We now move on to private notice questions to the Minister for Public Enterprise on the decision by the British Government to expand nuclear reprocessing at Sellafield. I will call on Deputies in the order in which they submitted their questions to my office.
Private Notice Questions. - Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing Plant.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise if she will make a statement following the announcement by the British Government yesterday of its decision to sanction a nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield, Cumbria; if she was aware of this situation and what representations she has been making to the British Government since taking up office four and a half years ago?
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise, in view of the serious implications for the security, health and safety of Irish citizens, arising from the decision of the British authorities to approve the opening of the MOX plant at Sellafield, if she will outline what diplomatic and legal action the Government intends to take through all appropriate bodies to have this decision reversed; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
Mr. Higgins
(Dublin West) asked the Minister for Public Enterprise if her attention has been drawn to the decision by the British Government to allow the MOX nuclear reprocessing plant to proceed at Sellafield, Cumbria; the implications this will have for the health, well being and environment of people here; and the response the Government will make regarding this decision.
asked the Minister for Public Enterprise her views on the decision by the British Government to expand the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield, Cumbria; if this decision creates extreme dangers for Ireland and the international community in terms of nuclear terrorism and radioactive pollution; and if she will set out the possible legal and diplomatic remedies the Government is considering to both oppose this plant and ensure the progressive closure of the entire Sellafield complex.
I am dismayed and angered by the announcement yesterday by the UK Government to give the go-ahead to the mixed oxide, MOX, fuel fabrication plant at Sellafield. The Irish Government has strongly and consistently opposed the commissioning of the MOX plant and its concerns about, and opposition to, this plant have been conveyed to the UK authorities in every possible manner. Notably, we have responded in a detailed manner to five separate rounds of public consultation on the proposed commissioning during the period 1997 to 2001. I have also at every possible opportunity expressed the Government's opposition to this plant in correspondence and at meetings with UK Ministers. Our concerns have always been driven by the health, security and environmental risks of the activities at Sellafield.
The commissioning of this plant will further add to the multiplicity of operations at Sellafield thereby increasing the risk of an accident. It will increase the volume of worldwide transport of MOX fuel with obvious additional volume of traffic in the Irish Sea thus posing an unacceptable safety and security risk as well as the potential for a major accident or terrorist attack. It will also add to radioactive discharges into the Irish Sea. While we are advised that the increases in discharges are likely to be small, any contamination whatever of our marine environment is objectionable and unacceptable. What is particularly worrying about the decision is that it comes at a time when one would have expected countries with nuclear installations to consider the full implications of the recent atrocities in New York and Washington and the very real threat to safety and security of such facilities. I find this decision by the UK Government incomprehensible.
As the House will be aware the Government has already initiated action against the UK in relation to the MOX plant under the OSPAR convention. The Irish Government's case began in June and relates to the fact that the UK, on grounds of commercial confidentiality, is withholding information essential to assessing the economic justification of the MOX plant. This process has been continuing on schedule and an arbitration tribunal is in the process of being established under the OSPAR convention to consider this case. I had specifically requested the UK not to take any decision on the MOX plant while the arbitration was in progress. Yesterday's decision is completely contrary to that request and I am very disappointed that the UK chose to proceed despite it.
I am advised that it will be some time before this plant is fully commissioned. In the meantime and in tandem with the continuing progress of the action under OSPAR, the Government will immediately press ahead with a view to finalising consideration of the further legal options under both EU and UN law with the ultimate aim of having the UK decision on MOX overturned. This process is already well advanced and, based on best legal advice both from our national and UK advisers, the optimum path for proceeding from here will be determined and pursued. I can assure the House that in addition to our legal options, I will continue to press the UK on this matter at every opportunity and to express our concerns on the risks to health, safety, environment, etc., associated with the Sellafield activities. The Government wishes to see the complete cessation of activities at this plant and will spare no effort to achieve that goal.
I share the Minister of State's anger at this outrageous decision by the UK Government to go ahead with this plant. The Minister of State outlined the public consultation and said he made effort to convey his concerns to the UK Government. What was the UK Government's reaction? Did this decision come out of the blue or was the Minister of State aware that they were going to go ahead with it? It would appear that the UK Government, or those with whom he was in contact, did not appreciate or understand the strong feeling and objection to this plant. Will the Minister of State outline the UK Government's reaction to his objections? As he said, he is going to continue to make known his opposition to this plant. Is he confident that his concerns will be listened to because obviously they have not been listened to so far? Will the Minister of State outline the legal advice available in terms of advancing this under EU and UN law? Will he give us an idea of the legal advice available that his case will be successful?
I am not confident at all that we have been listened to; we obviously have not been. This issue has been going on since 1993 when the then Government opposed this situation when a planning application for the building of the MOX plant was first made. Those objections failed and in 1994 they got planning permission and they proceeded. The plant about which we are talking is built and in situ but its commissioning has been deferred and frustrated, I would like to claim, by Ireland and by many other parties, including residents and groups in the UK and others. There have been five public consultation processes in which Ireland took a vigorous hand and we made very strenuous presentations in each. I suppose one leads to another and the decision to proceed was, let us say, frustrated up to now. It is very disappointing that the UK Government has decided to go down this route, particularly, as I said, in the aftermath of the atrocities in the US.
I refer to legal action. This is the furthest we have gone yet, and I respect that other Ministers and Governments before I came to office had been actively involved in addressing Ireland's objections and concerns about activities at Sellafield. Successive Governments and Ministers said that they would take a case against Sellafield if there was proper scientific evidence deemed to be appropriate to taking a case and deemed to be appropriate by the Attorney General. This is the first time we have had encouragement or assurance by our legal advisers that there is a viable case to be taken and we have embarked on that case under the OSPAR treaty. I took it to Government earlier this year and got approval to proceed with that action under OSPAR. That has been proceeding on schedule from June last.
A meeting has been organised for next Tuesday between officials from my Department with their legal backup team and their counterparts in the UK with their backup legal team to further this situation and to do the housekeeping on the arrangements, to set a venue, which will probably be The Hague, and to deal with the appointing of the third arbitrator. We have already appointed our arbitrator in this case. There are three arbitrators – one to be appointed by each of the parties and both parties together agree on a third. We have appointed our arbitrator. He is from the Australian bench and is a legal man with an economic background which we think is appropriate to the situation. That measure now proceeds.
In addition, we propose to take further action which I flagged in my presentation to Government earlier this year, that is, under EU law. That is our next step and I spoke to the Taoiseach about it last night. The Government will be discussing it this week.
Does the Minister of State agree that the strong and consistent opposition of his Government to the Sellafield proposal has been a dismal failure? I am sure he will be aware of the international expert team that I assembled in 1996 to successfully challenge the BNFL plans for an underground nuclear dump. I am sure he will also be aware of the high level ministerial committee chaired by the Minister for the Environment which supported that expert team during that time. The expert team was headed up by the eminent Queen's Counsel, Professor Lauterpacht. If the Minister of State was serious about taking on BNFL and the British Government on the whole issue of Sellafield and its potential disaster for Ireland, why did he disband the expert team on coming into office and downgrade the ministerial committee? Can we take it that he did not see a need for any expert assistance or the support of a ministerial committee? Does he agree that was the first step in the downgrading of what was a high level legal and diplomatic campaign against the BNFL and the operations at Sellafield and that he replaced that with occasional press releases from his Department drafted by his officials for domestic consumption? Will he further agree that what he is now doing is, effectively, seeking to close the door when the horse has bolted given that he did not take action when he should have?
I commend Deputy Stagg on the excellent work done on this portfolio during his term of office as Minister of State. However, I do not accept the charges he makes because terrific advances have been made during my time in office.
The only thing that has happened is that approval was granted to open MOX.
I did not interrupt the Deputy.
That does not mean I will not to interrupt the Minister of State.
Thank you. The Deputy referred to the ministerial committee—
It has been downgraded—
Please, Deputy Stagg, allow the Minister of State to continue.
—and it does not meet.
I have the honour to chair the ministerial committee—
The Minister of State's personality has been downgraded because he is not a full Minister.
Please, Deputy Stagg.
I regret that I am not a full Minister. There is nothing I can do about that. I am doing the best I can, which is usually good enough. The membership of the ministerial committee is comprised of Ministers and Ministers of State from the Departments of Foreign Affairs, Environment and Local Government and Health and Children.
How many times has it met during the past four years?
It has been in existence for just over three years and has met on some 12 occasions. The committee has a full programme of work, including dealing with the subject matter of the question before the House, namely, the situation vis-à-vis MOX. Meetings of the committee have always been attended by the relevant officials from the Departments to which I refer, by officials from my Department as well as personnel from the office of the Attorney General and senior officials from the Radiological Protection Institute, whose input was crucial to our important work of which we are very proud.
In terms of advances, we seem to be digressing from the subject of the question, we have made more progress than ever before, particularly under the OSPAR Treaty which deals with damage to the marine environment. We have made contact with many other countries and persuaded them to our way of thinking. I visited all the Nordic countries and have written repeatedly to my colleagues in the EU. In the aftermath of the falsification of documents at Sellafield in respect of MOX, a controversy arose in respect of the Japanese market which is the crucial element here. We ensured that our ambassador in Tokyo spoke with the Japanese authorities and advised them that the Irish people were seriously concerned about any resumption of the traffic of hazardous materials by sea. We have interacted regularly with our international counterparts during our time in office and the progress we have made under the OSPAR Treaty represents our greatest success in this area.
(Dublin West): Does the Minister of State agree that the reason the British Government has not been listening to or has not heard the Irish Government in recent years is that the latter has been whispering rather than shouting? Does he also agree that the Irish Government has been completely politically disarmed in regard to this matter, that its efforts have proved utterly ineffective and that it has not in any serious way challenged the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, or the British Government with the exception of engaging in a number of polite exchanges? Considering the Minister of State's party's position in the 1970s when it wanted to introduce nuclear power into this country, is it really committed to the closure of Sellafield? Does he agree that the Government's approach has been so futile thus far that he should lend himself to the cause as a secret weapon by going on national radio in Britain and terrifying the Government there in the same way he terrified the Irish nation when he was let loose recently in RTE? Such a development might be as effective as the Government's actions to date.
On a more serious note, does the Minister of State agree that the development of nuclear technology, in light of what happened at Chernobyl and the horrors visited on New York on 11 Sep tember, is actually a criminal pursuit, particularly when one considers the catastrophe that could result from an accident or an act of deliberate sabotage? Does he further agree that Mr. Blair, the Prime Minister of Britain, is guilty of appalling treachery to the people of this country, not to mention the citizens of his own country? Mr. Blair has expressed sanctimonious pretensions to lead a campaign to avenge the deaths of thousands of innocent people in New York, but his Government, by its policy, is putting the life of countless further thousands, if not millions, at risk, by ensuring that Britain remains a leading agent in furthering this deadly technology.
The charge of Ireland being politically disarmed is nonsense. Ireland's policy on the nuclear industry is well known and has been well articulated by me and others for many years, particularly in more recent times.
Is it outlined on the fact sheet the Minister of State is sending out?
This is a serious debate and we have been doing serious work. I have been asked a question and I want to respond to it. There is a view abroad in the nuclear industry at present that nuclear power is the answer to all our problems, particularly in terms of the issue of global warming. Those involved in the industry state that nuclear plants do not discharge noxious substances into the atmosphere and that, therefore, the developed world and developing countries should take the nuclear route. We have repeatedly voiced our total objection to that view and we have advocated that developing countries in particular should go the route of pursuing methods of renewable and sustainable energy generation, rather than taking the nuclear route. The atrocity of 11 September has placed matters in a new light.
We have exhorted many countries at fora under the aegis of the UN, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the European Union. We have repeatedly raised these issues in Brussels and put forward Ireland's view, namely, that we are an anti-nuclear state and that we do not want to see nuclear power being developed in developing countries.
The responses I have received from people and the liaising I have engaged in at ministerial level – I have dealt with a number of Ministers during my four years in office – lead me to believe that if Sellafield is to close, and the Government is resolved to ensure that this happens, it will occur on foot of economic grounds. If MOX is not allowed to proceed, it will sound the economic death knell of activity at Sellafield. That is our aim. We should adopt a united front on this matter and people should not engage in making cheap or snide remarks.
During the past three years I have had received wholehearted support for my endeavours in trying to spearhead the campaign to close Sellafield. I received wonderful support from Members of both Houses, which has sustained my efforts and helped me put across my message. Deputy
Higgins is correct: the British are not listening and, therefore, we need to use the big stick. We have sought to use the only big stick we can in this area by taking the legal route. Historically we were advised that we did not have a case. We have sought and received the necessary legal and financial expertise in the nuclear field over the past 12 months and those involved have worked with my officials and the Attorney General with a view to putting this case together. That is why the case is up and running and I hope we will take up the other elements of the case under EU law immediately.
The Minister of State regretted he was not a senior Minister but perhaps we are looking at a future Fianna Fáil Taoiseach. Given his record, does he believe he deserves to be a Minister or a Minister of State? What did his UK ministerial counterparts say? The Minister of State previously stated in the House that he was encouraged and that he had been given a good hearing by them. Does he accept they have completely pulled the wool over his eyes? How many times did he meet his UK counterparts? We need to know what they said.
Many people want to know what the Minister of State has been doing for the past four years. He has not been working on an emergency plan because the fact sheet to which he has referred is only being sent out now. However, there is a flurry of activity because Sellafield is again in the news. The pattern is that every time the plant is in the news the Government says it will do this and that and take legal action. Why has a case not been taken over the past four years? Nothing has happened. I ask the Minister of State to inform the House about what he has been doing for the past four years and what he will do prior to the election.
I have informed the House why we have not taken a legal case. Successive Governments and Ministers have probed that avenue and sought the necessary legal advice, which was that sufficient scientific and other evidence was not available to take a case to seek closure or a cessation of activities at Sellafield. We targeted the mixed oxide fuel plant because of its economic significance to the existence of BNFL installations. I am firmly convinced this is the route to take.
We have repeatedly met British Ministers at various fora and these meetings are a matter of public record. We made a case to them, they followed the procedures that are in situ in the UK in terms of independent agencies and they received authorisation to proceed. Notwithstanding the granting of this authorisation, I was still surprised at the political decision taken yesterday.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister of State said it was incomprehensible to him that the decision was made. Given his contribution, it is comprehensible to me why it is incomprehensible to him because he is under the impression that the Government mounted vigorous opposition and that he has made more ground than any previous Minister. Did the Minister of State listen to the opposition of the British Government to the Irish position or was he the equivalent of a poodle sent out to do the work of an alsation? How could this decision have been made? Why did his counterparts not hear what the Minister of State was saying? Why did he not inform the public that the British Government was not playing ball and was leaving us open to more serious worries than is the case currently?
If the Irish people had been informed they could have rallied around and mounted opposition which could have had an impact whereas we are now chasing the issue. The British Government probably feels it will win the case even though the Minister of State may feel he will defeat the British Government legally or through arbitration. However, the British Government must feel it has everything covered. Why did the Minister pretend discussions were going well when the public could have been a major help to him?
I am not sure where the Deputy has been. Everything related to this issue has been in the public arena. There were five public consultation exercises on the MOX plant over the past four years. The determination of BNFL to build the plant has been well documented. The company spent £450 million building the plant. Its commissioning has been delayed by the actions taken by Ireland and other countries. BNFL was forced to refer to independent agencies in the UK. We have worked with and continue to work with NGOs and other parties in the UK who can help us to get the message across and achieve our ultimate aim which is the closure of the Sellafield plant.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): What did they say?
Please allow the Minister to conclude without interruption.
There has been regular contact between Ministers and officials. A contact group on radioactive matters is in place, which meets twice annually to examine in detail the operations at Sellafield.
What good is it doing?
Deputy Gormley, it is not appropriate for you to ask a question.
Deputy Stagg will know that we have endeavoured for years to carry out a risk assessment on liquid waste, which is hazardous, at Sellafield. The UK authorities repeatedly told us they would not give us the necessary information to permit us to assess the risk to Ireland of such waste. They always said they would not allow us access to records, etc., and quoted commercial confidentiality as their reason for refusing me and my predecessors. I persevered with my demands and eventually over the past two years, because of the constant pressure, our experts travelled to the UK and carried out a risk assessment. We have received a report on that. We have also made good ground on the OSPAR convention. Discharges into the sea are now the subject of an international agreement and they must cease altogether by 2020 on a graded basis. The UK must outline methods which portray how that will be effected under a legal, binding agreement. A great deal of success has been achieved but the MOX plant is the primary issue as it will extend the life of Sellafield. If the MOX plant is prevented from going into production, it will sound the economic death knell of Sellafield. The only way to make an impact on this issue is through economics.
Does the Minister agree his inaction and failure in regard to the MOX plant has thrown BNFL the commercial lifeline it needed to continue and if he had succeeded he would have been instrumental in closing the Sellafield plant? Does he further agree the continuing operation of Sellafield and the new proposal for MOX is a constant bone of contention that sours relations between Ireland and Britain? Does he agree that what is required now is a bilateral meeting between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister where the strength of Irish public opinion on this matter can be fully conveyed to Mr. Blair? Will the Minister of State tell the House if the Taoiseach has made any plans to convene such a meeting? Given the recent critical safety breaches at the Sellafield plant, does the Minister of State believe the claims by British Nuclear Fuels Limited in relation to safety standards at the plant and about materials in transit? Does the Minister of State agree that this company has a record of evasion, cover ups and untruths? It is a proven liar and its word on safety standards cannot be trusted.
I agree with the Deputy's latter point. I have articulated many times my total lack of confidence in the integrity of BNFL. I said in the past that it is untrustworthy and this has been proven. There was falsification of documents and the risk assessment investigation to which I referred revealed that many safety aspects were lacking. The general safety culture one would expect in such a hazardous industry is absent.
The Taoiseach told the House this morning that he has, on a regular basis, raised this matter with the UK Prime Minister, Mr. Blair. He will do it again forthwith and, as we speak, the Secretary General of my Department and his counterpart in the Department of the Taoiseach are considering the best approach to take. They are also considering, in the context of our ongoing legal advice, how best to elevate the legal battle in terms of the next case under the EURATOM Treaty process at EU level.
Does the Minister of State agree that, since the incidents in New York on 11 September, the plant poses a real security threat? The Minister of State is responsible for nuclear safety and in that guise he has explained the progress made to date. However, the decision yesterday is a backward move in terms of the OSPAR Convention. There is a real threat of a terrorist attack on the plant or the ships travelling up and down the Irish Sea. Does the Minister of State agree the problem has been heightened since 11 September? The Minister of State referred to UN conventions. What channels are open to him in that regard?
I agree with the Minister of State that the death of MOX would be the end of Sellafield. What contact has the Minister of State made with one of BNFL's main customers, the German Government? Has he contacted it to try to stop the shipment of Germany's nuclear waste to Sellafield?
(Dublin West): Perhaps Deputy Gormley should have a word with Mr. Joschka Fischer himself.
Will the Minister of State outline in detail what legal steps will be taken in the week ahead? Does he know it has been speculated that production of MOX will begin in ten weeks? The European Court process which has been mentioned is very long. Is it the Government's intention to seek an injunction in Britain to stop production until the case has been argued at further length? Does the Minister of State agree that Ireland should launch an international call to environmentalists around the world and those sections of the international trade union movement that are opposed nuclear development? It may come down to people power being the only way to stop this irresponsible development.
The Minister of State mentioned the highly active liquid waste that is stored in Sellafield and he said that, if it exploded, it would be equivalent to 550 Chernobyl incidents. If the MOX plant goes ahead, will it add to the liquid waste that is stored there? What stage has the vitrification of that liquid reached?
Regarding Deputy Stagg's point, the vitrification process involves making the liquid waste safer. It is recognised internationally that this process is the best means of treating it. It has proceeded slowly and it was estimated that the accumulated stocks would be treated, vitrified and rendered safer by 2015. We have repeatedly advised the UK authorities and BNFL that we are not satisfied with that and we want the process expedited. I understand MOX will not add to the stocks. I am advised that it is a dry process and that aspect is not one of our concerns.
There has been contact with Germany and also with Holland and Japan, which is the main customer. We were horrified when we learned of the resumption of transport by sea of nuclear waste and materials and we expressed those opinions. I wrote to Minister Tritton and I received a cordial response. We have raised the matter with the Dutch and we have addressed it through diplomatic avenues with Japan.
Regarding Deputy Higgins's point, we have been advised in relation to the MOX plant that commissioning will take some months. This gives us time to address the matter. We want to do that immediately and at the most senior level. We are talking about legal action, which has never been taken before. There is no triumphalism on this issue because the wherewithal to do it was not available previously. However, we have reached a stage where we have a sustainable case and we intend to run with it in the various areas.
In relation to Deputy Clune's point, we have discussed the arbitration process under the OSPAR Convention. We have also talked about dealing with it under EU law and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea – UNCLOS. We can lodge a claim regarding the failure to carry out a proper environmental impact assessment in the context of the power of the international tribunal under the Convention on the Law of the Sea to order a binding injunction. Our best legal advice, both here and in the UK, will determine the optimum path for us.
What about the security aspects?
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.