Deputy Avril Doyle gave notice of her intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of a proposal to create a dump for radioactive nuclear waste in the vicinity of Rockall. That matter is in order. The Deputy has 20 minutes to make her case and the Minister has ten minutes to reply.
Adjournment Debate. - Proposed Nuclear Waste Dump Around Rockall.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to get a response from the Minister to what I consider to be a most important issue to this country. I raised this matter on the Order of Business and was properly ruled out of order. I also tabled a Private Notice Question today to ask the Minister for the Environment in view of the critical importance to our environment of a speedy response by the Government to the proposals by a British company to create a concrete dump for radioactive nuclear waste around Rockall, if he will ensure that this proposal which is likely to significantly affect our environment will be the subject of an environmental impact analysis under the EC directive on environmental impact assessment before any decision is made on its merits. This Private Notice Question was tabled in my name and in that of our spokesman on Energy, Deputy Richard Bruton.
Through fishing interests here, it has been brought to our notice that a British company have applied to dispose of radioactive nuclear waste by effectively forming a concrete doughnut around Rockall. This raises many questions which need to be answered fairly urgently. In relation to the jurisdiction of Rockall, what claims have we to Rockall and where do our claims stand when put side-by-side with the British claims? Any proposal to dispose of nuclear waste at Rockall, or any other proposal concerning Rockall, must as a precursor have the resolution of the problem as to who has the jurisdiction of Rockall.
Apparently a planning application for this proposal was submitted to the Council of the Western Isles in Scotland on the assumption by the privately owned Nottinghamshire-based company that Rockall is within the jurisdiction of the Council of the Western Isles. This is not the Irish assumption. Will the Minister clear up what rights we have to Rockall and the whole problem in relation to the jurisdiction of Rockall? Having assumed that we have at least as much a say as the British Government, if not more — and that remains to be decided — can we insist that we are a party to the decision-making process in relation to this proposal? I have been pursuing the whole area of how we will implement the forthcoming EC directive on environmental impact analysis which will be part of our armoury of legislation after 1 July. The Minister told me on other occasions that annex 1 of that directive will be mandatory and that certain aspects of annex 2, those likely to significantly affect our environment, will also be effectively mandatory.
We will not argue or disagree with the contention that there is every likelihood that a nuclear radioactive waste dump around Rockall is, at the very least, likely to significantly affect the environment. I would like assurances from the Minister, today if possible, that as far as the Irish Government have a controlling say and an input into this decision we will insist that an environmental impact analysis on the proposal will be carried out. We do not even have to look to annex 2 of this directive because under annex 1 subsection 3 those projects which are subject to the article include installations solely designed for the permanent storage or final disposal of radioactive waste, which is effectively what this proposal is all about. Will the Minister say quite plainly to his colleagues in the British Government that we would like an analysis under this EC directive to be carried out on this proposal? We need not go into the details of the problems and the potential environmental hazards until we examine the merits of the proposal.
It is very easy when nuclear waste, or nuclear power stations or reprocessing plants are mentioned, to resort to hyperbole of one kind or another. We saw examples of that in recent years. It is far harder to take a cool, clinical attitude to what has been proposed, to analyse it and find out exactly what environmental hazards may be implicit in any proposal such as the one before us. I have faith in the new EC directive concerning environmental impact analysis and I hope my faith is upheld in the years to come. As a member of the European Community we now have a European procedure for assessing any proposal that might significantly affect the environment and I would like to see that procedure invoked in relation to this proposal. I await the Minister's assurances that that will be done.
The company concerned, Merrick Allen of Nottinghamshire contend that they informed the Irish Government in September 1987 of this proposal. At the time they also informed the Icelandic and the UK Government and the Danish Government. The Minister's colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Gallagher, at the Department of the Marine, was slightly ambiguous in his recent references to this issue. Having first confused the issue as to whether any Government Department or agency knew of this proposal, and implied that they did not, the article in question was subsequently corrected to say that the Department of the Marine were informed a month ago. The company contend that our Government were informed in September 1987. We have had the bones of eight or nine months to investigate this and to find out what the proposals are intended to contain.
I accept that the Minister present is the Minister for the Environment and not the Minister for the Marine, but he will appreciate how important Rockall is to Ireland from a fishing point of view. Apart from the demersal fish, haddock, cod and so on, it is a very important prawn fishery and indeed the most highly valued fish of all, squid, is to be found in this area. Some months ago the Minister may recall the outcry which was expressed in this House as well as outside, concerning proposals to dump sewage sludge some 100 miles off Rockall. We objected very violently.
Apart from the scientific analysis and even apart from an environmental impact analysis based on scientific conclusions as to the likely affect of any such proposals, we have another major factor we must consider in this company, and the Minister for the Environment will appreciate this. The future of our economy very much depends on the perception of Ireland and Irish waters as being environmentally pure. It is not sufficient for the scientific facts to be there that we have clean air, waters and land. The perception abroad must be that they are clean and pure. Our agricultural industry and our food industry depends in the future on a perception of a clean green environment when it comes to our land.
Our fishing industry which has been undeveloped for years, and which in theory we are prepared to invest in, has such potential that it depends on the perception as well as the reality that our seas are pure and clean. Regardless of the facts which will emerge over the coming months, before any decision is made on this proposal, I contend that there will be a perception that there is a risk to the marine environment if this proposal to have a radioactive nuclear waste concrete dump in a doughnut around Rockall goes ahead. We will have a very difficult job in convincing people there is not a potential threat to the environment. The reality may turn out to be that there will not be a potential threat to the environment when the scientists and the technical people get down to analyse it. I am afraid that enough damage will be done to harm our marine industry, particularly the important fisheries around Rockall, by the perception that there is something amiss if this project goes ahead.
You have the reality on one hand and the perception on the other. It is an awful thing to say, but the perception is nearly more important than the reality; because, if the reality is that all is well and the perception is otherwise, we are going nowhere. Ironically, if the perception is that all is well and the reality is otherwise, we are still going somewhere. That, unfortunately, is as the facts are before us. Ideally the perception must match the reality in terms of the type of environment, both land based and sea based, we have in this country. That is what I would want for the country.
My contribution will be brief and, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, perhaps Deputy Keating could have a few minutes if I do not use up my 20 minutes. The whole issue of Rockall was exacerbated in recent months and years by the fact that Irish fishing vessels within the 12 mile limit have been boarded by their British colleagues and counterparts and, to put it at its gentlest, have been hassled. There is a very strong difference of opinion in relation to the jurisdiction of Rockall. The most important aspect of what we are talking about here today is that we resolve very quickly the whole problem about who has jurisdiction over Rockall. When that is resolved we then decide whether it is ourselves or the UK Government who will be analysing the merits of the particular proposal to create this radioactive dump surrounding it. I do not want our country to be left out of the decision-making on this particular proposal. I would like him or his colleague, the Minister for the Marine, to seek assurances urgently from his UK counterpart that we will be party to any decision that is made on this aspect.
It is rather sad that this issue had to come to our attention from a communication from Scottish fishermen to Irish fishermen and had eventually to make its way to the Houses of Parliament — to Dáil Éireann — this evening. This matter was communicated last September to the Irish Government along with other Governments. I would have expected that we could have had an open and frank discussion on it. I believe that, if the cards are put on the table in relation to issues that are potentially contentious such as this, you can defuse a lot of fears and hyperbole that subsequently may result. When people find out covertly, or from under the table, that something is going on and that there is a proposal there that somehow, perhaps, we were not meant to know about until it was too late to do anything about it, then tensions are heightened and we get reactions that perhaps are not justified and perhaps they are.
I will end by quoting the Minister's own words in answer to a recent parliamentary question of this week when he was referring to our waste disposal policy. This is a matter concerning waste disposal. Whether it is a UK problem or our problem we do not yet know, but we will need to determine that very quickly. The Minister said that the object of waste disposal policy is to ensure that — I presume he would include radioactive waste in that and particularly any hazardous wastes which call for special disposal arrangements, as would radioactive nuclear waste — are always safely disposed of without risk to public health or to the environment. I would add to that that, even when the scientists and the technocrats have analysed in depth different proposals and, given the limit of present day knowledge, they come to the conclusion that there is not a risk to public health or the environment, even if there is a perception that any proposal could or may in the future damage the environment, we should be very loath to travel the road with or to accept any such proposal. Our environment is too valuable to us as a commodity for marketing this country in the future — our land based and sea based environment — and nothing should be done to harm the reality or the perception that we are an environmentally pure and clean nation in relation to our land, air and surrounding waters.
Deputy Keating has five minutes.
I thank Deputy Doyle for allowing me to join with her in this brief discussion and, indeed, commend her for raising this matter. I had a similar intention in mind this morning but, unfortunately, I was elsewhere on a somewhat sad duty. First, from my point of view any proposal to store radioactive waste in the waters adjacent to Ireland is essentially repugnant as being not just in conflict with the concept of proper ecological management but being likely to pose a serious threat to life in these islands, both Great Britain and Ireland. Second, in regard to recent revelations in relation to the handling by British Nuclear Fuels of workplace practices in Sellafield, compounded by the fact that the Irish Sea is the most radioactive stretch of water in the world, and on which the British Government conveyed assurances to us, there is a fundamental doubt from my point of view about any from of assurance emanating from that quarter in relation to the handling of issues such as this. I am far from assured that we can simply accept the word we receive for one reason or another.
Third, it would be helpful, in order to avoid the unfortunate tensions which could arise between our two countries in this kind of issue, if there was some form of clarity as soon as possible regarding the jurisdiction of Rockall, the ownership of that area of water and, indeed, the rock itself. If it was helpful it might be useful for some from of formal declaration to be approved of in this House asserting our rights in that respect because of the possible environmental and fishing interests which arise. We see in this case how easily it is assumed that it is simply a matter for local jurisdiction in Britain. We, Deputy Doyle and her party and, I am sure, the Minister and his party, categorically reject that assumption and believe that we have rights in the matter. If there is any action this House can take by means of formal declaration or otherwise, that should be taken.
I am very interested to know whether the Government were informed in September 1987 of this proposal. I will not be surprised if that is not the case, but I hope the Minister will be able to tell us. If they were it underlines, once again — as did a recent incident where the Department of Agriculture found themselves unable to communicate to the public the rejection of some container loads of radioactively contaminated food by the Dutch Government — my basic belief that it is high time we had a freedom of environmental information Act to ensure that the public have the right to know and that it is not just a matter of an arbitrary decision by a Minister, no matter how well intentioned, in matters like this which are of such fundamental importance to all of us. There should be put in place as soon as possible some form of access by the public to essential matters such as this.
Finally, it is clear that there is a growing international perception that this country, its environment and the waters around it are somehow the last resting place of the refuse of the world. We know that nuclear material of various kinds is reprocessed and so on at Sellafield from around the world and ultimately, unfortunately, leaks its way into the soils and the environment in that area with tragic consequences — as we have seen in various reports this very day — and into contamination of the sea. I am convinced from the discussion we had earlier in relation to the Convention for the protection of the ozone layer and, indeed, other discussions we have had on environmental matters, that this Minister would be very willing, and I am sure would be assured of the support of everyone here, if he would lead an international campaign to overturn that growing impression that you can dump or incinerate your waste off the south west coast, dump your radioactive material into the Irish Sea or plant it in some form of temporary — that it what it would be — container in the Rockall area, that Ireland is a place to go when you want to get rid of your dirt. It would be most unfortunate if that international perception was to grow. It is the case at the moment and I would like the Minister, if he can, to engage in some form of campaign.
Deputy Gerard Brady made a good point in his contribution earlier and we should re-echo it. Perhaps ultimately in order to deal with issues like this we will have to awaken the attention of the British public as well who are as much at risk from an environmental tragedy in this area as anyone in this country. Perhaps ultimately the people of both islands will have to take action to ensure that the British establishment and the British Government will wake up to their responsibilities on this issue. Again I thank Deputy Doyle for allowing me to make these few remarks and I join with her in hoping the Minister can offer some assurances in this respect.
Could I say before the Minister comes in——
I am sorry, Deputy, I must now call the Minister for the Environment to reply. He has only ten minutes.
I was going to say that NIREX think these proposals are sensible. They are on record as having said it in relation to Rockall.
The Deputy quotes me accurately.
I thank the Minister.
I want no more or less for our country as a pollution-free area than Deputy Doyle or Deputy Keating does or, indeed, many of those who contributed earlier this evening here. My opinion has always been that the environment is under threat from within and without and has been increasingly so for a number of years. I think the climate is coming right to reverse that trend. Only in the past few years, maybe in the recent few years, has the level of concern come to be expressed in the way it is being expressed now maybe because of our involvement with Europe and at EC Council meetings where one begins to get a very good window on exactly what has happened in other bigger jurisdictions where the environment has ceased to exist as pollution-free and where great damage has been done to the natural and economic environment. Consequently, one is now pushing an open door as far as public opinion is concerned, so may be the time is coming when we can reverse a trend that has been gaining apace over the years.
I think it would be useful if I outlined briefly the nature and purpose of environmental impact assessment normally referred to as EIA because Deputy Doyle has raised it on a number of occasions. In essence, EIA is a formal procedure for ensuring that adequate consideration is given to the environmental aspects of proposed major developments in decision-making processes. It involves the carrying out of a study of the likely effects of a development on the environment and the taking into account of the results of the study in the making of decisions about the development. EIA is now recognised as one of the key elements of preventive environmental policy.
As the Deputy will be aware, prevention of pollution at source has been one of the underlying principles of EC action programmes for the environment, and is now incorporated into the Community Treaties by the Single European Act. A related objective of Community environment policy has been to ensure that the effects of projects on the environment are taken into account at the earliest possible stage in all technical planning and decision-making processes. It is these concerns that led to Directive 85/337 on environmental impact assessment, generally called the EIA Directive.
This Directive requires the carrying out of assessments of the likely effects on the environment of certain public and private development projects, and the taking into account of the results of such assessments in decisions about the granting of development consent to projects. The Directive relates to two classes of projects. The projects listed in its First Annex must in all cases be subjected to an assessment of their environmental effects. These include major developments such as crude oil refineries, integrated chemical installations, motorways, airports, ports and waste disposal installations for toxic waste. Projects listed in the Second Annex must be subjected to an assessment where member states consider that their characteristics so require. Annex II is very wide-ranging and includes projects in such areas as agriculture, mining, energy, chemicals, food, textile and metal processing industries, etc.
Among the projects listed in the First Annex of the Directive is installations solely designed for the permanent storage or final disposal of nuclear waste. Any such project must accordingly be subjected to an assessment of its environmental effects in accordance with the provisions of the Directive.
I believe that environmental impact assessment can play an important role in safeguarding the environment and I am accordingly anxious to see full and effective implementation of the Directive at the earliest possible date.
The Directive is, however, one of the most significant and wide-ranging initiatives by the EC in relation to the environment. Giving effect to it will require the making of detailed provisions and statutory provisions will be required. Proposals for giving effect to the Directive are currently being developed in my Department, and the aim is to bring it into operation just as soon as all of the necessary arrangements can be made. These arrangements will, in accordance with the provisions of the Directive, provide for the assessment of any project of a type mentioned in the Directive's First Annex, including nuclear storage and disposal facilities.
In relation to the matter which Deputy Doyle and Deputy Keating raised, I understand that, while such a project has been mooted by private interests named by the Deputies, there are no official proposals to proceed with such a development. I would assure the Deputies that my colleagues, the Minister for Energy and the Minister for the Marine, will take a keen interest in any proposals in this area, particularly in the context of obligations on member states of the EC under the Euratom Treaty.
Specifically, Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty requires that any definite proposals for the disposal of radioactive waste must be submitted to the EC Commission for its opinion on compliance with that Treaty. Consideration of the matter which is the subject of this debate is clearly at a very early stage in the UK. It remains to be seen whether it develops. In so far as my Department's responsibilities are concerned, I do not wish to anticipate the arrangements which will be made to give effect to the Directive or what action may be taken under those arrangements in future. The situation will be kept under review and appropriate action will be taken where necessary.
Deputy Doyle referred to the need for international consultation about the proposed development at Rockall. I would like to point out that under Article 7 of the EIA Directive a member state will be obliged to consult other member states about developments likely to affect them and take account of any of the views expressed by any of the members states. Therefore, they must do certain things under two international headings. That gives us ample opportunity to deal with the matter when it becomes a really live issue. This, of course, is without prejudice to the more fundamental question of sovereignty in so far as Rockall is concerned. Deputy Doyle raised the question about the jurisdiction out there. I must tread carefully here.
Not too carefully.
To be able to walk on egg shells without breaking them——
Some say the Minister might be walking on water.
Near the shore only.
I hope it is not radioactive.
As the Deputies will be aware, we have objected to the British claim to sovereignty over Rockall. It is a question that is not settled and arbitration at international level is likely to be involved to settle the matter in the future.
We are pursuing it vigorously.
I must not go beyond that now because it is away outside my brief.
This proposal brings it into sharp focus.
It does in a way but we are sufficiently covered under EIA and Euratom and the other arrangements which are now internationally accepted, luckily for us perhaps, to enable us to have that input, in other words to play a major role in what will or will not be the situation out there. I share the Deputy's concern about perception. In things political the same goes on.
There reality never met perception.
There is no reality.
In political terms as far as I am concerned — off the record — reality and perception are both the same. I share the Deputies' concern in these matters and obviously the matter will not be resting here.
The Dáil adjourned at 8 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 10 June 1988.