Brexit and my MP - Part 14

My follow up:

21 August 2017

Dear Mrs Milton,

Thank you for your letter of 14 August 2017 in response to my email of 20 July 2017. In it you state “As I understand, leaving Euratom is a result of the decision to leave the European Union as they are uniquely legally joined”. Actually, Euratom and the European Union are legally quite distinct organisations although the former does use the same institutions as the EU including the ECJ. This is precisely why I wrote to you in the first place as, with a little compromise, it seems to me that the UK could retain its membership of Euratom avoiding the risks inherent in leaving. At the very least a proper risk/reward analysis should have been undertaken, something the Government failed to do as I pointed out in my original communication. I have not seen a reasoned explanation for the Government’s decision to leave but I presume that the main drivers are the Tory right’s pathological dislike of the ECJ and the continued free movement of nuclear specialists which ongoing membership would require.

You allude to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill as a replacement vehicle for continued safety standards and, indeed, the Bill does appear to address certain functions of Euratom (ensuring that civil nuclear material is not diverted from its intended use, for instance). However, it does not address other functions such as access to expertise and capital.

Among the issues you did not address in your letter are:

       1) Access to nuclear fuel. Approximately 20% of the UK’s electricity is generated in nuclear power stations, and there are plans for new stations (including Hinkley Point C, currently under construction) that will require fuelling. The UK has no indigenous sources of nuclear fuel, relying on imports especially from the eight countries with which Euratom has cooperation agreements and which control over 70% of the world’s uranium supplies. These arrangements would fall away on the UK’s departure from Euratom and would have to be replaced – no small requirement.

       2) Supply of medical isotopes. The UK has no reactor producing medical isotopes; these have to be imported with the Euratom Supply Agency currently having oversight of the market. Many of these isotopes have short half-lives making the proper functioning of supply chains time critical. Without the support of Euratom the UK is at risk of poorer, less controlled supply. I am sure that with your medical background this is something that you would not wish to see happen.     

      3) There are some 126 tonnes of plutonium stored at Sellafield owned and controlled by the Euratom Supply Agency. What happens to this after the UK leaves?

One is tempted to revert to the old adage: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

Yours sincerely

Richard Bawden