The Government's recent energy review, which backed a new generation of nuclear power plants, was 'legally flawed', according to documents given to the High Court by Greenpeace at the start of a legal battle today.
Lodging legal papers at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Greenpeace is arguing that the Government did not carry out the 'full public consultation' it had committed itself to before making a decision to back new nuclear power stations.
Greenpeace has filed the papers as the first step of the legal challenge, which is expected to culminate in judicial review of the Government's energy review.
Should Greenpeace's case prove successful, the Government will be forced to ditch the conclusions of the energy review and instead carry out a much fuller consultation and provide comprehensive information on the full range of issues relating to building new nuclear reactors in the UK.
The energy review, according to Greenpeace, failed as a 'full public consultation' because it did not resolve key issues surrounding a new generation of nuclear power stations, such as dealing with radioactive waste, financial costs and the design of the reactors.
Greenpeace's concerns are shared by a range of key parties including the Environment Agency, UNISON, the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee and former Cabinet ministers.
Sarah North, head of Greenpeace's nuclear campaign, said: "The Government promised a full public consultation before giving the green light to a dangerous new set of nuclear power stations, yet they have absolutely failed to do this. This is why Greenpeace is launching this legal challenge.
"Given that there are much more sophisticated, effective and safer ways than nuclear power to meet our energy demands and cut our climate change emissions, Greenpeace feels compelled to challenge the Government on its irrational and unsubstantiated pro-nuclear policy."
For more information, contact the Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255.
Notes:
The 2003 Energy White Paper which concluded the last Energy Review stated 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 described nuclear power as an unattractive option on the basis of its current economics and the unresolved issue of nuclear waste.
In the Environment Agency's submission to the 2006 Energy Review they stated that: "The current consultation poses only very broad questions on energy policy and does not set out specific policy proposals at this stage. We advise that once the Energy Review team reports in the summer Government should carry out further consultation on more detailed proposals for the way forward."
In the Sustainable Development Commission's response to the 2006 Energy Review they stated that: "Our Energy Challenge offers no information whatsoever on what any new nuclear programme might look like, presumably on the grounds that this would be premature. Unfortunately, people are being asked to comment on the potential contribution of a new nuclear programme without any of the key aspects (regarding reactor design, cost, waste management, liability issues, and so on) having been addressed."
The House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee issued a report ("New Nuclear? Examining the issues") on 10 July 2006 which stated: "we are concerned about the manner in which this Energy Review has been conducted. Throughout the process, the Government has hinted strongly that it has already made its mind up on nuclear power. The last review took three years to complete, yet this one has been conducted in the space of six months.
"What is more, it is clear to us that the outcome of the Energy Review has largely been determined before adequate consideration could possibly have been taken of important evidence that should inform the Government's policy decision."
On 18 April 2006, the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee commented as follows: "The nature of the current Energy Review is unclear - whether it is specifically fulfilling the Prime Minister's desire to make a decision on nuclear, whether it is a review of electricity generating policy, whether it is a wider review of progress against the Energy White Paper, or whether it is reopening the broad policy debate which the White Paper itself encompassed. We are also concerned that it does not appear to have resulted from a due process of monitoring and accountability, and that the process by which it is being conducted appears far less structured and transparent than the process by which the White Paper itself was reached".
Elliot Morley MP has been reported as saying that, although he was then the minister for climate change at the Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs he had been excluded from key technical details on which the energy review was based. He told the Guardian Newspaper on May 17 2006 that: "if the review was open, transparent and fair looking at the options on economic grounds across a whole life cost assessment of nuclear stations, the solution may well point to renewables. We at Defra were not getting the involvement in the energy review at the technical level we should have."
The former home secretary, Charles Clarke, said in a recent article for the New Statesman (subscription required) that: "Major policy issues, such as the place of nuclear energy in the drive to energy sustainability, need serious consideration. They cannot simply be dealt with as an aside at the CBI's annual dinner or a half-sentence at the Guildhall. The country as a whole needs to understand the context and the options before such commitments are made that can otherwise seem to be delivered from on high without proper engagement by parliament and the country."
