asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in the light of the increased public concern arising from a number of nuclear related incidents, the Government will consider convening a meeting of other non-nuclear States with a view to launching a campaign for a new United Nations backed treaty which would facilitate the proper monitoring of all nuclear installations, with a view to ensuring the most effective possible safety standards, as well as the maximum possible warning of, and protection from nuclear accidents.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Nuclear Accidents.
2.
The Irish Government strongly support the convening of an international conference which would seek to agree, inter alia, internationally binding safety standards for the operation of nuclear power installations and arrangements for international supervision and enforcement.
The response of the international community to the Chernobyl incident already includes proposals for the convening of an international conference to discuss the lessons to be learnt from this accident in relation to the safety of nuclear power installations.
On 14 May, General-Secretary Gorbachev of the Soviet Union proposed an intensification of international co-operation in the area of information exchange and early warning in the case of accidents and the establishment of mutual assistance mechanisms in cases of accident. He suggested that a high level conference within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency should be convened to discuss these issues.
Chancellor Kohl of the Federal Republic of Germany has also proposed an international conference of nuclear power countries and also of countries with a substantial interest in the nuclear power issue. Ireland has indicated, in response to an approach from the German authorities, that we strongly support the idea of such a conference and would be interested in receiving an invitation to it if, in fact, it is to be held. It is envisaged that this conference would seek international agreement on information mechanisms and measures of mutual assistance in the case of accidents, as well as the question of internationally agreed standards of safety for the operation of nuclear power installations.
Following a special session of the Board of Governors of the IAEA on 21 May, it was proposed that, within the IAEA framework, experts would meet on an urgent basis to draw up international agreements on early notification and information exchange, as well as on emergency response and mutual assistance measures in the event of nuclear accident. Furthermore, it was proposed that an international conference be convened at an early date on the full range of nuclear safety issues, including nuclear safety policy.
I am quite sure from the Minister's reply, which was fairly lengthy and read at great speed, whether or not the international conference he is talking about is an international conference of countries using nuclear power. I believe there are only about 24 countries in the world that have nuclear power stations. Is that what the Minister is saying? Does the Minister not consider that the countries which should be attempting to monitor these power stations are the remaining 120 or 130 countries in the world? Has the Minister any initiative to bring forward to the United Nations in this matter?
I am sorry if the Deputy did not get the gist of my reply. I will read the last paragraph again and I believe that will answer his supplementary questions:
Following a special session of the Board of Governors of the IAEA on 21 May, it was proposed that, within the IAEA framework, experts would meet on an urgent basis to draw up international agreements on early notification and information exchange, as well as on emergency response and mutual assistance measures in the event of nuclear accident. Furthermore, it was proposed that an international conference be convened at an early date on the full range of nuclear safety issues, including nuclear safety policy.
That would include both countries with nuclear installations and those without them like ourselves.
The Minister refers to an international conference. That is why I wonder why a separate conference needs to be convened when the United Nations exists for this purpose. Does the Minister not intend to raise this matter at the United Nations? It is an excellent idea to have as many conferences as possible on this issue. But what I am asking is: does the Minister intend to bring forward any initiatives at the United Nations on this in order to bring forward whatever agreements or suggestions are made at these international conferences and to have them agreed through the United Nations?
The International Atomic Energy Agency are the appropriate body to convene such conferences. They are the world expert international body and therefore it would be more appropriate that they should do so than the United Nations.
Will anybody be excluded?
The rules have not been drawn up. There are countries who are not members of the IAEA. The terms of reference could be broadened under international agreement to include anybody else. There are no rules about it yet but the members of the IAEA would be the appropriate conveners of such a conference.
Does the Minister share my disappointment about the statement in Tokyo by the leaders of the seven industrialised nations which was confined to talking about a better system of notification of accidents and that, as far as those leaders of the western world are concerned, the only thing they came up with was a system of notification of accidents? In other words, they contemplated accidents happening and then having some improved or perfected system of notification of the accidents. Will the Minister agree that that is a particularly defeatist and negative way for those leaders of the democratic world to approach this issue?
That is only half of the story. If there is an accident we want better notification. The accident in the Ukraine in April underlines that. But as well as that what we have asked the EC to do under Euratom is to set up a system of improving safety in nuclear stations so that such accidents do not occur. That is the preventative side and is much more desirable even though the other is necessary as well. Preventing accidents by establishing higher safety standards in nuclear stations is much more desirable.
What Deputy Mac Giolla and I are seeking is a meeting of those states who do not have a vested interest in nuclear power. We should come together and assert ourselves in this threatening situation. Does the Minister visualise such a conference either under the auspices of the UN or separately? Will he agree that it is the nations who have nothing to gain from nuclear energy but who are exposed to all the risks who should have the main say in this area?
I would not be against the coming together of those states who have no nuclear installations themselves. But it is unrealistic to talk about convening a conference purely to protest at countries who have nuclear installations. We must remember that the people in the Ukraine suffered very grievously so it is not right to say that it is of no concern to the people who have installations. In this case their citizens have died or suffered from the effects of radiation. It is a different concern but a very real concern to those of us who live next to countries where there are nuclear installations. But it would be unrealistic to hold a conference about nuclear safety and about the effects of accidents without having present at that conference the countries who have the nuclear installations. They are the people we must bring into a conference so that they raise their standards and introduce measures that are necessary in the case of an accident.
Would the Minister be prepared to differentiate and recognise that there is a valid difference between those countries that do not have nuclear energy and those countries that have? Does he not see that we would have different priorities? Unfortunately, countries that are committed to nuclear energy almost certainly would not be prepared to go as far in the areas of safety — as some would wish, to the extent of closure — as those of us who have no nuclear energy, who are never likely to have it and who gain nothing from it? There are two different sets of nations with different approaches and different priorities.
The sort of conference the Minister has in mind, a mixture of both, might achieve something but it is much more likely to be totally stymied and negatived by the efforts of those countries who do not want inspection — and I will name them if necessary. Failing any progress in such a conference — and I would not have any confidence in such an international conference making any progress — at least we might get somewhere if the nations who have no vested interest but who are exposed to danger could express our wishes as to what we would like to see happen in the world.
Would the Minister agree that at present the European Community, towards which his Government are directing all their efforts and on which they are relying, has no real powers in this matter, that there is no inspectorate in the Community which could inspect nuclear installations and that it is very doubtful if the present Treaty would permit the establishment of such an inspectorate?
On the last part of the Deputy's question, there is no inspectorate at the moment. That is why, prior to the Chernobyl disaster, we wrote to the EC in early April to get such an inspectorate established. There will be a meeting in Brussels on Friday of this week to reinforce this point. We believe that the European Community can take its powers from chapter 3 of the Euratom Treaty to establish such an inspectorate.
I am surprised that Deputy Haughey appears to infer that a conference which included states with nuclear installations would not be more effective in imposing standards than a meeting from which they were excluded. Obviously, those who have no nuclear installations would probably bring in very much higher standards, but they would have no means of enforcing them. It would be purely their view as to what should be done.
And public opinion.
A conference at which countries with nuclear installations are present and agree would make decisions which were more enforceable. We want these standards brought in on an international rather than an individual country basis.
The Minister must know that they would block any agreement.
It is a closed shop as it is.
I shall allow Deputy Mac Giolla a short question. I think it should be clear to everyone that Question Time is not a suitable occasion to try to deal with a major issue like this.
What would suit you completely, a Cheann Comhairle, and I am sure that you will agree that I always do, is to ask very brief questions. I would remind you that I asked only two questions, whereas Deputy Haughey already has asked three.
If the House wishes to devote the rest of Question Time to this subject, that is all right with the Chair.
Briefly on the Minister's reply to Deputy Haughey, the points that Deputy made were generally in line with what is in mind in this question, the purpose of which was to advocate the non-nuclear states' agreeing to come together to decide the type of inspection, monitoring and safety required.
A question, please, Deputy.
Does the Minister not agree that countries which have nuclear power stations have already shown that they never tell the truth? Is it not necessary for the non-nuclear states to agree on the type of safety procedures and monitoring that they would require?
Hear, hear.
While the other states are formulating their safety systems, should we not also know what we want?
Hear, hear.
My mother used to tell me that generalisation was the sign of extreme youth. Deputy Mac Giolla has said that countries with nuclear installations never tell the truth. I am sure that is not correct.
Would the Minister tell me one instance where they did?
Is Deputy Mac Giolla implying that people in countries with nuclear installations are all liars?
The difference between truth and non-truth is very hard to distinguish.
The record of the last 30 years on the admission of the danger of leaks has been very far from satisfactory. I do not rule out forever what Deputy Mac Giolla is suggesting. However, it would be quicker and easier to have a conference under the IAEA in the autumn of this year which would have the effect of bringing around the table nuclear and non-nuclear countries so that standards could be drawn up, overseen and implemented. If that does not succeed, or if the non-nuclear states consider that the measures are inadequate, then another conference could follow on. Urgency is what is needed now and what is proposed by the IAEA can be done by the autumn of this year and should be proceeded with as quickly as possible.