Posted on 2013-10-25 | 01:56

Speaking after the announcement of the Government decision to allow EDF of France and the China General Nuclear Power Corporation to build the first nuclear plant in the UK since 1995, Roger condemned the decision to outsource profits, jobs and responsibility for safety.

Roger said: “I abhor the stupidity of the commitment by the Coalition Government to guarantee payments of £90 plus per megawatt hour for a period of up to 40 years. This is approximately double the current extortionate cost of electricity. Furthermore, any future cost escalation will be paid for from the public purse as a subsidy, together with the cost of the nuclear clean-up of the decommissioned facility. I will put my name to EDM 568, which reminds the Coalition that their agreement promised to permit new nuclear power stations only if they received no public subsidy, which the recent deal flagrantly contravenes. Why will the Coalition not honour its own agreement and cancel all subsidies?"

Roger is also extremely concerned at the decision by the Coalition to support Chinese industry rather than British. He commented: “The Coalition Government hate any form of British public enterprise. They take the view that everything owned by the public sector is incompetent, inefficient and wasteful, and they are intent on reducing the public element of our economy and rolling back the state. They are, however, only too happy to enter into a hugely generous agreement with a 100% state-owned Chinese corporation (under the control of the politburo) and EDF, which is 85% state-owned by the French Government, in order to build these new nuclear facilities.”

If British taxpayers are to be ripped off by a guaranteed subsidy for nuclear power, at least let the profits go to HM Treasury

Chinese and French tax payers will be guaranteed a 10% per year return on these state investments, although the British Government could borrow the same money at historically low rates in the money market. As Roger pointed out, "If British taxpayers are to be ripped off by a guaranteed subsidy for nuclear power, at least let the profits go to HM Treasury, or to the pension funds of British workers, rather than to Chinese and French taxpayers!”

Roger supports the development of the UK’s renewable energy sources, but these still only account for around 17% of the UK’s energy needs. He believes that, even with a massive expansion programme and increased energy efficiency, renewables will not meet the country’s total energy needs or our responsibility to reduce carbon emissions.

Addressing the issue of the UK's energy supply, Roger said: “Unlike some people who are totally opposed to the use of nuclear power, I am not. I can see the arguments on both sides. Nuclear power does not add to carbon emissions, but there is the on-going problem of what we do with nuclear waste, which can retain its radioactivity for up to 2000 years. There is always the danger of a nuclear catastrophe, as happened in Fukushima in Japan.However, there are plenty of countries, not least France and Finland, which have judged that these risks are outweighed by the benefits of nuclear energy. That is the reason why both of these countries rely almost exclusively on nuclear power for meeting their energy needs.”

Roger concluded: “If we are to have nuclear power, why can we not have the best, cleanest and safest power possible, providing jobs for British workers and investment in UK technology, and fully accountable to UK health and safety standards and the British taxpayer?”