X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Coffee House

Nuclear should never be ‘the last resort’

22 October 2013

10:45 AM

22 October 2013

10:45 AM

Yesterday’s agreement between the French state-owned company EDF and the UK Government regarding the ‘strike price’ for the electricity that will be generated by Hinkley C should be welcomed by everybody who cares about our environment, our economy and the security of our energy supplies.

It’s taken three political parties, three Prime Ministers and two governments eight years to reach this point. Over this period, David Cameron has gone from espousing an investment-deterring policy of nuclear generation as ‘a last resort’ to welcoming the environmental and economic benefits of the industry in the shape of the deal that should pave the way for the construction of Britain’s first new nuclear reactor for a generation.

As someone involved with the development of the pro-nuclear energy policy developed by the last Labour government and largely retained by the Coalition, I know that any effective nuclear programme in the UK requires a deep and lasting political consensus. The deal to broker the development of Hinkley is extremely important, but, such is the complexity of the nuclear industry, it does not mean that the other nuclear sites earmarked for development in England and Wales will necessarily occur.


Our nuclear programme doesn’t just require a political consensus, it requires intellectual commitment and a strong political stomach. The global recession, soon followed by the tsunami which overwhelmed Japan’s Fukishima nuclear plant, gave politicians of all colours the opportunity to walk away from nuclear. We didn’t. Spare a thought, too, for those long-suffering civil servants who, throughout changes of government and an ever-changing cast-list of energy ministers have retained the ‘corporate memory’ underpinning new nuclear policy and who have delivered the latest progression in the shape of the Hinkley deal – it is on their shoulders that the successful implementation of nuclear policy rests.

Britain’s nuclear renaissance still requires some intensive midwifery – as does the development of Hinkley itself. By the time Hinkley C starts generating electricity in 2023 (assuming this timescale is met) it’s likely that Britain will have a different government and Prime Minister to those we have today.

In welcoming Ed Davey’s statement in the House of Commons, I asked him to produce a plan in which the ’critical path’ for the development of our other new nuclear sites – including Moorside in my own constituency – could be laid out. This plan should establish milestones for the development of the sites, with clear accountabilities for the public and private sector in meeting these timescales and should be aggressively driven. Market intervention? Undoubtedly. But if the deal for Hinkley C has shown anything it is this: if we want an energy policy that increases our energy security, helps bolster our economic and industrial policy and helps us to meet our environmental objectives then market intervention is here to stay.

Jamie Reed is Labour MP for Copeland.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
Close