Vol. 473 No. 4
26 Mr. E. Ryan asked the Minister for the Environment the steps, if any, he has taken in view of the new evidence produced in relation to NIREX in his capacity as chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Sellafield; and the plans, if any, he has to meet Mr. John Gummer. [1798/97]
The ministerial committee on Sellafield and the Irish Sea is continuing its role in ensuring good co-ordination of strategy and overseeing the work of Departments with responsibilities in this area.
The Government's opposition to the NIREX proposal for a rock characterisation facility near Sellafield has been clearly stated to the UK authorities, including the Secretary of State for the Environment, as a result of bilateral contacts at ministerial and official levels, correspondence and, in particular, the presentation made in January 1996 on behalf of the Government by the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications to the UK public inquiry on the matter. The Government's concerns, as outlined at this inquiry, centre on the proximity of Sellafield to the Irish Sea, the uncertainties about the geological and hydrogeological nature of the area and doubts about whether the building of a radioactive waste repository near the marine environment is compatible with UK commitments under EU and international law.
The Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications has referred copies of the recently available NIREX memorandum to the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and the Geological Survey of Ireland for examination and advice. The need for a further approach to the UK authorities and the nature of that approach will be determined in the light of these assessments and advice, taking account of the strong case already made by the Government in relation to geological and hydrogeological uncertainties attaching to the NIREX proposal.
I welcome the fact that the Government made a presentation to the oral hearing. Is the Minister concerned about the public inquiry given that English newspapers have reported that NIREX has signed £50 million contracts for the next stage of this development before it has received permission? It appears that NIREX does not take the public inquiry seriously. The British environmental agency was not permitted to go before the public inquiry and it has said, off the record, that it opposes this proposal. Can the Government secure a copy of that report?
The leaked report is a vindication of the Irish Government's position last year. The issues we raised about the geology and hydro-geology of the area were the focus of our presentation. The fears we expressed have been raised by the scientists employed by NIREX. That vindicates not only the stand we took but also the focus we presented to the inquiry. The Government would be most concerned if NIREX expected rubber stamping of the due process in the United Kingdom. We are carefully monitoring this. I raise this issue directly and frequently with the British Secretary of State, John Gummer, to the extent that I think he regards the whole nuclear industry as one of my fixations. He wrote me a note at one Environment Council meeting asking me particularly to let one meeting pass without raising it as an issue.
That is part for the course for the Minister with the British on this issue.
We will keep on the pressure and use not only bilateral contact of persuasion but, more importantly, since the co-ordination group that I chair has been established, every international forum and treaty to voice our total opposition to this facility. I do not want to pre-empt the decision of the British Secretary of State but, whatever decision he makes, we will continue to oppose this development in whatever legal ways are open to us either bilaterally or in the international context.
I thank the Minister for his reply but will he not agree that, if NIREX has signed a £50 million contract for the next stage of the development, this is a rubber-stamping process? As is the case frequently in England this company will go so far down the road with the development and, having spent £200 million, £300 million or £400 million, it will not want to stop the development. That is our concern and the concern of the people who objected at the oral hearing in England. If the report in the papers that NIREX has signed a contract for £50 million is true, strong indications must have been given to the company that this is just a rubber-stamping exercise.
I would be very concerned if NIREX adopted the attitude that this was a rubber-stamping process. From my direct contacts over more than two years with Secretary of State Gummer, he is not a person to take for granted on most issues. If I was an applicant for any licence to him I would expect to get a vigorous assessment. I hope that is the case in this instance; I certainly will be monitoring it. The Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, which has direct responsiblity for nuclear safety matters, is monitoring this issue and we must wait to see what comes of that. We have to assume that due process in our neighbouring country will take place. We cannot at this stage assume that any advance commitments made by a company can presuppose that the application will be rub-ber-stamped. We are monitoring the issue very carefully. The views of the Irish Government are well known to the British Government. BNFL recently offered to make a presentation to the committee I chair. I acknowledged its offer but declined to accept the presentation as we are well aware of all the data in relation to these matters. Our determination to follow through on this issue is clear and whatever avenues internationally are available to us, we will use.
There are three Deputies offering but there are other Deputies present whose questions I want to reach. I will call the Deputies offering but I ask for brevity in deference to their colleagues. I call Deputy Sargent for a concluding question.
Will the Minister consider using the THORP case as a bench mark in dealing with the NIREX proposal in the light of BNFL's own admission, in the person of Chris Harding, that Sellafield is probably not the best geology for a national waste dump but if it meets Government criteria, that is all that matters. Those comments were reported in the Daily Telegraph in November 1991. Would that be a consideration in dealing with the matter legally?
Yes. As I said, if there are any legal avenues open to us they will be explored. The Attorney General serves on the committee I chair to ensure that every legal avenue is explored. We have not ruled out the prospect of taking legal action should a reasonable prospect of of success present itself to us. It is a matter of grave concern if the memorandum referred to in Deputy Ryan's question, which was prepared by NIREX's director of science and has now become available, suggests there is considerable uncertainty and concern on behalf of the company and its own experts whether the scientific and geological case will be strong enough to meet the safety criteria laid down by the UK authorities. They are saying that is in doubt and that is a cause of concern for us. It reinforces the case the Government made directly to the public inquiry, which was an unprecedented step, and we will be pursuing vigorously our efforts to influence the decision of the British Secretary of State. Hopefully if he rejects the proposal that will be the end of that particular matter. If not, we will see what other legal channels are available to us to take whatever action necessary to protect the Irish people from this potential threat.
I listened carefully to the Minister's reply. Will he agree that the sad reality is that the opposition of the combined parties in this House to the activities of the British nuclear industry has been ignored by the British Government to date? The Minister indicated that there are not many avenues currently open to him to allow him take the kind of steps that would result in a realistic outcome to stopping the NIREX development and the development at Sellafield generally. In view of this will the Minister indicate the action the Government believes it can take at European level which seems to be the only real possibility for effective action? If we could mobilise support among EU member states there might be some hope of stopping the British authorities in what they are supporting and propose to continue to invest in despite the concern of the Irish community as represented through all the political parties elected to this Parliament.
There are two separate questions. The NIREX underground geological repository for nuclear waste is a stand alone issue. The other issue is the development of THORP and the ongoing threat posed by the work at Sellafield.
They are both a threat.
Both are to be opposed but the strategy has to be slightly different. One proposal does not yet have planning permission and we must fight to ensure that it does not get planning permission. It has gone through the public inquiry phase and is with the Secretary of State. We have made a strong case as a Government to the public inquiry and we hope account will be taken of it by the Secretary of State in coming to his conclusion. We will continue bilaterally to impress our case upon him; that process is ongoing.
In regard to the second issue, I read into the record of the House previously a range of initiatives we have taken in opposing the development of Sellafield in particular and British nuclear developments generally because I am also concerned about some of the aging Magnox reactors outside the Sellafield area that pose a potential threat to this country. Many of them are 25 years old or older and we must work out how they will be decommissioned and what will happen to them afterwards. I am very concerned that for generations to come they will pose a threat to the Irish people. I have raised this issue repeatedly at European level, not only within the European Council of Environment Ministers but also at the pan-European conference of all Environment Ministers held in Sofia. It is interesting to note that at that conference the British Minister joined with the other European Union Ministers in voicing concern about some of the nuclear facilities in the Eastern bloc countries and how they will impact on the rest of Europe, but he did not take kindly to me raising our concerns with the UK authorities in the same forum. I will continue to do that.
I do not want to waste the time of the House talking about our initiatives in relation to the International Maritime Organisation which will greatly strengthen safeguards on the control of transportation of fuels to Sellafield which is of concern to those living on both sides of the Irish Sea. We took an initiative at the Intergovernmental Conference on strengthening the EURA-TOM Treaty to place greater emphasis on public health and environmental protection as part of the treaty. We ratified it and other nuclear safety conventions in July last year and have made efforts to ensure all EU member states and the International Atomic Energy Agency does so as soon as possible. I will not list the other initiatives which I previously mentioned in the House but the Deputy can be assured that every channel and available international fora the Government can use to advance our case——
They have all been ineffective so far.
That is not the case. We cannot say we have been successful until the British nuclear industry has been effectively closed down. However, our ongoing campaign has had a significant impact in terms of stemming the development of the British nuclear industry to date.
Will the Minister ask Mr. Gummer about the significance of NIREX signing £50 million contracts before it received permission? The next time the Minister attends a meeting with Mr. Gummer perhaps he could slip him a note pointing out that many geologists said that site six, which is in Mr. Gummer's constituency, is the ideal place for the dump. Perhaps then Mr. Gummer would understand our phobia about the nuclear industry.
A British Minister would not like direct interference with due process in the UK.
Especially in his own constituency.
We have made a strong case and will continue to make it. I would not appreciate a Minister from another jurisdiction interfering in due process in my country.
The Minister for Finance does not like it here.
He told us that a long time ago.
I will continue to put a strong case to him. I will have an opportunity to impress the case upon him within a few weeks at the next Environment Council meeting.
