Q115 Mr. Dave Anderson: Can I ask just for clarification, within the NPS it states that the Government acknowledges that the plan has the potential for an adverse effect on the integrity of Natura 2000 sites, but that the overriding public interest takes precedence. Can you explain to me just the process of how you think the Government will have come to that decision, and is that challengeable in any way?

Ms Ashley: We were concerned, when we read that, that it was a very sweeping statement that all the nuclear sites were essential and, therefore, we could claim IROPI for all of them. We are not legal advisers, but I think that would need to be tested and I think that will be tested. That is quite a dangerous statement to make, I think, and a robust case to meet that statement is not made in the NPS at the moment.

Q116 Mr. Dave Anderson: If the case is not made, which it plainly is not, within the NPS, do you know if any real work is being done to justify this?

Ms Ashley: Not that I am aware of, no, and I think that needs challenging, if only just to draw that evidence out if it is there.

+++

Q131 Mr. Dave Anderson: Can I go back to the point which was raised earlier about the Aarhus Convention. What specifically do you think the NPSs may be in breach of?

Ms Ashley: Sorry?

Q132 Mr. Dave Anderson: Are there any specifics on what, you think, they may be in breach of?

Ms Ashley: The Convention requires active participation and access to environmental information. I am not convinced, and this is a very personal response, but I am not convinced that you could stand up and say that the correct environmental information has been made available to people and that people have had an ability to participate in the development of this policy.

Mr Greenleaf: I think the main basis where you have the comparison is with the nuclear consultations where Greenpeace brought forward a judicial review and then DTI approached the SDC about an engagement process which would actually meet the Aarhus Convention requirements, but that was not imposed or was not taken forward or the full recommendations were not taken forward and the second judicial review was brought forward again by Greenpeace. I think that is probably something we would have to provide you with a bit more information on to understand exactly where it fell down the first time and the second time and how far DTI would have had to implement the SDC's recommendations on engagement to not have reached that second judicial review.

Q133 Mr. Dave Anderson: On a similar line, the Government also has a cross-government code of practice on consultation. Do you think that this process fits in with that?

Mr Greenleaf: In one of the other pieces of evidence submitted by, I think it is, the Town & Country Planning Agency, they highlighted, is it, DCLG's or then ODPM's consultation documents or guidance that should be followed as part of this process, but it raised the fact that it was completely ignored, just did not come into play.

Ms Ashley: It was highlighted as a key issue in, I am not sure if it was the White Paper or the Climate Act, but it has not been followed through as the National Policy Statement, so there could be risks there.

Q134 Dr Whitehead: We would welcome a note, if you wished to send us one, on the question of the previous discussions and arguments about consultation on the nuclear White Paper, which it was precisely.

Ms Ashley: Yes, we set out a process which would have taken six months and the DTI said there was not time.

Dr Whitehead: Perhaps we could return briefly to the considerations in the nuclear NPS and particularly the question of nuclear waste.

Q135 Mr. Dave Anderson: In the White Paper, the Government said that, before development consents could happen, the Government would need to be satisfied that effective arrangements existed, and then in the NPS it says, "Having considered this issue, the Government is satisfied that effective arrangements will exist and, therefore, the IPC need not consider this question". What do you feel about that?

Mr Greenleaf: I think we are very sceptical about that. In 2006, the SDC published quite a detailed review on the role of nuclear and the two biggest barriers with regards to that were the question of economics and also the nuclear waste question. We have not been able to look at that again in more detail since the waste White Paper, but we are not really aware of any substantial additional information to that. I think the issue at the moment is about what you would consider is tangible progress in terms of having a waste repository in place. At the moment, we have the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely White Paper and that is quoted within the nuclear NPS itself. It says the Government does not have a fixed delivery timetable. We could have a waste repository operational by 2040 and various other timescales with final disposal of legacy waste by 2130, but the report itself we do not think is sufficient tangible progress if you compare that to countries, such as Finland, where they have identified the sites, started the construction of a research laboratory, got three years' worth of testing and they expect to be operational by 2020. Of course, there may be delays and that may not occur, but, taking a precautionary principle, you would want to be sure you are starting your way practically on the process that a repository would be in place, and we do not think that just having documentation in a White Paper at the moment really cuts the mustard on that. We would perhaps prefer that the Government had actually identified the sites. I know they are exploring the possibilities with local communities at the moment, but they have not actually identified a site and started some degree of geological testing because there is still a question about whether the sites that are selected would actually be suitable for the waste. I think, for us, at the moment we do not seem to be far enough down the road in terms of tangible progress to make the assumption that the waste repositories will be in place.

Q136 Mr. Dave Anderson: Do you think that the IPC should have a role in this?

Mr Greenleaf: I think so; it is another centrally important issue. If they do not take it into account at the moment, then where else would it be considered in terms of approving or not new nuclear plants?

Q137 Mr. Dave Anderson: So is there a doubt between what the Government said in 2008 and what the NPS is now saying that no real work is being done, or is it that there is no evidence that the work is being done?

Mr Greenleaf: I think it is more the evidence. The nuclear NPS almost quotes verbatim the White Paper, and the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely White Paper set out that there is not a fixed delivery timetable. We may have something operational by 2040, but there is just a question of whether that represents tangible enough progress to actually have a repository operating in a suitable timescale and, in comparison to other countries, we do not think that is necessarily the case.

+++

Q158 Charles Hendry: I think we need something more definitive from you. It is quite vague how you have left it. You are saying that nuclear ones should not be approved until certain things have been met, but I think we are not clear exactly what needs to be met, so I think it would be very helpful to have a further note as to exactly what you are suggesting.

Ms Ashley: We can do that. I think overall our point is that in the statement in the NPS we do not see any evidence to support that statement and we would like to see that from Government.

Q159 Mr. Dave Anderson: It may be there. The evidence may be there, but you have not seen it.

Ms Ashley: It may be, but yes, we have not seen it.

This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee. Neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.

The full transcript may be read here.

Promoted by Paul Foy on behalf of Dave Anderson, both of St Cuthbert's Church Hall, Shibdon Road, Blaydon, NE21 5PT