Vol. 372 No. 13
asked the Minister for Energy the action, if any, he proposes to take with regard to the monitoring of radioactive emissions from the Sellafield plant; if he proposes to raise the matter of the closure of Sellafield with the British Minister for the Environment; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
30.
asked the Minister for Energy if the text of the motion, calling for the closure of the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant, which was unanimously passed on 3 December 1986, has been sent by his Department to the Governments and Parliaments of the member states of the Paris Convention; if it is intended to raise the matter at the forthcoming meeting of the Paris Convention in Cardiff; the steps, if any, the Government are taking to ensure that the fullest technical and scientific information is available to back up their case for the closure of Sellafield; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
31.
asked the Minister for Energy if his Department will be represented at the Paris Commission meeting in Cardiff on 1 to 3 June, 1987 which will deal with the case for the cessation of magnox reprocessing at Sellafield; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
34.
asked the Minister for Energy the action, if any, he proposes to take to bring about the Government's objective of having the nuclear power plant at Sellafield in the United Kingdom closed; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
52.
asked the Minister for Energy whether it is Government's policy that radioactive discharges from nuclear industries should be stopped until technology, which is now available to achieve zero discharge, is installed.
111.
asked the Minister for Energy if he will distribute the all-party resolution which was unanimously passed on 3 December 1986 calling for the closure of Sellafield nuclear power plant, to the National Parliaments and Governments of the member states of the Paris Convention, to the European Parliament and the Chairman of the Cardiff Meeting of the Paris Commission.
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 28, 30, 31, 34, 52 and 111, together.
I have written to the UK Secretary of State for Energy seeking an immediate end to reprocessing at Sellafield and closure of the plant as soon as possible. I have also submitted, for consideration at the June 1987 meeting of the Paris Commission for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-Based Sources, a recommendation that Sellafield be closed. This recommendation reflects the unanimous call for the closure of Sellafield, made in this House on 3 December last.
The Government firmly believe that technology available at present can practically eliminate discharges from nuclear installations and we are determined that this technology be used. In addition to the Sellafield recommendation, I have tabled a recommendation for consideration at the Paris Commission meeting calling on member states to declare their firm intention to use the best available technology to minimise and eliminate discharges from all nuclear industries including reprocessing plants. The texts of both recommendations have been sent to contracting parties by the Paris Commission in advance of the meeting.
As a meeting of the International Energy Agency in Paris on 11 May last, I took the opportunity to seek support for these recommendations from Ministers of Governments who are signatories to the Paris Convention. I brought to their attention the Dáil resolution calling for the closure of Sellafield. I am happy to be able to report that the response was generally encouraging. I am having bilateral meetings with the Ambassadors of Iceland and Denmark this week, and with the Norwegian Ambassador next week, on this subject.
Officials from my Department will attend the Paris Commission meeting in June and will press for the adoption of the Irish recommendations.
In relation to the monitoring of radioactive discharges from Sellafield, the Nuclear Energy Board carried out an ongoing monitoring programme of the levels of radioactivity in the Irish marine environment. This involves the sampling and analysis of seafood, seaweed, sediment and seawater. Copies of the results of the board's monitoring programme during 1982-84 are available in the Dáil Library.
The monitoring programme has been stepped up in recent years with, for example, the number of samples analysed in 1986 being about 50 per cent up on the number analysed in 1985. It is proposed to maintain monitoring in 1987 at the 1986 level.
The Irish Government's concern about the safety of Sellafield is backed up not only by the scientific advice from the Nuclear Energy Board but also by the UK Health and Safety Executive who stated in a report last December that the potential existed for a serious incident at the plant.
I am convinced that extensive monitoring and a high level of expertise on the world's nuclear industry are essential to enable us to cope with the potential hazards of nuclear installations in other countries. This will be reflected in the function of the new National Radiological Protection Institute, the legislative framework for which I am at present drawing up. In the meantime the Nuclear Energy Board have been given increased resources for the provision of a new laboratory and additional staff and equipment.
Will the Minister consider pressing the member states at the Paris Commission meeting that Sellafield should stop emitting discharges until they instal the technology which he agrees is not available? Has he secured any support for his motion from the Portuguese or Dutch delegations, who appear to be the people who will tip the balance? If his approach fails in Paris, will he consider court action to achieve the closure of Sellafield?
Rather than reading the resolutions I will make them available to the Deputy. The first calls for the closure of Sellafield and the second calls for the elimination of radioactive discharges from nuclear plants to the marine environment. It says that contracting parties to the Paris Commission for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-Based Sources, while protecting the system of dose limitation recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, declare their firm intention to use the best available technology in order to minimise and eliminate as soon as possible radioactive discharges from all nuclear industries, including reprocessing plants, into the marine environment.
As for responses from individual Ministers and Governments to our lobby, it would be foolish for me to publicly show my hand and say which countries have indicated they will support us at the meeting. However, I was very heartened by the level of support, and the commitments of support, I received from my colleagues at the international energy meeting.
A number of Deputies have tabled questions on this subject and I want to call as many as possible, especially those who have tabled these questions.
I am happy that the Minister has taken such a strong stand on this very serious matter. I know he is unable to specify which countries or Ministers have indicated their support, but is he satisfied at this stage that he has a certain amount of support? Is he also satisfied that all the information he and his Department require to make the case against Sellafield has been gathered and that his case is 100 per cent?
As I said, I was very heartened by the level of support I received. So far as the preparation for the meeting is concerned, I can assure the House that everything that could be done to prepare a strong case either is being done or has been done. We brought briefs to the Paris meeting outlining our view, our letters to the United Kingdom Secretary of Energy and the exact resolutions we were putting forward. We have done as much homework as possible and, as regards the level of support, that remains to be seen on the day. As I said, we have done our homework and hopefully we will get the required support.
I want to take this opportunity to commend the Minister on the very strong stand he has taken and assure him of support from all sides of the House in his efforts to press for the closure of Sellafield. Would the Minister indicate if he will be attending the convention meeting in Bristol given that it will be a plenary session involving wider issues, and given the important resolutions the Irish Government will be pursuing? Mindful of the fact that the British Government can refuse to recognise or implement any resolution from the Paris Convention, has the Minister, or his Department, considered initiating proceedings before the European courts to compel Britain to close Sellafield and to stop abusing our territorial waters with the discharge of deleterious and dangerous waste?
The meeting in Cardiff will be for officials; it will not be administrative. However, I will be in constant contact with our delegation of senior officials from my Department. Normally the Cardiff-Paris Convention comes under the Department of the Environment but I can assure the House that this will be a delegation of senior officials with whom I shall be in constant contact. So far as the possibility of court action is concerned, I would prefer to await the outcome of the Cardiff meeting when we will see the level of success or otherwise achieved, and after that, I will consider my options.
May I ask the Minister——
I am sorry Deputy but I am calling another Deputy.
I, too, would like to indicate support for the strong position the Minister is taking, but what course of action does he propose taking should Britain not respond to the pressures which will come from the meeting?
I would like to await the outcome of the meeting before indicating the next step to be taken. I am hopeful that on this occasion the strength and merit of our case will receive the support of the meeting in Cardiff, and after that I will review the position again. If we are not successful, further options will have to be examined.
May I suggest that the Minister——
A question, please.
Would the Minister not agree that the phrase "the best available technology" is only a delaying tactic and that nothing short of shutting down Sellafield will please the Irish people? Would he also not agree that the danger is imminent to Ireland and not to many European countries who are using this facility to process their nuclear waste?
The Deputy seems to be mistaken. There are two resolutions, one is calling for the closure of Sellafield and the second is for the use of the best available technology. This two pronged attack will be undertaken at the meeting. As far as other countries suffering from the effects of Sellafield are concerned I can assure the Deputy that many countries feel very strongly about Sellafield, although Sellafield is not affecting them. The Nordic countries in particular are affected because of the currents in the Irish Sea and the North Sea. There is a very strong feeling among the Nordic nations about the nuclear policy and programme of the British Government, for example, the Sizewell decision and the proposed extension of Dounreay. The Nordic countries have already taken initiatives in regard to these issues and, therefore, it would not help our case if it was assumed that other countries could not care less because it only effects Ireland. The issue affects many countries.
We must now deal with questions nominated for priority.
I should like to raise on the Adjournment the question of Ireland giving relief from the disaster fund to Mozambique because of the threatened famine.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
