Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Feb 1994

Vol. 438 No. 5

Adjournment Debate. - THORP Licensing.

Mr. Sargent

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle, as seans a thabhairt dom an ceist phrainneach seo a phlé.

I returned recently from London where I was an observer at the judicial review in the British High Court, brought about by Lancashire County Council and Greenpeace, challenging the British Government's decision to license THORP. About 500 people from Britain, Ireland, Germany and Switzerland stood outside during the proceedings to support the case for a public inquiry on THORP.

The Minister, Deputy Cowen, told me that six EU member states, including Ireland, also demanded such a public inquiry. I thank the Minister and the Department for the work they put into the Irish Government's submission on THORP during the consultation period. The reason for this Adjournment Debate is the conviction, as contained in the Minister's submission, that any attempt to operate THORP without a legal public inquiry would be in breach of EU laws on several counts.

In this motion I am outlining once again the serious points of law on which a case needs to be taken. Lest anyone in Government is afraid of taking a case for fear that the British authorities will be upset by our actions, such a case would have widespread support in Britain, given the Greenpeace UK is entirely funded by voluntary subscriptions from the British public, and Lancashire County Council can be described as part of the British establishment. Let us not wait for an accident such as the "Braer" or the most recent tragic sinking off our south-west coast. If the strength of feeling in Britain is such that a voluntary group and a local authority could take a case, surely the Irish Government cannot continue to ignore the overwhelming public outcry here for legal action on THORP and, more generally, on Sellafield.

I have in my possession a Greenpeace Ireland briefing prepared today on the various grounds for taking legal action to stop THORP — I am sure the Minister's Department has a copy also. All the various directives mentioned in my motion are covered in this document as well as the reference to the Paris Convention. Some further elaboration of Article 79 of the Euratom Treaty, however, might be useful. Article 79 requires nuclear installations to keep and provide records to the European Commission in the case of the transport of source materials and special fissile materials which includes plutonium, the raw material for THORP. I urge the Minister to check with the European Commission whether it has been provided with such records from Sellafield. My information is that none of the deadly shipments has been notified to the Commission. I understand also that BNFL is reluctant for commercial reasons to give information on the flasks being used.

I argue that the Minister is in a similar position to those wondering whether to help the Bosnians: people have died, are dying and I fear that unless the nettle is grasped, many more will die. Will the Minister allow — in spite of his personal conviction — a 1,000 percentage increase in aerial discharges and a 900 per cent increase of marine radioactive discharges into the Irish Sea, the most radioactive sea in the world, as the British Government has admitted? The Minister, through the Irish Government, must immediately challenge the UK Government within the framework of the Paris Convention arbitration process if he is serious in his efforts to stop THORP. He will have my support, the support of the Irish public and the co-operation of many other countries. I urge him to grasp the nettle on THORP before it is too late.

Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications (Mr. N. Treacy)

Is cúis áthais dom an deis seo a bheith agam le freagra a thabhairt don Teachta Sargent. Ba mhaith liom a rá thar cheann mo chomrádaithe polatíochta go bhfuil áthas orainn uilig go bhfuil sé ar ais tar éis a chuairte go Londain. Tréaslaím leis as ucht an méid atá á dhéanamh aige ar son na cúise seo.

Government policy on Sellafield has been and continues to be one of constant opposition to reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel by British Nuclear Fuels at Sellafield. The Government, and its predecessors, have consistently opposed the planned THORP extension to Sellafield since it was first proposed in 1978.

In the last year, two comprehensive submissions were forwarded by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Cowen, in the public consultation process undertaken by the UK authorities — one in January and the other in October 1993. These submissions detailed Ireland's absolute opposition to the plant and called for a public inquiry. Our Government has also used every opportunity in all appropriate international fora, to highlight our concerns and to object to the commissioning of THORP.

The Government continues to believe, and is supported in its view by numerous international authorities, that there are no demonstrable economic or security benefits arising from the new plant, or that it would balance out possible and even likely risks to public health and environmental damage. The Government firmly believes that an inquiry should have been undertaken to deal with the basic justification for operating the THORP plant in the changed circumstances prevailing today from those at the time the plant was approved in 1978, as well as other important issues, such as the economics of reprocessing and the need for an environmental impact assessment of the plant to be undertaken.

While the Government has always been and continues to be committed to legal action against Sellafield, if a sustainable case for it can be shown to exist, it cannot 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. A member state, which is considered by the Commission, or another member state, to have failed to meet an obligation of the EU Treaty may be brought before the Court of Justice. There is, however, no evidence to date to suggest that the activities at the Sellafield plant are in breach of EU law. In addition, it should be noted that the Commission has examined the implications of THORP and issued an official opinion on 30 April 1992 that the implementation of the plan 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.

With regard to the 1974 Paris Convention for the prevention of marine pollution from land-based sources, it should be noted that this convention, and any recommendations arising from it, is not binding on contracting parties. Therefore, while it is useful in applying political pressure, it has no obligatory status and no means of ensuring compliance. However, a senior official in our Department will attend a forthcoming meeting in connection with this convention, and will raise the serious matter of the UK's lack of commitment to a recommendation with regard to THORP co-sponsored by Ireland and Denmark and approved by a majority of contracting parties at a meeting in June 1993.

Deputies will be aware that at a High Court hearing in London on 13 January 1994, Greenpeace and Lancashire County Council, to which Deputy Sargent has referred, were given leave for a judicial review into the UK Government's decision to allow THORP to proceed. This judicial review began on 7 February 1994 and is expected to last five days. Greenpeace and Lancashire County Council contend that THORP should not be allowed to proceed until a full and independent public inquiry has been held. A senior official in our Department is in attendance at the judicial review and is closely monitoring the proceedings on our behalf.

As Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Cowen indicated at a recent meeting with a delegation from the Green Party, including Deputy Sargent, that on this matter our Government is open to information and evidence from any source to support a sustainable case regarding the closure of Sellafield. The Government remains committed absolutely to maintaining vigorous and sustained diplomatic and international pressure on the British authorities with regard to operations at the whole Sellafield complex and the question as to what legal action the Government could take regarding the THORP plant is being kept under constant consideration and review, in consultation with the Attorney General.