I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 21 together. The Deputies will be aware that I sent a detailed and wideranging submission to the UK Minister for the Environment and the UK Inspectorate of Pollution. This submission conveyed in the strongest possible terms the Government's total opposition to the continued operation of all nuclear activities carried out at Sellafield and to any expansion of these activities. In particular the submission expressed the Government's grave concerns about commissioning the proposed new THORP plant on the site and the proposed new levels of authorised discharges from Sellafield into the atmosphere and the Irish Sea and called for a full public inquiry to be held before any decision is taken to proceed.
On 28 June the UK Secretary of State for the Environment announced that, after consideration by him and the UK Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of the report of the Inspectorate of Pollution, it has been concluded that no points of substance have been raised that should cause them to reconsider the terms of the draft authorisations. However, because a number of submissions had raised questions as to the justification for the operation of THORP it has been decided to delay the commissioning of the plant until a further round of consultation to deal with the wider issues has been held. It is understood that this consultation will take place over ten weeks.
It is my intention to object in the strongest possible terms to the conclusions reached with regard to the draft discharge authorisations. In addition, while our original submission raised important questions on the basic justification for THORP, I will make a further submission to the UK authorities after consideration of any material made available as part of the further public consultation. Deputies can be assured that I will also continue to press the UK authorities to hold a full public inquiry on THORP.
While the Government has always been and continues to be committed to legal action against Sellafield if a sufficient case for it can be shown to exist, it cannot initiate such action without a firm legal case based on sufficient evidence. The Attorney General has advised that any such legal action would have to be based on scientific evidence as to the injurious effects of operations at the Sellafield plant on Ireland.
Furthermore there is no evidence to suggest that activities at the entire complex, including the proposed operation of the THORP plant, are or will be in breach of EC law and international conventions which would sustain a successful legal action.
The Government is open to information and evidence from any source to support a sustainable case regarding closure of Sellafield. It is not, however, prepared to proceed to legal action without a sustainable case.
In matters of law and legal opinion, the Attorney General alone is the Government's adviser.