John Fingleton

If you want balanced reporting on nuclear power reform, the Guardian is notably better than the FT these days. Interesting shift.

I recently got stopped & ticketed by the City of London Police for, & I kid you not, “cycling no handed”. Even though it’s clearly not an offence, the officer said they were ticketing me under the Human Rights Act as I was infringing other people’s Article 2 ‘Right to Life’, in case I fell off & injured them: utterly bonkers stuff. With bicycle theft basically legalised in the City due to the complete failure of the Police to bother investigating such thefts & people being regularly terrorised in London by e-bike phone muggers, it’s good to see the City of London Police concentrating the resources on what really matters.

NEW: 45 leading figures from academia, business and politics tell Ed Miliband "Don't U-turn" on the commitment to implement every recommendation of the Fingleton Nuclear Regulatory Review. FULL LETTER: Dear Secretary of State, We are writing to you in support of the full and timely implementation of John Fingleton’s recent independent Nuclear Regulatory Review. Britain is the most expensive place in the world to build new nuclear power. Bringing these costs down is essential if we want to create jobs, tackle climate change, and cut energy bills. The Fingleton review contains 47 serious recommendations that, if adopted in full, would help achieve this goal. While we welcome the Prime Minister’s strategic steer which accepts “the principle of all the recommendations” of the review, we are deeply concerned that the government’s implementation plan will U-turn on some of these recommendations. Some nature NGOs have now begun to campaign against recommendations 11, 12, and 19 of the review. These reforms would: · Remove the costly requirement for like-for-like on-site environmental mitigation (11) · Create a streamlined alternative pathway for compliance with the habitats regulation that would unlock significant funding for nature recovery (12) · Remove the vague National Park Duty introduced by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (19) A recent briefing note from the Wildlife Trusts argues that the review is “based on flawed evidence” and that “implementing the Nuclear Regulatory [Taskforce’s] recommendations would devastate nature without speeding up the nuclear planning and delivery process.” There’s just one big problem: many of the claims made by the Wildlife Trusts in their note are inaccurate, misleading, or frankly irrelevant. We enclose a detailed rebuttal with this letter. We note that the Wildlife Trusts do not dispute the real friction introduced by the current regime. To win planning approval at Hinkley Point C, EDF was compelled to submit over 30,000 pages of environmental documentation; face three unsuccessful environmental legal challenges; delay essential works at a cost of £150m due to a failed court action; install unprecedented (and costly) mitigation systems; and apply for planning permission for operational minutiae with no safety or visual impact. These are exactly the sorts of issues the Fingleton Review seeks to resolve. If the government is serious about growing the economy, reducing bills, and delivering a new golden age of nuclear energy, its implementation plan must back the Fingleton reforms in full. In particular it is essential that the government proceeds with recommendations 11, 12 and 19. The stakes here are high. Nuclear energy is the most land-efficient zero-carbon technology we possess. A single power station can power millions of homes. If we are serious about halting climate-driven nature loss, then nuclear energy must expand in a safe, secure and sustainable way. Yet that will not happen unless costs fall significantly. We cannot afford for the government to U-turn on accepting all of the recommendations of the Fingleton Review. Signed: