Ed Miliband has revealed plans to reduce regulations, costs and bureaucracy by the end of next year to accelerate the development of nuclear power generation.
The UK government said the changes, due to take place this year, would deliver benefits for everyone in building critical infrastructure while protecting nature and the environment.
However, ministers were quickly accused of “irresponsible deregulation” and putting nature at risk.
The restructuring will allow the government to implement recommendations from a review completed last year by the Nuclear Regulation Taskforce, led by former Office of Fair Trading chief executive John Fingleton.
He said an overhaul of the “overly complex” and “bureaucratic” system that “favored process over certain outcomes” was needed.
Miliband, the energy secretary, said: “As the current conflict in the Middle East demonstrates, we must go further and faster to build the clean energy we need to get out of volatile fossil fuel markets and deliver energy security for our country.
“A crucial part of this is ensuring we accelerate the construction of infrastructure in a way that reduces costs and delivers better outcomes for nature.”
In June, Miliband announced a £14.2bn program to build a new nuclear power station, including a multibillion-pound investment in Sizewell C, off the Suffolk coast, and an initiative to build small modular reactors (SMR).
On Friday, Environment Secretary Emma Reynolds published the regulatory justification for Rolls-Royce’s plan to become the first company to try to build small modular reactors in the UK.
The government said the introduction of regulatory reforms meant it would probably be the last time such a mini nuclear power plant would need to go through such a lengthy process.
“To build national resilience, boost energy security and generate economic growth, we need nuclear power,” said Rachel Reeves, the chancellor. “That’s why we are overhauling the system, getting rid of duplicative or overly complex guidelines, rules and regulations that have been holding back our nuclear ambitions.”
The government said the core of the plan was to move to a regulatory system that is “proportionate, focused on real risk, evidence-based”, while also designed to “effectively protect nature and biodiversity”.
John Healey, the defense secretary, said: “In this new era of defense, our nuclear weapons deter the most extreme threats to national security, sending the ultimate warning to anyone who seeks to harm us.” .
However, leading environmental planning lawyer Alexa Culver of RSK Wilding said: “No ecologist or environmental specialist was invited to shape these proposals into something that looked like a ‘victory’ for nature.
“This is irresponsible deregulation at a time when the true human and national costs of nature degradation are better understood.
“Recently popularized and devastating environmental scandals, such as those in the water industry, demonstrate that high-risk regulation is complex and easily manipulated when ‘dumbed down’ without checks and balances. This was an opportunity for the government to build resilience into our industrial strategy and the government failed to take it.”
The government also said that more than 500 doctoral students would receive training in four annual sessions, quadrupling the current enrollment of those studying nuclear doctorates.
It also supported seven research programs with £65.6 million of new funding, which would be matched by industry partners, and carried out by universities across the UK.
“Nuclear energy is essential to achieving our energy independence and achieving net zero emissions,” said Charlotte Brumpton-Childs, national head of nuclear energy at the GMB union. “Our members are ready to build the next generation of nuclear power across the UK.”
The nuclear regulation task force was set up by Keir Starmer in February after the government promised to scrap “archaic rules” and cut regulations to “get Britain building”.
Starmer accepted the recommendations in December, saying he wanted to use the approach to inform the government’s wider industrial strategy.
