King's Speech 2026: Nuclear Regulation Bill

Nuclear Regulation Bill

“My Ministers will also take forward recommendations of the Nuclear Regulatory
Review and encourage a new era of British nuclear energy generation”

● Nuclear power is safe, reliable, and clean. A more secure supply of
homegrown power helps reduce exposure to the fossil fuel rollercoaster and is
essential for stability in our electricity grid. As the Nuclear Regulatory Review
showed, our system needs a radical refresh – and this Government is
committed to a new era of British Nuclear.

● This Bill delivers that refresh, modernising the way that new nuclear projects
are regulated so we can deliver safe, secure and affordable nuclear power
and infrastructure sooner, while maintaining strong environmental protections.

What does the Bill do?

● The Government is delivering a golden age of nuclear power:
greenlighting Sizewell C in Suffolk, progressing Hinkley Point C in Somerset,
backing the UK’s first small modular reactors at Wylfa in North Wales and
welcoming a new era of advanced modular reactors as part of its clean
energy mission.

● To speed up the delivery of new nuclear and reduce costs, the Government is
overhauling planning and regulation in a boost to the UK’s energy sovereignty
and the nuclear deterrent. Some of these nuclear reforms are sensible
changes for all infrastructure and where this is the case, the Government is
ensuring that the right lessons are learnt and applied.

● The Nuclear Regulatory Review 2025, led by John Fingleton, found an “overly
complex” and “bureaucratic” nuclear regulatory system that favoured process
over safe outcomes, holding back the industry and making the UK the most
expensive place in the world to build new nuclear projects. The Government’s
response to the review accepted this diagnosis and outlined plans to take
forward all of the recommendations by the end of 2027.

● This Bill will support quicker delivery of nuclear projects in a way that
produces a win-win for building critical infrastructure while protecting nature
and the environment, and high standards of nuclear safety. It will reduce the
cost of nuclear projects over time, helping deliver clean, secure power at
lower cost and protecting households from volatile global gas prices.

107
 ● As part of the Prime Minister’s commitment to apply the lessons of the Review
more widely, the Bill will include measures to support more efficient,
proportionate and coordinated regulation across major infrastructure projects,
where appropriate, drawing on best practice identified in the nuclear sector.

● The Bill will:

○ Overhaul existing regulation, giving regulators greater clarity and
direction, streamlining the regulatory institutional framework and
strengthening regulatory capability and capacity.

○ Embed a proportionate, outcomes-focussed regulatory and
legislative framework, ensuring effort is focused on managing real
risk rather than unnecessary process, while maintaining world-class
safety and environmental standards.

○ Improve the coordination and speed of regulatory
decision-making, reducing duplication and delay to support timely
delivery alongside safety and environmental protection.

Territorial extent and application

● The extent and application of the individual measures will vary across the Bill.

Key facts

● The Nuclear Regulatory Review found a single nuclear project in the UK
can be subject to oversight from up to six regulators in the civil sector
and as many as eight in defence, each operating under separate statutory
duties and guidance, with no single designated lead regulator responsible for
resolving conflicts or driving pace.

● The Review identified three fundamental drivers of high cost and delay:
an overly cautious approach to risk; prioritisation of process over outcomes;
and weak incentives for regulators and dutyholders to minimise social cost
and delay.

● Regulatory decisions were found to take limited account of the high
costs of delay to projects, including financing costs and extended workforce
retention and supply chain disruption, when applying proportionality tests such
as “as low as reasonably practicable” and “best available techniques” .

● The Review also identified a capacity risk, warning of a potential “cliff edge”
loss of regulatory capability due to retirements in specialist nuclear disciplines

108
 at the same time as the UK pursues new civil nuclear build, defence renewal,
decommissioning and waste programmes in parallel.

● The Government accepted all 47 recommendations of the Nuclear
Regulatory Review in principle and committed to implementation by the end of
2027, subject to legislative timelines.

● In March 2026, the Government committed to:

o Establishing a Commission for Nuclear Regulation for nuclear projects
to provide a single forum to resolve regulatory disagreement and drive
timely decision-making. An interim lead regulator approach is being
implemented ahead of legislation to reduce duplication and conflicting
requirements.

o Moving to smarter, proportionate regulation, focused on material risk
rather than exhaustive process.

o Increasing use of international standards and regulatory recognition to
reduce bespoke UK requirements.

o Enabling standardisation and replication, particularly for small modular
reactors, to reduce unit costs.

o Strengthening accountability for delivery outcomes alongside safety
assurance.

● The Review estimated that its recommendations could deliver tens of billions
of pounds in potential savings, particularly in nuclear decommissioning and
future project delivery, while maintaining the UK’s high standards of nuclear
safety and environmental protection.

● Chair of EDF Energy UK, Sir Alex Chisholm KCB, said “The current
volatility in global fossil fuel markets underlines the benefit of homegrown
nuclear electricity to Britain. Its reputation for safe operation and construction
must be underpinned by effective regulation. We welcome the opportunity to
help make sure regulation is timely, predictable and proportionate. On the
environment, there is no need to choose between protecting nature and the
delivery of essential national infrastructure, both can be achieved. The current
approach can end up delivering small benefits to local wildlife at a large cost
to the country. The taskforce is right to ask if there is a better way.”

109