Draft Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit and Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Carolyn Harris

† Costa, Alberto (South Leicestershire) (Con)

† Crichton, Torcuil (Na h Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)

† Davies Jones, Alex (Pontypridd) (Lab)

† De Cordova, Marsha (Battersea) (Lab)

† Ellis, Maya (Ribble Valley) (Lab)

† Gelderd, Anna (South East Cornwall) (Lab)

Heylings, Pippa (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)

† Hughes, Claire (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)

† Khan, Afzal (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)

† Opher, Dr Simon (Stroud) (Lab)

† Smith, Greg (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)

† Snowden, Mr Andrew (Fylde) (Con)

† Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)

† Thomas, Bradley (Bromsgrove) (Con)

† Whitby, John (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)

† White, Katie (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero)

† Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab)

Guy Mathers, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 17 June 2026

[Carolyn Harris in the Chair]

Draft Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit and Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit and Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

The regulations were laid before the House on 23 April. I will set out the purpose of nuclear safeguards and explain the proposed amendments to the Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The amendments are about improving how the UK safeguard regime works, making it clearer, more practical to operate and more effective, as well as making our expectations and requirements of nuclear operators clear. They are also about aligning more closely with our international allies, including the United States, on this critical industry.

Nuclear safeguards are vital for non proliferation. They help to show the International Atomic Energy Agency and the international community that civil nuclear material is being used as intended, and not being diverted into military or weapons programmes. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s international safeguards system has a strong track record of preventing nuclear proliferation. Safeguards are a vital part of the global nuclear energy system, alongside safety and security, and have helped to build confidence in international nuclear trade and co operation.

For almost 50 years, the UK has been committed to meeting our international obligations and supporting international nuclear safeguards. Having a robust domestic safeguards regime matters not just for the UK, but for the whole international community. It sends a clear message to the world that the UK takes its responsibilities as a nuclear state seriously. It shows that we are acting in line with the implementation of the treaty on the non proliferation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear safeguards are vital for a successful civil nuclear industry.

Our domestic safeguards regime, which has been in place since the UK left the European Atomic Energy Community—Euratom—in 2020, has an important role in both operations and trade, helping to deliver growth, jobs and clean energy. Following Brexit, the 2019 regulations set out the legal framework and obligations for us to continue to meet our commitments. They were designed to be equivalent in effectiveness to the previous regime. The regulations set out requirements for operators of nuclear facilities and spell out the role of the Office for Nuclear Regulation as the regulator. The Nuclear Safeguards (Fees) Regulations 2021 enable the ONR to recover safeguard costs from nuclear operators. Since the regime was introduced five years ago, the UK has been steadfast in meeting its international safeguards obligations.

The amendments will strengthen the UK’s ability to uphold its commitments and support the wider international safeguards system, as well as contributing to the nuclear industry’s ability to participate in nuclear trade. The proposed amendments are drawn from a review carried out by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero in 2023. We sought views on the amendments through a public consultation in 2025, and feedback from the industry and the ONR helped to shape our proposals. We wanted to balance operator responsibilities while allowing regulators enough time to do their work. We aim to minimise unnecessary impacts on the UK’s nuclear sector while ensuring that the UK can still meet its commitments.

I will briefly cover the three broad categories of amendments. Amendments in the first category remove provisions that are no longer fit for purpose for the UK. Some of these were transitional measures to manage the move from the previous Euratom system to the new ONR regime. In other cases, the provisions no longer apply in the UK’s nuclear safeguards context. These changes simplify the regulations and make them clearer.

The second and largest set of changes is about improving operability and clarifying requirements. The main change involves using IAEA design information questionnaires rather than Euratom’s basic technical characteristics format for reporting design information. The transition was agreed during the UK’s departure from Euratom. This change will align the UK internationally and support our civil nuclear partnerships, including with the United States.

Another important change involves making a stronger and more direct link between particular safeguards provisions and the UK’s international obligations. We are enabling the ONR to amend or remove these provisions when needed, which will ensure that the system stays up to date and works in practice. We are changing some timelines for submitting information to the ONR, with some being shortened to allow the ONR enough time to carry out checks and engage with operators before information is submitted to the IAEA. However, the changes are being limited, so that operators still have sufficient time to prepare the necessary information. We are also updating certain definitions to align them more closely with the language used by the IAEA.

The final set of changes is important in making sure the regulations are fit for purpose. These rules mean certain actions can be treated as criminal offences as a final point of escalation where needed. The 2021 fees regulations will also be updated due to the NSR19 changes so that the ONR can recover costs where applicable. However, we expect these new costs to be rare and minimal.

The amendments will strengthen nuclear safeguards regulation. The changes will enable us to deliver the civil nuclear safeguards regime in the UK more efficiently and effectively. The proposed amendments will help us to continue to meet international obligations as part of the wider responsible nuclear community and help support our nuclear industry in its trade and operational activities, which are vital to our country’s economic growth and energy security. I look forward to hearing what hon. Members have to say on the detail.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. The Opposition do not intend to oppose this statutory instrument.

There is no doubt about the importance of a strong nuclear safeguards regime for the success of our nuclear industry. It must demonstrate to the world that civil nuclear material is not being used for malign purposes in the United Kingdom. That is precisely why the last Government legislated to create Britain’s current nuclear safeguards regime, so that the UK would remain an independent and responsible nuclear state after leaving the European Atomic Energy Community. It is also why the last Government recognised the importance of working closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency to design a safeguards regime that reflects the sophistication of our nuclear industry.

I welcome the fact that the post implementation review for those regulations found that the United Kingdom’s new domestic nuclear safeguards had been successful in equalling the level of the safeguards that Britain had as part of Euratom and that we retained industry and international trust in our safeguards regime. The review also recommended certain parts that could either be improved and clarified or that had served their purpose and could now be removed. As I understand, the Government are seeking to implement several of these recommendations in these regulations.

I have a few questions. It is clear from the responses to the consultation for these regulations that the nuclear site operators and other industry parties have concerns about the practicalities of many of the Government’s proposed changes.

Nuclear energy is one of the largest employers in Fylde at the Springfields site in Westinghouse. It is a huge site that is licensed and has capacity to do an awful lot more for the nuclear fuel market in the UK. Does the shadow Minister share my concern that we have to make the site as internationally competitive as possible to get inward investment?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. His point speaks to the practicalities of these regulations, and I join him in his ambition for his constituency and the wider nuclear industry in the UK to be the absolute global gold standard. We must be competitive to ensure our energy, security and economic growth in the United Kingdom.

Although a strong nuclear safeguards regime is necessary for our civil nuclear industry to function—nobody questions that—the Government must ensure that they are not placing unworkable burdens on the nuclear industry. Will the Minister confirm whether nuclear site operators have now agreed to the amended proposals on notification timings for design information changes and the import and export of nuclear material, given that most respondents in the consultation initially opposed those changes?

Secondly, will the Minister clarify what support will be made available to nuclear site operators during the proposed transition period to adopt the IAEA’s design information questionnaires, given the concerns raised by operators about the extra burdens that updating their processes and training their staff would entail?

Thirdly, will the Minister clarify whether the Government intend to provide further guidance on the number of qualified staff required by operators to meet their accountancy and control obligations given the concerns raised by operators over what would be considered an adequate number of staff?

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have been clear in our support for building new nuclear power, the only form of energy that can provide fully clean and reliable power. A strong nuclear safeguards regime is inseparable from that aim, and the Government must ensure they are giving operators the support they need to meet their safeguarding obligations.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris.

My party supports this statutory instrument updating our nuclear safeguards regime. Removing outdated Euratom transitional provisions and aligning our reporting framework with the International Atomic Energy Agency is diligent housekeeping that a serious nuclear nation must undertake and I believe that we are a serious nuclear nation. We have real nuclear ambitions. Sites at Hinkley, Sizewell, and, dare I pronounce it, Wylfa—my apologies to all Welsh present—demonstrate that the next generation of clean, reliable, low carbon energy can be generated for many decades to come. It is a hugely important part of how we are going to do things in the future and a robust safeguards regime is the foundation on which that future must be built.

I apologise to my neighbour across the Minch, the hon. Member for Na h Eileanan an Iar, because this is something I have already said at an all party parliamentary group today. It is a terrible thing, in line with what was said by the hon. Member for Fylde, that we have a licensed site at Dounreay in my constituency with a highly skilled workforce and a local population that would welcome the next generation of small modular reactors—Rolls Royce has told me that it would go there like a shot—but we have a Scottish Government that stands absolutely in its way. That is despite the fact that the most recent opinion polls demonstrate that a majority of the Scottish public support nuclear and accept it as part of our energy mix for the future.

I put that on the record and I make no apologies—except for a partial apology to my neighbour across the Minch, the hon. Member for Na h Eileanan an Iar, because he may be getting a little bored of me. That is why I strongly support this statutory instrument.

I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions. As many of us have come from the Jo Cox event, I would like to start with what is “more in common”. I think that we are agreed on the global gold standard towards nuclear, both on safeguarding and the opportunity for our international competitiveness, and that is a shared vision. The other shared vision is on nuclear in Scotland; that is a vision that the Government entirely share and will try and deliver.

Would the Minister be kind enough to use what influence she can on the Scottish Government to make them see the error of their ways?

I have two excellent colleagues who serve in Scotland and who do a lot of work on that, but I will endeavour to take it back and make sure we do everything we can to try and influence those decisions.

As I set out in my opening remarks, these amendments to the nuclear safeguards regulations will strengthen the UK’s ability to continue to meet our international obligations. At the same time, they will support the operations and trade that are central to the nuclear sector’s contribution in the UK’s growth and clean energy space.

In terms of the specific questions raised, I hope that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire noticed that we gave credit to the previous Government for launching the 2023 review and have built on the changes that they instigated. We have extended further timelines of proposals since and have been in consultation with the industry in terms of transitions. We are also in further consultation with the operators, but they have given us clear feedback. We want to make sure that this is practical, but we have been talking for quite a long time and we feel that we are in a good position to move forward. There is a number of qualified staff to be determined by the operators to meet their obligations, and while we have given an indication, it is up to them to deliver that.

I hope that I have provided the necessary assurances for the Committee to approve the regulations, but I am very happy to continue the conversation at another point. I commend the draft regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee rose.