Stakeholder Response: Nuclear Industry Association

A spokesperson for the Nuclear Industry Association told ePolitix.com: "We welcome the prime minister’s remarks made at the CBI annual dinner... confirming that nuclear power, alongside renewables and increased energy efficiency will contribute towards the UK’s future energy needs.

"Blair recognises that the country faces dependence on imported gas for 80 or 90% of the country’s energy mix, and that the government’s energy review needs to address this concern.

"It must also aim to reach the government’s low carbon objectives and so has come at a crucial time."

NIA chief executive Keith Parker added: "Nuclear energy is a large scale, low carbon source of electricity generation that, as part of a diverse, balanced energy mix, can help to ensure security of energy supply. We welcome the prime minister’s comments as a recognition of this."

Stakeholder Response: GMB

Gary Smith, GMB national energy officer, said: "GMB consider that nuclear power has an important role to play as part of a balanced energy policy.

"However GMB do not wish to see a 'Railtrack' in the nuclear industry.

"The public will only be convinced that the safety concerns- that rightly arise- will be dealt with properly if the industry is in public hands and properly accountable to the public.

"GMB also considers that energy matters are too important to be regulated by a quango.

"The government itself must take this role and be answerable to Parliament for it."

Stakeholder Response: Amicus

Doug Rooney, national officer for energy and utilities, said: "Amicus welcomes the statement by the prime minister that we should replace our existing fleet of nuclear power stations with high tech nuclear power stations and to synchronise the closure of existing ones with the commissioning of the new power station.

"We should also develop clean coal technology in order that same can contribute to a balanced energy policy for the future of the country."

Stakeholder Response: Institution of Engineering and Technology

A spokesperson for the Institution of Engineering and Technology (then the IEE) said: "Earlier this year, our institute was supported by the other major engineering Institutions in declaring that, 'Nuclear fission is a proven and reliable power generation technology. There are no technical or safety arguments for excluding it from the energy mix'[1].

"The challenge for government will reside in devising an appropriate regulatory and financial framework without destabilising the electricity markets, in addressing public concerns, and reaching a prompt decision on the disposal of nuclear waste. 

"Nuclear generation provides low-carbon base load electricity that is not vulnerable to short term fluctuations in fuel supplies. 

"Replacement nuclear build would make a positive contribution to electricity supply security in the same way as the present nuclear fleet.

"To contribute to the broader goals of energy policy, however, it will have to be accompanied by a strong commitment to tackle energy demand within and beyond the electricity sector, and by a more comprehensive policy approach to low carbon technologies."

[1] The joint statement by the Institution of Engineering and Technology (formerly the IEE), Energy Institute, ICE, IChemE and IMechE can be found here.

Stakeholder Response: CPRE

Henry Oliver, head of planning at the CPRE, said: "Regardless of the merits or otherwise of nuclear power, the hints that planning for major projects will be fast tracked are profoundly worrying.

"It's absolutely vital that the government doesn't try to bypass proper planning.

"If the government thinks it can simply 'streamline' the public out of decision-making it will be asking for trouble - especially on something so controversial as new nuclear power stations.

"We're hearing a lot about how planning supposedly holds up lots of major projects, but in the vast majority of cases it simply isn't true.

"In 2002, when the government suggested parliament take control over big planning decisions, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution found that that there had been fewer than a dozen national-scale projects since 1984 for which the public inquiry lasted more than three months.

"Where they have (as, notoriously, with Heathrow Terminal Five), the delays are usually down to the applicants rather than objectors.

"Recent reforms to the public inquiry process have made it quicker (eg. by allowing teams of inspectors to hear evidence simultaneously) without sidelining public scrutiny.

"Proper consideration of planning issues is vital for accountability and democratic legitimacy, for fully informed, robust decisions and for public confidence in the result."