29th October 2006

Stroud District Green Party Response to Consultation on Nuclear Policy Framework

To: Energy Review: Nuclear Policy Framework
Department of Trade and Industry
1 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0ET
nuclearpolicyframework@dti.gsi.gov.uk

We would like to note our thanks to all those who helped with this submission particularly Alex Goodman of the Green party of England and Wales to whom we are indebted for significant parts of this report.

Contents:

1.0 Consultation process
2.0 Key points
2.1. Public opinion stifled.
2.2. Need for nuclear power.
2.3. Safety issues.
2.4. Justification process.
2.5. Role of the Planning Inquiry.
2.6 Sets a precedent.
3.0 Conclusion
4.0 Notes

The report

1.0 Consultation process

While we recognise the scope of this particular consultation we consider that it is first important to note our considerable dissatisfaction with the lack of adequate consultation on whether nuclear power has a future role (i). The Government consultation, ‘our energy future’ was conducted in such as way as to lead us to believe that the process to examine nuclear power in the wider context of the UK energy demand had only just started (ii). The review almost exclusively examined the electricity sector, rather than the entire energy sector. This undermined its credibility as a consultation exercise, given that so many modern technologies combine the production of electricity with the production of heat.

In 2003, the Government published its Energy White Paper (following an 18 month public consultation) in which it was stated that the current economics of nuclear power made it an unattractive option for combating “carbon free” electricity and that there were important nuclear waste issues. The paper did not rule out the possibility of nuclear new build in future if the UK was to meet its carbon targets. However, it stressed that “before any decision to proceed with the building of new nuclear power stations, there would need to be the fullest public consultation and the publication of a white paper setting out the Government’s proposals”

It was therefore very surprising that just three years later, the government, in January 2006 published its consultation document, "Is Nuclear the Answer?" Yet  the consultation on that document lasted only 12 weeks - the minimum allowed under the Cabinet Office Code of Practice. For a number of reasons we have grave concerns about the lack of transparency in the consultation process and the fact that decisions were apparently made judging by prime ministerial and ministerial statements prior to the completion of the outcome of the consultation period. For example the Prime Minister said in May that "nuclear was back on the table with vengeance" and Stephen Hale, until recently special advisor to the then Environment Minister Margaret Beckett, said that the Prime Minister "refused to consider the alternatives" to nuclear. Furthermore issues like what to do with nuclear waste have clearly not been solved.

The Green party of England and Wales made concerns clear in a letter supporting an action for judicial review brought by Greenpeace. We do not propose to detail our disquiet at the procedural inadequacies and failure to properly consult, but it should be made clear at the outset that we consider that the government’s failure to carry out a proper consultation on the principle of nuclear energy displays an authoritarian and anti-democratic arrogance. We are also of the view that the government’s behaviour fails to fulfil both the spirit and the letter of its international commitments to participatory democracy at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, and in signing the Aarhus Convention.

We are of the view that the government’s consultation process on the issue of our future energy supply has been inadequate not just as a matter of principle, but as a matter of law for the failure to meet the standards required by the Aarhus Convention, the EIA Directive, the SEA Directive and for the failure to properly consult.

We regard this consultation on the scope of planning inquiries as inherently tainted by the failures of the consultation on the principle, and further consider that planning inquiries established pursuant to this consultation process will also fail to meet legal obligations on proper consultation as a matter of domestic, European and international law. We consider that inquiries following the government’s proposals may be challenged in the courts.

We therefore stress that our comments on the specific proposals relevant to this consultation in no way stand as an endorsement of the manner of this consultation process as a whole.

2.0 Key points

2.1. Public opinion stifled. The proposals for excluding discussion of issues of principle are essentially a continuation of the exercise in stifling public opposition which was evident in the limited timescale available for consultation on the future direction for UK energy production.

2.2. Need for nuclear power. As Box A2 of the Consultation Document makes clear, the government intends to make a “statement of need” and under the proposals planning inquiries are not to consider need for nuclear power. We consider that this is misguided. There has been no rigorous public analysis of the purported “need” for nuclear power. Furthermore, “need” is a factor which will inevitably change over time in response, not least, to emerging technologies for the generation or conservation of electricity. The need for electricity will inevitably fluctuate. A planning decision normally involves the consideration of all material factors and a balancing of the harm of a development against the benefits. A single unitary assertion by the government of the need for nuclear power will impede a proper assessment of the appropriateness of any given power station at any given time.

2.3. Safety issues. It is clear that safety, security, radiological and waste issues have local relevance, and it is wholly inappropriate not to consider safety issues in a site-specific context. The building of a nuclear reactor within an area of dense population, for example, poses a greater risk in the event of an accident or terrorist attack, than would be posed by building a reactor in a remote area. There will, of course, be many more subtle points about the risks posed at any given site, and local knowledge will be highly relevant to an assessment of those issues. It is surprising that the government thinks otherwise.

2.4. Justification process. The section in the Consultation Document concerning justification is confusing. In the ordinary course of events it would be part of the role of a planning inquiry to consider the issue of justification, that is to consider whether the economic social and other benefits outweigh the harmful and detrimental effects. Such considerations would form part of the overall assessment. Why is there a recommendation on subdividing that process? There will remain a gap in the justification process: namely the need to justify specific developments by reference to the specific social, economic and other benefits and detriments likely to be caused by those developments. The best forum for consulting on, and assessing, that contribution will be within planning inquiries with a full remit to decide those issues. We also feel that planning Inquiries are increasingly coming to be understood by the public in line with the aims of participatory democracy as enshrined in the Aarhus Convention, and indeed in the government’s own goals in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. We believe the government should have confidence in the thoroughness of the full planning process and its ability to properly assess the justification for any given nuclear new build.

2.5. Role of the Planning Inquiry. The government’s Consultation Document asserts that the planning inquiry system has in the past encouraged expense and uncertainty for all the participants. The current proposals do indeed promote certainty, but a certainty that there will be nuclear new build regardless of how legitimate the objections on fundamental issues may be. That achieves certainty by imposing a policy decision from above, bypassing public opinion. The cost to the public of Nuclear power will be billions of pounds. In that context, money spent properly examining the issues will be well spent. If there is uncertainty over the final outcome of proper consultation that is because there may be good reasons why the outcome should not be predetermined.

We understand that not having public inquiries for the English AGR reactor’s in the past was a significant factor that led to no finalised designs before construction started and a host of other problems. These resulted in an average ten year construction delay on each plant. Public scrutiny actually produces better decisions.

Indeed back in 1980/81 the House of Commons Select Committee on Energy in their report on the Government's Nuclear Power Programme argued that, because nuclear power is not just 'any other industry', it will always have to pass the most stringent tests of acceptability: "Only on this basis will the programme outlined by the Secretary of State enjoy the widespread consensus and confidence which the development of complex, costly and inherently risky technologies demands in a democracy" (iii).

The Government has the authority to act as 'judge and jury' in its own case, so it seems strange that they intend to dismantle this vital part of a healthy democracy. Public inquiries are a protective shield, playing a role in defending the public interest (iv). The Government's own advisors, the Sustainable Development Commission, have also made clear that it is not in our interests to relax nuclear planning rules (v). Rigorous public examination is too valuable a process to be passed over in favour of cutting expense and uncertainty.

2.6 Sets a precedent. This move sets a precedent that could lead to the railroading of other projects and undermining vital aspects of land-use planning which must be concern of all planning authorities.


3.0 Conclusion

The Stroud District Green Party supports the moves this government has made towards the democratisation of the planning process and encourages further moves in that direction. The stifling of public debate in an attempt to streamline private nuclear power stations is perhaps one of the government’s most anti-democratic moves to date and represents a tragic move away from the emerging recognition that healthy modern societies demand more than an ability to vote every four years in an unrepresentative first-past-the-post system for ideologically indistinguishable political parties.

We urge the government to review its support for nuclear power and urge the government to recognise the fundamental importance of listening the views of the population and not just those of major industry.

Cllr. Philip Booth
Stroud District Green party


4.0 Notes

(i) Government consultation on changes to planning process re new nuclear power stations http://www.dti.gov.uk/consultations/page32340.html
(ii) See Stroud District Green party response to the Energy Review:
http://www.glosgreenparty.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1185&Itemid=72
(iii) First Report from the House of Commons Select Committee on Energy Session 1980-81 'The Government's Statement on the New Nuclear Power Programme' Vol 1 para 170.
(iv) In the past, 14 public inquiries into nuclear power have resulted in 13 consents (from 20 inspectors). Some could argue that these inquiries are an attempt to enhance the legitimacy of a decision that has already been made. Indeed before and during the Sizewell 'B' Inquiry officials from the Department of Energy maintained that 'no decision had been made', but Nigel Lawson, while Secretary of State for Energy announced on television, in January 1983, that he was convinced of the need for the PWR and of its safety. He stated that the inquiry was not intended to help him make a decision on the PWR, but was to convince the public that the PWR is both needed and safe. He later claimed that none of this in any way prejudged the outcome of the Sizewell inquiry, which was looking at the case for the particular station proposed. Objectors were dismissed as "conspiracy theorists" with no interest in discussing "the merits of the case".
(v) See Planning Portal website:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/en/1115313905167.html