Vol. 517 No. 1
51 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Public Enterprise the further action, if any, she will take on foot of the report from the Attorney General outlining his consideration of the implications of the UK Nuclear Installations Inspectorate Report into the falsification of records at Sellafield. [9089/00]
53 Mr. Currie asked the Minister for Public Enterprise the position regarding the Government's demand for the closure of Sellafield; the outcome of meetings with members of the British Government on the issue; the action, if any, taken to enlist the support of other Governments; the other activities, if any, engaged in to further the closure of Sellafield; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [7883/00]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 51 and 53 together.
On 1 March I met UK Minister for Energy, Ms Helen Liddell, to call for the closure of Sellafield. While both Ms Liddell and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, NII, have emphasised that current operations at the Sellafield plant were safe, I reiterated the Government's demand that the Sellafield reprocessing plant be closed immediately. I pointed out to Ms Liddell that in the light of the devastating criticism of Sellafield contained in the NII reports, the only satisfactory outcome for the Irish public would be closure of the plant. I also informed Ms Liddell of the Government's intention to re-examine the issue of litigation against Sellafield in the light of the NII reports. The Taoiseach has also raised Ireland's concerns about Sellafield with the Brit ish Prime Minster on a number of occasions, most recently at last week's EU Summit in Lisbon.
The impact of the NII reports on BNFL's major markets in Japan and Germany raise serious doubts about Sellafield's future. Recent announcements made about Swiss and Swedish dealings with BNFL have also shown the extent of the commercial damage to the company. In particular the falsification of records in regard to safety checks at the MOX demonstration plant has been a serious blow to the claimed economic viability of the proposed MOX fuel production plant and the existing THORP plant.
As to the support of other Governments, I met the Danish Minister for Environment and Energy, Mr. Auken, on 27 March last to discuss what amounts to a joint attempt by Ireland and Denmark with, I hope, the support of the Nordic countries to seek the ending of reprocessing activities at Sellafield. Both the Irish Government and the Danish Government believe it is opportune to table a proposal of this nature. Accordingly, there are two draft decisions going forward for the Commission meeting in Copenhagen which will be hosted by Denmark. Tabling of these draft decisions underlines dramatically the view of both Governments that it is now time to call a halt to reprocessing. We believe that this is an outmoded and unduly hazardous activity. We also consider that its impact on our seas and sea-based livelihoods, such as fisheries, is totally unacceptable. We were therefore happy to share in a joint approach which will send out a very clear message that reprocessing should end and that unacceptable discharges into our seas should be stopped.
The Minister, Mr. Auken, is exploring the possibility of a ministerial meeting in Copenhagen as part of the Commission meeting hosted by him. However, this requires further consultation with other Ministers. I will maintain close contact with my Nordic colleagues in the run-up to the OSPAR Commission meeting to ensure that the maximum pressure is put on the UK to end reprocessing operations at Sellafield. The Attorney General is currently examining the prospects for litigation against Sellafield following the publication of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate's report of 18 February last. The issue of litigation is complex and I await with interest the Attorney General's conclusions.
I congratulate the Minister of State on the progress to date. However, I note that Mr. Sven Auken seems to have taken the initiative. Does the Minister of State agree that British Nuclear Fuels are now on the run and they should be harassed at every opportunity, which will entail a pro-active role to be taken by him and the Government? The Minister of State should take the initiative and launch a legal, diplomatic and political offensive against Sellafield. When will the Minister of State, on foot of the Attorney General's report, launch a case against Sellafield in the European courts? Does he agree the Government should launch a diplomatic offensive in every capital in Europe, particularly those whose Governments are customers of BNFL or whose countries are affected by emissions from Sellafield? Does he agree he should launch a political offensive by directly visiting supplying and affected European Governments and that he should arrange a special ministerial conference to gain support for the closure of Sellafield? Will the Minister of State press for bilateral talks solely on this issue between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister so we can make our case and emphasise that as long as Sellafield remains open, it will be a permanent bone of contention between our two countries?
I appreciate the Deputy's comments and support. Minister Auken has taken an initiative but he was gracious enough to comment at the recent press reception that Ireland was the one taking the initiative on this issue. I am not taking personal credit for this. The Taoiseach and I have said repeatedly, particularly in recent times, that successive Irish Governments have gone forward on this issue. The British authorities are under no illusions as to the feelings of successive Irish Governments and the Irish people. However, I agree with Deputy Stagg that we should press home our advantage at this time given that BNFL and the malaise it represents is under extreme pressure from all parts of the world, particularly from its main markets such as Japan, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States and within its own shores. The time is now right for us to deal with this issue. We have already embarked upon the diplomatic approach for which the Deputy has called and I hope to meet with representatives of the other Nordic countries during the next couple of weeks with a view to repeating what we have already achieved with Denmark. My senior colleague has been extremely supportive in this regard, as has the entire Government. As far as the Taoiseach is concerned, I am pushing an open door in terms of his support on the issue.
Since I put down this question, progress has been made along the lines I suggested, particularly on the involvement of foreign countries. Does the Minister of State agree there is a high level of expectation that the campaign to have Sellafield closed down will be successful? Does he agree that discovery of the fabrication of quality control figures, the threat by the British nuclear installation chief inspector to close down the plant within two months, the suspension of MOX shipments to Japan, followed by Germany and Switzerland, the safety inquiry announced by the US Secretary for Energy because of fears for operations of the United States and, most recently, the involvement of the Nordic countries and the OSPAR meeting at the end of June were important? Does he agree that these events taking place so closely together gives us a reasonably high expectation that our demands will be successful and that the Minister should use every means at his disposal to ensure this is the case?
Will the Minister of State consider, as I suggested previously, harnessing opinion north of the Border, given that there have been acute concerns for a long time along the Down and Antrim coasts, often articulated by Eddie McGraddy M.P.? These concerns cross the political spectrum and what better way to symbolise common concern than concerted action on an issue which threatens the lives of men, women and children on this island? Will the Minister of State, in the spirit in which I make the suggestion, contact all the political parties north of the Border to have a co-ordinated approach on this vital issue?
I agree with the list of aspects the Deputy mentioned, which are unacceptable. In addition, within 24 hours of publication of the reports, I instructed senior personnel of the RPII to meet representatives of the NII in the UK to discuss the reports. They reported back to me that night on what had taken place at the meeting. One of the appalling aspects was that not only had there been severe management shortcomings from corporate management right down through the whole management structure and severe lapses in safety management, but by their own revelations these shortcomings had obtained since the early 1990s under the noses of their own inspectorate. This is of great concern to me and it makes it very difficult for any of us, particularly the Irish people, to have confidence in any reassurances that may be forthcoming. We will use the OSPAR meeting in June as the vehicle to progress this issue. Our motion uses terminology such as "terminate" and "cessation" rather than "suspension", which is included in the Danish motion, which is of a similar spirit to our motion. "Suspension" has a temporary literal meaning. I would like to include our colleagues north of the Border. I am addressing a meeting on the subject in a few weeks' time when I intend to meet certain people in Northern Ireland.
It is too late.
Nothing is too late, it is ongoing.
We want this plant closed down by the end of June.
We all strive for that but we must keep the matter in perspective. The Deputy mentioned Mr. McGraddy. I am aware of his interest in this matter over a long period and I understand he will be present at the forthcoming meeting. I look forward to meeting him and discussing the matter with him. The issues have been well chronicled and discussions are ongoing.
We must proceed to Question No. 52.
