Vol. 400 No. 9
10 Mr. Garland asked the Minister for Energy if he will make a statement on a report (details supplied) which stated that the Government were not taking legal action against the British authorities over the pollution of the Irish Sea and dangers to health as a result of radioactive discharges from the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield, in Cumbria given the commitments of his predecessor.
The report referred to by the Deputy related to my reply to a parliamentary question on 7 November last. As I said on that day, and have repeated since, the advice available to me is that there is little effective scope for taking court action regarding the operation of the UK's nuclear industry. Circumstances may make it possible to take such action in the future and the matter will be kept under review.
Once again I am most disappointed with the Minister's response. Would the Minister indicate whether the advice he received from the Attorney General not to proceed with this case was verbal or written, and if he received written advice, could he make it available to the House? This is a very serious matter and we should all put our heads together to try to resolve this problem.I think any written advice should be made available to the House.
The advice, which was extensive, was conveyed at lengthy meetings between officials from my Department and from the Attorney General's office, and has been confirmed during many discussions I have had personally with the Attorney General.
May I inform the Deputy that during a recent visit to the ship Greenpeace I extended an invitation to them to have their lawyers meet with staff from the Attorney General's office to discuss the conflicting reports from both sides on the possibility of achieving success in a legal case. The Attorney General has responded to my request and has agreed to meet with representatives of the Greenpeace organisation, who had in the past submitted extensive documentation to the Department of Energy which did not however, conclusively claim that a successful case could be brought but suggested rather that it might be a useful exercise to gain publicity for this matter. However, I cannot act on that basis. I must make a decision on behalf of the State. Finally, of course, it is a matter for the Government but I am not recommending to the Government that any legal action be taken until I am satisfied, and advised so by the Attorney General's office, that a case based on facts will offer a reasonable opportunity for a successful outcome in court. I would be bringing the reputation of this country into disrepute if I were to undertake such a case without that evidence, and I do not have it at present.
Would the Minister agree that the fact he has received this very negative advice indicates something fundamentally wrong with the Euratom Treaty? If he does so agree, would he state what steps he is taking to try to have the Treaty amended in this regard?
There are aspects of the Euratom Treaty which I have indicated publicly that I am not satisfied with and I have called publicly for a review of the Euratom Treaty with a view to establishing a more effective Treaty to enable countries such as Ireland to have their point of view implemented, in particular, Ireland's request for the establishment of a European-wide inspectorate of nuclear installations. Under the present Euratom Agreement, provision is made whereby the Community can establish such an inspectorate, but there is no obligation on the Community to do so. I would like to see the Euratom Treaty altered from an enabling provision to a Treaty which puts a statutory obligation on the Commission to set up an inspectorate.
I agree with the Deputy that those changes are required but I would like to suggest to the Deputy that it would be much more helpful to me as Minister for Energy if those who are calling on me to take legal action would indicate to me the basis for the legal action they are suggesting rather than continuing to make the ridiculous call to take legal action without trying to substantiate the case.
Did the Minister submit to the Paris Commission this year, the motion, which Ireland had submitted in the previous years, seeking that the contracting parties agree to a motion seeking the closure of Sellafield?
That is a separate question.
That is another matter and the Deputy might put down a separate question.
It is central to our legal case. The Paris Commission deals with emissions of waste from Sellafield. The Minister's answer reveals that he failed to do what was done on every previous occasion.
We must proceed by way of relevant questions.
On each occasion I have come into the House to answer questions, I have sought to give the Deputies and the House as much information as possible in response to the questions they are putting.If the Deputy wishes to introduce new matter, then I suggest he puts down a written question or approaches me directly or writes to me——
That is not a new matter. The Paris Commission is central to the case surrounding Sellafield.
Let the argument cease.
Let me say that I do not want to give the Minister the impression that we wish to be unconstructive. One of the reasons I keep asking this question is that the information is not available to us. We do not know the grounds for refusing to take the case, and if we knew what the grounds were, we might end up agreeing with the Minister or we might not, depending on what his advice is.
In view of the widespread concern about this matter particularly on the east coast, of which my own constituency is a part, could the Minister say if there were any discussions on Sellafield during Ireland's Presidency of the EC.
I would be delighted if the Deputy would put down a question on the matter as it would enable me to give a long list of the numerous occasions that I and other Ministers and the Taoiseach raised this issue at meetings which were attended during the six months of the Irish Presidency. It would give me great pleasure to give the House the full list of occasions upon which the Irish Presidency raised the issue.
I have to dissuade Members from the notion that we can debate this matter now. We cannot do so now.
Would the Minister circulate this information to Members?
I can give it to the Deputy in writing. May I also add that there was no occasion on which I attended a meeting on energy where the matter was not raised.
I now call Question No. 11.
In view of the Minister's request to work with him, is it possible that this question was included in the recent Trinity College Environment Committee under the EC Presidency; what conclusions were drawn from the initiatives, and can they be used in this country, particularly having regard to the Scandinavian dimension, to push as all Members in this House want to.
That came under the auspices of the Minister for the Environment and not the Minister for Energy. The questions relating to that conference should have been directed to the Minister for the Environment.
