I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) Order 2026 (S.I., 2026, No. 613). 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. The statutory instrument, which was laid before Parliament on 10 June, places controls on a new, highly lethal class of drug. Orphines are a type of synthetic opioid, which emerged in force in the UK drugs market last spring. In that time, they have been involved in at least 22 deaths, 14 of which were between December and March. Between 2024 and April 2026, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime received 206 reports from multiple countries of drug samples containing orphine compounds.

The report of 30 April from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, for which I am very grateful, stated that,

“the risk to the population from these recently emerging compounds is sufficiently great that urgent steps are required to protect public health.”

We have taken those urgent steps. Less than six weeks after the report was published, we enacted a temporary class drug order—the first in a decade—to control seven orphines. I will spare Committee members the complex chemical names, but they are all set out in the order and the explanatory memorandum. I confirm that three of the seven have been involved in UK deaths, and the European Union drugs agency has notified that the other four are present in the EU drugs market.

The TCDO makes it a specific offence to produce, supply or offer to supply those seven orphines; to possess them with an intent to supply; and to import or export them. Penalties are the same as for class B drugs—namely, maximum sentences of 14 years in prison. The TCDO also provides that the substances should be treated as if they were listed in schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. Schedule 1 covers substances with no known medical uses, as is the case here, and requires anyone who needs to make legitimate use of them—for example, for research—to obtain a Home Office licence.

Unusually, the statutory instrument comes under the made affirmative procedure, by which it comes into force but then requires the active assent of both Houses—in this case, by next Friday. That reflects the fact that we are expanding the scope of the criminal law, but there is a pressing danger to public safety. Whatever views hon. Members may have about the harms of some drugs, I hope we can all agree that these drugs are a clear and present danger that must be quickly controlled.

We have also accepted the recommendation of the advisory council to make these substances—and some broader generic definitions of orphines—class A drugs. That is not for today. We will introduce draft legislation as soon as possible, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has urged us to do, and a different Committee from this one will have the chance to debate it. I cannot give a precise timetable for that, but I assure the Committee that we are mindful of the fact that the TCDO lasts for just one year. The statutory instrument is vital to keep our communities safe, and I commend it to the Committee.

Thank you, Mr Vickers, for chairing today’s debate.

For the avoidance of doubt, I want to be clear that the Opposition support the Government’s decision, and welcome what I hope is a first step to stop the proliferation of these dangerous substances. The evidence that the Government and our international partners have presented on orphines shows them to be dangerous substances that we must stop being used as quickly as possible. We must act expediently to crack down on new and dangerous substances without medical uses and stop them making their way into our society.

Orphines have already been involved in at least 15 deaths since spring 2025, and I share the concerns of both the Government and the ACMD about the urgent steps needed to protect public health. In that light, the important question for the Government is: when do they expect to transition from the temporary order to a permanent measure that will offer enhanced powers to stop their use? We all recognise that a transition in leadership can cause difficulties in Ministers offering assurances, but it would be helpful if they could set out a timeline for when we might expect the change to be made.

Recognising the dangers posed by this compound, we must also acknowledge the need to be agile and have robust enforcement. A presentation by the Australian Prompt Response Network in June this year, on the emerging threat of new synthetic orphines, identified 14 analogues. Although the three most frequently identified on the digital market are covered by the order, it leaves open the possibility of new substances entering the market without being controlled. The continuing evolution of these drugs means that it is necessary to identify at speed which items are entering the market before they result in further deaths. We have a responsibility to those who have died to be ready to identify any changes. As such, does the Minister know whether conversations have been held with police forces about recognising the new substances? Moreover, given the decrease in police officers, is there sufficient capacity to respond to changes?

The order is necessary and comes with the support of the ACMD. We must be ready to confront the changing dangers posed by new synthetics, so I sincerely hope that the Government act fast to introduce all the measures that they have accepted.

To follow on from the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, the ACMD recommends that orphines should be classed as class A, whereas under a temporary class drug order, they can be placed only within class B boundaries. My understanding is that the Minister has accepted the recommendation to bring them into line with class A. Does she recognise that it is important to introduce the permanent controls as quickly as possible?

I have a few questions for the Minister. These are extremely harmful drugs that threaten the people who take them. Can the Minister update the Committee on whether they are arriving in the country in their final form or whether they are synthesised in this country from raw products, and how are they being administered right now? It is clearly important for enforcement to know whether we need to stop them at the point of entry or whether we need to take action in the community to identify the drugs and seize them.

Can the Minister update us on whether the ingredients of these harmful drugs can be brought in legally but then synthesised in this country? That will have an effect on enforcement as well.

Finally, have the police established the prevalence of these products? I completely accept the number of deaths that have been caused, but equally, the drugs might be being used in a more widespread way.

I thank hon. Members for their points and for welcoming the changes that we are making.

As I explained, we have accepted that orphines should be classed as class A, but there is a different parliamentary process through which we will make them class A. We will do that as quickly as possible. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, asked when it will happen. I cannot give a specific date, but two things are true. First, we will do it as soon as possible, and secondly, the order lasts for only a year, so we will have to do it within that time anyway. We will ensure that we do it well within that time. It is the right thing to do, and we have accepted what the ACMD has suggested.

When we introduce the legislation to make orphines class A, we can use a more generic definition. The shadow Minister made a point about different forms of these substances, and the generic definition will help us to cover more substances as they get made. He is right to say that as we pick up and act on certain new synthetic opioids, new ones pop up along the way.

The hon. Member for Harrow East asked where the drugs are coming from and how they are presenting themselves. There is a risk of them being made in this country and coming from abroad, but they are mainly coming from abroad. I think there have been two cases where nitazenes—similar substances—have been found being produced in Scotland. I will write to the hon. Gentleman if I have the wrong drug type, but there are two cases where production has been found in Scotland. Sadly, Scotland has much higher levels of deaths than we do with the problems that it has.

The National Crime Agency, which would happily do a wider briefing on this issue, is very good at identifying new and emerging drugs and keeping them at bay. It is much harder to manage and reduce problems with the more traditional drugs that are coming in extreme quantities, although the NCA does good work in that space, too. It has been good thus far, and perhaps better than other countries, including America, which has seen a huge increase in fentanyl. We have not quite seen that, but we are seeing significant numbers and deaths across the country. Through the National Crime Agency, we will ensure that we are keeping our borders as safe as we possibly can to stop drugs coming in while keeping on top of production.

The hon. Member for Harrow East also asked how the police are recognising these drugs. We have a partnership across Five Eyes in particular, and we have relationships with other countries. We are introducing early warning systems through which we tell the police when drugs are emerging either across the EU or in some of our partner countries, such as Australia and the US. We tell them what these things physically look like so that they know what to look out for and what to expect. We have those partnerships under way.

This is a constant battle, as all Members know, and the order will make a helpful difference as we work quickly towards making orphines a class A drug.

Question put and agreed to.

Before I call the Minister, I invite Gentleman Members to yourselves of your jackets if you feel so inclined in this hot weather. I call the Minister.

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Contracts for Difference (Definition of Eligible Generator) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

Thank you, Mr Wishart. Not willing to be half jacket on, half jacket off during my speech, I will continue as I am at the moment, but it is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time.

The contracts for difference scheme is the Government’s primary way to incentivise low-carbon capacity in the electricity system. The draft regulations change the scheme’s eligibility criteria to include the lifetime extension of nuclear plants. Nuclear power is expected to play a key role in the UK’s future energy system. By generating baseload power in the UK, nuclear energy can complement renewable sources, helping to maintain price stability for consumers and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It also lessens our reliance on imports from overseas, strengthening our energy security. However, the UK’s present operational nuclear fleet, including the four advanced gas cooled reactors and Sizewell B, the UK’s only pressurised water reactor, are due to begin decommissioning in the coming decades; this means that around 15% of our current electricity generating capacity could be lost by 2035. While the Government continue to take forward the wider nuclear programme through Sizewell C and through the Great British Energy nuclear small modular reactor programme, we should also make sure that suitable mechanisms are available to support continued generation at existing nuclear stations, where financial support is necessary and likely to represent value for money. In the absence of that support, nuclear power plant operators may choose not to make the investment necessary to extend the operational lifetime of the stations.

Before speaking to the provisions in more detail, I will set out some background to the contracts for difference scheme. As I said, that is the Government’s main mechanism for supporting low-carbon electricity generation across Great Britain. Under a CfD, the generator is paid a fixed price for electricity generated across the lifetime of the contract. It sells the electricity it produces into the wholesale market, and when the wholesale price falls below the strike price the difference is received in payments from the Low Carbon Contracts Company. Where wholesale prices rise above the strike price, the generator is required to make up the difference in payments to LCCC. Where the LCCC makes difference payments to the generator, these are funded through a statutory levy on licensed electricity suppliers, and are therefore passed on to households and businesses through electricity bills.

The CfD mechanism is central to delivering the Government’s objective of a fully decarbonised power system while securing value for money. It protects consumers when electricity prices are high and gives generators income stability over the duration of the contract. For example, had Hinkley Point C been operational during the last energy crisis, consumers would have saved around £5 billion.

The draft instrument before us today amends the Contracts for Difference (Definition of Eligible Generator) Regulations 2014 so that the Government have the option to use the CfD mechanism to support the continued generation of electricity at existing nuclear power stations. Nuclear energy is already eligible for CfD support for new-build capacity, with a CfD having been taken forward for the construction of Hinkley Point C, but nuclear stations seeking to undertake refurbishment in order to extend their operational lifetime are not currently eligible. Broadening the eligibility criteria in this way allows existing nuclear capacity to continue to generate low-carbon electricity over extended operating lifetimes, with support under the CfD where it is judged safe and economical to do so. The Government’s assessment is that nuclear lifetime extensions can provide value for money for consumers, given that lifetime extensions will be considerably cheaper than building new generation. Modelling indicates that extending nuclear plants lowers overall electricity system costs compared with other low-carbon routes to net zero.

It is important to state that the draft instrument does not in itself commit any support; nor does it guarantee a CfD for any particular project. Its purpose is instead to allow the Government to consider CfD support for lifetime extension projects for nuclear. Any decision to award a CfD will be subject to all relevant approvals, including value for money tests, and will be announced in due course.

The draft regulations widen the eligibility criteria for contracts for difference, so that existing nuclear plants can qualify for support for lifetime extensions. It strengthens our security of supply by enabling access to financial support where needed to sustain electricity generation from existing nuclear infrastructure. That means low-carbon baseloads can remain on the grid without the higher costs and longer delivery times associated with new build. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart, and not for the first time. It brings me back to those happy, heady days of the Scottish Affairs Committee 2021-22, when it was a joy to serve under your chairmanship.

Using the powers designated under the Energy Act 2013 to amend the contracts for difference regulations, as the Minister eloquently set out, this instrument brings lifespan extension for nuclear power generators into scope for contracts for difference. Last year, France approved extending the lifespan of 20 nuclear reactors to 50 years. The UK, by contrast, extended the lifespans of advanced gas-cooled reactors Heysham 1 and Hartlepool until 2028, and Heysham 2 and Torness to 2030. That is welcome, but as our nuclear fleet ages, it will be necessary to extend the lifespan of existing nuclear power by considerably more. The stable baseload and clean power are essential to our energy mix, and we support extensions to keep this reliable generation on our system.

The Department’s note on this instrument acknowledges that the existing nuclear fleet provides

“a significant proportion of firm, low-carbon electricity generation, contributing to energy security and system resilience”.

I could not agree more, which is why as the nuclear Minister in the last Conservative Government, I announced our intention to build a new nuclear power station at Wylfa—a project which this Government have effectively cancelled; in addition, their lack of commitment to new gigawatt-scale nuclear is disappointing. Our ambition was to generate 25% of British electricity, 24 GW, from nuclear by 2050, but that has been overshadowed by the current Department’s obsession with renewables over everything else.

The Government know that nuclear generation is the right thing to do. I know the Minister knows this too, so why will they not give a commitment to new, large-scale nuclear in this country? The Conservatives have set out a clear plan for cheap energy in which new nuclear is a vital component. We would make it easier and cheaper to build new nuclear, removing habitat regulations and prohibitive environmental impact assessments. What is Labour’s ambition for nuclear?

Given the importance of nuclear power to our energy security and stability, we absolutely welcome those limited measures to keep reliable power on the grid, but the Minister will have noted our serious concerns about the contracts for difference scheme—a fixed price, long-term, inflation-linked mechanism that locks consumers into higher prices for longer. We have already seen that in the eyewatering prices offered to offshore wind, in particular in allocation round 7.

This amendment to the eligibility criteria facilitates future awards to nuclear generators, which is fine, but it does not oblige a CfD to be awarded to an individual plant. How can the Minister assure us that steps will be taken to keep costs as low as possible, and that we will not be locked into high prices just to keep these plants online? Will the Minister reconsider the attitude to new nuclear and signify to the industry that Great Britain is ambitious when it comes to gigawatt-scale generation? Will he commit to a third gigawatt-scale reactor on the completion of Sizewell C later in the next decade?

The Liberal Democrats support extending eligibility for contracts for difference so that existing nuclear generating stations can obtain those contracts. Building new large-scale nuclear in the UK suffers from spiralling costs and has been bogged down by serious delays, so we recognise the importance of extending the operational life of existing assets. To meet our climate targets and strengthen our energy security, it is important to make the most of our existing infrastructure and these investments, and so rely less on imported fossil fuels.

Many of the respondents to the Government’s consultation expressed their support in principle for the proposed amendment, citing the benefits to our energy security, system resilience, affordability and decarbonisation. Any future contracts for difference awarded to large-scale nuclear must be awarded at competitive prices and be value for money for consumers. Beyond this, it is also vital we continue to invest in renewables, in SMR research and development, and in CfDs for green technology, to ensure we get low energy bills, strengthen our energy security and do our part to tackle the climate crisis.

I repeat these points regularly, but the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, often talks about his party’s “intention to do”, “ambition to do”, “we aimed to do”, but in 14 years the Conservatives did nothing to build any new nuclear, and that is the record he has to defend. Intention is all well and good, but delivery is what this Government are focused on.

We have not ruled out new gigawatt-scale nuclear, but we want to look at it in the context of the future system. That is partly about what the strategic spatial energy plan looks like, but it is also about learning from the deployment of small modular and advanced modular reactors, which we will roll out in due course, and things like the measures we have taken to produce a new regulatory framework, so that we get private sector interest in building nuclear—the Centrica X-energy project in Hartlepool being a good example. It is possible we will have a much more developed approach and innovation in shaping the future nuclear fleet; it might not require a gigawatt-scale project, but we have not ruled it out and it continues to be something we will consider.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the CfD itself. As I said, this set of regulations before us today does not agree to any particular CfD, but he is right to point out the value for money point. Any specific contract we looked at would be subject to subsidy control regulations, assessing first of all whether that support is absolutely necessary for the lifetime extension to continue, whether it is proportionate, and the value for money for consumers point which is really important. We will look at that very closely, but as he rightly says there are examples around the world of really significant lifetime extensions to fleets which could give us decades’ more nuclear power at much lower cost than the cost of rebuilding.

To the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, I will just say that I agree completely that the future of our energy system in terms of security and value for money is a mix of nuclear and renewables, as well as everything else we are doing around storage and investing in the grid. This instrument is a hugely important step in maintaining the fleet we have at the moment for a bit longer while we build the generation that comes next, and I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft West Midlands Combined Authority (Key Route Network) (Amendment) Order 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Desmond. When I said this was likely not to be a particularly controversial piece of delegated legislation, I did not really expect that the shadow Minister would be racing in at the last minute—but he is here now.

These draft regulations relate to the key route network of the West Midlands Combined Authority. Let me begin by setting out what the KRN is and why it matters. Under the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, every strategic authority is required to identify the most important locally managed roads in its area. Those roads form the KRN. In practice, most authorities, including WMCA, already operate such a network. The purpose is simple: a KRN ensures that the locally managed roads that carry the greatest strategic importance are planned and managed coherently across the whole region.

The Government published guidance in April 2026 to support authorities in deciding which roads should be included. The KRN should include those locally managed roads that are most important for delivering the priorities set out in the local transport plan. Authorities should consider issues such as traffic volume, bus use, active travel routes and freight movements. In mayoral combined authorities, the KRN is agreed by a resolution of the authority following a proposal by the mayor.

In the west midlands, the KRN covers around 605 km of road. That is roughly 7% of the network, yet it carries half of all traffic. WMCA oversees the strategic direction of the network, but the constituent councils of Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton remain the local highways authorities and retain responsibility for day-to-day management, maintenance and safety of the KRN roads. WMCA does, however, share certain powers with them, including those relating to agreements with National Highways, road safety promotion and street works permit schemes.

The 2026 Act also gave mayors powers of direction over KRN roads. That is a carefully limited power, intended for use only when necessary to deliver measures already set out in an agreed strategy, such as the local transport plan. It ensures that strategic ambitions for the region can be implemented consistently across local boundaries. The benefits of a well-managed KRN are clear: smoother traffic flow, reduced congestion, and the ability to introduce targeted interventions that improve infrastructure and bus reliability. It is a tool designed to help places to plan for the future and to respond to changing travel patterns. The Committee will be aware that travel patterns have changed, particularly since the pandemic. It is prudent for all strategic authorities to keep their KRN under review and to update it when the existing list of roads no longer reflects local priorities.

For other authorities, updating the KRN is straightforward: they simply revise the list on their website. However, WMCA faces a unique challenge. Its KRN was written directly into legislation, the West Midlands Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017, in which the roads are described as combined authority roads. That was, of course, under a previous Government.

In 2017, embedding the KRN in legislation provided clarity and stability, since WMCA was then newly established; but nine years later, the rigidity of having the KRN set out in legislation is a barrier to change. West Midlands Combined Authority is preparing a new local transport plan and wishes to update its KRN accordingly, yet doing so currently requires WMCA to ask the Department for Transport to legislate each time it wants to make a change. No other strategic authority faces that constraint, and I am sure the Committee will agree that it is not an efficient way of doing things.

Following discussions with my officials, WMCA has written to the Secretary of State, requesting that the Government bring forward this instrument. A public consultation was held and 69% of respondents supported the proposal. The regulations remove the list of KRN roads from the 2017 order; once they are approved, WMCA will be able to update its KRN in the same way as every other strategic authority, allowing the region to respond more flexibly to evolving travel patterns and to deliver better outcomes for road users. This is a practical and proportionate change that supports devolution, improves processes for WMCA and ultimately benefits road users. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Thank you for agreeing to chair us today, Sir Desmond. May I take this first opportunity to apologise to all members of the Committee for my late attendance? I am afraid I was at the Bar of the House of Lords, listening to the noble Lord Hendy speaking on Second Reading of the Railways Bill; his soaring rhetoric got the better of me, and I took my eye off the time.

It is quite right, as the Minister has said, that the West Midlands Combined Authority is currently the odd one out when it comes to the application or the designation of key route networks. All other MCAs have the power to designate KRNs administratively, whereas, as we have heard, the WMCA has to use secondary legislation. These draft regulations therefore appear to the loyal Opposition to be a sensible tidying-up exercise and we do not intend to divide the Committee on it.

The measure only works, however, if the powers that are devolved are used well. This is one of the big debates that we have in a central Government such as ours: we seek to devolve power to the lowest common denominator, to get power closer to the people, but at the same time, in giving up authority, we also give up the ability to change other people’s mistakes. With, perhaps, a new Prime Minister, I think that that is an issue we will be considering more frequently in this place.

There are many examples, even to date, where devolution has not been successful, particularly when it comes to transport schemes. We only have to look outside the window at the mess that Mayor Khan is making of London with his persecution of drivers. There are many hon. Members on the Labour Benches—I have spoken to some; they are not in this room, I admit, but they sit on the Labour Benches—who look at low traffic neighbourhood orders with despair.

If I may bring us back to the West Midlands Combined Authority and the relevance of this delegated legislation, I think I am the only Member on the Committee who represents the west midlands, and the absence of this change has meant that we have been prevented from implementing important road safety strategies to reduce speed and accidents on our roads. Does the shadow Minister agree that the draft regulations are good news and that we should perhaps focus on that element of this debate?

I have already made clear that I think this is a sensible statutory instrument, and I am not proposing to oppose it. It is none the less a relevant consideration when considering devolution, of which this is a part, that we look at the wider issue of devolution to make sure that this is a sensible course of action. That is why it is relevant in this debate to consider what has happened in London, and also in Birmingham, where there has been notorious mismanagement of the roads fund, leading to a lack of repairs despite many hundreds of millions of pounds in private finance initiative credits’ having been awarded to that council.

There is a bigger issue, of which this statutory instrument is a part—a sensible part, I accept—and it is incumbent upon the Minister to explain, in her response to my comments, how she will ensure that local authorities and mayoral combined authorities, particularly the West Midlands Combined Authority, use the powers granted effectively to enhance the experience of road users, rather than merely giving them powers and washing her hands of them.

I am delighted to hear that the shadow Minister finds the speeches of my noble friend the Rail Minister so unmissable, but I am also delighted to see the hon. Gentleman now in his place, and I thank all hon. Members for being here today and for their consideration of these draft regulations.

Let me take this opportunity to address the points the shadow Minister made, although perhaps I will not try to address the points he made about low traffic neighbourhoods in London, because those will not be a matter for the key route network. They are not the sort of roads that we are talking about—high-volume roads that connect key centres of employment or key international gateways, or that carry large volumes of freight. Obviously low traffic neighbourhoods are very local roads in very built-up areas.

I understand the points the Minister is making. However, we had a low traffic neighbourhood imposed upon us in Exeter—the hon. Member for Exeter is here, and will know that within that city, traffic was pushed out on to the higher-traffic roads and it caused more congestion. If LTNs are being suggested in different places around the country, can she see that point?

I hear what the hon. Member says, but the point is that local highways authorities are best placed to make decisions about the roads in their area, and mayors and combined authorities are empowered to make decisions about their key route networks. That is the point of this instrument: it is simply to put the West Midlands Combined Authority in the same place as all other combined authorities when seeking to address the key routes in their area.

To come on to the second point that the shadow Minister raised, the benefit for road users is ensuring that people enjoy safe, smooth and seamless journeys, that they are not beset by congestion, that they are able to travel safely, that that applies to all road users, whether they are motorists or cyclists or pedestrians or motorcyclists, and that buses can operate effectively. Things that key route networks look at include the suitability of very high-volume bus routes, where we know that large numbers of people are travelling using those key public transport routes, or indeed where large freight volumes are using the key route network.

The shadow Minister raised a concern that perhaps this change might provide less oversight of future changes to the KRN, but I disagree. This measure streamlines the process and simply places West Midlands Combined Authority in the same position as all other strategic authorities. Deciding which roads should constitute the key routes has always been a matter for the combined authority; it is still a matter for the combined authority and it must be agreed by a majority of the constituent members, which means all those councils that I previously referred to, and the mayor.

I hope that this instrument, which makes an important change, will simply simplify things for the West Midlands Combined Authority.

I very much support the desire for the west midlands, like other places, to have consistency with mayoral authorities—but that is not what the Government are doing elsewhere. Take Cambridge: we have a metro mayor in Cambridgeshire and the Government have just announced a Greater Cambridge Development Corporation. That is on top of the Greater Cambridge Partnership, which also looks at roads, and on top of the county council, the district councils and the Oxford to Cambridge railway, which is another arm’s length body. Yes, it is right for WMCA to have clarity on what it is responsible for, but why is there so little consistency in areas such as Cambridgeshire, where residents find it very difficult to understand who is responsible for what, because more tiers of Government keep being added?

Order. I think we are going rather wider than the scope of the measure.

Thank you, Sir Desmond. I will try to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question without straying too far. This measure is about combined authorities. It is about the key route networks. It is about making sure that they have a strategic overview of the road network in their area and that they can work with the local highways authorities, their constituent members, to provide benefit for road users and ensure that traffic—whether that is public transport, private transport or freight transport—can move about seamlessly. It will not only simplify things for West Midlands Combined Authority, by putting it on a par with all other combined authorities, but improve life for road users in the west midlands. I hope the Committee will join me in supporting these draft regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Before I call the Minister, I should say that any hon. Member or official who wishes to take off their jacket has the Chair’s permission to do so.

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Justification Decision (Generation of Power by the RR SMR) Regulations 2026.

It is now an extra pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, as I am slightly less warm than I was a few moments ago.

The regulations were laid before the House on 3 June. They are an important step towards enabling the deployment of Rolls-Royce small modular reactors in the UK, supporting our energy security, net zero and economic growth. They give legal effect to the Secretary of State’s decision that the technology is justified under the UK’s regulatory framework for practices involving ionising radiation.

The regulations do not give approval for the building, use or funding of small modular reactors, but set out that legally the Secretary of State’s decision was justified. That means that the technology’s benefits outweigh the potential risks to health from radiation exposure, allowing it to proceed towards deployment in the UK. The Secretary of State identified a range of benefits. The Rolls-Royce SMR has the potential to provide reliable low carbon electricity at scale, helping to power homes and meet growing demand, while supporting the transition to net zero.

The technology is based on well understood pressurised water reactor technology and can contribute to a more secure home grown energy system, reducing reliance on imports. The development and deployment of the technology are also expected to create opportunities for UK jobs, manufacturing and supply chains.

The benefits were weighed against the potential detriment. The evidence indicates that radiological health risks would be low, with well established regulatory arrangements in place to limit exposure. The assessment also found that the technology would not introduce new categories of radioactive waste and that waste can be managed through existing UK arrangements, including the future geological disposal programme for the most hazardous waste. Wider environmental impacts are considered manageable, with site-specific issues addressed through the UK’s planning and permitting regimes.

This decision follows a thorough, evidence-based process informed by independent regulators, statutory consultees and a public consultation in 2025. There were 50 responses to that consultation. Most respondents agreed that this is a new class of practice and that there was sufficient evidence to assess the technology. All views were considered alongside regulators’ advice before the Secretary of State reached her decision.

This is a generic, non-site-specific decision: it does not grant permission to build or operate a reactor anywhere in the United Kingdom. Any future project would be subject to the UK’s established independent regulatory processes involving environmental permitting, nuclear site licensing and planning consent. Those are separate decisions taken later on a site-specific basis. That ensures that issues such as safety, security, environmental protection and waste management are subject to detailed, independent assessment before any project can be brought.

The regulations extend across the United Kingdom but do not require any part of the UK to host such a facility. They do not change devolved responsibilities: matters such as planning, environmental protections and waste management remain subject to the relevant devolved arrangements.

In summary, the regulations give legal effect to the Secretary of State’s decision that the benefits of Rolls-Royce SMRs outweigh their potential radiological health detriment. This statutory instrument is a necessary step within the UK’s regulatory framework to enable that potential. Together, the evidence supports a clear conclusion: this technology will support energy transition and net zero, and it will contribute to the UK economy. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The regulations represent an important step in enabling the deployment of small modular reactors in the United Kingdom. They are a necessary part of the regulatory framework and provide the legal basis for determining that the benefits of the technology outweigh the potential health detriments associated with ionising radiation. The technology has the potential to strengthen our energy security, support thousands of highly skilled jobs and grow our manufacturing base at a time when electricity demand is expected to rise significantly. It is vital that we have a diverse mix of energy, with nuclear playing a key role alongside other forms of energy generation.

The official Opposition welcome the selection of Rolls-Royce to build the UK’s first small modular reactor; Rolls-Royce has world-leading expertise in nuclear engineering, a highly skilled workforce and a proven track record of delivering complex nuclear technologies. The prospect of British designed and British built SMRs generating clean reliable electricity is something that Members across the House should support. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined a clear timeframe for when the generic design assessment process is expected to conclude. When will financial decisions be taken and when will construction begin? Most importantly, when will the first electricity be generated?

Small modular reactors are a promising technology, but they are only one form of nuclear power; they must be combined with large-scale nuclear power stations as well. If the UK is serious about becoming a global leader in small modular reactors, we must move with greater urgency. We need certainty from manufacturers, confidence for supply chains, and opportunities for apprentices, engineers and communities that stand to benefit from these projects.

The official Opposition will not oppose these regulations, which represent sensible progress. But we urge the Government to match this important regulatory decision with the ambition, urgency and leadership that the UK’s nuclear future requires.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer.

The Liberal Democrats support the justification for the Rolls-Royce small modular reactor, or RR SMR, and the development of SMRs in general. We recognise their potential to strengthen energy security and reduce reliance on imported gas when they can provide a safe and cost-effective contribution to a decarbonised electricity system. We believe that the best way to cut bills is to invest in home grown clean power, creating well paid jobs across the UK, improving energy security and supporting economic growth. The development of the RR SMR will help towards that goal.

We support this statutory instrument and remain clear that the Government should prioritise accelerating renewable generation, electricity storage and emerging nuclear technologies such as small modular reactors, enabling a fleet approach, rather than deepening the UK’s reliance on large-scale, expensive and slow-to-deliver one-off nuclear projects.

I thank the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats for supporting the regulations. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley asked about delivery timelines; obviously, those are not determined through the justification process. Industry has set out indicative timelines for deployment, which are subject to a separate decision and sit outside the scope of this instrument.

I note the hon. Gentleman’s interest in the matter and will make sure that it is passed on to the Department for Business and Trade, which is the responsible Department. I share his excitement about the high-skilled jobs that this can bring to the UK and how it can give wider socioeconomic benefits. I also share the positivity expressed by the Liberal Democrats.

The evidence provides clear and consistent picture. The risks are low and this technology offers real benefit for energy security, net zero and jobs in supply chains in the UK. It is right that this practice should be justified under the UK’s regulatory framework. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.