Trevor Sargent
Question:9 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications if there is a bilateral agreement between Ireland and Britain on THORP; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Radiological Incidents Information.
Existing bilateral arrangements between Ireland and the UK for the transmission of information about radiological incidents in UK nuclear power plants are at present of an informal nature. The EU Commission has stated that these arrangements should be substantiated in a more formal bilateral agreement between both countries. The recommendation was contained in the EU Commission's Opinion of 30 April 1992 concerning THORP discharges issued under Article 37 of the EURATOM treaty to the UK Government. The UK authorities presented me with a draft of such an agreement recently. However, I consider it to be inadequate and I will be seeking an agreement that will deal with the wide-ranging aspects of nuclear safety, in addition to formalising the present informal arrangements for the exchange of radiological information on incidents at UK plants.
I appreciate it may be difficult for the Minister to understand exactly what I had in mind when I tabled this question. I was anxious to know why there had not been action of a more direct nature, apart from the verbal protestations which are appreciated but hardly effective in the light of what is happening in Sellafield. Is there any possibility that the issue of THORP and Sellafield will be dealt with in a legal framework between Ireland and Britain? Has any agreement of that nature been reached? At summit meetings it does not appear to make headlines, as other important issues of interest to Anglo-Irish relations do? Could it be that there is an agreement not to pursue the legal path between Britain and Ireland for the sake of other considerations between the two countries?
This sovereign State makes its own decisions on what cases it takes against anyone. The State does not enter into agreements not to take cases against other states. I have outlined on numerous occasions that we are advised by the Attorney General and we will continue to keep that option under review on the basis of our ability to win a case in the future. We seek evidence on a continuing basis to help us make that case.
On that point, if I may be allowed to allude to Question No. 8 which was subsumed during priority questions, the possibilities of some action have already been well articulated by Greenpeace's legal advisers and the response on the question of arbitration is one I await. I appreciate that the Minister is vociferous in his opposition but the people, particularly those living along the east coast, will not be reassured until legal action is taken, arbitration or a court case.
The question is overlong.
Would it be possible to take a case to arbitration given, as the Minister said, that it would not be, whatever the outcome, detrimental to this country? It would, however, mark an improvement on the present position.
As the Deputy is aware, the option of availing of the arbitration procedure to which he alluded has been considered, despite the attempts of Deputy Gilmore to suggest otherwise. As I indicated in reply to Deputy Gilmore who has a selective memory, I am having the recent paper by Greenpeace on arbitration under the Paris Convention examined in consultation with the Attorney General. I also indicated that this question has been considered in detail and it has been found that such an approach would have its limitations in that the convention has little legal weight in relation to discharges of radioactive substances. I am aware, as a one time law student, that international law places constraints on prospective plaintiffs or applicants in international fora. Most international law is non-binding and the consent of states is required. My Department continually examines the question of taking unilateral action showing causal effect which has the prospect of success and is seeking additional evidence in this regard. I have said that if I am advised that sufficient evidence is available on which a legal case could be taken with a reasonable prospect of success I would have no hesitation in taking such action. We must collate the necessary evidence to ensure it would have a chance of success.
The Minister has been at pains to point out what he and his predecessors have done and said that his officials have been vigilant. I would like to ask him a simple question: what exactly has he achieved in relation to THORP and Sellafield? Would it be fair to say that he has achieved absolutely nothing in trying to stop it and that his contribution can be summarised as sweet Fanny Adams? He has been powerless to stop it.
I am aware that the Deputy is not his party's spokesperson on Energy but I refer him to the replies I gave during Question Time on previous occasions when I highlighted our success——
What has the Minister achieved?
——in having the authorised discharge levels raised. This was the direct result of a well thought out and competent submission by my Department, which was highly praised, during the past 12 to 18 months when a review was undertaken by the British Government of discharge levels.
Fianna Fáil voters in Dublin are unimpressed.
This is the first time I have heard the Deputy express concern about Fianna Fáil voters; he should worry about Gorey Urban District Council given that his party came third — what a poll topper.
We gained two seats and four extra seats in Wexford as a whole.
Let us get back to questions and answers, devoid of personalities.
The people of Gorey have copped on to the Deputy.
The people of Cork let the Minister down.
The Deputy may bluster but no one is listening to him.
The Minister picked a bad one when he chose Gorey.
Let us hear the Minister, without interruption.
We have had limited success. Our ultimate objective is the closure of this plant but it will not be easy to achieve. Deputy Sargent is a member of a party which is committed almost exclusively, although he may argue with this, to environmental issues and has some street credibility——
I am prepared to get arrested.
——but many people are jumping on the bandwagon——
No more than the Minister.
——no more than the Deputy who is a last minute substitute blustering his way through Question Time and does not know what he is talking about.
The Minister failed to stop THORP.
The Deputy has a major problem about telling members of his party's Front Bench about amendments he is tabling to the Finance Bill but he should not expect to get away with such behaviour.
Deputies Sargent and Gilmore rose.
Can we make progress on other questions? I ask the Deputies to be brief.
I wish to refer specifically to the question tabled by Deputy Sargent which relates to the possibility of entering into a formal bilateral agreement between this country and Britain in relation to THORP. In view of the fact that he has done nothing effective to stop THORP being commissioned will the Minister take up the suggestion in the question and enter into a formal arrangement, perhaps an institutional arrangement, between this country and Britain for the proper monitoring of nuclear installations and reprocessing plants in Britain so that we do not have to rely on second-hand, leaked information about leaks and accidents at these plants?
If the Deputy had listened to my reply he would be aware that I consider the formalising of the present informal arrangements to be inadequate.
What will the Minister do?
I have sought a more wide-ranging formal arrangement. Under the present informal arrangements nuclear operators in the United Kingdom agreed to report all incidents involving the release of radioactivity to the Department of the Environment's inspectorate of pollution in England. The purpose of this arrangement is to ensure that relevant United Kingdom Ministers are informed quickly about incidents. Such reports are then transmitted to my Department by the inspectorate of pollution. We believe that this arrangement is deficient in that only incidents where there is a discharge of radioactivity are reported to the inspectorate and, hence, to us. Other incidents affect the safety of nuclear plants of which we need to be informed and aware in view of widespread public concern in this country. The Deputy may be aware that there are UK Ireland contact group meetings and an informal UK Ireland bilateral agreement on nuclear safety. We do not accept the recommendation of the Commission that we should formalise the informal arrangements. We want a wider remit so that we can get more information about other types of incidents apart from the specific incidents covered by the informal arrangements.
Unilateral action is not the only option. I am not referring specifically to a bilateral agreement with the United Kingdom when I say this. Other member states of the European Union compiled submissions in relation to THORP which do not deal only with the question of discharges but also with procedural and planning matters. These countries would be willing to join us in an action. Will the Minister consider the possibility of taking multilateral action, to arbitration initially, and, possibly a legal action? If it is decided to take unilateral action where does the Minister stand on the question of providing £43 million of taxpayers' money to support the nuclear industry under the EURATOM Treaty? Is the Minister happy about this at a time when he is vociferous in his opposition to Sellafield? Is he happy that this should continue while he is vociferous in his opposition to Sellafield and has this option available to him? The Government should let it be known not only in words but in actions how dissatisfied and angry we are at the expansion of Sellafield.
On the elements of the supplementary questions which are relevant to the question tabled, we will examine whatever multilateral options are available to us. We will consider information from anyone who produces a casual effect and evidence simultaneous with ours, although our evidence is not sufficient at present.
I am not talking merely about discharges.
If the Deputy tables a question on the EURATOM Treaty, I will give him a proper reply.