UK submarine captain steps down after link to Chinese spy case
Navy previously conducted investigation into senior officer to examine potential
blackmail risk. The captain of one of Britain’s nuclear-armed submarines
has stepped back from his role this week after being investigated over his
relationship with Joani Reid, the Labour MP whose husband has been arrested
on suspicion of spying for China.
FT 31st March 2026,
https://www.ft.com/content/93beaf9c-e1c8-4875-b446-2cd148529f6a
Massacre of UK aid workers: two years of obfuscation from Britain

Hamza Yusuf, Declassified UK, Apr 3, 2026
April 1st marked the two year anniversary of Israel’s massacre of World Central Kitchen (WCK) aid workers in Gaza. Seven members of the organisation were killed by Israeli drones while travelling in a convoy in Deir el-Balah in Central Gaza, after unloading 100 tonnes of food aid at its Gaza warehouse. The group was travelling in a “deconflicted zone” in two armoured vehicles that were clearly branded with the WCK logo and had coordinated their movements with the Israeli military. |
| The attack was not an anomaly, but a feature of Israel’s systematic targeting of aid workers in Gaza. The United Nations said that 383 aid workers were killed in 2025, with nearly half of them in Gaza. As Declassified previously revealed, Britain’s Ministry of Defence holds video footage of Gaza from the day of the attack but is refusing to publish it – footage taken by a Royal Air Force surveillance plane which spent approximately five hours above Gaza that day. |
n December 2025, the family of James Henderson renewed their demand for the MoD to release the recording. “The reason for not supplying that footage from the Ministry of Defence is a bit of an insult,” his father told Declassified.
The cousin of another of the victims, James Kirby, said in a statement released on the anniversary of his killing: “It is especially difficult to see that men who were so loyal and committed to their country have not yet received the justice they deserve.
The cousin of another of the victims, James Kirby, said in a statement released on the anniversary of his killing: “It is especially difficult to see that men who were so loyal and committed to their country have not yet received the justice they deserve.”Two years on, communication from the government has been limited, and the family remains unsure whether a full and formal investigation is underway.” A tepid statement from the UK’s Middle East Minister Hamish Falconer published on the two-year anniversary saidthe UK “will continue to push for justice”. But Falconer is only calling on Israel to investigate itself. “I urge Israel to swiftly conclude and publish their findings into this attack. The families of those killed must know why this happened. Lessons must be learnt”, Falconer said. |
But the accountability the British government is demanding would be much clearer if it released its own spy flight footage.
True to form, however, where Israel is involved, Britain prefers at best silence in the face of crimes and at worst smokescreens and deceit.
Legal challenge against nuclear site plan rejected
BBC 2nd April 2026,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy01wkgw2z8o
A judge has thrown out a legal challenge against a plan to extract water at the UK’s largest nuclear site.
Sellafield, in Cumbria, was given permission last May by the Environment Agency (EA) to extract water from its site, as part of the process to build a new radioactive waste storage facility.
Campaigners for Lakes Against Nuclear Dump (LAND) submitted a legal challenge against this, amid fears for the impact on nearby rivers. A high court judge said there was “no credible evidence” to allow the challenge to go ahead.
A Sellafield spokesman said the outcome would allow it to focus on its “mission to deal with the hazards on our site safely and sustainably”.
The licence granted to Sellafield would allow the company to extract up to 77,077,224 gallons (350,400 cubic metres) of water a year until 2031.
The EA previously said it had considered all the potential impacts on the environment before giving permission.
Marianne Birkby, who submitted the challenge for LAND, said the group disagreed with the decision and would be looking to lodge an appeal.
It argued the environmental impacts of the licence had not been properly assessed and feared contaminated water would end up in the rivers Calder and Ehen.
“We feel we must challenge the Environment Agency’s continual rubberstamping of Sellafield’s wish lists,” Birkby said.
Sellafield said removing water from a construction site was standard practice when preparing land for a building project.
A spokesman said: “This water will not be discharged to the rivers Calder or Ehen. It is pumped to on-site storage tanks for testing prior to being discharged direct to sea.”
Manchester Professor appointed expert reviewer for Government nuclear decommissioning review
A University of Manchester Professor has been appointed by Lord Vallance,
Minister of State for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear, as an
Expert Reviewer for an independent assessment of the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority (NDA); an executive non-departmental public body
that is charged with, on behalf of government, the mission to clean-up the
UK’s earliest nuclear sites safely, securely and cost effectively.
Professor Zara Hodgson FREng is an internationally recognised expert in
nuclear energy policy and research, and Director of the University’s
Dalton Nuclear Institute. She has been appointed to support the NDA 2026
Review, which has been commissioned by the Government to provide assurance
on the NDA’s performance and governance, and to make recommendations on
improvements.
The Review is led by Dr Tim Stone CBE, a senior expert
adviser to five previous Secretaries of State in two successive UK
governments and the Chair of Nuclear Risk Insurers. Professor Hodgson will
join a team of three other independent experts to support Dr Stone. The
review will focus on the NDA’s strategic planning and management, project
and programme delivery, and financial management. It will assess how
effectively the NDA delivers value for money for the taxpayer while
maintaining the highest standards of safety, transparency and governance
across the UK’s civil nuclear legacy. Reviewers will challenge current
practices, propose bold value-for-money recommendations, and highlight good
practice while identifying areas for improvement.
Manchester University 1st April 2026, https://www.manchester.ac.uk/about/news/manchester-professor-appointed-expert-reviewer-for-government-nuclear-decommissioning-review/
No Three Mile Island in Suffolk!

A new nuclear review will ignore the obvious perils of new reactors on a UK beach, warns Together Against Sizewell C
The following is a statement from Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) in response to the “Fingleton Nuclear Review” adopted by the UK government, entirely influenced by the nuclear power industry and its lobbyists in a frantic effort to copycat the US model of accelerating approval of dangerous, expensive and entirely unnecessary nuclear power projects.
Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) is appalled that the UK government plans to adopt all 47 recommendations of the ‘Fingleton Nuclear Review’. This review is based on a false premise that nuclear is ‘clean energy’ [see Note 1] and ‘needed to power Britain’s future’[see Note 2]. Neither of these assertions stand up to public scrutiny, the review being driven by the nuclear industry, big business and lobbyists for commercial and ideological reasons. Claims that nuclear is ‘homegrown power’ conveniently overlook the fact that the UK do not have any indigenous supplies of uranium needed to fuel the reactors, that market currently being dominated by Russia.
Those trying to convey a false impression of nuclear as clean are merely gaslighting the British public. While nuclear may be able to claim relatively low carbon production during the operational period, the long deployment times for new gigawatt nuclear reactors such as Hinkley and Sizewell C means a lot of additional carbon is produced from burning more fossil fuels while we must wait for new nuclear to become operational when compared with far cheaper, quicker to deploy renewables and energy storage.
The review makes unsubstantiated claims that nature will benefit from adopting these recommendations but in TASC’s view this is an irresponsible assumption for this government to accept, especially as environmental experts were excluded from the review team. The UK is already one of the most nature depleted nations on the planet – we cannot afford to degrade our environmental protections any further.
In TASC’s opinion, Sizewell C demonstrates that regulations need to be strengthened, not weakened – Sizewell C is sited in a National Landscape, surrounded by designated wildlife sites, in the UK’s most drought-prone region and on one of Europe’s fastest eroding coastlines. Despite this, it received DCO approval from the Secretary of State against the recommendation of the 5 independent planning experts.
£40 billion Sizewell C is proceeding at pace, even though the project has still not secured a guaranteed sustainable supply of potable water essential for its 60 years of operation. Nor has it demonstrated that the site can be kept safe for its full lifetime in a credible maximum sea level rise scenario – after DCO approval TASC discovered that Sizewell C have committed to install two huge additional sea defences in an extreme climate change scenario, the need for which EDF knew about since 2015 yet chose not to include them in their DCO application, meaning the additional sea defences have had no public scrutiny or impact assessment on the receiving environment.
TASC fear for the safety of our descendants and the precious, rapidly eroding Suffolk coastline because future generations have been left to rely on the developer’s unassessed sea defences to protect Sizewell C and its 3,900 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel from flooding in an extreme sea level rise scenario over the next 150 years or longer if a geological disposal facility is not available [see Note 3]. Hardly responsible ancestry from this government.
Notes:-
1. The myth that nuclear is ‘clean energy’ In TASC’s view, the reasons why nuclear power can’t be legitimately labelled as ‘clean’ include:-
a) The pollution generated from the mining, milling, fabrication and enrichment to produce the nuclear fuel which mainly affects indigenous peoples in producer countries,
b) The pollutants discharged to air and water from an operational nuclear power station, including the thousands of tonnes of dead fish, heavy metals, chlorine and the cocktail of other pollutants that will be discharged to the sea annually from the plant’s cooling water system, and
c) The legacy of highly radioactive spent fuel and other radioactive waste from nuclear power plants currently has no universally agreed management programme, nor any waste repository and which will be an environmental, as well as financial, burden for future generations for thousands of years – see N Scarr Report, ‘Plutonium—the complex and ‘forever’ radiotoxic element of nuclear waste. How exactly should we manage its containment?’
2. Various reports have demonstrated that the UK can fulfil its low carbon energy requirements without new nuclear, and at lower cost than new nuclear e.g. the January 2023 report by LUT University, Finland, ‘100% Renewable Energy for the United Kingdom’ and the 2022 UCL report ‘The role of new nuclear power in the UK’s net-zero emissions energy system’. Regarding national security, events in Ukraine have demonstrated that nuclear plants and their associated infrastructure are both a target and a weapon (see iNews article, ‘Attacks on nuclear plants are being normalised – and the consequences could be disastrous’ and the recent direct drone attacks on Zaporizhzhya NPP which have led to fires at the plant) so are a threat to national scrutiny. Scattering SMRs throughout the country will only increase the risk of a malicious attack (or accident).
3. TASC press release 12.01.26, ‘Escalating Erosion on East Suffolk Coast should be a huge worry for Sizewell C’
Scotland won’t pursue ‘unproven’ SMRs and ‘experimental’ fusion as focus remains renewables

30 Mar, 2026 By Thomas Johnson, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/scotland-wont-pursue-unproven-smrs-and-experimental-fusion-as-focus-remains-renewables-30-03-2026/
Scotland plans to focus on investing in renewables as nuclear fusion and small modular reactors (SMRs) remain “unproven technology”, a Scottish Minister has said.
The Scottish National Party (SNP), the ruling party in Scotland, has banned the development of any new nuclear in the country – and seems set to maintain this even as promising new technologies emerge.
Speaking in Scottish Parliament last week, MSP for Aberdeenshire East and cabinet secretary for climate action and energy Gillian Martin outlined how even with the buzz around fusion at the moment, the Scottish government will not be pursuing new opportunities within the nuclear sector.
“The Scottish Government recognises the increasing interest in fusion energy. However, fusion remains experimental, with no commercial deployment and uncertainties around cost, safety and timescales,” she said.
“The UK Government’s prototype fusion plant is not expected to be operational until 2040, but the climate emergency demands proven, deployable solutions now.”
Martin explained how this policy extends to the deployment of SMRs.
“We do not plan to build small nuclear reactors, which are unproven technology that has not been deployed,” she said.
“The Scottish Government has a policy against new nuclear fission.”
The topic arose in Scottish Parliament after MSP for South Scotland Martin Whitfield quizzed Martin regarding any impact on Scottish energy policy could expect in light of plans Torness nuclear power station will close by 2030.
Torness, the East Lothian‑based nuclear power plant operated by EDF, is one of the UK’s four remaining advanced gas‑cooled reactor (AGR) stations. It was due to close in 2028 but EDF announced in 2024 it would be extending its life for a further two years.
Nuclear decommissioning in the UK

Corporate report: The NDA group Technical Baseline Review
This report provides a high-level overview of the processes and associated technologies used or planned to be used to deliver our mission.
NDA 26th March 2026 Nuclear Decommissioning Authority NDA group Technology Baseline Review 2026
PDF, 4.76 MB, 67 pages
The UK’s nuclear energy programme, dating from the post-war years, has left a challenging decommissioning legacy to the country: numerous prototype reactors, fuel-manufacturing plants, research centres, reprocessing plants and 11 power stations. The Sellafield site in west Cumbria houses more than 200 nuclear facilities and 1,000 buildings, making it one of the world’s most complex environmental decommissioning challenges. Across the UK many ‘never-done-before’ decommissioning projects will need to be completed. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) was established under the Energy Act (2004) to ensure that the UK’s nuclear legacy sites are decommissioned and cleaned up safely, securely, cost-effectively and in ways that protect people and the environment.
This document provides a high-level overview of the current technology landscape across the NDA group. It outlines the NDA group technology baseline, current technologies being deployed, and the technology opportunities requiring development or adoption to underpin the delivery of our decommissioning mission……………
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-decommissioning-authority-rd-technical-baseline
A Great British Nuke-Off in Wales?

25 March 2026, https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/great-british-nuke-wales
Quintessentially British Rolls-Royce wants to put its small new reactors on Anglesey, but it turns out they’re not so small or even particularly British, writes LINDA PENTZ GUNTER
THERE is something about Rolls-Royce that is quintessentially British. Not necessarily in a good way. The name tends to bring to mind tweedy toffs or rock stars with more money than sense, driving too fast in shiny and extravagantly baubled motor cars.
It’s the cars that made the Rolls-Royce name synonymous with luxury and class, specifically upper-class. It’s even entered the lexicon. Something can be called “the Rolls-Royce of….;” fill in the blank.
Of course, Rolls-Royce is now much bigger than just a car manufacturer. Frequent fliers will have spotted the company logo on many a jet engine.
Less well known is that Rolls-Royce makes the reactors for nuclear submarines, specifically the British Trident nuclear fleet. The company is set to produce a new propulsion reactor, PWR3, for the Dreadnought-class ballistic deterrent submarine, expected to be operational in the early 2030s, and whose missiles are capable of destroying all life on Earth multiple times over.
More recently, Rolls-Royce has entered the commercial nuclear reactor market, proposing its own small modular reactor (SMR) design — which, at 470 megawatts, isn’t actually very small at all. Many of Britain’s old Magnox reactors, now all permanently closed, were smaller than that. Two of the largest, at Wylfa in Anglesey, were each 490 megawatts.
Ironically, it is to Wylfa that Rolls-Royce is looking to site its first not so small modular reactors. It is planning for three there — with the capacity to extend to eight — and even won a competition conducted by Great British Energy-Nuclear to become the preferred bidder to place SMRs at the Wylfa site, purchased by the government from Hitachi in March 2024 after the Japanese company ditched plans to build two full-size reactors there.
The prize for Rolls-Royce’s winning bid was £2.5 billion in public funding (ie taxpayer money) toward the cost of the first three SMRs, not such good news for people who can’t afford to drive Rolls-Royces.
Another £25 million is to be shelled out to two engineering consultancies, WSP and Mott MacDonald, who will advise on environmental assessments, permitting and regulatory compliance.
As Linda Clare Rogers, co-deputy leader of the Welsh Green Party, asked in a letter to her Anglesey MP Llinos Medi of Plaid Cymru: “Why does Rolls-Royce need £25m of our money to spend on advisers and engineers to help it meet environmental and legal requirements, if they are confident what they’re doing is serviceable? As this is public money, will we have a say in proceedings? If not, why not? Other public services involve public engagement.”
That £25m just happens to be equal to the price tag for the Rolls-Royce La Rose Noire Droptail luxury car, unveiled in August 2023. So why not just sell one of those to pay for the advisers and engineers instead of fleecing British taxpayers?
Appropriately, the multi-billion pound Rolls-Royce triumph (to mix motoring metaphors), was lauded by a lord — it is unknown if he was wearing tweeds for the occasion — during a debate last July in the House of Lords.
Reading the transcript of what takes place in that neo-gothic edifice makes you wonder if you have time-travelled back a few centuries. Everyone is addressed as “my lords” even though there are ladies, too, and “my noble friend” and phrases such as “I thank the noble Earl for that question,” and “I thank the noble Viscount.”
It was Labour peer Lord Wilson of Sedgefield — real name Philip — who was beating the drum most loudly for nuclear power in general and Rolls-Royce in particular during that July debate.
This same “noble lord,” as we must perforce address him according to tradition, was also one of the “Famous Five” who helped Tony Blair get selected as a Labour candidate. Later, before he ascended to “The Lord Wilson,” he became an enthusiastic Jeremy Corbyn backstabber when Corbyn was Labour Party leader. So not really all that “noble.”
The lone voice of reason during the Lords nuclear debate came not from a “lord” but a woman, the Green Party’s Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb who said: “My lords, the minister said that everybody around the House supports nuclear. No, the Green Party does not support nuclear. It is a dinosaur technology and it is really very expensive, when you look at the planetary impact and the cost to the Exchequer. It is going to be a disaster and it will be overtaken by sea-level rises as well. Why do the government not take some good advice on this instead of believing in nuclear all the time?”
The good Lord Wilson quickly and condescendingly dismissed her ideas as “a bit on the fringe,” then repeatedly referred to new nuclear in Britain as “clean, secure, homegrown energy.”
But just as it is obvious that nuclear power is neither clean nor secure, whether great and British or not, it is most certainly not “homegrown” either, given that no uranium, the raw material needed to fuel reactors, is mined in the UK.
And, as it turns out, even Rolls-Royce isn’t quite so very British after all.
Rolls-Royce SMR (Small Modular Reactors), the company’s subsidiary focused on future nuclear energy, is not solely owned by the parent group. It has investors including the Qatar Investment Authority, BNF Resources (connected to the French Perrodo family that owns European oil and gas company Perenco), Constellation (a US energy company and part of Exelon), and CEZ, a Czech company.
Of course, even the Rolls-Royce car division isn’t actually British. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Germany’s BMW.
In addition to the Perrod family’s investments in oil and gas companies, Constellation owns oil and gas plants in the US. And while the Qatar Investment Authority has said it will not finance new fossil fuel projects, it has not divested from all of its existing oil and gas interests. CEZ continues to maintain coal plants and is supporting natural gas infrastructure.
This is a quiet reminder about the level of greenwashing that seeks to paint nuclear power as environmentally friendly when many of the companies involved in nuclear power are also still heavily invested in fossil fuels.
The partner Rolls-Royce has chosen to oversee delivery of the Wylfa reactors is the US-based engineering firm Amentum, which has around 6,000 staff in the UK. The small modular reactor is an old concept that has been around for decades and was consistently rejected due to poor economies of scale. Yet Amentum’s chief executive officer, John Heller, describes SMRs as a “transformational technology, a critical enabler in strengthening energy security in the UK and continental Europe.”
However, that “energy security” will be delivered largely by Russia, in order to meet the needs of the fast-reactor designs targeted for Britain. These include the Newcleo 200 MWe lead-cooled fast reactor and the Natrium, TerraPower’s sodium-cooled fast reactor, two US companies looking to secure contracts in the UK. Russia is currently the only country that manufactures the High-Assay Low Enriched Uranium fuel needed for these reactor designs.
When star footballer Marcus Rashford totalled his £700,000 Rolls-Royce in a September 2023 accident, the car was entirely written off. That’s exactly what should happen to the company’s SMR plans before consumers and taxpayers are forced to foot the bill.
Linda Pentz Gunter is a writer based in Takoma Park, Maryland. She is the author of the book, No to Nuclear: How Nuclear Power Destroys Lives, Derails Climate Progress And Provokes War, published by Pluto Press.
Third and final shipment of vitrified waste from the UK to Germany

As previously announced, the UK will be returning high level waste (HLW) in the form of vitrified residues to Germany.
Sellafield Ltd, 24 March 2026,
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/third-and-final-shipment-of-vitrified-waste-from-the-uk-to-germany
Sellafield Ltd and Nuclear Transport Solutions (NTS) are making preparations for the third and final return of high level waste (HLW), in the form of vitrified residue, to Germany.
Seven flasks will be transported from Sellafield to the Brokdorf interim storage facility later in 2026.
This will be the final shipment from the UK to Germany. The first shipment of 6 flasks, to Biblis, was successfully completed in 2020 and the second shipment of 7 flasks to Isar was completed in 2025.
The waste results from the reprocessing and recycling of spent nuclear fuel at the Sellafield site in West Cumbria, which had previously been used to produce electricity by utilities in Germany.
Vitrified residue returns are a key component of the UK’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) strategy to repatriate high level waste from the UK, fulfil overseas contracts and deliver UK Government policy.
These returns involve Sellafield Ltd working in partnership with Nuclear Transport Solutions (NTS) to return the waste to German customers.
The shipments will be carried out in full compliance with all applicable national and international regulations, and subject to issue of all relevant permits and licenses.
Sellafield Ltd and NTS will provide further information on the shipments in due course.
Iranian man freed pending further inquiries after UK nuclear submarine base arrest
The man and a woman were arrested at HM Naval Base Clyde, known as Faslane, last week
Anthony France, 23rd March 2026
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/police-iranian-man-nuclear-sub-base-incident-b1276130.html
An Iranian man who was charged after allegedly trying to enter the naval base where Britain’s nuclear submarines are based has been released from custody pending further inquiries, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service said.
Prosecutors said they have decided there should be no proceedings against a 31-year-old Romanian woman who was also arrested and charged by police following the alleged incident.
The man and woman were arrested on Thursday March 19 following the alleged incident at HM Naval Base Clyde, which is known as Faslane, and later charged, and had been expected to appear at Dumbarton Sheriff Court on Monday.
Faslane is home to the core of the UK’s submarine fleet and the Trident nuclear deterrent.
A Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service spokesperson said: “The Procurator Fiscal received a report concerning a 34-year-old man in connection with an alleged incident on March 19 2026.
Fife Council approve Babcock plan for nuclear waste storage building

24th March, By Ally McRoberts, https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/25961651.fife-council-approve-babcock-plan-waste-storage-building/
A TEMPORARY storage facility will be built for waste that’s taken out of old nuclear submarines at Rosyth Dockyard.
Fife Council have given the green light to Babcock for a new warehouse between docks two and three for “decommissioning operations”.
The large industrial building – an ‘intermediate waste storage facility’ – will be 27 metres long and up to 20 metres in height with roller doors and security fencing.
Work is currently taking place at the dockyard to cut up and dismantle HMS Swiftsure, one of seven old nuclear subs that have been laid up in Rosyth for decades.
The demonstrator project is attempting a world first by removing the most radioactive parts left in the vessel, the reactor and steam generators.
The new building “will be utilised for cutting processes to aid submarine dismantling” and will go next to a larger steel shed that was approved in 2024 for the project.
A council report said: “The applicant has indicated that the waste to be temporarily stored would not be considered hazardous under the Town and Country Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Regulations 2015 and that the site is currently subject to a permit issued by SEPA covering the related decommissioning activity.
“The site is also subject to regular inspections by the Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR) and is one of their registered sites.
“Ultimately, the decommissioning activities are controlled by SEPA, the Health and Safety Executive and ONR and fall under their own consenting and control regimes, with mechanisms for changes to existing permits to be reviewed and approved by these bodies.”
There were no objections and the report said SEPA had confirmed that “no reprocessing of radioactive waste or materials takes place at Rosyth”.
The seven decommissioned nuclear subs at the yard are Swiftsure, Revenge, Renown, Repulse, Resolution, Dreadnought and Churchill.
Dismantling takes place in three stages with low level radioactive waste taken out first.
Next is the removal of the reactor pressure vessel, which is classed as intermediate level radioactive waste.
The final stage, once all radioactive material has gone, is [?] recycling.
So far the programme has invested more than £200 million in Rosyth Dockyard.
Nuclear plant told to improve after ‘near misses
Tom BurgessNorth East and Cumbria,
BBC 24th March 2026, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx24l9epwkdo
A nuclear power plant has been ordered to improve safety measures after an increase in “near misses”, the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has said.
The decision was made after visits to the Hartlepool site, operated by EDF, identified areas where safety improvements were required after an increase in the number of reported “serious incidents”.
The ONR said the plant remained safe to continue to operate and the events were “not associated with radiological or nuclear risk”.
EDF said it had agreed an improvement plan with the regulator last year and was making progress.
ONR said moving the plant into “significantly-enhanced regulatory attention level” related to efforts it was making to bring about improvements in conventional health and safety and performance.
Dan Hasted, ONR’s director of regulation for operating facilities, said safety improvements were required but the decision to put the plant into the new category was not a punitive measure.
He said: “In the conventional health and safety area there has been an increase in the number of serious events or near misses that Hartlepool is legally required to report to the ONR.
“It’s important to note these have not been associated with radiological or nuclear risk.”
Hasted said it was important to look at the root causes to ensure they do not “transfer across to nuclear safety”.
Vital to Teesside
The Hartlepool site operates two gas-cooled reactors and has generated electricity for 43 years.
EDF said the regulator would be inspecting the site more regularly.
A spokesperson said the station was a vital part of the Teesside community.
They said: “Last year we agreed an improvement plan with the regulator.
“We have been making progress against that plan, but understand the ONR feels that some more focused attention is required to support that.
“We are committed to working with the regulator to ensure it is content that improvements required are being implemented.”
Sizewell C Inquiry

House of Commons 23rd March 2026,
https://committees.parliament.uk/work/9713/sizewell-c/
Sizewell C is a planned large-scale nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast. Funded by the government in partnership with the energy provider EDF, as well as private finance, the project is projected to cost £40.5bn to £47.7bn. When constructed, it will have a generating capacity of 3.2GW, meaning it will be able to generate around 7% of the UK’s current electricity demand.
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) previously reported on the government’s deal with EDF to construct a nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, the site with Sizewell C will be based on. The PAC were concerned that that government’s negotiations were not championing the interests of consumers, who might be locked into an expensive deal for decades, and warned that the poorest would likely be the hardest hit. In its response, the Government accepted all of the PAC’s recommendations and stated the actions it planned to take in response.
The National Audit Office (NAO) will publish its report on Sizewell C in spring 2026. Following the NAO’s investigation, which is likely to examine the government’s current spend, as well as the potential risks to achieving value for taxpayer’s money, the PAC will hear from senior officials at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Sizewell C on the reports key findings.
If you have evidence on these issues, please submit here by 23.59 on Monday 18 May 2026.
Please note that the Committee’s inquiry cannot assist with individual cases. If you need help with an individual problem you are having, you may wish to read the information on Parliament’s website about who you can contact with different issues.
Nuclear to take up to quarter of British defence budget

26 Mar 2026
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/nuclear-to-take-up-to-quarter-of-british-defence-budget/
The UK nuclear enterprise is expected to absorb between 20 and 25 percent of the Ministry of Defence budget in the coming years, as spending rises across a growing portfolio of submarine, warhead, infrastructure and fuel programmes.
Giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, Permanent Secretary Jeremy Pocklington said defence nuclear spending totalled about £10.9 billion in 2024-25, equivalent to 18% of the department’s budget, and is expected to rise to around 20% in the current financial year.
He told MPs that the share would continue to grow, saying the Defence Nuclear Enterprise was on course to account for “between about 20% and 25% of the MOD’s overall budget.” That growth, he said, reflects both inflation and a broader expansion in the nuclear portfolio.
Pocklington said the increase was not being driven primarily by the core Dreadnought submarine build, which he said remains within the range previously set out to Parliament. “For Dreadnought, we are still within the range that the Department stated to Parliament,” he said, referring to the longstanding £31 billion programme cost plus £10 billion contingency.
Instead, he pointed to other pressures within the wider enterprise, including “scope changes related to AUKUS” and the re-establishment of a defence nuclear fuel capability, which he said had not featured in earlier forecasts in the same way.
He described the Defence Nuclear Enterprise as a large and increasingly complex portfolio, covering not only Dreadnought and Astute, but also warhead work, infrastructure at Barrow, naval bases at Clyde and Devonport, and fuel production. “There are nine programmes with a whole-life cost of over £10 billion in the Defence Nuclear Enterprise,” he said
Pressed repeatedly for a 10-year forecast, a more specific Dreadnought in-service date, and an update on how much of the £10 billion contingency has been drawn down, Pocklington declined to provide further detail, saying much of that would have to wait for the delayed Defence Investment Plan.
On timing, he said there had been no change to the government’s position that the first Dreadnought boat would enter service in the “early 2030s,” but did not narrow that window further.
Committee chair Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown argued that the exact date mattered, given the pressure on the existing deterrent fleet and the implications for long submarine patrols and support arrangements if replacement boats arrive later in the decade.
Taxpayers to cough up £65.6 million for nuclear “industry-informed” education in British universities

University of Derby helps drive UK nuclear skills expansion
The University of Derby is part of two university consortia that have been awarded funding to lead new doctoral training programmes designed to develop the UK’s future nuclear workforce. The Government has announced a £65.6 million investment for a bespoke nuclear Doctoral Focal Award
Delivered by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and match-funded by industry, the programmes will train more than 500 doctoral students at universities across the country, over the next four academic intakes. The University of Derby is a partner in two of the six new national doctoral training programmes announced.
The first consortium, led by Bangor University, has secured funding to establish PANDA (the Programme for Accelerating Nuclear Development and Applications), which will train up to 100 doctoral researchers. PANDA will be delivered in partnership with the UK National Nuclear Laboratory and the universities of Bristol, Birmingham, Cambridge, Derby, Imperial College London and Manchester. Together, these partners will support a new generation of researchers equipped to meet the UK’s future nuclear and clean‑energy needs, including a specific focus on defence.
Derby is also a partner in the STAND-UP (Skills and Training driving availability of National Defence Assets UP skilling) programme, led by the University of Strathclyde, which will train 80 Engineering Doctorate researchers.
This programme aims to develop the next generation of nuclear engineers and support the transition to ‘net zero’. It will help strengthen the UK’s capabilities in nuclear engineering, advanced manufacturing, digital technologies and nuclear decommissioning, bringing together partner universities Cumbria, Lancaster, Nottingham, Birmingham and Surrey.
Professor Kathryn Mitchell, vice-chancellor and chief executive of the University of Derby, said: “Developing the skills and expertise of the next generation is essential to securing a sustainable talent pipeline for the nuclear sector. The University of Derby is committed to working with partners to drive bold action on the UK’s nuclear skills shortage.”
She continued: “Together with our partners, we are creating clear pathways into specialised careers, delivering industry-informed education, and supporting cutting edge research. Through this work, we are helping to build a stronger national workforce and ensuring the future success of this vital sector.”
The announcement follows the Nuclear Skills Plan, launched in May 2024, which contained a recommendation to quadruple the number of nuclear fission doctoral students to address the shortage of high-level nuclear skills across both civil and defence and replace an aging workforce.
Over 500 doctoral students will be trained at universities across the country in academic years 2026/27 to 2033/34, quadrupling today’s intake of nuclear doctoral students. These doctoral students will be equipped with a broad range of advanced technical skills essential for the UK’s future civil and defence nuclear programmes, supporting the UK’s economic growth, energy and national security, and ‘net zero’ objectives.
-
Archives
- May 2026 (49)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
