asked the Minister for Energy if he will give details of the information which has been made available to him by the British authorities regarding the release of radioactive material at Sellafield on Sunday last; in view of this incident and the allegations made at a press conference in London yesterday by employees at Sellafield that safety regulations had been persistently breached and accidents at the plant covered up, the action the Government intend to take; in particular, if the Government will, as a matter of urgency, commence international legal proceedings with a view to having the plant closed; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Private Notice Question. - Sellafield Nuclear Power Plant.
asked the Minister for Energy in view of the serious allegations of gross malpractices and radioactive accidents on the Sellafield nuclear power plant revealed this morning by Green-peace and CORE, if he will raise this matter directly and immediately with the UK Minister for Energy to obtain an official clarification of these serious charges; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Energy the action he proposes in the light of the latest accident in Sellafield, the allegation that reports of incidents are being covered up; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Energy if he will make a statement on the recent leak of radioactivity from the Sellafield reprocessing plant; if he will make a statement as a matter of urgency on the health and environmental implications of this leak; and the action he has taken in response to this urgent and very serious matter.
I propose to take the four questions together. The leak of plutonium nitrate which occurred on Sunday last was reported to my Department under an agreed, informal arrangement. On the basis of the information available no radiation was released to the atmosphere on this occasion.
As regards the serious allegations of breaches of safety at Sellafield, this is a matter of grave concern and, on my instructions, officials of my Department have been in contact with the British Ministry seeking clarification. In addition, officials of the Nuclear Energy Board have been in contact with the British Nuclear Inspectorate expressing our concern and emphasising the need for an early report. If these allegations are true, they serve to strengthen Ireland's case to have Sellafield closed.
As I have indicated, I intend to pursue every opportunity to secure the closure of nuclear plants in the United Kingdom as soon as possible. I do not consider it appropriate, however, to publicise the content or timing of any legal proceedings which may be under consideration.
In view of the fact that the Sellafield reprocessing plant represents the most polluting nuclear installation in the world will the Minister agree that it is time for concise legal action to be initiated? Can we take it from the Minister's reply that that option at least is being actively contemplated with a view to being pursued in the near future?
I can assure the Deputy that all options for the closure of this menace off our east coast are being considered. For example, for the meeting of the Paris Commission to be held in Lisbon in mid-June I submitted, in early May, two resolutions for consideration once again calling for the closure of Sellafield, as we did last year and, secondly, asking for a report on the progress of the resolution regarding best available technology which was passed last year. With regard to the question of legal action, the Deputy will be aware that we have intervened in the Cattenom case in the European Court of Justice. That was the first time that an Irish Government moved away from the purely political arena to the courts. That action was taken under Article 37 of the EURATOM Treaty. The Irish legal case was made in mid-April and my understanding is that a ruling will be handed down in mid-July or August.
Following on what the Minister said in reply to the supplementary question I should like to know if it is his intention, or the Taoiseach's intention, to have the whole question of the pollution of the Irish Sea put permanently on the agenda of Anglo-Irish relations. There are a number of Ministers involved, the Ministers for the Marine and the Environment, but I should like to know if the Minister for Energy would consider it useful, if not imperative, to call for the establishment of a special sub-committee of the Intergovernmental Conference to deal with this problem so that the ad hoc arrangements and responses can be replaced with a more permanent and, therefore, more effective system to deal with this problem?
I can assure the Deputy that the British authorities are well aware of our concern in relation to Sellafield, the old Magnox reactors, plans for experiments in them which we stopped through pressure, and the proposals for extensions of existing plants or the construction of new plants in Britain. We are in constant contact with our British opposite numbers. It is more an East-West matter than a North-South one.
Will the Minister confirm that he is proposing legal action? The Minister will recall he told us that if there was continued operation of the Magnox reactors he would take such action. I should like him to confirm that he does intend to take it. Will the Minister say when he intends to introduce an emergency plan, an early warning system and the promised Radiological Protection Institute to provide our population with cover in the event of such an accident being more serious?
I have told the House that I do not consider it appropriate to publicise the content or give information about the timing of any legal proceedings that may be under consideration. The Deputy will be aware that I have been involved in the Cattenom case. I should like to tell the Deputy that the Government have approved the emergency plan.
It took two years.
Following the approval of the emergency plan we propose to hold a trial in the month of June. The Deputy asked when the Nuclear Energy Board would be replaced by the Radiological Protection Institute. I should like to tell him that the Government have approved the appropriate legislation and the matter is with the parliamentary draftsman.
Leaving aside the content or timing of any legal action the Minister might take, will he indicate whether the Government propose to take legal action in regard to this? In view of the fact that there are working committees on health and employment in the context of the Anglo-Irish Agreement I should like to ask the Minister if he would consider it reasonable to establish a working group for the improvement of the quality of the Irish Sea, the most radioactively polluted stretch of water in the world? I should like to ask the Minister if the assurances, by which he seems to have been consoled, from the British authorities, having emanated from sources that are deeply suspect in the light of last week's revelations, are no longer of the highest integrity and need to be looked upon with deep suspicion because there is a deficiency in the procedures and practices in the work place at Sellafield.
I should like to tell the Deputy that there is no question of being assured in relation to the operation of Sellafield and that is why the Government, since taking office, have pursued an active campaign in regard to its operation at bi-lateral and international level. The matter will be raised at the Paris Commission meeting in Lisbon in mid-June. The Deputy seems to have misunderstood what I said in relation to legal action because it is not a question of when we will take legal action; we have taken action in relation to this issue. The Government are anxious to get the European Commission to play a more active role in relation to the appointment of an independent inspectorate. That is the basis of the case under Article 37 that is being pursued in Europe and on which we should have a ruling in July or August. The suggestion of establishing a committee under the Anglo-Irish Agreement is something I will consider.
Deputies will have to be brief in their final supplementaries because I must proceed to the Order of Business.
I should like to ask the Minister if the motions he has tabled for the meeting of the Paris Commission in Lisbon in June are an advance on the motions tabled last year. Will the Minister say if he has received any support for those motions beyond the Icelandic support we enjoyed last year.
The commitment given last year by me, on behalf of the Government, was that we would resubmit motions this year and they will be in the context of requests received from Green-peace. The Deputy can be assured that we will lobby in advance of the Lisbon meeting, as we did last year, and we hope to receive more support. In my view the international community cannot be immune to the continuing breaches of the safety rules and such breaches as reported at the London press conference yesterday. The Government will do everything possible to highlight at international fora the need to close Sellafield.
The outcome of the meeting of the Paris Commission last year was very disappointing. In fact, the motion we tabled was defeated by nine votes to one with only one delegation supporting us. Does the Minister think that the position this year will be any better? Will the Minister agree that a decision of the Paris Commission is not binding on any of the parties who attend? Will he agree that the only way to deal with the Sellafield problem is to take legal action?
This amounts to repetition. We have been over that ground earlier.
While the Commission meeting may be a useful way of airing our views it does not allow us to address the problem in the way we need to address it and bring about a closure of the Sellafield plant.
While resolutions passed are not legally binding there is a moral obligation on participants which at international level is more binding than a piece of paper. I have told the House that we are involved in legal action and the Deputy will appreciate that it would not be in the national interest to publicise the contents or the timing of any further legal action that may be taken. I am not ruling it out — on the contrary — but I would ask the House not to expect me to reveal our national cards in relation to such a sensitive issue.
Does the Minister have any?
It is a good bush to hide behind.