Cuts force Forgemasters to suspend £80m nuclear press

The government loan agreed under Labour, was cancelled by the coalition government

Sheffield Forgemasters abandoned plans to install a £80 million nuclear press last week as the political row over the government’s withdrawal from the project rumbled on.

The government loan to pay for the 15,000-tonne press, which would have been capable of producing the large pressure vessels for civil nuclear reactors, was agreed under Labour, but cancelled as part of the coalition’s efforts to rebalance the nation’s finances. With no private sector investment, the company has shelved the project.

Graham Honeyman, chief executive of Sheffield Forgemasters, said: “We are still keen to undertake the 15,000 tonne press development but feel that the company’s best interests will be served by suspending work on the project.

 “We will continue to pursue other development opportunities based around our 10,000-tonne and 4,000-tonne forging presses and our recently completed programme of machine shop improvements.”

According to industry insiders, the construction of the press would have given the company a head start in the civil nuclear industry. Only one company in the world, Japan Steel Works, has a press large enough to make nuclear pressure vessels.

It also emerged last week that a Tory donor, Andrew Cook, chairman of Yorkshire-based engineering firm William Cook Holdings, wrote to Conservative business minister Mark Prisk calling for the funding to be withdrawn.

Labour MP Angela Smith produced a letter from Mr Cook which she had obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. Smith said Cook had donated £500,000 to the Conservative Party and £54,000 worth of flights to David Cameron - and claimed that this was the “real reason” why the loan was cancelled.

In a statement, Cook admitted his letter had been “characteristically blunt”.

“I have long been a vocal campaigner against the misuse of public funds to support private business. I have not only spoken publicly about this on many occasions but have challenged these subsidies in the courts.”

Prisk said the letter had been “noted” but had “no bearing on the decision-making process”.