asked the Minister for Energy if he has lodged an objection with the British authorities in connection with the proposal to build a nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point, Somerset; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteann—Questions. Oral Answers. - British Nuclear Power Plants.
15.
I have, since I came into office, made numerous representations to the UK authorities regarding Irish concerns about the UK nuclear industry. In April 1987, I wrote to the then UK Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. Peter Walker, protesting on behalf of the Irish Government at plans to construct new nuclear plants. In September 1987, following the CEGB's announcement of their proposal to build a pressurised water reactor at Hinkley Point, I had a meeting with Mr. Cecil Parkinson, Mr. Walker's successor, and I expressed Ireland's complete opposition to any expansion of the UK nuclear industry.
On 22 December last I wrote to Mr. Parkinson reiterating the major fears and concerns of the Government and the Irish people about the UK nuclear industry, and urging that the utmost consideration be given to the objections to the proposed new plant at Hinkley Point.
Will the Minister give us an indication of the response he received from the then Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. Walker, and his successor, Mr. Parkinson? Will he outline to the House if British Secretaries of State are taking on board our concerns and if they have any appreciation for the concerns and fears which people in this country have for the British nuclear industry. I would be grateful if the Minister would indicate whether he is making progress or if he is beating his heal off a stone wall?
Beating his head off a stone wall.
The Deputy will be aware of what it is like dealing with the British authorities on this issue, as in many others. I have received a response from the Secretary of State for Energy in response to my letter of 22 December 1987. He, of course, reiterates that safety is of paramount importance in the operation of all their nuclear installations in the UK and this remains and will continue to remain their position. In addition, they are having a public inquiry, and that was announced on 17 December, into the CEGB's application to construct a pressurised water reactor in Somerset. He informs me that he will then reach his decision on the application in due course in the light of the inquiry inspector's report and all other relevant matters. I would say that I am not satisfied with the response I have been getting from the British on the legitimate fears we have as a nation to the activities of the CEGB, to the reprocessing units they have in Sellafield and to their proposals for experiments at Trawsfynydd and Wilfa. We are not happy with that and we have used every diplomatic channel available to us in the UK and we are considering the situation of going a step further and taking legal action because we feel that you can only depend on the diplomatic process for so long and after that it is a question of the legal road.
In relation to the Hinkley Point station, given that the Minister has made representations on numerous occasions and that he has no reason to believe they are not going to proceed with the construction of that plant, if they do continue, is the Minister suggesting that he would initiate legal action against the British authorities to prevent them constructing the plant?
Under the Euratom Treaty they are bound by certain rules and regulations with regard to the plants that they bring onstream and the safety considerations of neighbouring countries. For example, we have joined with Luxembourg and the State of Saarland against the French in a court case they are taking against the French in the construction of a plant which the French have put right up on their border. We see no reason why at this stage we should not proceed along the legal road because we are not satisfied that sufficient care and attention are being paid to our representations and to the legitimate concerns and fears of the Irish people in relation to the activities of the British nuclear industry. If we had any doubts about their transparency in this matter they were well and truly removed when, under the 30 year rule, the Cabinet papers of the Windscale incident were published and it was shown that the British Government were involved in a cover-up of that particular accident. We are very concerned. We are chasing the British through the EC Commission because we believe there is need for an independent inspectorate at Community level; that is one item which I will be discussing with the European Commission. The Deputies can be assured that the Government share their concern. This is one issue that unites the whole nation. They can be assured that the Government are pursuing the matter as vigorously as possible and I am open to any suggestion from any side of the House as to any other actions and steps I might take.
Will the Minister indicate the rough terms of a legal case under the Euratom Treaty? Would the case hinge on proven negligence or proximity, or what would be the key element in a case that could succeed?
That is being looked at and examined at present. It is under review by the Attorney General's office as to the exact legal line, whether under Euratom, whether we go into the British courts, and exactly what course of action is pursued. I am not a lawyer. All our information has been made available to the office of the Attorney General and I am awaiting his advice as to the course of action to be followed.
It is a big change of heart for the Minister to be taking legal action.
If the Deputy wants to talk about a change of heart it took three votes in Dáil Éireann in 1986 before we could get agreement from the Deputy's party, the Government of the day, even to make a call on the British Government for the closure of Sellafield. The Deputy should be aware that this item unites all the Irish people. There has been in this House a very considered approach which was reflected in the debate here today before the Deputy's intervention. I think his intervention is less than helpful in the particular situation.
With all your huffing and puffing you are no more successful than your predecessor.
If the Deputy wishes to make an intervention he should rise in his place and have the approval of the Chair to do so.
I apologise.
16.
asked the Minister for Energy the steps, if any, the Government intend to take to prevent the British authorities from proceeding with the proposed experiment at the Trawsfynydd nuclear plant in north Wales, which many experts consider to be extremely dangerous and a potential threat to the safety of people living in Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
19.
asked the Minister for Energy the steps he intends to take to ensure that the proposed test at Trawsfynydd in Wales does not go ahead, including in particular any legal action contemplated; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
64.
asked the Minister for Energy whether the failure of the British authorities to inform his Department of the proposed testing in Trawsfynnyd represented a breach in agreed notification procedures.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 16, 19, and 64 together. I share the concerns of Deputies about the CEGB proposal to carry out tests at the Trawsfynydd plant. Taking into account that the plant is now operating well beyond its original life span, the long-standing concerns about the safety of the ageing Magnox type reactors which have no secondary containment and which are known to be suffering from internal weakening of vital components, as well as the history of incidents at Trawsfynydd, the Government are completely opposed to the carrying out of experiments on this plant.
I have written to the UK Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. Parkinson, expressing the Irish Government's total opposition to the experiment at Trawsfynydd, and requesting an early meeting to discuss the matter. The Irish Government were not notified in advance about this experiment or similar experiments carried out in the past.
The failure of the British authorities to take account of the concerns of the Irish people on a matter of such relevance to us is very disturbing and I hope to take this up with Mr. Parkinson at the meeting with him which I have requested.
I also contacted the EC Commissioner, Mr. Stanley Clinton Davis, who told me that he has written directly to Mr. Parkinson to remind the UK Government of the provisions of Article 34 of the Euratom Treaty. Article 34 provides that where a member state proposes to carry out particularly dangerous experiments it shall first obtain the opinion of the Commission and where it might affect the territory of another member state it shall require the assent of the Commission.
The Government are reviewing the legal possibilities open to them to stop the experiment in the event that the authorities involved permit the experiment to proceed. It would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.
As Question No. 16 is the first question, I think the normal procedure is that I speak——
There are questions down from a number of Deputies. I will call the Deputy in due course.
Arising out of the procedure, the Deputy is not here.
The Deputy who tabled the question to whom the Member I think refers is not present.
Can the Minister tell the House whether the British authorities have replied to the request from the EC Commissioner, Stanley Clinton Davis, and, if so, whether he has since been in contact with the Commissioner and whether he has made a decision on whether this test will go ahead? Obviously, the Government have fears about the proposed test going ahead. What arrangements have we made here to cope with the eventuality of the test going wrong and getting into the area of an emergency plan which he spoke about almost a year ago and looking for evidence to the effect——
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but I must advise the House that we are now encroaching on priority time and I ask the Members I call to be very brief.
On a point of order, is that question not the subject of a question I have down for priority?
It is being taken now.
The supplementary is the subject of a question——
I am prepared to facilitate the Deputies, as I said, if they will be brief. The fact remains that we have now entered Priority Question Time. Deputy Richard Bruton.
On a point of order, I understand that under the rules of the House I have at this point before we go to priority questions to raise the question of you disallowing my Private Notice Question on grounds of urgency. The Private Notice Question I supplied to your office was to ask the Minister for Health if he will as a matter of extreme urgency issue a public statement——
I have communicated my reply to the Deputy. He may not pursue this now.
In the——
Sorry, Deputy. I have called Deputy Bruton to put a supplementary question.
I want to get your ruling.
Then please come to the point, Deputy.
The leaflet distributed by——
I am sorry, that is not a point of order. I have called Deputy Richard Bruton.
May I raise this matter on the Adjournment?
I will communicate with the Deputy.
It is causing groundless fears.
I want to make the point that by way of supplementary a question was being asked on this question which was the subject of Question No. 37 nominated for priority by me. I was concerned that I would not have an opportunity to put that question myself. Regarding this current question, I would like to ask the Minister under Question No. 16 whether the British Minister's failure to inform him of this test was a breach of an agreement he had with his counterpart.
It is a matter of concern to me that the British Government did not notify the Irish Government in relation to it. While there is no written agreement, I would have considered it to be a courtesy matter and at least a matter of moral responsibility if there was not a legal responsibility.
Can I take it from the Minister's reply that he is pursuing through the EURATOM Treaty procedures for preventing the test from taking place?
If possible.
Is that what the Minister has in mind in approaching that section of the EURATOM Treaty?
That is one of the avenues available to me and all avenues are being examined to try to stop these experiments being carried out. They are far greater in our view than mere tests. They are experiments on plants which have already gone beyond their projected lifespan. They should be closed rather than experimented on to try to eke their life out further.