Vol. 437 No. 1
6 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
9 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing, and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
15 Mr. Barry asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
16 Mr. L. Burke asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing, and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
19 Miss Harney asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the steps, if any, the Government will take to dissuade the British Government from agreeing to the operation of THORP at Sellafield as a nuclear reprocessing plant which would produce, inter alia, fissionable material for nuclear weapons, which would constitute a serious danger to the environment and to public health in Ireland and in the Irish Sea.
20 Mr. Currie asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing, and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
22 Mr. Lowry asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing, and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
24 Mr. Creed asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
25 Mr. Dukes asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
26 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
27 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
28 Mr. Harte asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
30 Mr. Sheehan asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
31 Ms F. Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
32 Mr. Carey asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
33 Mr. Shatter asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
34 Mr. Flanagan asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
35 Mr. J. Mitchell asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
36 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the steps, if any, he has taken to protect the Irish people from the menace of a nuclear disaster, in particular, in relation to the UK authorities and the THORP development; if the matter has been raised at the European Council of Foreign Ministers; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
37 Mrs. T. Ahearn asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
39 Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
41 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
42 Mr. Barrett asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
43 Mr. Boylan asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
44 Mrs. Doyle asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
45 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
46 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
47 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
50 Mr. McGahon asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
51 Mr. Bradford asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
52 Mr. McGrath asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
53 Mr. Crowley asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
59 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
60 Mr. Flanagan asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
61 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
62 Mrs. Owen asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
64 Mr. Finucane asked the Minister for Transport, Energy, and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
65 Mrs. Doyle asked the Minister for Transport, Energy, and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
66 Mr. Nealon asked the Minister for Transport, Energy, and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
67 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for Transport, Energy, and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
69 Mr. E. Kenny asked the Minister for Transport, Energy, and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
70 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for Transport, Energy, and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
74 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Transport, Energy, and Communications if he will take legal action at EC level over the fact that no environmental impact assessment on the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant at Sellafield has been carried out; and the action, if any, the Government proposes to take if the full commissioning of THORP is authorised.
75 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Transport, Energy, and Communications whether he has made further contact with the British authorities in view of the proposed change in German energy law which will allow, for the first time, the storage of spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing and in view of the letter from two former United States CIA chiefs to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, warning that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 9, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24 to 28, 30 to 37, 39, 41 to 47, 50 to 53, 59 to 62, 64 to 67, 69, 70, 74 and 75 together.
The House will be aware that early this year, we sent a detailed and wide-ranging submission to the UK Minister for the Environment and the UK Inspectorate of Pollution. This submission conveyed in the strongest possible terms the Government's total opposition to the continued operation of all nuclear activities carried out at Sellafield and to any expansion of these activities. In particular the submission expressed the Government's grave concerns about commissioning the proposed new THORP plant on the site and the proposed new levels of authorised discharges from Sellafield into the atmosphere and the Irish Sea and called for a public inquiry to be held before any decision is taken to proceed.
On 28 June, last, the UK Secretary of State for the Environment announced that, after consideration by him and the UK Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, of the report of the Inspectorate of Pollution, it has been concluded that no points of substance had been raised that should cause them to reconsider the terms of the draft authorisations. However, because a high volume of submissions, including ours, had raised questions as to the justification for the operation of THORP it was decided to delay the commissioning of the plant until a further round of consultations to deal with the wider issues has been held.
Following consideration of material published by the UK authorities, we made a second and more comprehensive submission on behalf of the Government to the UK authorities. In addition to detailing our previously stated opposition to the THORP plant, this last submission concludes that, as THORP will serve no overall useful purpose, there is no justification for the increased risk of radiation exposure that the public will receive from the plant. We have also concluded, in a separate detailed examination of British Nuclear Fuel's economics of reprocessing at THORP, that there are no demonstrable overall economic or security benefits arising from THORP's operation which would justify it or balance out possible and likely risks to public health and environmental damage. Copies of the full submission have been made available to Members of the Oireachtas in the Library of this House.
In this submission we renewed our call on the UK authorities to hold a full, open and independent public inquiry to deal with the basic justification for operating the THORP plant in the circumstances now prevailing as well as the technical aspects of the revised discharge authorisations. The UK Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who have statutory responsibility for considering whether to hold a hearing or inquiry, will not take a final decision on this question until they have considered all submissions.
I am aware of some media reports that Germany is proposing to change its law about the management of spent nuclear fuel. Of course, I would welcome such a development. We raised this aspect in our second submission and challenged the claims of BNFL in its submission on the economics of reprocessing at THORP. We pointed out in our submission that, while the contractual position of BNFL for the first ten years of THORP operation appears strong, such a change in German law would probably have a serious effect on the economic case for THORP in the longer term put forward by BNFL.
I am aware also that a letter, signed by two former United States CIA chiefs and a number of other prominent Americans, including leading scientists, was sent to the UK Prime Minister which warned that THORP could encourage the spread of nuclear weapons. We had already raised these concerns in our submission to the UK authorities and referred specifically to the concerns expressed by the US authorities and the International Atomic Energy Agency on this particular matter. I should add that it is not intended that any fissionable material, including plutonium extracted from spent fuel at THORP, would be used for nuclear weapons and all such material will be safeguarded under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency. There remains a risk that such material could, nevertheless, at some time be diverted to military or terrorist uses. For that reason we stated in our submission that there were already substantial quantities of unwanted plutonium in store and THORP would make this situation worse by adding to the stockpile and increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation.
With regard to the question of an environmental impact assessment on THORP the UK view is that, as approval for the construction of the plant was given in 1978, it does not come within the timeframe of the EC Directive dealing with the environmental effects of certain public and private projects which only came into effect in 1988. In our submission we stated that, "given the scale and potential impact of the plant and the lapse of time and knowledge of radiation hazards acquired since planning approval for the project was given in 1978, the Irish Government considers that it would be appropriate to have an environmental impact assessment carried out now on the basis of the EC Directive as part of a full public inquiry". On this aspect I am aware that, in addition to Ireland, the UK Government has received correspondence on this point from Denmark, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands. I am aware that the UK Government has received a letter from the EC Commission seeking information in relation to the THORP plant at Sellafield. This correspondence, however, is treated in confidence and not made available to other member states.
Deputies will be aware that, in addition to the two submissions on THORP, the Government has, on many occasions, requested the UK Government to close Sellafield and emphasised Ireland's total opposition to the plant. Our concerns in relation to the plant have also been expressed at every available opportunity in the European Community and other international fora. We will continue to pursue this line of total opposition. The question of raising this matter at the European Council of Foreign Ministers is a matter for the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs.
While the Government has always been and continues to be committed to legal action against Sellafield if a sufficient case for it can be shown to exist, it will not initiate such action without a firm legal case based on sufficient evidence. The Attorney General has advised that any such legal action would have to be based on scientific evidence as to the injurious effects of operations at the Sellafield plant on Ireland. In 1992 the EC Commission examined the implications of THORP and issued an official opinion that the implementation of the plant for the disposal of radioactive waste from THORP is not liable, either in normal operation or in the case of an accident, to result in radioactive contamination, significant from the point of view of health, of the water, soil or airspace of another member state. Furthermore there is no evidence to date to suggest that activities at the entire complex, including the proposed operation of the THORP plant, are or will be in breach of EC law and international conventions which would sustain a successful legal action. The Government is open to information and evidence from any source to support a sustainable case regarding closure of Sellafield. We are at present consulting with the Attorney General to decide what action, if any, may be possible if THORP is allowed to proceed without first holding a hearing or inquiry.
Is the Minister still consulting?
I call first Deputy Sargent who has a question tabled on the matter, No. 74.
Question No. 9 is in my name.
The Deputy will be called.
(Limerick East): Why not call Deputy Bruton first?
He will be called.
(Limerick East): He is representing our party.
I will call the Deputy first. I am sorry about this; I did not think we would have a dispute about it.
(Limerick East): I know that.
I am disappointed that the Minister cannot report any action on foot of two very significant changes for THORP. Is the Minister aware that the two former United States CIA chiefs indicated that Britain could be in breach of its commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a result of proceeding with THORP? Will he agree that that may be a very significant change in the ability of the Irish Government to frame a legal case? Would he further agree with the decision of the Germans to enact a provision which effectively requires that nuclear waste be kept at home represents a very significant shift in opinion in the states making up EURATOM which, again would give scope for Irish Government initiatives? Why was the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Ray Burke, able to tell us that he would and could take a case on the grounds that it was wrong to export nuclear waste, it was wrong that polluters would not pay and it was wrong that the British Government was not obeying the precautionary principle? How was he able to assure us he would take legal action but now the Minister of State has backed off?
I assure the Deputy we have not backed off. This Government, this country, this Parliament and the Irish people are absolutely committed to total opposition to both THORP and Sellafield and to their ultimate closure.
Deputy Burke said he would close it down.
I cannot be responsible for what previous Ministers said.
The Minister of State said he had not backed off.
They are historical facts and I must deal with the facts as presented to me.
The Minister of State was totally disorderly when he was on this side of the House.
I have yet to be put out of this House and I think the Ceann Comhairle——
Deputy Carey, please, let us hear the Minister of State's reply. Questions have been asked and let us be courteous enough to listen to the replies.
I am fully aware of the communication from the Americans to Prime Minister Major regarding the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the weapon situation. Our position has been known internationally for decades. We have played a major role at the United Nations and elsewhere in ensuring a reduction in those weapons throughout the world. We are consulting with our colleagues in the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Attorney General on this matter. Until we have an absolute scientific and legal sustainable basis we cannot go ahead. To proceed without a proper case would weaken our situation. We must be certain that we have a case. We are very pleased that the Germans, fellow members of the European Community, have taken a decision regarding the use of spent nuclear fuels and have changed their emphasis from having it reprocessed. That decision is of major assistance and it strengthens our case within the European Commission. We will avail of every opportunity to keep the pressure on Britain and maximise every effort to ensure we are fully informed regarding all situations. We will respond to every given situation, as rapidly as possible, based on the facts and on any legal support we can get.
My feelings is that BNFL is totally committed, and if not it should be in another sense. There are 46 questions on this subject today which should indicate the gravity of the situation. Is the Minister of State aware from previous cases, such as the Cattenon case when Luxembourg took France to the European Court, that there is a strong precedent for taking legal action? Whether we agree 100 per cent with its conclusion the fact that we take the action will be significant internationally. Is the Minister of State aware that the decision on this case will probably be made before the House of Commons goes into recess on 17 December? Has he made a DG 11 complaint to the European Commission on this matter? I commend what has been done we should do more. Has Commissioner Flynn made a complaint to Commissioner Ioannis Paleokrassas? Does he consider that Commissioner Flynn has a particular role to play in this process on a European level given that he was a former Minister for the Environment and would have an interest in this matter?
We have been very fortunate over the years since we joined the European Community that every Irish Commissioner who has been appointed to serve the Community has performed with distinction. I am quite confident that Commissioner Flynn will give his full support to this issue as it will have an impact in the wider European context as well as our domestic situation.
The Government and the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Cowen, in particular, raised this matter at every level. It has been raised by successive Ministers for Energy in various fora. We are in constant communication with the European Commission, we have raised the matter at the European Council, at the International Energy Agency and other energy fora throughout the world and in the United Nations. We are totally committed and we have the full support of this Parliament which passed a motion unanimously on 1 July 1993 regarding this matter. The Irish people are at one on this matter.
As information unfolds, we respond to it and we are on top of the matter. If there are organisations, individuals or agencies outside this House who can contribute by way of assisting us in putting forward a sustainable legal argument then, of course, we will be delighted to proceed. The Attorney General is considering the legal implications of that situation.
The Minister never referred to DG 11.
Order, I thought the Minister of State had concluded.
I intended to conclude until Deputy Sargent intervened.
The Chair had intervened.
The Minister never mentioned DG 11.
I tabled Question No. 36, which asks if the matter had been raised at the European Council of Foreign Ministers. I would welcome an answer to that, if the Minister is in a position to give me an answer. I wish to put on the record of the House——
This is Question Time. Statements or speeches making are not permitted. If the Deputy has some relevant questions to ask will be please proceed?
Has this matter been raised at the European Council of Foreign Ministers? In recognising the serious health, welfare and environmental threat to the Irish public, has the Minister sought legal opinion on this matter and if so what has it been?
The Deputy was not present to hear the lengthy reply. It was almost a filibuster.
I am absolutely shocked that Deputy Carey would suggest that I filibustered. I answered 43 questions together, of which the Deputy party put down 40. If the Deputy considers the totality of the response a filibuster what does it mean to put down 40 repetitive questions?
In response to Deputy Sargent's question of course, we have taken up DG 11 with the European Commission. I alluded to that fact. It is the same as asking the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications a question and asking me tomorrow if I asked the Minister Deputy Cowen the question. Of course we have taken it up with the European Commission——
Has a complaint been made?
We have taken it up with the European Commission and with successive environmental Commissioners.
Questions from a Deputy who is seated may not be entertained by a Minister in this House.
I apologise, a Ceann Comhairle. In response to Deputy Callely's question, we have in place a national emergency plan for nuclear accidents, which is a plan of action designed to provide a response to nuclear accidents involving the release or potential release of radioactive substances into the environment which would give rise to exposing the public to radiation. The plan outlined the measures which are in place to assess and mitigate the effects of a nuclear accident which might pose a radiological hazard in Ireland. The Minister for Tranport, Energy and Communications, has overall responsibility for the plan and ensuring the co-ordination of the response of the relevant national authorities. The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland has special responsibility for monitoring radioactivity and for the provision of advice on the potential consequences of any accident and on the measures to be taken. For example, it is responsible for a network of monitoring equipment placed all around the country. The plan was tested in October 1992 and the feedback from the participants has been invaluable in strengthening the plan so as to ensure a rapid and effective national response to a nuclear emergency. An international emergency exercise under the aegis of the nuclear energy agency of the OECD took place in May of this year.
(Limerick East): The Deputy asked two specific questions to which the Minister did not reply.
A Cheann Comhairle, this is dreadful.
I must first give preferences to Members who table questions. In these circumstances, the Chair first calls the Members who tabled a question on the subject and who are present in the House. If the Deputy wishes to intervene I invite him to do so.
I give way.
I am quite certain that the general public reading the reply the Minister has given to the large number of questions tabled on the matter will conclude that this Government, especially the Fianna Fáil side is weak-kneed and inept when it comes to doing something positive about this problem.
Does the Minister recall that in the period when he was in Opposition, from 1983-86, there were stand-up rows every day in which he clearly called for the law to be taken against the UK authorities to stop the development of this plan? When in Government, however, he is not doing this. His party has been in Government from 1987 until 1993 and surely that is long enough to compile a legal case on this matter without having to appeal to bodies outside this House to give assistance to take a case against the UK authorities.
The Deputy has made his point adequately.
Deputy Carey has asked only one question of relevance, whether I can recall my stand when in Opposition. From 1983-87 I was the Opposition spokesperson on Defence. Apart from one occasion, I never spoke on an issue such as this and it is unfair to accuse me of that during that period.
(Limerick East): The Minister had no nuclear deterrent in his defence portfolio.
We are absolutely at one on this matter, which is very serious. We have been absolutely open, we have published documents and made them available to Members and we have informed the House of the position.
The Minister has let everyone down.
We have met deputations from various groups on this matter. We have analysed the available documentation and we have communicated with organisations. The Government, Parliament and the people are at one and if there is anyone who can support a sustainable legal case——
The Minister told us he had it.
I never said anything of the sort and I do not recollect any Member of my party, in or out of office, saying any such thing.
I advised earlier that the Minister should not follow a question posed by a Deputy who was seated.
With regard to the Government's reluctance to initiate legal action on this issue, and the Minister's statement that this reluctance is due to what he has described as a lack of a sustainable case, has he examined the recent report from the British National Radiological Protection Board which states that the amount of radioactive emissions from Sellafield would quadruple if THORP opens and that THORP would produce 200 cancer deaths for every year of its operation — that was in a recent report. Has that report been examined by the Government as possible evidence in support of legal action and what has been the evaluation? Is it considered to be sufficiently strong? If the British National Radiological Board's projected figure of 200 cancer deaths each year is not strong enough evidence, what is strong enough evidence?
I cannot operate on suppositions. There is no reluctance on this side by Government on this issue——
Seven years to study reports.
If we can get a sustainable scientific case to offset this situation we will proceed. We have left the door open to everybody to support us in that, to make sure that we can put a case together. That is still our position. With regard to Deputy Gilmore's question on the report, there have been two recent reports and we have studied both. They are with our Department and I will answer a specific question on this later.
(Limerick East): No doubt, the Minister is aware that the Taoiseach has claimed on a number of occasions to have a close personal relationship with the British Prime Minister. Will the Minister inform the House if the Taoiseach raised the THORP issue with Mr. John Major or if he intends doing so in the future? Is the Minister also aware that this monstrosity is approximately 60 miles from Dublin, about half the distance the Minister travels from Galway to Dáil Éireann?
The Taoiseach on his appointment made quite clear his personal relationship in his previous office with the British Prime Minister and that relationship is continuing——
(Limerick East): Has he raised the issue?
——and is in the interests of both nations. The Deputy is talking about Government to Government matters and I am not privy to what the Taoiseach asks the Prime Minister, Mr. Major.
(Limerick East): Will the Minister find out?
It is neither my right nor duty to ascertain what the Taoiseach says to Mr. Major. The Taoiseach is the head of Government and I respect his position. I have no intention of delving into what business he does with another head of Government.
(Limerick East): It should be in the Minister's brief if he is answering to the House.
If the Deputy puts down a specific question he will get a specific answer.
(Limerick East): That is the silliest answer the Minister has given today.
Has the Minister contacted the officials in the US who alleged that Britain would now be in breach of its commitments under the non-proliferation treaty so that he can assess whether this offers grounds for a legal case? Is it not unacceptable for the Minister to say that it is in some vague way up to the Tánaiste, if the mood takes him, to raise this at the Council of Ministers? Should he not be in a position to say that he, representing the Government on this issue, is so determined to tackle it that he will ensure the Tánaiste will raise the issue?
Irish Ministers or officials will not lose any opportunity to raise this issue wherever possible to strengthen the case we have been making on behalf of the people on our total opposition to the whole Sellafield complex. With regard to the documentation from the US, the departmental officials are considering it and, based on our consideration of the document and our consultations with the Attorney General, we shall make a decision.
The House appreciates the efforts by the Government in making representations to our UK counterparts. Will the Minister indicate the most likely other option available to the Irish Government? Has the Minister received legal opinion and, if so, to what effect?
We have consistently sought and received legal opinion from the Attorney General. The legal advice is that unless we have a sustainable scientific basis on which to promote a legal case we cannot hope to win. We have our door open to enable anyone to assist us in this case. We are totally committed to ensuring that the nation can go forward and if an opportunity presents itself we can take a legal case. The matter will continue to be raised in several fora.
If the British Government gives authorisation for THORP — and as our Government made it clear it is demanding an EIA and the British Government do not carry it out — will we sit back and do nothing or will we do something decisive? We have presented the British Government with an ultimatum, will we follow it through, or is that the end of it? Does the Minister see this as the final straw and will he initiate legal action on the basis that Irish wishes are constantly disregarded?
I do not understand what Deputy Sargent means by "something decisive". Either we have a legal case or we have not. The information available to us is that we have not yet a sustainable legal case and our efforts have been designed to ensure that we can put a case together. As decisions are taken we will respond and take appropriate action.
I am anxious to be liberal with the Members present as some 40 Deputies tabled questions on this subject. I am prepared to hear Deputies for virtually as long as they wish.
Part of the Minister's reply dealt with the reasons the EIA could not be pursued because the British authorities had given permission for this project in 1978. Why is the Irish Government not pursuing this matter, as surely what was granted in 1978 is obsolete by now? Are there no other developments in that area? Has the Government investigated this claim?
Deputy Carey has not listened to what I said, which was that as this was approved and proceeded with from 1978 onwards, and as the European Commission directive did not come into effect until 1988, the British position is that they believe it cannot be binding. We must ensure if we are to proceed against that, that we have a sustainable legal case so that we can turn that point around.
