Vol. 521 No. 4
13 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Public Enterprise if she will raise the unacceptable timeframe announced by BNFL in relation to the phased closure of magnox nuclear power stations at Sellafield, when she attends the OSPAR meeting in Copenhagen this month; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17321/00]
I will be asking our delegation to refer to my recent statement that the timeframe announced by BNFL recently for the phased closure of magnox nuclear power stations was too little and too late.
The Copenhagen meeting will, of course, discuss Irish and Danish proposals to end nuclear reprocessing. The UK authorities take the view that management of magnox spent nuclear fuel requires the continuation of magnox reprocessing in the short term. We, on the other hand, believe that non-reprocessing options are feasible for such spent fuel. We also favour the earliest possible closure of the magnox reactors. The magnox reactors are the oldest of the commercial installations in the UK, some of which date back to 1956, and have exceeded their original design life by over 20 years. The Irish Government, and indeed this House, wants to see the magnox reactors shut down and decommissioned.
UK Ministers argue that the magnox reactors can continue to operate safely. They have pointed out to me in the past that the reactors are subject to regular safety reviews by the UK Nuclear Installations Inspectorate before they are permitted to continue in operation. Nevertheless, I favour the earliest possible closure of these reactors and I will continue to convey this view to the UK Government. Such views will be reflected in the Irish delegation's participation at the OSPAR Commission meeting.
It is regrettable that our Standing Orders are such that the Minister of State is effectively required to answer the same question twice in one day. A similar question was raised earlier.
That matter may be raised at the relevant time.
Perhaps it can be dealt with at another time. Is the Minister of State satisfied that the British proposal to close the magnox reactors, which are well past their sell by date, by 2010 is stretching them to the absolute limit? Will he agree that the magnox reactors represent one of the greatest dangers, together with the dangers identified by the Government, to the Irish people in that they are now obsolete, with old technology, and are liable to accident? Will he also agree, in the context of the Copenhagen conference, that it would be desirable if the Irish and Danish cases, which are quite similar, could be unified?
I agree with Deputy Stagg's sentiments in relation to our timeframe, particularly earlier when I wanted to elaborate further on the House of Commons committee. Perhaps there will be an opportunity to deal with the matter either privately or otherwise so that colleagues will be aware of the matter.
Deputy Stagg laboured with the magnox issue before I came on the scene. I agree it is one of the greater hazards which is always on my short list of important items to discuss with UK Ministers when I meet with them. It has been the subject of many meetings and a plethora of correspondence with Ministers Michael Meacher and John Battle. It is antiquated technology which is way past its recognised sell by date.
On the amalgamation of the two proposals before the OSPAR meeting next week, there is very little between the two proposals. I have been exhorted to support the Danish proposal. I would be happy to come away from that meeting with the Danish proposal ensured. Nevertheless, I am reluctant at this point to withdraw Ireland's more potent proposal. Discussions will be ongoing right up to when the meeting starts and through the meetings and we will be negotiating with our colleagues on the issue.
I wish to raise the matter of ministerial attendance at the meeting. The Minister of State will recall from his files that when I held his position and wished to attend a public inquiry in Cumbria concerning the underground nuclear dump, my officials were adamant that I could not attend the meeting. When I insisted on going they said I could not speak and, when I insisted on speaking, they thought there would be a huge international incident. Will the Minister of State reconsider the advice he has received concerning attending the conference himself? Given the importance of the conference for Ireland, there will be a general view taken that we should be represented at ministerial level. Is the Minister of State of the opinion that that may have the effect of spurring other countries to deal with this issue at ministerial level? There is a real advantage for Ireland in having the Minister present. We won in Cumbria.
I am well aware of the good work done by the Deputy on that occasion. However, I suggest that he is not comparing like with like. Neither officials nor anyone else is instructing me on this matter because I must make the decision. There was a meeting of OSPAR in Dublin last year when I met delegates from all the contracting parties. I greeted, addressed and exhorted the delegates to continue with their specific work and left them to their deliberations. I expect Minister Auken, the host Minister on this occasion, will do likewise. During the ministerial segment of the meeting, I discussed the matter with Minister Auken. I wanted to discuss the matter with other Ministers across Europe but a decision had been reached. I regret that but I do not want to impose the Irish view on others.
The Minister of State should go to Copenhagen.
The Deputy is not listening.
Work this sensitive is too important to be left to officials.
