for Carlisle (Ms Minns), for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) and for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), my Department has asked the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and Cumberland council to consider the potential of privately led clean energy development in Moorside, delivering jobs and growth in Cumbria.

We also know that this is an industry that demands long-term thinking. Therefore, having announced these steps today, we will build on our 2030 clean power action plan and set out our plans for the energy system, including our ambitions and next steps on nuclear, into the 2030s and beyond.

Taken together, the steps that I have announced today will kick off the biggest nuclear building programme that Britain has seen in half a century, doubling down on our nuclear strength to take the latest step forward in our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. When people ask what clean energy and net zero means for our country, this is what it is all about. For too long, our country has not made the crucial investments in energy or infrastructure that we need. The British people have paid the price for this short-sighted failure to invest—in lower living standards, insecurity and declining public services. This week’s announcements signal a decisive change in approach—to invest in the future and make the right choice for energy security, the right choice for jobs, the right choice for climate, our children and grandchildren, the right choice for Britain, and the right choice of investment over decline. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

The Conservative party is a pro-nuclear party and we welcome any decisions, backed by investment, that increase Britain’s nuclear capacity, because we cannot deliver cheap, reliable and secure energy without it. Although the investment announced today by the Secretary of State is significant, it is a fraction of the £230 billion cost, which will ultimately be borne by consumers, of his plan to decarbonise the grid. Unlike the intermittent technologies backed at such cost by the Secretary of State, nuclear provides reliable baseload power. It generates inertia to stabilise our grid. Nuclear power plants require substantially less new grid infrastructure compared with dispersed generation from wind and solar. It is to the shame of successive Governments over many years that Britain relinquished its status as a world leader in civil nuclear technologies. In 1965, we had more nuclear reactors than the United States, the USSR and the rest of the world put together. Between 1956 and 1966, we built 10 nuclear power stations, but we gave all that up. The contribution of nuclear to our power generation peaked in 1994 and has fallen consistently since then.

Labour came to power in 1997, saying that it saw no economic case for the building of any new nuclear power stations. In 2010, the coalition agreement ruled out public investment in nuclear. It was the last Conservative Government who planned the largest revival of nuclear power in 70 years and it is thanks to that work that the Secretary of State has been able to make many of these announcements today. Can he reiterate, despite the headlines this morning, that the final investment decision has not yet been made? He said in his statement that he will announce it in the summer, but can he give us a more precise date when we will be told the total Government investment and the private capital raised?

This statement is a downgrade on what the previous Government put in motion. Today, the Energy Secretary has announced only one small modular reactor. There is no clear target to increase nuclear power generation and no news on Wylfa. The nuclear industry is expecting news of a third gigawatt scale reactor. The previous Government purchased the land and committed to build, but on this today the Energy Secretary said nothing. Can he commit to the planning inherited for a third gigawatt scale plant at Wylfa and will he recommit to the Conservative policy of 24 GW of nuclear power by 2050?

Although it is good news that Rolls-Royce will build our first small modular reactors, this is a downgrade on what was previously planned. Can the Secretary of State tell us why he has awarded just one technology rather than two as set out previously? Furthermore, will he commit, as other countries have, to going faster?

Canada has approved a plan for four SMRs by 2029. As things stand, Britain will not have SMRs connected to the grid until the 2030s. The contrast between this caution on nuclear and the Government’s rush to decarbonise the entire grid in just five years, while betting the house on unreliable and intermittent renewable technologies and shutting down British oil and gas in the North sea, could not be clearer. We need the Energy Secretary to focus on the positive, not to stake our country’s future and people’s bills on ideology.

I feel a bit sorry for the hon. Gentleman; it is hard on a day like this to be an Opposition Member. Nevertheless, I will try to answer his questions, such as they are. On the question about the final investment decision, he will be aware that we are currently doing the private sector capital raise. When that is complete, we will proceed to the final investment decision, which will take place this summer. That is obviously important.

On his fundamental question, I do slightly scratch my head, because he says that this is a downgrade—we have announced the largest nuclear building programme in 50 years! What he says might have looked good in the mirror this morning, but it does not bear much resemblance to reality. The question, which goes to the point I made at the end of my statement, is this: why did the Conservatives make all these promises on nuclear but fail to deliver them? There is a simple answer. It was not because of a lack of diligence from his colleague the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). The simple reason is that they did not put up the money. They did not make the investment. The one thing that has bedevilled the nuclear programme is a failure to invest public money.

In this spending review we are putting in £14 billion for Sizewell, £2.5 billion for SMRs, and £2.5 billion for fusion. Those are significant sums of long-term capital investment. The Conservatives made all these promises, but they did not put in the money. I was the guy who identified Sizewell, and I am back here delivering Sizewell. This Government are willing to make the investment. We welcome the support from the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), such as it is, but he needs to learn some lessons. Public investment, not decline, is the answer for Britain.

I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on delivering on his promise from 2009 and confirming Sizewell C, along with the vast array of commitments to a bright nuclear future for this country. The Select Committee looks forward to our inquiry in the autumn into the future of nuclear; we will be taking evidence and making recommendations to support the work that the Secretary of State has set out. We visited Sizewell C, and I also visited the nuclear physics department at the University of Liverpool. I learned in both cases about the jobs that will be available across the country. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he sees this as the start of both gigawatt construction of new nuclear and a big expansion into SMRs and AMRs, which are still a nascent technology, to support a very good future for nuclear generation in this country?

My hon. Friend speaks very well on this subject. I agree with him about the huge jobs potential from new nuclear and the timelines. My priority when we came into office was to get these things over the line, because there had been so many promises made by the last Government. Long-term promises were made under Boris Johnson for 2050, but they did not deliver anything towards the 24 GW target. My priority was to get on and deliver these things and get them over the line, which we are doing. Then we can look at what the energy needs are going forward and how we meet them. I agree with my hon. Friend that nuclear has an essential part to play, alongside all the other clean energy technologies; electricity demand is going to double by 2050, so we need all of them.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

We welcome the Government’s renewed focus on energy security through nuclear power as part of the energy mix. It is long overdue, after years of dither and delay from successive Conservative Governments. It has been 16 years since Sizewell C was first announced in 2009, and now, seven Prime Ministers later, we are finally seeing real movement. That is not a success story but a warning. Short-term thinking, poor delivery and exorbitant costs—

Are you quoting Nick Clegg?

Will the hon. Member let me continue?

Order. I will decide when things are out of order. I do not need any help. I want you to get the question finished quickly, so come on.

I cannot help but wonder whether the Secretary of State imagined when he stood at his Dispatch Box back in 2009 that he would be back in 2025 still announcing funding for the same project.

We support investment in clean, home-grown energy. Small modular nuclear reactors have real potential to reduce our dependence on foreign gas—from tyrants like Putin—and help bring down bills, so we welcome the Government’s backing of the nascent technology of small modular reactors and their choice of Rolls-Royce, which is recognised as a first mover across all of Europe. That is where the focus should be—not on large-scale projects like Sizewell C that cost billions, take decades and so often go over budget. We have to ensure that this does not land consumers with higher energy bills. That risk is very real. The Government must be transparent about how this will be paid for, because families cannot afford another hit to their household budgets.

The Liberal Democrats believe that the best way to cut bills, create good jobs and boost energy security is to invest in home-grown renewables such as solar, wind, tidal and geothermal, and to upgrade our national grid to deliver that clean power. We look forward to seeing more detail on the long-overdue reform of the outdated first come, first served grid connection system, which is holding back renewable energy projects and could even delay the roll-out of new SMRs. Today’s announcement is a step in the right direction, but the real test is in the delivery of cheaper bills, stronger energy security and a modern energy grid fit for the future.

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. I feel bad about mentioning this, but she has slightly airbrushed out the role of the current leader of the Liberal Democrats, who was Energy Secretary for a period, but we will “Trotsky”—to use a familial term of origin—that out of the record.

I sincerely welcome her support for this programme, and she puts the case very well: it is a lesson to some of the Opposition Members sitting behind her that we need all the clean energy technologies; we should not choose between them. Being in favour of nuclear does not mean that we are against wind. I am the biggest enthusiast for offshore wind, onshore wind, solar and all these technologies. Let us have all of them, to get off fossil fuels and meet our electricity and energy demand.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and happy birthday; you were born only a few months after the opening of Calder Hall, the world’s first civil nuclear power plant, so you share that.

The Secretary of State has made the major decision, which is incredibly welcome in west Cumbria, to unlock up to 200 acres of land at Moorside for clean energy projects, including new nuclear. This issue has been stuck for many years, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s efforts on it, the decision he made and the work he has done with the Cumberland Nuclear Future Board to make it happen. Will the Secretary of State continue to work with me and local partners to drive the project through so that we get something delivered at the site? Secondly, can he say more about the regulatory taskforce that is being undertaken at the moment so that we can cut through the bureaucracy and build reactors more quickly?

To reassure you, Mr Speaker, you look much younger than the Calder Hall nuclear power station.

And it is being decommissioned—that is even worse!

Absolutely right—there will be no decommissioning of you, Mr Speaker.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on showing incredible leadership for his constituents on this issue. It has been a pleasure to work with him and other colleagues on these questions. He is right about the potential; he is also right about the regulatory question. We have some of the highest standards of regulation in the world, but it is always right that we look at how we can improve standards of regulation and avoid changes in regulation during the course of projects, which is crucial for success. That is the work we are getting on with.

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. To give credit where it is due, I totally welcome today’s announcement on nuclear. Where I disagree with the Secretary of State is on his persistence to plough ahead with inefficient technologies such as solar and the associated paraphernalia, such as battery storage, which trash the Buckinghamshire countryside and, indeed, the wider British countryside. Nuclear works 24/7; solar works about 10% of the time. Will he have greater courage and plough ahead with this much more efficient 24/7 nuclear technology and drop solar?

I thank the hon. Member for part of what he said, if not most of it. We have a fundamental disagreement. Solar and wind offer cheap power for our country—why would we possibly say no to that? The biggest threat to the countryside is the climate crisis, and solar and wind alongside nuclear are the way to tackle it.

I thank my hon. Friend for her advocacy. When I was in discussions with the Chancellor, I did think that if this did not go ahead I would have to answer to my hon. Friend and to the Mayor of the East Midlands, so she was a motivating force in ensuring that the project did go ahead. Her point is crucial: this is about good jobs in areas of the country that really need those good jobs. Last night, I was talking to an apprentice from Sizewell—she went there at age 16 and has been there for a year—about the experience she has had. She gives credit to Sizewell. We can see her career in front of her, and we want that for lots more people.

Assuming that the large nuclear power station at Sizewell C and the small modular reactors both prove to be successful, as we trust they will be, what is the Government’s thinking about the respective roles of each of those two very different types? Which does the Secretary of State think will be the better bet in the long term for the future of the country? Can he assure us that China will have no part in any of this?

On the latter point, yes, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman of that. He asks a typically astute question, if I may say so. The truth about these technologies, I think, is that the answer is both. We cannot really make a judgment about this until we see the SMR programme developed. The SMR programme offers something that has eluded nuclear for a long time, which is modularity and replication, and that, as we know from other technologies, is the way to bring down costs and speed up delivery. There is huge potential in both, but large-scale gigawatt can also play an important role.

I warmly welcome the SMR announcement, which is great news for Sheffield as Rolls-Royce is already doing significant work at the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre. When I met Rolls-Royce recently, it said that 70% of its bid could be built and produced in Great Britain. How will the Government hold Rolls-Royce to account for that and ensure that the announcement delivers great jobs and great investment right across the UK?

I thank my right hon. Friend for her incredible advocacy on this issue, including at the AMRC. She makes such an important point: this will be taxpayers’ money, and we need to ensure that as much as possible is built in Britain. I make absolutely no apologies for saying that. The answer to her question is that as we negotiate terms with Rolls-Royce over the coming months, that will be a key part of our discussions.

This £14 billion splurge on English nuclear power plants comes on top of £22 billion for English carbon capture and storage, while there is nothing for Scotland’s Acorn project. With Grangemouth allowed to close and the fiscal regime ruining the north-east’s energy jobs, this latest announcement shows that Scotland is not an afterthought—Scotland is not a thought at all. If nearly £40 billion can be found for English energy projects, why has money never been found for Scotland’s carbon capture project?

Maybe a change in the SNP’s position is coming. Absolutely, if the hon. Lady wants, let us have a discussion about Scottish nuclear power stations. We are in favour of the Acorn project and will say more about that in the coming weeks. But on nuclear power, SNP Members have really got to think again. They are sticking their heads in the sand. This is about jobs, investment and clean energy. They should really rethink.

If I had known it was your birthday, Mr Speaker, I would have brought you down a Chorley cake, but never mind. As you know, my constituency hosts Heysham 1 and 2 nuclear power stations. As the Secretary of State is aware, I am pushing for Heysham also to host new nuclear. Will he tell me how today’s announcement supports nuclear communities such as mine and will enable the next generation of nuclear across the country?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To get slightly into the weeds, the new planning framework that we are consulting on opens up possibilities for new nuclear. Today we have set out the public money that we can commit to new nuclear at this stage. We are seeing this a bit in the US and in other countries with a 50% increase in nuclear investment last year globally. My message to the private sector is that if it is interested in partnering with us and saying to us, “We want to build in places other than those where you’ve put the public investment,” we are absolutely open for business and dialogue.

The Secretary of State will be aware that it was originally proposed to build a third nuclear power station, based on a Chinese design, at Bradwell-on-Sea in my constituency. Is a third station—it will not be Chinese—at Bradwell still a possibility, or could it be allocated an SMR?

Good nuclear sites, including Bradwell, are always going to be possibilities as far as I am concerned. We are not going to have China building our nuclear power stations, but if the right hon. Gentleman wants to discuss this with my Department, we will be happy to do so.

It is clear that this Labour Government are putting pounds behind promises to deliver clean energy and good, skilled jobs in all parts of the country. With that in mind, given its importance to north Wales, will my right hon. Friend confirm that Great British Energy Nuclear will prioritise Wylfa?

I am glad that my hon. Friend has asked that question. Wylfa is an incredibly important site that has huge potential for our country. Obviously, over the months ahead Great British Energy Nuclear will look at the role that Wylfa can play in relation to SMRs and large-scale nuclear.

The Secretary of State’s message to the private sector is, “If you want to build new nuclear, Britain is open.” Companies have told me that they need decisive and committed leadership from the UK Government to be confident to invest in a new project at Wylfa. I have raised that 11 times in the Chamber, yet today there was no mention of Wylfa. Will the Secretary of State make it clear that the UK Government support the delivery of new nuclear projects at Wylfa?

Yes, we do. Again, we are open to discussions with the hon. Lady and other colleagues.

I will not say “happy birthday” to you again, Mr Speaker; perhaps we can arrange to sing it next time so that we do not all have to repeat it.

The Secretary of State’s statement is welcome. The other welcome news today is the Government’s commitment to £460 million of investment at Sheffield Forgemasters. That is primarily for defence nuclear, but it also provides extra capacity for civil nuclear. There is a bit of concern about Rolls-Royce’s link with Czechia, so will my right hon. Friend commit to using forgings from Sheffield Forgemasters in the first-of-its-type SMR in this country and build the supply chain so that the vast majority of jobs are provided for British workers?

I definitely believe that Sheffield Forgemasters has an incredibly important role to play in our civil nuclear programme. Contractual details for Rolls-Royce and our discussions with the company are for a bit down the road, but in my view, Forgemasters is central to our plans.

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Oldbury in my constituency is one of the sites under consideration for SMRs, and I have been told many times that it has many factors going for it, including GB Nuclear’s ownership of it, the nuclear expertise in higher education locally, its existing nuclear history and the potential for co-ordination with the Berkeley site. Given that the old nuclear power station has already been decommissioned, the local community wants to know what the future looks like. Will the Secretary of State confirm that Oldbury is still in the running and will he give a timeline for the decision?

As part of the process that we go to from here, Great British Energy Nuclear will look at what is the right place for the SMR fleet and, absolutely, Oldbury is one of the candidates.

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also wish you a happy birthday, Mr Speaker. What a wonderful day today is proving to be. As a proud Derby MP, I am delighted to welcome the selection of Rolls-Royce to deliver the first of the UK’s small modular reactors. We know that the Secretary of State, his ministerial team and the Mayor of the East Midlands are champions of clean energy jobs. Does the Secretary of State agree that today’s decision is good news for the country and for Derby? Also, in backing home-grown SMRs, what will the benefit be for UK workers and those in the east midlands region?

I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for Derby and for Rolls-Royce. It is important to say to the House that this was a fair and open competition, conducted at arm’s length from Ministers. Rolls-Royce came out as the winner and I am incredibly pleased about that. The possibilities for Rolls-Royce are huge in what it can do for SMRs in this country, in the export opportunities and in the jobs in the supply chains. That is the thing about nuclear: it is about the jobs not just at the top of the tree but right across the supply chain that we have the potential to create.

While I fear that the development of Sizewell C may prove to be a multibillion-pound investment in yesterday’s technology, I welcome the commitment to SMRs in so far as it goes, which is probably the way forward for tomorrow. We have to get from where we are today to there. Why are we going to spend billions of pounds and accumulate masses of wastage importing carbon fuels from overseas instead of developing our own North sea resources?

On the nuclear point, there is real potential at Sizewell. I understand the implication of his views on that: to learn from what happened at Hinkley—because it is a replica of Hinkley—and therefore to cut the costs and do it quicker. The aim is to deliver it cheaper and faster. On the wider picture, we may have a difference of view. Mine is that we have to get off insecure fossil fuels as quickly as possible. That is why nuclear has a role and renewables have a role, but the existing North sea fields will be kept open for their lifetime, so oil and gas will continue to play a role in our energy system.

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. New nuclear has the potential not only to power communities across our country, but to create jobs in every constituency. That is why it is particularly extraordinary to hear SNP representatives argue against those jobs. Will the Secretary of State confirm how many new jobs will be created by today’s announcement and what conversations he has had with workplace representatives to ensure that those are genuinely good jobs, with good terms and conditions?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that in all respects. Sizewell alone will create 10,000 jobs at peak and 1,500 apprenticeships. For good safety and other reasons, there is a strong trade union tradition in the nuclear industry, which we intend to uphold. As for the situation in Scotland, it genuinely beggars belief that the SNP would turn its back on such a huge opportunity.

As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear energy, and having championed the nuclear industry for 20 years in this Parliament, even when it was not popular on either side of the House, I very much welcome today’s announcement, because I have seen over 60 years in my constituency the economic impact of the Chapelcross nuclear power station. Returning to the subject of Scotland, we see the SNP’s intransigence, which is costing Scotland jobs on the nuclear front. Will the Secretary of State ensure that if we will not have nuclear power stations, we can at least have jobs in the supply chain?

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his long-standing advocacy on the issue, including when it was not popular. He makes a very good point: we need to see a change in Government in Scotland, to a Labour party that will advocate for nuclear. The supply chain in all four nations of the UK can play a crucial role in the nuclear renaissance that we are announcing today.

A very happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. May I thank the Secretary of State for today’s announcement, which represents a massive boost for my constituents in Erewash and a huge vote of confidence for Rolls-Royce just down the road in Derby? How does he foresee the announcement affecting the availability of apprenticeships for kids leaving my local schools in Ilkeston and Long Eaton?

My hon. Friend raises such an important point. There is a good tradition of apprenticeships in nuclear. I have seen it at Hinkley Point C and we will see it at Sizewell. I am sure, and I will make sure, that we will see it in the SMR programme as well. These are fantastic opportunities for young people and opportunities that we intend to make happen.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House a bit more about the regulated asset base funding model for Sizewell C? In particular, will he assure the public that the construction phase of Sizewell C will not be funded by increases to people’s bills, given that it will be well over a decade—potentially nearer two decades if we look at Hinkley Point—before it produces any new electricity?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the RAB system that was passed through this House involves the role of bill payers. We believe that that is the right system and will cut the cost compared with Hinkley Point C. The hon. Gentleman appears to oppose many different forms of clean power. He opposes transmission infrastructure for offshore wind and solar, he opposes solar farms, he opposes carbon capture and storage, and I guess he opposes nuclear. I have an all-of-the-above position on clean energy; he seems to have a none-of-the-above position.

I am delighted that Rolls-Royce has been selected to deliver SMRs in the UK. It really is time for us to stop delaying the new fleet of nuclear power stations more broadly. The Secretary of State will remember that he came to my constituency before the election, to the Barnoldswick Rolls-Royce site, and heard that it now supports 400 jobs, whereas pre-pandemic it was 900. This is a huge opportunity for us to create good skilled jobs in all parts of the country, so will he reassure me that the Government as the customer of Rolls-Royce will demand that those jobs go to places such as Barnoldswick and all over the UK and that we stop the offshoring of manufacturing?

I was incredibly impressed by what I saw at Barnoldswick. I had to maintain a position of neutrality when I became Secretary of State as to who won the competition, but I am incredibly pleased that Rolls-Royce won the competition fair and square. My hon. Friend makes an important point about making sure that the jobs go to places such as Barnoldswick. I am sure that Rolls-Royce will want to do that.

Capula, based in Stone, is an example of a great British company that has been supplying the electricity-generation industry in this country for many decades. To get the very best for British jobs, how can businesses such as Capula link in at the very earliest stages with the Government as they start to plan how the investment will be made?

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue; let me take this away. As we embark on this golden age for nuclear, we need to make sure that the supply chain really benefits. Perhaps he could furnish my Department with the details so that we can think about how such companies can benefit?

I welcome today’s announcement. I have been speaking to people from across my constituency—cleaners, hospitality workers and others—who desperately need the cost of bills to come down. How will the projects announced today, and the other steps the Government are taking to counter the impact of uncertainty in global energy markets, help to stop people in Heywood and Middleton North being out of pocket?

My hon. Friend raises an important point, which is that this is about planning for the long term to get off the rollercoaster of fossil fuels, which are insecure. We saw what happened when Russia invaded Ukraine. Let me give the House one fact: if the Sizewell C plant had been up and running at the time of that crisis, bill payers would have saved £4 billion in 2022-23 alone. That is the security that new nuclear can give us.

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Secretary of State what guarantees are in place to ensure that these jobs go to local people rather than to overseas contractors? Also, what investment in training and skills will be provided to make sure that they go to local people on the ground?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that Members on both sides of the House have raised in different ways. It is absolutely part of what we are going to do to make sure that these jobs come to the UK. There are commitments around 70% of the supply chain spending being in the UK, and my Department will ensure that there is accountability on the part of the companies that will be benefiting from public money, to ensure that we see the maximum benefits across the country in the UK.

I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today. Unfortunately, it is not for viewers in Scotland. Scotland was once a pioneer in nuclear energy, and it should be again, but due to the SNP Scottish Government’s outdated, backward and frankly bizarre opposition to nuclear energy, they are turning away billions of pounds of investment and thousands of high-skilled jobs. Does he agree that this is yet another way that the SNP Scottish Government have lost their way?

My hon. Friend is so right about this. People in Scotland will be looking at these announcements and saying, “Why isn’t it us who are benefiting from this? Why are we not even in the race?” We have lots of Members saying that they want their area to benefit, yet the Scottish Government and the SNP are saying that they want no part of it, and no part of those jobs. That makes no sense.

I also welcome—[Interruption.] It is very unusual for me to welcome anything from the Secretary of State but I welcome this announcement, because nuclear is an important element in providing the baseload for electricity across the United Kingdom. He mentioned delivery five times in his statement, but this is an announcement not a delivery, and there is a period when we will still need the baseload to be provided. Can he tell us how he intends to ensure that the baseload is provided in that interim period, and what discussions he has had with the Economy Minister in Northern Ireland about the suitability of SMRs for supply in Northern Ireland?

The right hon. Gentleman and I have been discussing these energy issues for about 17 years since he was the spokesperson on this, and agreement is rare between us, so I really welcome what he says. I would say to him that these are the steps we have to go through to deliver, and they are incredibly important. To reassure him on his point about the Economy Minister in Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Energy Minister will be meeting them next week. We believe that this can benefit all four nations of the United Kingdom, and it is 100% our intention to make that happen.

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I welcome the Government’s commitment to securing our future energy supply and, by doing so, taking control of our energy, protecting family finances and tackling the climate crisis. In addition, I am keen to learn about the Department’s assessment of new technological developments to reduce energy waste, in particular through developing underground thermal energy storage solutions. I am aware of organisations in that sector that are keen to share opportunities with the Government, so what is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the role of thermal storage solutions in reducing energy loss, avoiding curtailment fees and maximising the benefit from energy generated?

I know that my hon. Friend has been strongly advocating on these issues in terms of the exciting possibilities for his constituency. My suggestion is that a Minister from my Department—perhaps the Minister for Energy—should meet him and the company concerned about the potential involved.

The announcement today is good news as far as it goes, but the baseload that it will provide will not be on tap for many years to come. How does the Secretary of State propose to fill that gap? Will he now look again at the UK-Morocco power project, which needs a decision soon and could be delivering electrons by the turn of the decade? Does the announcement today affect the likely contract for difference and strike prices eventually reached with the proposed operator?

We are looking seriously at the Xlinks project. The right hon. Gentleman is a tireless advocate for it, and I respect him for that. My answer on the baseload question is that we need a combination of things to meet the power that we need, and there are all kinds of different ways in which we can do that. I would also say that part of the job that we are undertaking is to make sure that we can get Hinkley Point C delivered as quickly as possible, because that can also make an important contribution. On his last point, the decisions today do not affect the decisions on Xlinks. Those are separate decisions.

I welcome the statement today, which is moving towards an energy mix that is less weather dependent. I also welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of investment in nuclear fusion. There is one constant about nuclear fusion, which is that, starting from the original ideas in the 1950s, it has always been 50 years in the future. The International Energy Agency is still predicting that the earliest that nuclear fusion will be providing energy on to the grid will be the second half of this century. Does the Secretary of State agree with that, and if not, why not?

My hon. Friend is definitely right about the old saying on nuclear fusion. I think maybe it is coming a bit closer. There have been really important breakthroughs, particularly in the UK, and we are determined to invest in them. I do not think anyone can say for certain when it will arrive, but the prototype fusion project is a really exciting step on that journey.

Penblwydd hapus i chi, Mr Llefarydd—happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. The nuclear community at Trawsfynydd remains disappointed not to be on GBN’s SMR site and will continue to push for that and also for alternative uses. Security of supply of medical radioisotopes is critical to avoid the ethical nightmare of rationing diagnoses and treatments for a range of diseases including cancer. The Welsh Government’s Project Arthur will see north Wales become the home of a public sector national laboratory to produce medical radioisotopes. What is the Secretary of State’s Department doing to help the Welsh Government to realise Project Arthur at Trawsfynydd?

This is why these statements are important. I think I need to check the answer, because I do not want to give a flippant answer to the right hon. Lady’s incredibly serious question. Let me write to her to give her a proper answer.

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. While I welcome this fantastic announcement, Scotland will unfortunately not benefit due to the SNP’s ideological block on nuclear power, blocking billions in investment and thousands of well-paid secure Scottish jobs and blocking growth across our Scottish communities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Scotland and, indeed, Ayrshire need a new political direction, and that the only way to get that will be at the ballot box next year?

My hon. Friend puts it very well. I notice that SNP Members have sort of disappeared; they are probably a bit embarrassed. She is absolutely right about this. In a sense, it comes into sharp focus today because we can announce a golden age of nuclear with our investments, but not in Scotland because of the position of the SNP Government. It makes no sense.

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Energy security is important, so I welcome this investment in nuclear. One more small modular reactor can power a million homes using just two football pitches-worth of land, while solar needs 2,000 acres of good-quality farmland to power 50,000 homes. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the importance of food security as well as energy security, reconsider the use of good-quality farmland for solar, and concentrate instead on producing nuclear?

We are operating under the previous Government’s planning guidance when it comes to the best agricultural land. On the hon. Lady’s wider point, we need all the clean energy resources that are at our disposal—solar, onshore and offshore wind, and nuclear. I am for all of the above.

I inform the House that the Government will make a statement later today to give an update on the middle east.

Today’s announcement that £2.5 billion will be invested in the small modular reactor programme is fantastic news for the country. It will help bring energy bills down, power homes and create jobs. It is amazing news for Derby, too, because the technology behind the SMRs has its roots in the technology developed at Rolls-Royce Submarines half a century ago. As the Government move forward with investment and delivery, and the Secretary of State approaches the contractual aspects, will he ensure that we build on what we have in Derby, such as the Nuclear Skills Academy, and the good jobs already there, so that we can grow opportunity for the wider region and the country as a whole?

My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. Derby should be incredibly proud of Rolls-Royce winning the competition, and incredibly excited about the possibilities for young people in Derby and across the wider region. Now we must ensure that, working with Rolls-Royce, we deliver on that promise, and that is what we intend to do.

The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) asked perfectly reasonable and pertinent questions about the cost of this whole project. Is there a private finance initiative element involved, and what will it cost? How ultimately will we dispose of the nuclear waste, and who will pay the decommissioning costs in 60 years’ time? The nuclear industry does not have a great record on strike price, decommissioning costs or the cost of dealing with waste.

The right hon. Gentleman asks perfectly legitimate questions. I am glad to say that decommissioning is in at the beginning of the financing model, as part of the overall costs. We will lay out total costs when the final investment decision is made. Similarly, on the regulated asset base costs—I know that he genuinely cares about the climate crisis—all the evidence we have shows that this is our lowest-cost alternative, compared with other low-carbon technologies, so it is a crucial part of the energy mix.

I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Labour Government on this incredibly important investment announcement. As a physicist by training, I particularly welcome the investment in fusion technology, as well as traditional fission. I am sure that this investment will bring closer the final outcome that we want. Will he ensure that the benefit of this investment is felt across all our communities by using a predominantly UK supply chain, and will he ensure that all aspects of the nuclear jigsaw receive Government support, including the provision of nuclear fuel, the decommissioning and safe disposal of nuclear waste, and even the reuse of currently stockpiled nuclear waste products in future generations of reactors?

My hon. Friend makes an important point: across the lifecycle of nuclear and across the supply chain, there are important economic opportunities. The importance of realising that potential is a constant theme of the questions that we have heard today, and that is what we intend to do.

Global tech giants such as Microsoft and Amazon have announced plans to use SMRs to power their data centres, so they have trust in SMRs. I happen to believe that they should be the future of nuclear in this country. I have a couple of questions for the Secretary of State. The announcement states that a new public company, GB Energy Nuclear, will be set up. Will he set out why a new company is required, how much it will cost the public purse, and why it is based in Warrington? I have nothing against Warrington, of course, but why has the decision been made to place the company there? Will he outline when he expects meaningful deployment of the modular reactors?

The hon. Gentleman asks good questions. On the first, GB Energy Nuclear is a development of Great British Nuclear, which is based in Warrington. On deployment, I am aware of the record of people who promise deployment that is then not delivered, but the truth is that we expect a final investment decision in the next few years, and deployment in the early to mid-2030s—I think that is the fairest way of putting it. I agree with him about the potential. I also agree—this is why I have said that I am open to the role of the private sector—that private sector partners may want to come in and build sooner, and that would be great.

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the investment in our energy security and jobs. I know from my visit to Sizewell with the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee that jobs in the nuclear industry are good, well paid and highly skilled. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is in part thanks to the strong relationship between business, trade unions and the Government in that sector, and that there is much to be learned from that relationship in other parts of the energy sector and beyond?

My hon. Friend characteristically puts it incredibly well. The nuclear industry offers us a model of good employee relations, and there is a good, strong role for trade unions in ensuring safety and guaranteeing good terms and conditions for workers. That is a lesson that other parts of the energy industry, including the renewables sector, can definitely learn from.

New jobs in clean energy are very welcome. Many of the skilled jobs at Hinkley Point C in the south-west are going to young people from beyond the area. Given the social mobility challenges in East Anglia and west Somerset, will the Secretary of State comment on investment in colleges and skills to encourage applications from the local area for those new jobs and apprenticeships?

The hon. Gentleman puts it incredibly well. That was certainly my impression when I went to Hinkley Point C, when I saw the impact that it has on the local economy. We want to do the same at Sizewell C. There are plans to start a local college, modelling in a way some of the stuff that was done at Hinkley Point C. He is so right about the massive opportunities here, which we must exploit.

As a child, Sizewell was an important word to me, like Wylfa, Hunterston, Dungeness, Dounreay and Hinkley, because they were places where my father, based in Gateshead, went to work. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the announcement is part of bringing back those fantastic safe jobs, which are so important for Gateshead and the nuclear industry?

I am glad that my hon. Friend asks that question and talks about his heritage and family history. That reflects something real. The nuclear industry has a great tradition in this country. It went through a sort of extended hiccup, I think it is fair to say, but it is really important that we bring it back. Those are good, long-term secure jobs that people can take pride in. We should absolutely embrace that.

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on fusion energy and for the east midlands, I say a huge thank you on behalf of my constituents and my region for the two major announcements: Rolls-Royce winning the SMR contract, and the £2.5 billion for fusion energy. Does the Secretary of State agree that such large infrastructure projects offer huge apprenticeship opportunities for my region, and will he commit to meeting me and the Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, to discuss how the Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station can play its role?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his two-hatted advocacy on these issues. He makes an important point. The potential of the new prototype fusion plant is huge, as is the wider potential of nuclear. I look forward to discussing that with him.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the clear positivity in every word he has said. I very much welcome the news that nuclear energy is to be secured for the United Kingdom, bringing job security and many contracts, and we look forward to seeing how we can all benefit across this great nation. Can he confirm that companies from the United Kingdom will be able to secure contracts to supply materials and manpower? How can Government ensure that each area of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will benefit from this massive investment?

It is really important that there is a four-nations approach to the supply chain contracts; that is something I am very keen to ensure. There will be thousands of contracts in the supply chain, with huge opportunities for Northern Ireland, and I am determined to deliver them.

Andy Burnham’s Atom Valley mayoral development zone for advanced manufacturing will be based in Rochdale, Oldham and Bury, and it is so named in honour of Ernest Rutherford’s groundbreaking research at the University of Manchester on splitting the atom. Does my right hon. Friend welcome the fact that today’s huge public investment in both nuclear and nuclear fusion will rely on precisely the kind of cutting-edge research that will be done at the Sustainable Materials and Manufacturing Centre in Rochdale?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on that question and on the new centre, which is incredibly appropriately named. We should celebrate our history on these issues, and the way to honour our history is by building the future for nuclear—that is what today is all about.