Vol. 387 No. 3
asked the Minister for Energy if the Attorney General has completed his review of the legal options available to this country to limit Ireland's exposure to radiation hazards associated with the operation of British nuclear installations; when this matter was first referred to the Attorney General for consideration; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
24.
asked the Minister for Energy if any decision has yet been reached on the possibility of an international court action against the British authorities over repeated discharges of radioactive materials from Sellafield; if the Government are aware of plans to build a second nuclear power station at Anglesea in Wales; if the Government have considered the safety and environmental implications of this move for Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
29.
asked the Minister for Energy, in view of the Government's commitment to seek by every means open to them the closure of nuclear plants in the United Kingdom which are considered to pose a threat to the health and safety of people in this country and in view of the failure to date to achieve this objective, whether it is necessary to initiate legal proceedings; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 24 and 29 together.
The question of what legal options are available to us on nuclear issues is an extremely complex one. The questions which arise range from establishing the legal basis for a case, in what court, against which defendant, how best to mount a case and how to measure our chances of success. It would be a serious mistake to take on a case which proves to be unsuccessful and it behoves us therefore to press all options which do not amount to court action but which may lead to successful results. It is not in our interest to take hurried decisions in this area, but if circumstances present themselves which make it advisable to press legal options, I will not hesitate to do so.
For the record, various aspects of the nuclear issue have been under active discussion with the Attorney General since the beginning of 1988. It is difficult to segregate the consultations into separate parts, but in relation to specific situations which arose we reached timely conclusions which were vindicated by events in relation to Trawsfynydd and the Cattenom case in particular. In regard to other options, it is also a matter of public record and borne out by NEB sampling, the discharges from Sellafield have declined in recent years and this is due almost exclusively to international pressure on the UK. We will continue to exert pressure until discharges and accidental releases are entirely eliminated, preferably by closure of the plant.
The Government are aware of the proposal to build a second power station in Anglesea. The UK Government have already been made aware of Ireland's opposition to this proposal, and to any expansion of the UK nuclear industry which would increase risks to the Irish people.
I can accept that the Minister would like to improve the position that exists in terms of the dangers posed to us by the British nuclear industry through means other than taking legal action. However, he will have to accept that the actions we have taken so far have achieved nothing. In fact, they have been a bit of a joke. The Minister will have to accept that. I am interested to hear him say that he will take legal action if all other actions fail. From his reply I understand him to have said that the Attorney General has been considering this matter since early 1988, which is over a year now. Has the Minister clearcut information, or a decision from the Attorney General, as to what way he could proceed in court to have these matters redressed?
The definite answer to that question is no. We would have only one shot in the context of a court case and it does require very considerable examination. We are not in a position to take that course of action at this time.
Why is it that on a similar issue Luxembourg was able to take action against France in the Cattenom case under Articles 37 and 38 of the EURATOM Treaty? Why can we not use those Articles to pursue the British authorities into bringing their nuclear industry into a condition that would be acceptable to us in terms of safety? We also have available to us court action at the International Court of Justice in The Hague on an established international principle that one State cannot do something that will be injurious to another State within its jurisdiction. Why do we not take action under that heading, or under Articles 37 and 38 of the EURATOM Treaty?
The Irish Government's viewpoint in relation to their consistent desire——
That is all it is, a desire only.
——and unequivocal position with regard to the closure of Sellafield was strengthened by the decision of the European Court.
But somebody else took that action.
In the Cattenom case, yes, but let us remember that that related more to the question of an EC inspection force. This is one of the areas which we have consistently worked towards at European Commission level and it is one that we will continue to pursue until we are successful.
The Minister was not in this House for four years when his party were in opposition.
We have made it absolutely clear on numerous occasions in this House——
Absolutely.
——and outside it that the only final resolution to this threat to our country is closure of Sellafield.
Will the Minister do something to bring that about?
Please, Deputy Carey.
Deputies in this House want us prematurely to take a case to court——
Prematurely?
——without having considered all the implications. Our business here in Government is to measure the possibilities and these options——
Forever and ever and ever.
——as accurately as we can and to advance our purpose in that way. We are not in the business of taking a risk of losing because we acted prematurely or without having a proper base prepared.
I am calling Deputy McCartan who has a question tabled on this subject.
Could the Minister clarify the position, because his exchange with Deputy O'Malley has begun to confuse me. Would he confirm that within his Department and/or with the Attorney General the Government still are actively considering the possibility of international court action against Britain with regard to the expansion of its nuclear industry and the potential dangers posed to this country?
Yes.
In that regard, can the Minister at this stage give some indication when the Government might conclude their considerations and reach a decision to move? He will appreciate the anxiety on this side of the House. For too long now the so-called complexities of this action have been quoted. Would the Minister not agree that, using the resources available to the entire Irish Government, the complexities must be overcome at some stage and definite action taken?
I would be extremely anxious that these discussions with the Attorney General in relation to devising the proper course of action in this case and how a court case could be mounted would be concluded as quickly as possible. I am not in a position to indicate to the House when that will happen. I am as conscious as Deputy McCartan or any other Deputy in the House of the urgency of this matter and will do all that I can to expedite it, but I am not in a position to indicate firmly to the House when these deliberations will conclude.
Finally——
I call Deputy Richard Bruton.
Is it not the case that the former Minister stated quite clearly that if there was not progress by the British on their Magnox reactors and on their discharges he would take legal action? Does the Minister consider as he now seems to be suggesting, that such a statement was premature because they had not explored what such legal action meant? Secondly, is the Minister now saying that the pursuit of an independent inspectorate seems to him to be the best option in dealing with this problem, despite the fact that the former Minister ridiculed such an approach on several occasions in this House?
There is no doubt that the Government's position in relation to the establishment of an independent EC inspection force with proper resources to monitor these developments is and will remain on the agenda until such time as we get a satisfactory conclusion. There is no reason why that kind of positive development should not proceed side by side with other legal measures the Government would seek to take in the light of legal opinion available.
I am pleased that the Government have expressed their concern with regard to the proposed second nuclear plant at Anglesea which, if built, would be closer to Dublin than to London. Has the Minister had a response from the British authorities following his representations? Would he be disposed to making available a copy of the communiqué regarding the Anglesea proposal?
I am not too sure what the procedure might be in relation to such matters but, if it is possible to accommodate the Deputy or any interested parties, we will have no problems in keeping them abreast of developments.
Has the Minister received a response?
We are constantly in touch in relation to this and other matters and I am pressing for a meeting with the Minister for Energy in the United Kingdom in the near future.
Is there anything stopping the Government seeking a directive under Article 37 of the EURATOM Treaty which lays down conditions for the safe disposal of radioactive material? Why can that not be done? If the offending country did not comply, we would have the option of taking that country to the European Court. Before getting to that stage, why do we not seek a directive under Article 37 to compel the British authorities to convince us, in a way acceptable to the Commission, that they are disposing safely of their radioactive waste? It is open to the Government to take this step immediately.
This is only one of the considerations in the examination of this problem.
It is a major one.
As soon as a final decision is taken as to the most advisable course, we will not delay.
