The nuclear question facing the new government

The UK Government recently announced its commitment to expanding its fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, a move that signals Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s intention to bolster British national security in an increasingly uncertain world. The decision reflects a clear recognition that strategic resilience requires long-term planning, sovereign capability, and critical infrastructure that can withstand global instability. However, when it comes to civil nuclear energy, the same appetite for development has largely been absent from the Prime Minister’s policy agenda.  

Against the backdrop of Reform UK’s advances in May’s local elections and Burnham’s appointment to No. 10 just one month ago, the new PM will be acutely aware of the need to rally public support early on in his premiership. That sensitivity to public opinion may already be shaping policy, with reports suggesting decisions on major energy projects such as Rosebank and Jackdaw have been delayed after one of the UK's hottest summers on record. 

So, could the same be true of the new government’s stance on nuclear energy generation? Research conducted by SEC Newgate UK found that only around half of the UK public view nuclear energy positively, while just 26% would find a new nuclear reactor acceptable near where they live. Recent headlines surrounding wildfires near Sizewell will hardly have helped reassure the public, creating an overall picture of scepticism towards new nuclear development in the UK.  

The irony is that the national security case being made for nuclear submarines is equally applicable to nuclear energy generation. If the last few years have taught us anything, it is that energy security is national security. The UK's exposure to global gas markets during recent energy shocks demonstrated how quickly international instability can translate into higher bills for households and businesses at home. Reliance on imported energy leaves the country vulnerable to global crises over which it has little control. 

At the same time, energy demand is only moving in one direction. The growth of artificial intelligence, data centres, electrified transport, advanced manufacturing, and the broader transition to a low-carbon economy will require enormous volumes of reliable electricity. Renewables will rightly play a central role, but achieving a resilient energy system will also require dependable baseload generation capable of operating regardless of the weather. 

The question, then, is not whether the UK will need new nuclear capacity, but how quickly it is prepared to make the decisions necessary to deliver it. Every year of uncertainty creates additional challenges for investors, developers, supply chain businesses, and the skilled workforce that underpins the industry, and nowhere is this more apparent than in regions such as the South West. The area already possesses many of the ingredients needed for future nuclear development: an experienced workforce, established supply chains, strong engineering expertise, and sites that could support deployment. These capabilities have been built up over decades and represent a significant national asset in their own right. 

However, skilled people and specialist businesses cannot wait indefinitely for policy certainty. If concrete opportunities fail to materialise, workers will move elsewhere and supply chains will adapt to other sectors and markets. Once lost, rebuilding that capability will not only take years, but will also come at a significant cost. The UK could ultimately find itself having to recreate expertise and infrastructure that exists right now simply due to delays in decision-making.  

For a new Prime Minister facing early scrutiny of both his leadership and electoral appeal, public sentiment is rightly going to be a priority. However, as the Government continues to develop its approach to the energy and national security sectors, attention will increasingly turn to how these ambitions are translated into delivery.