Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Oct 1991

Vol. 411 No. 1

Written Answers. - Irish Sea Pollution.

Mary Flaherty

Question:

48 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for Energy the reason he has not yet initiated legal action at European or international level against Britain to prevent ongoing radioactive pollution of the Irish Sea in view of the latest legal case put to his Department by Greenpeace and in view of the proposed expansion into underground dumping.

Dick Spring

Question:

99 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Energy if he will outline the current attitude of the Government towards the possibility of legal action being initiated to enforce the closure of Sellafield; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Minister for Energy (Mr. Molloy)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 48 and 99 together.

There have been calls over the years from many interested organisations and individuals for the Government to take legal action to secure the closure of the Sellafield plant. More recently these calls have concentrated on the proposed development of a radioactive waste disposal site at Sellafield in Cumbria.

While the Government have always been and continue to be committed to legal action if a sufficient case for it can be shown to exist, they cannot initiate such action without a firm legal case based on sufficient evidence. It should be made clear at this point that Greenpeace have never put such a case to me or to my Department. Any such legal action would have to be based on scientific evidence as to the injurious effects of operations at the Sellafield plant in Ireland. To find convincing evidence to establish a direct cause and the effect link between the operation of the Sellafield plant and damage or injuries to people in Ireland may be very difficult. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that activities at the Sellafield plant are in breach of the relevant EURATOM directives and regulations. If there was, legal action could and would be considered. In addition to the EURATOM Treaty, options for legal action which have been examined include possible action pursuant to the EC Treaty, Directive 76/464/EEC — on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged from land based sources into the aquatic environment of the Community — the Law of the Sea, the Paris Convention, the London Dumping Convention, and action in the UK courts and in the International Court of Justice. These have all, however, been confronted by the same obstacle — the lack of sufficient evidence.

On 17 April 1991 members of Greenpeace with their legal experts met with officials of the Department of Energy and of the Attorney General's Office to discuss possible legal action in relation to Sellafield/nuclear safety. Greenpeace outlined three procedural options regarding the International Court of Justice which might be explored and subsequently forwarded these in written form.

It is important to note that the Greenpeace presentation related solely to legal procedural possibilities and they did not attempt to put forward any possible case supported by facts or evidence. The Greenpeace presentation has been examined in detail and the legal advice available to me is that recourse to the International Court of Justice would be unlikely because the court would lack jurisdiction without the consent of both parties and because of difficulties in determining issues arising prior to such consent. Even if consent and jurisdiction obstacles were overcome there would have to be non-compliance by the UK with some international law or convention or other legal norm if the Government of Ireland were to succeed in the court. There is no available legal or evidential basis for establishing this at present.

It can only be concluded that even if the State were to bring the matter before the International Court of Justice by some means or other, there would still be no sufficient case to present to the court.

The Government are open to information and evidence from any source to support a sustainable case regarding closure of Sellafield. They are not, however, prepared to proceed to legal action without a sustainable case, or purely for the "embarrassment factor", as has been suggested in some circles.