Difference between revisions of "Michael Jay, Baron Jay of Ewelme"
(→Nuclear power supporter) |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
==Nuclear power supporter== | ==Nuclear power supporter== | ||
| − | In a Lords debate in April 2013 | + | In a Lords debate in April 2013, Jay, who is a non-executive director of French nuclear firm [[EDF]], expressed his views on the need for nuclear power as part of the UK's energy mix and the ongoing negotiations between the government and EDF Energy: |
:I should stress that I favour nuclear energy not because I am a member of the EDF board; I was delighted to accept membership of the board because I believe that nuclear energy should be part of our energy mix. I hope very much that the present negotiations between the Government and EDF over Hinkley Point will succeed. A year or so ago, I would have said that they seemed condemned to do so. However, having observed negotiations more recently, albeit indirectly from both Paris and London, I do not think that success is in any way assured. [[Robert Peston]] got it right in his FT blog last week, when he talked of both sides proceeding with "cautious pessimism". I hope that I am being too pessimistic myself. If we do not renew our nuclear capacity over the next 10 or more years, I believe that we will face real problems of energy security as existing nuclear and coal-based plants close, as gas prices rise when, as it is hoped at some point, the economy picks up, with shale gas being less significant inevitably on this side of the Atlantic than on the other side, and as wind power remains expensive and intermittent. | :I should stress that I favour nuclear energy not because I am a member of the EDF board; I was delighted to accept membership of the board because I believe that nuclear energy should be part of our energy mix. I hope very much that the present negotiations between the Government and EDF over Hinkley Point will succeed. A year or so ago, I would have said that they seemed condemned to do so. However, having observed negotiations more recently, albeit indirectly from both Paris and London, I do not think that success is in any way assured. [[Robert Peston]] got it right in his FT blog last week, when he talked of both sides proceeding with "cautious pessimism". I hope that I am being too pessimistic myself. If we do not renew our nuclear capacity over the next 10 or more years, I believe that we will face real problems of energy security as existing nuclear and coal-based plants close, as gas prices rise when, as it is hoped at some point, the economy picks up, with shale gas being less significant inevitably on this side of the Atlantic than on the other side, and as wind power remains expensive and intermittent. | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
:We would also find it much harder without nuclear as part of our energy mix to meet our carbon reduction targets. It is worth remembering that a nuclear power station will emit around five tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour of electricity generated, compared with nearly 500 tonnes from gas and 900 tonnes from coal. I add, in case the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, is listening somewhere, that climate change is not the only reason for clean energy. There is also a very strong public health reason for clean energy as anyone who has experienced Beijing smog in recent years will know. | :We would also find it much harder without nuclear as part of our energy mix to meet our carbon reduction targets. It is worth remembering that a nuclear power station will emit around five tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour of electricity generated, compared with nearly 500 tonnes from gas and 900 tonnes from coal. I add, in case the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, is listening somewhere, that climate change is not the only reason for clean energy. There is also a very strong public health reason for clean energy as anyone who has experienced Beijing smog in recent years will know. | ||
| − | :For all those reasons I welcome the Government's commitment to nuclear power. I also welcome the conclusion of the Government's nuclear industrial strategy-in particular its review of the nuclear research and development. Nuclear R&D needs to be far more robust than it is at present. That approach is needed if we are to respond to Britain's needs and, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, if we are to exploit the rise of nuclear power elsewhere in the world, which is the real opportunity for us as a society. Finally, like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, I hope that molten salt reactors and thorium fuel will get the attention they deserve in our R and D programmes in the future, in providing the prospect of nuclear power that is safe, provides economic benefits and much more manageable waste disposal. | + | :For all those reasons I welcome the Government's commitment to nuclear power. I also welcome the conclusion of the Government's nuclear industrial strategy-in particular its review of the nuclear research and development. Nuclear R&D needs to be far more robust than it is at present. That approach is needed if we are to respond to Britain's needs and, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, if we are to exploit the rise of nuclear power elsewhere in the world, which is the real opportunity for us as a society. Finally, like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, I hope that molten salt reactors and thorium fuel will get the attention they deserve in our R and D programmes in the future, in providing the prospect of nuclear power that is safe, provides economic benefits and much more manageable waste disposal. <ref>House of Lords Hansard, [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/130422-gc0001.htm#13042262000093 Energy: Nuclear Power, Question for Short Debate, Asked by Viscount Hanworth], 22 April 2013, acc 15 August 2013 </ref> |
==Affiliations== | ==Affiliations== | ||
Revision as of 00:28, 15 August 2013
Michael Hastings Jay, Baron Jay of Ewelme, GCMG (born June 1946) is a former senior civil servant in the United Kingdom.
Education
Jay was born in Hampshire and educated at Winchester College, Magdalen College, Oxford, of which he is an honorary fellow, and London University's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS).
After voluntary service as a teacher in Zambia, he joined the Ministry of Overseas Development in 1969, serving in London, Washington (at the World Bank) and in the British High Commission in New Delhi. In 1981 he joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He served in the European Secretariat of the Cabinet Office 1985–87, as Counsellor in the Paris Embassy 1987–90, and in the Foreign Office as Director for European Affairs, then Director General for European and Economic Affairs 1990–96. In 1996 he was a Senior Associate Member of St Antony's College, Oxford. From July 1996 to September 2001 he was British Ambassador to France.
In July 2001 he was appointed Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office and thus Head of the Diplomatic Service, a post he took up on 14 January 2002.
In 2005, Sir Michael Jay served as the Prime Minister's Personal Representative (Sherpa) to prepare the G8 Summit at Gleneagles in addition to his PUS duties. Upon his retirement from the Foreign Office on 27 July 2006, he was recommended for a life peerage.
Jay married Sylvia Mylroie in 1975. Lady Jay of Ewelme has been vice chairwoman of L'Oreal UK since September 2005, Chairman of Food From Britain since January 2006, and is an independent non-executive director of St-Gobain. She also chairs the Pilgrim Trust and is a trustee of the Entente Cordiale Scholarship Scheme.
Nuclear power supporter
In a Lords debate in April 2013, Jay, who is a non-executive director of French nuclear firm EDF, expressed his views on the need for nuclear power as part of the UK's energy mix and the ongoing negotiations between the government and EDF Energy:
- I should stress that I favour nuclear energy not because I am a member of the EDF board; I was delighted to accept membership of the board because I believe that nuclear energy should be part of our energy mix. I hope very much that the present negotiations between the Government and EDF over Hinkley Point will succeed. A year or so ago, I would have said that they seemed condemned to do so. However, having observed negotiations more recently, albeit indirectly from both Paris and London, I do not think that success is in any way assured. Robert Peston got it right in his FT blog last week, when he talked of both sides proceeding with "cautious pessimism". I hope that I am being too pessimistic myself. If we do not renew our nuclear capacity over the next 10 or more years, I believe that we will face real problems of energy security as existing nuclear and coal-based plants close, as gas prices rise when, as it is hoped at some point, the economy picks up, with shale gas being less significant inevitably on this side of the Atlantic than on the other side, and as wind power remains expensive and intermittent.
- We would also find it much harder without nuclear as part of our energy mix to meet our carbon reduction targets. It is worth remembering that a nuclear power station will emit around five tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour of electricity generated, compared with nearly 500 tonnes from gas and 900 tonnes from coal. I add, in case the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, is listening somewhere, that climate change is not the only reason for clean energy. There is also a very strong public health reason for clean energy as anyone who has experienced Beijing smog in recent years will know.
- For all those reasons I welcome the Government's commitment to nuclear power. I also welcome the conclusion of the Government's nuclear industrial strategy-in particular its review of the nuclear research and development. Nuclear R&D needs to be far more robust than it is at present. That approach is needed if we are to respond to Britain's needs and, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, if we are to exploit the rise of nuclear power elsewhere in the world, which is the real opportunity for us as a society. Finally, like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, I hope that molten salt reactors and thorium fuel will get the attention they deserve in our R and D programmes in the future, in providing the prospect of nuclear power that is safe, provides economic benefits and much more manageable waste disposal. [1]
Affiliations
- Associated British Foods director
- EDF - non-executive director of main Paris board of EDF (only non-French director [2]
External links
- Announcement of life peerage
- Announcement of his introduction at the House of Lords House of Lords minutes of proceedings, 12 October 2006
Notes
- ↑ House of Lords Hansard, Energy: Nuclear Power, Question for Short Debate, Asked by Viscount Hanworth, 22 April 2013, acc 15 August 2013
- ↑ House of Lords Hansard, Energy: Nuclear Power, Question for Short Debate, Asked by Viscount Hanworth, 22 April 2013, acc 15 August 2013
