Vol. 383 No. 2
asked the Minister for Energy in view of the ruling of the European Court of Justice in the case taken by Luxembourg and the West German State of Saarland regarding discharges of nuclear waste by a French nuclear power plant, if the Government intends to take similar court proceedings regarding discharges from Sellafield; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
25.
asked the Minister for Energy the progress which has been made in preparing a court case against Britain regarding the operation of its nuclear industry.
35.
asked the Minister for Energy if he will report on the progress made in preparing for legal action against the British authorities in respect of radioactive discharges into the Irish Sea; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
46.
asked the Minister for Energy if the Government propose to bring the United Kingdom Government to the European Court of Justice over emissions from Sellafield, as Luxembourg and the German State of Saarland did against the French Government.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 25, 35 and 46 together.
I wish to state at the outset that this country made significant written and oral submissions to the European Court of Justice in the case referred by the Administrative Court of Strasburg, France, which has become known as the "Cattenom Case". The proceedings concerned the proper interpretation of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty. The plaintiffs included the relevant regional and local authorities in France, the Federal Republic of Germany and Luxembourg. The Governments of Portugal and Luxembourg as well as Ireland intervened. The European Court adopted the submission of Ireland to the effect that the Commission should be notified of the plans to dispose of radioactive waste before the member state involved authorises the disposal.
Since the judgment of the Court of Justice was delivered on 22 September, 1988 my Department have been in consultation with the Attorney General's Office about the implications thereof for our future strategy.
These recent events are significant and, I believe, beneficial to our overall expectations in this area. I intend that these developments will be thoroughly evaluated without delay with a view to deciding the next appropriate step to take. It is premature, however, to speculate what this step should be.
I should like to welcome the decision of the European Court and commend the intervention of the Irish Government in the case referred to. However, I was utterly dismayed to hear the Minister say that he considers that we are premature in our inquiries about the action the Government intend to take at the European Court in regard to Sellafield. As long ago as May of this year the Minister told us that all options were under consideration and he has advised us that significant submissions were made. The full extent of the Euratom Treaty and its obligations on member states must be apparent to the Minister and his law officers and I should like to call on him to take definite action involving international legal proceedings against the British authorities in respect of their installation at Sellafield.
The Deputy appears to be embarking on a speech.
The time has come to stop this prevarication and give clear commitments on what it is intended to do in regard to Sellafield.
I should like to assure the House, and the Deputy, that there is no prevarication whatever. I welcome the Deputy's comments on the participation by the Government in the "Cattenom Case". It was the first time in the history of the State that we got involved in such a case and we played a major role in it. The point we made to the Commission proved important. The judgment was delivered on 22 September and is being considered by the Attorney General. I am sure the Deputy will agree that the worst thing we could do — it would represent a serious setback — would be to take on a case that would not succeed. That is the last thing we want to do because it would seriously damage our position. We are dealing in a complex area. The Euratom Treaty was produced in the fifties when health and safety were not the paramount concern they are today. We are trying to achieve the maximum benefit and effect for the Irish people in whatever steps are to be taken and it is a question of making sure that those steps are the correct ones and that we do not make a mistake.
Is it not the case that the Minister requested the Attorney General to examine this at least nine months ago? Is it not a bit foolhardy for the Minister to come to the House and tell us that that has been delayed because the court has found in favour of Luxembourg in this case? We all know that that has been the case. This issue of Europe being informed of waste disposal plans is not central to our case. Our case——
Ceist, le do thoil.
Is it not true that while in Opposition the Minister repeatedly called for the closure of Sellafield and for a case to be taken in court to secure the closure of Sellafield because of their deplorable accident record? This delay of nine months since the Minister referred to the Attorney General is not acceptable.
Could I dissuade Members from making speeches?
It would be wrong, and a very serious setback to us, if we took a case which proved to be unsuccessful. However, I fully agree with the Deputy, and it is Government policy to continue to press for the closure of Sellafield. Since coming to power we have been making considerable progress in our efforts in relation to British nuclear industries. For example, through our intervention and political pressure we had the post-ponement and the de facto cancellation of the proposed tests at Trawsfynydd in Wales in February, and there has been growing recognition at official level, through our representations that——
That does not answer the question. Has the Minister heard from the Attorney General in nine months?
——the old Magnox reactors are unsafe——
The Deputy asked some questions and I am answering them.
The Deputy has asked a question of the Minister and he must be good enough to listen to the reply. Deputy Carey ought to desist from interrupting.
They do not like the good news part of the answer.
If the Minister were on this side of the House he would not accept these answers either.
There is a growing recognition in the United Kingdom, through our representations, that the old Magnox reactors are unsafe. This recognition is very important to the health and safety of our people. Deputy Carey may not appreciate it but there was one of those old plants in Wilford just 60 miles from Dublin.
You said you would bring Britain to court. When is the Minister bringing Britain to court?
Deputy Carey, I cannot permit you to sit there and continually interrupt. If the Deputy wants to put a question he should rise in his place and seek my permission and I will facilitate him.
I will do that.
If Deputy Carey wants me to take an action which will obviously lose if it is not properly prepared, I will not do it. Deputy Carey might have done that sort of thing in Government but Fianna Fáil will not do it.
We have had interminable discussion on this issue on many occasions here. Will the Minister agree with me that what he has just read out has been on the official records of this House going back over several Question Times? The purpose of the question on the Order Paper today is to specifically ask if the Minister at long last is going to take legal action which will be effective in bringing about a closure of Sellafield. Does the Minister believe it is possible to achieve the closure of Sellafield or is he just paying lip-service to the unanimous vote passed in this House in December 1986? Why will the Minister not take legal action under the Euratom Treaty? The Minister has claimed that we took legal action already. We did no such thing. We submitted our views in a case which was not directly concerned with this country, a case between Luxembourg and France and the judgment handed down in the European Court will have to come back to this country anyway. We have to initiate our own case in Europe before the case in relation to Sellafield can be disposed of. Will the Minister now accept that this House is no longer prepared to take all of the waffle he is continuously spewing out in relation to the action he is about to take or that the Attorney General is contemplating and will he give us some indication of what positive action he will take at long last?
It is interesting that I have been faced with this political charge here as I suppose the best recognised organisation involved in this area is the Greenpeace organisation. Even those on the other side of the House will accept that. Only yesterday I received a letter from Greenpeace congratulating me and my Department and the Irish delegation for the position taken by Ireland at the 11th LDC meeting on sea disposal of radioactive waste and decommissioning nuclear submarines. Others recognise that we are working on behalf of the Irish people in this very sensitive and complex area. I agree that Sellafield should be closed. I believe it will be closed. I was heartened to see a new move by the British Prime Minister to take on board an interest in matters green in her recent speech in Brighton.
I trust that this movement towards green politics in the Conservative Party will be of assistance to us in getting our message across to them in relation to the unacceptable operations of British Nuclear Fuels in the UK.
I have dwelt at some length on this question. Admittedly it is a very important question, as indeed are all the questions.
May I ask a brief supplementary?
A Cheann Comhairle——
Please, Deputy McCartan. There are three Deputies offering and I want to facilitate them if they will be brief.
Will the Minister say when he, in consultation with the Attorney General, will be able to report to the House on this question?
My difficulty is that if I give the Deputy a date I will be hammered on it when Question Time comes around again. The Deputy can be assured that I will continue to press in relation to this matter.
I am really lost——
A brief question, Deputy.
In four years on this side of the House the Minister shouted at everyone that as soon as he got to the Government side they would take Britain to court. Can the Minister tell me after 18 months in Government, if he has even got an interim report from the Attorney General about taking the UK to court in relation to Sellafield? If the Minister admits that we will have made some progress today.
I have already answered the question.
In view of the Minister's statement that he has been heartened by recent remarks made by the British Prime Minister in relation to matters such as nuclear pollution, the environment and so on and by the letter from Greenpeace, will that cause him to continue doing what he has been doing ineffectively since he took office, which is relying on the diplomatic and lobbying process to achieve results?
I would like a specific question from the Deputy.
Do the British Prime Minister's comments on this issue mean that the Minister is even less likely now to take legal action?
The Deputy cannot assume that at all. This is not just about legal action on its own. It is about a whole series of measures which we have been taking under the London Dumping Convention, under the Paris Commission and so on. The British for the first time ever have decided to decommission one of their old Magnox plants which were a threat to us.
They had to do that.
The Opposition blame us when nothing happens and then when something happens they say it was going to happen anyway. The Deputy cannot have it both ways.
That was a decision they made themselves.
The Deputy cannot have it both ways.
Question No. 12, please.
