Vol. 538 No. 4
26 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Minister for Public Enterprise if her attention has been drawn to the fact that BNFL has prepared a corporate plan that has been submitted to the British Government earmarking sites for new nuclear power stations; if she has had contact with the British Government with a view to objecting to same; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [18106/01]
I am aware of a recent newspaper report which states that BNFL has prepared a corporate plan that has been submitted to the UK Government. The same newspaper report, however, states that the UK Department of Trade and Industry is not aware of any plans for new nuclear power stations. I have asked the UK Department of Trade and Industry for information on this matter and have received the following statement:
Both BNFL and British Energy have said clearly that they have no plans to build new nuclear power stations, reflecting their view that at present there is no economic case for investment in new stations. It follows that the UK Government has not received any plan from BNFL proposing new nuclear power stations.
The content of this newspaper report was also raised by my Department at a meeting recently of the UK-Ireland contact group on radioactivity matters. This group which comprises representatives of my Department, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and their UK counterparts meets twice yearly to discuss matters relating to Sellafield and radioactivity matters generally.
The UK Government is under no illusion as to the Irish Government's concerns about and opposition to the nuclear energy facilities in the UK, in particular the Sellafield operations, and to any expansion of such facilities. The House will be aware of the Irish Government's decision last week to take action against the UK Government under the OSPAR Convention relating to the proposed mixed oxide fuel fabrication plant at Sellafield.
I will be maintaining a close watch on any developments relating to any proposed expansion of nuclear energy facilities in the UK. The Irish Government is totally committed to bringing about the closure of the Sellafield operations and I assure the House that the Irish Government will strongly oppose any expansion of nuclear energy facilities in the UK, not just at Sellafield.
(Mayo): I welcome the Minister of State's reply. There are 33 ageing nuclear plants in Britain which are in obvious need of replacement because of their age and because of the danger they pose. We are not talking about new plants as such, but the replacement of the 33 existing clapped out plants with replacement plants. We must do our utmost to ensure that these plants are not replaced with new nuclear generators but by some other alternative source of energy.
I ask the Minister of State to investigate if it is proposed to replace any or all of the 33 existing old, clapped out plants with new plants or new nuclear reactors.
I agree with the Deputy. The plants he refers to are vintage plants and they have been the subject of ongoing discussion with the UK authorities. The sentiments of the Irish Government are expressed regularly with regard to the concerns of the Irish people and the Irish Government about the age of these plants and our serious objection to them. We will continue along the lines suggested by the Deputy.
(Mayo): Is the Minister aware that BNFL's attitude is that there is time for a nuclear renaissance and one of the arguments being made in favour of nuclear power, which most of us would not subscribe to, is that it is a better option than greenhouse emissions, carbon generated electricity? They make that argument very forcibly in terms of the economics of it and in terms of the environment. We have all seen the tragedy of Windscale and Sellafield.
I ask the Minister to contact his opposite number in Britain and find out what kind of programme is being put in place for the replacement of the existing 30 worn-out existing nuclear plants. I ask him to do everything possible to persuade them not to replace these plants with modern state-of-the-art nuclear plants but rather some other alternative such as gas, oil or other alternative energy, of which they have adequate resources.
I wish to assure Deputy Higgins that the kind of contact he talks about and a continuous rapport is in place between ourselves and the UK. He is correct when he voices his concern and it reflects my own and the Government's concern about the current trend, particularly by the main nuclear producing countries, of endeavouring to categorise nuclear production as sustainable particularly in the context of global warming and the commitments made by countries to the Kyoto Treaty. I raised this issue very vigorously at international fora in New York and in Paris – under the CSD, the Commission for Sustainable Development, under the auspices of the United Nations in New York, and under the International Energy Agency in Paris. Ireland will not accept that nuclear production is a sustainable production and it cannot be and must not be linked to sustainable energy.
27 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Public Enterprise the circumstances under which the State is taking legal action on Sellafield; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [18243/01]
As the Deputy will be aware, the Irish Government has decided to proceed with an action against the UK Government in relation to the proposed MOX plant at Sellafield.
I am determined to settle, by way of an arbitration tribunal under the OSPAR Convention, a dispute between Ireland and the UK. The dispute relates to the withholding by the UK, on grounds of commercial confidentiality, of information essential to assessing the justification of the full commissioning of the proposed MOX plant.
I have consistently opposed the commissioning of this plant and have expressed the Irish Government's total opposition to the plant in detailed submissions made to the UK authorities – in response to each of the four rounds of public consultation held by the UK authorities – the most recent of which commenced in March and closed in May 2001. I have repeatedly demanded the full release of information supporting the economic justification of the plant. My demands were refused on the grounds that full release of information would prejudice BNFL's commercial interests. The matter was also raised by Ireland at last year's OSPAR Commission meeting.
The UK Ministers for the Environment and Health have yet to decide on whether to give the go-ahead to the plant but there is a risk that they will do so when they have examined the outcome of the most recent round of public consultation. I am concerned that a decision to proceed with the plant may be imminent. I consider it essential, therefore, that Ireland, having exhausted all other avenues, should now proceed with the action under the OSPAR Commission. The official submission in this regard has been made to the commission and the UK authorities have also been notified. In this context I have also asked the UK not to take any steps which might affect Ireland's rights in this matter, including the authorisation of the proposed MOX plant, pending the conclusion of this arbitration procedure. I should mention also that Ireland is preparing a case for legal action against the UK Government under EU law in the event of the MOX plant going ahead.
The production of MOX fuel is essentially a part of the spent fuel reprocessing activities at Sellafield. I have written to each of the OSPAR contracting parties informing them of the Irish Government's concerns about the resumption of shipments of spent fuel to Sellafield from Germany and the Netherlands and pointing out that such shipments are not in keeping with the spirit of the decision adopted at last year's meeting of the OSPAR Commission. I also informed them that Ireland has tabled a draft decision for consideration and adoption at the next OSPAR Commission meeting in Valencia next week. Ireland's draft decision calls, inter alia, for the urgent completion of the current review of discharge authorisations limits and, until such time as the review is completed, a moratorium on activities which encourage and promote the spent fuel nuclear reprocessing option.
Normally I table parliamentary questions to elicit information that the Minister otherwise would not be anxious to publicise and usually to gain political advantage, but I tabled this question because of the importance of this issue and to allow the Minister of State to state clearly in the House, as he has done today, exactly what he is proposing to do. I strongly welcome the proposed action by the Minister. In support of his action I ask if he would agree that it is entirely unacceptable to Ireland that this new MOX plant which gives a lifeline to the Sellafield complex would go ahead. I ask him to assure the House that he will take whatever action he can to prevent that. Does the Minister agree that the storage of high level liquid waste at Sellafield poses a very real danger to Ireland because of the volatility of this level waste in huge quantities? Will the Minister say if there is any progress by the British authorities on the vitrification of this waste so that it can then be more safely stored, despite the repeated assurances that this would be speeded up? Will the Minister's proposed action include action against the new discharges of technetium 99 into the Irish Sea, despite the treaty obligations of the British authorities in this matter and their assurances to the Irish Government?
I thank the Deputy for his support and good wishes for this case. I acknowledge the success he and the previous Government had in the context of the Nirex case in 1996 when the Deputy, the then Minister of State, was singularly successful. I hope we are equally successful on this occasion. The Government continues to object to any expansion of nuclear activities at Sellafield. In the event of this case via the arbitration process being unsuccessful, I have sought and received Government approval to take a case under EU law to prevent the commissioning of the MOX plant. The issue of high level waste continues to be one of Ireland's main concerns about Sellafield. We are continually bringing this matter to the attention of British Ministers and the UK authorities generally with a view to expediting the—
The time for dealing with this question has expired.
With regard to technetium 99, two years ago we had a special motion regarding that issue at Sintra and we got undertakings from the UK which were not honoured.
We have to move on to Question No. 28. We have exceeded the six minutes allowed. Deputy Stagg, unfortunately, any time I have been in the Chair I have ruled on the question of six minutes. That was agreed by the Dáil reform committee. In fairness to other Deputies in the House—
I was not doing any harm.
I understand that.
