asked the Minister for Energy in relation to the Government's objective of securing the closure of Sellafield, if this matter will be raised at the next meeting of the Paris Commission in June 1988; Ireland's representatives at the meeting of the commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Closure of Sellafield.
21.
I will be instructing my representatives to the Paris Commission to make clear the Governments view that Sellafield should be closed. Ireland's representatives at the meeting will be officials from the Department of the Environment, who have overall responsibility for the Paris Commission, from the Department of Energy and from the Nuclear Energy Board.
Will the Minister indicate what responses he has had in relation to the demands for the closure of Sellafield and does he propose to have specific motions tabled at the Paris Commission relating to its closure?
The Deputy will appreciate that at present we are trying to get as much international support as possible for the Government stance in relation to the closure of Sellafield. We have been able to make some progress, though not sufficient, in relation to that matter. We have to bear in mind that while the levels of emissions from Sellafield have been reduced they are still unacceptable. The only satisfactory conclusion from an Irish point of view would be total closure. That is a difficult task and we have to face up to considerable intransigence on the part of the British in relation to this matter. We will have to continue to exploit all the opportunities that we can, particularly at international and EC level, for further support from other European countries in relation to our stance.
On previous occasions the Government indicated that an international inspectorate would be sought to visit Sellafield in particular. Will the Minister indicate what progress has been made with regard to achieving that objective? In the absence of any significant progress will the Minister now take up the suggestion that I made previously, that the Irish Government should insist on having an Irish inspector located in Sellafield to monitor emissions and so on?
In relation to finding agreement to the establishment of an EC inspectorate for the purposes of over-seeing and acting as a watchdog in terms of developments in Sellafield, we have not been able to make any real progress. Our efforts in that regard have been stoutly resisted. Any suggestion that the Deputy or other Deputies make in this House in relation to improving the position or establishing a situation where it would be possible to get any Irish or international presence installed in Sellafield would be quite acceptable from my point of view. We only wish it would be possible to have it implemented.
What hopes has the Minister for a worthwhile outcome of the meeting of the Paris Commission this year? I recall that last year the Minister, Deputy Burke, stated that that meeting would be of crucial importance to the people of Ireland and a significant milestone in the history of the State. The outcome that we achieved last year was that the main proposal we put forward — the closure of Sellafield — was supported by only one delegation. The other nine delegations voted against it. Does the Minister think that the position this time will be any different as presumably it will be the same delegates who will be at the Commission this time around? As the Minister knows, we have talked about Sellafield on many occasions in this House. Will he not agree that we need to take much more effective action than going to these conventions? While they are worthwhile, all we seem to get from them is sympathy. Will the Minister agree that we must, as I have said before, take legal action against the offenders? Unfortunately, my priority question on this subject was ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle today. The Minister has said in this House that he has referred to the Attorney General the matter of the legal options that are available to us. The Minister confirmed in this House three months ago that he would be in a position very shortly to make a decision about legal action. Will the Minister not agree now that until such time as we do that we will make no effective progress in relation to pollution from Sellafield and other nuclear plants in the UK?
The Government will be concerned to use all options in relation to getting a satisfactory solution to this very dangerous and painful problem as far as the security and health of the people are concerned. I accept the Deputy's contention that the results of last year's Paris Commission certainly were not along the lines that we had originally hoped. The indications seem to be more encouraging this time.
Does the Minister expect to get agreement on the closure?
We seem to be getting more support all around. Obviously there is still extreme resistence from the British and indeed the French. With regard to using the legal arm to deal with this matter, that is still under consideration and I have nothing further to add to the Minister's statement of some time ago.
May I ask——
Sorry, I want to make some progress on other questions also.
I wish to ask one final question.
It has to be a very brief question. Deputy O'Malley.
Whatever decision is arrived at by the Paris Commission, it is not legally binding on anybody. Is that not the case?
The question of a legally binding agreement is one matter but our job at this stage is to try to secure, as far as is humanly possible, reasonably widespread support within the European Community for the installation of an independent European inspectorate at Sellafield.
That is a total change.
We are doing all we can to secure that support. Nobody could say that we are happy with the developments that have taken place. We have to consider at all times every option that is available to us.