Vol. 396 No. 1
9 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Energy the initiatives he proposes to take in light of findings clearly linking Sellafield with childhood leukaemia; and, in particular, if he has reconsidered his decision to abandon the proposal of his predecessor to mount a challenge in the international courts against practices of the British nuclear industry.
The recently published study by Professor Gardiner in the UK is a source of grave concern and appears to have serious and indeed tragic implications for the workers at Sellafield and for their children. The study again draws attention to the drawbacks of nuclear energy and the risks to health and safety associated with nuclear generation.
As regards legal action, I must clarify that at no time did my predecessor propose to take legal action. His position was that if a case could be established he would take legal action. To this end he asked the Attorney General for advice on the possibility for legal action. The Attorney General examined the question in some detail, and came to the conclusion that at present there is no scope to take a case against Sellafield. My position is exactly that of my predecessor — if there is a case, the Government will take it.
Would the Minister not agree that under the directive of 1976 member states are obliged to eliminate pollution of waters by substances proven to carcinogenic? Would he not agree that this latest study has underlined the fact that there is a clear link between leukaemia, a form of cancer, and radiation activity in Sellafield? Would he not further agree that his suggestion that this is solely confined to workers in somewhat disingenuous since low level radiation is continually being put into the Irish Sea?
The Deputy is intermingling a lot of different matters. Professor Gardiner's report did not deal with discharges into the Irish Sea; it referred to excessive doses of radiation that workers in the Sellafield plant were exposed to and the consequent medical effect on them. His findings are being examined and they will be closely examined here. They raise very serious questions about how much we know, or do not know, about the effect of nuclear energy and the radiation from it. The Deputy knows there has been a very dramatic fall off in the discharges into the Irish Sea.
The point at issue in regard to taking a legal case remains. Until such time that I can be satisfied a case can be taken, and that there is a case to answer in law, I would have no business taking such a case. I have explained that here previously. Because I state the factual position, there is the political temptation to turn it around, as if I was not taking as strong a stand as anybody else on Sellafield, which of course is just not true. If Deputy Bruton or anybody else can show me how we can successfully bring a case against the Sellafield authorities or against British Nuclear Fuels Limited, and if the Attorney General here is satisfied. I would be the first to request the Government to take appropriate action.
Could I ask the Minister——
Sorry, the time for dealing with Priority Questions is exhausted.
The point is not exhausted.
The Chair decided that the time for dealing with Priority Questions is long since exhausted.
The Minister ignored my first supplementary question whether, under the EC Directive, we have a right to take action——
I am proceeding to deal with ordinary questions. Question No. 11, please.
May I ask the permission of the Chair to raise this matter on the Adjournment?
I will communicate with the Deputy. The Deputy appreciates there is a time limit in respect of Priority Questions——
I appreciate that but the Minister ignores the question I asked.
——and the Deputy did not help the Chair in that regard.
He is getting the previous Minister's bad habits.
If Deputy Bruton can help by suggesting how I can take legal action——
Would the Minister read EC Directive No. 46 of 1976?
All the Deputy's suggestions so far have been a damp squib.
The Minister has the former Minister's bad habits. He will be huffing and puffing——
The Deputy in trying to get me to huff and puff but that is something I will not do. I am giving the factual position.
Question No. 11 has been called.
We asked a rational question: what is the Minister's reaction to an existing EC Directive, but he refused to answer.
That was not part of the Deputy's question.
It was part of my supplementary question.
In all the examinations that have taken place, no evidence has been forthcoming under which we could successfully take a case. It would be more helpful if the Deputy would support our case for a European wide inspectorate which is the only realistic course.
When we were on the other side of the House the Minister was shouting from this side.
I have called Question No. 11, let us have a response.
