Vol. 575 No. 4
47 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for the Environment Heritage and Local Government the contact he has had with the management at Sellafield and the British Government having regard to the industrial action at Sellafield and the wish of the Irish public for the Sellafield plant to be closed. [28480/03]
My Department is in regular contact with the British Embassy in Dublin on matters relating to Sellafield. The embassy provided advance notification of this industrial dispute and has kept my Department up to date on developments. My prime concern is that the industrial dispute does not compromise safety at the plant. The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland has also been maintaining contact with the UK's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, NII, in regard to the dispute.
I understand that shift workers at Sellafield took strike action on the afternoon of Friday, 14 November and Friday, 21 November 2003 and that similar action is planned for the next three Fridays. The British Embassy has informed my Department that the British Government remains satisfied that safety at Sellafield will not be compromised as a result of the industrial action. According to the embassy, the UK's NII is satisfied that BNFL's contingency arrangements are adequate to ensure the safety of the site during industrial action. I am informed that regular meetings are being held between the NII, the unions and Sellafield management to discuss safety-related issues and that emergency response teams are not affected by the industrial action.
The British Government is well aware of the concerns of the Government and the Irish public about Sellafield. The Government remains fully committed to bringing about the safe closure of the Sellafield plant.
This is along the lines of draining the Shannon and restoring the Irish language. In seriousness, the industrial action at Sellafield has interfered with the operation of the plant. Enormous security back-up would be required to avoid a potentially catastrophic event if industrial action were to be escalated at Sellafield. Does this inform the Government more clearly of the need to hold out for serious changes, for example, in the European constitution, in regard to EURATOM? This treaty needs to be dismantled and the provisions for safety put into the new treaty rather than having EURATOM as a stand-alone treaty which is effectively a proponent of the nuclear industry? Will the Government redouble its efforts to ensure that the European Union becomes engaged in the winding down of the nuclear industry in as safe a manner as possible, rather than continuing to promote it, which is the current position and to which the Irish taxpayer contributes through the EURATOM treaty?
Have lessons been learnt from the episode at Sellafield other than the usual mantra that it needs to be closed down, which we all know and on which we all agree?
I agree with some of what the Deputy said. I am disappointed he did not acknowledge that for the first time this country took direct action through all the legal options available to us.
What was achieved?
Order.
It is not a game. We are not, as yet, finished the process. The issues are technical and are being dealt with by the Attorney General. He is playing an incredible role in this regard – I mean that sincerely. He has taken a very deep interest in this matter, not just from a legal perspective. He has immersed himself in all the knowledge available on environmental issues. This has been demonstrated in how he has handled the cases both in regard to OSPAR and UNCLOS.
So he should.
It is important that we acknowledge this collectively in the House.
With reference to Deputy Sargent's point, as he is aware, the Government has taken cases under both OSPAR and UNCLOS. These are complex legal issues which are vigorously contested, in this instance, by the UK. As the Deputy is aware, issues also exist with regard to the EU.
That has been my mantra.
Deputy Sargent asked a question about the EURATOM treaty. Issues will come to the fore in that regard which, equally, will take time. As the Deputy may be aware, I voted against the environmental liability directive recently in the Council of Ministers. It is a good directive that I would love to have supported but could not because it excluded nuclear energy, which I found unbelievable, as nuclear energy potentially causes the greatest damage to the environment. That is why I took the position I did on behalf of the Government, which is one we hold strongly and consistently.
The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland is in constant contact with the UK's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate in regard to the dispute. I depend on the RPII's expertise in this matter for the up-to-date position. I must accept its advice on the level of contact taking place and the issue of safety being maintained.
I travelled to Sellafield with Deputy Kenny in July. We raised the issues of the denial of access for our experts to the site by BNFL as well as the increasing discharge into the Irish Sea, as a result of the run-down of some of the processing plants. Since then we have been unable to get specific information on the nature and levels of discharge taking place as a result of these changes. Does the Minister have this information from departmental or other sources? What is the position in regard to access to the plant for RPII officials?
I am happy to inform the Deputy that the issues he raised are very much on the current agenda. They form part of the cases we are taking for some of those reasons. The Deputy may be aware that the courts accepted that there was a case to be answered in terms of communication and that the two Governments must co-operate to the fullest possible extent on information. The details are being worked out at the moment.
I take the view that the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland should have access to the entire Sellafield site. There are many different discharges taking place at Sellafield and the original MOX plant. A moratorium exists in the short-term.
I take the strong view, as does every other Member, that discharges into the marine environment of the Irish Sea are unacceptable. They are not morally or economically justifiable. Once a discharge has been made into the Irish Sea, the damage remains for hundreds if not thousands of years. It is my strong view that all discharges should cease. Suitable storage facilities with retrievability characteristics should be put in place as technology develops to deal with waste. The worst option is to make discharges into the Irish Sea. There is no longer a moral justification for it.
Arising from contacts between the Minister, his Department and the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and their UK counterparts, can the Minister tell the House the categories of employee at Sellafield who took industrial action? What proportion of the shift which was due to work on the days in question took industrial action? What issues were in dispute?
I will give the Deputy all the information I have to hand. On 27 October, the members of two unions representing the workforce at BNFL voted in favour of industrial action. The dispute affects about 2,400 employees or one quarter of the Sellafield work force. The industrial action began on the afternoon of Friday, 14 November with a strike by shift workers. A similar strike action took place on the afternoon of Friday, 21 November and actions are also planned over the next three Fridays. That is the extent of the information I have.
What is the issue in dispute?
Money.
There are various issues. The British Embassy informed my Department that the UK's nuclear watchdog, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, requested BNFL to provide it with contingency arrangements in the event of industrial action at Sellafield. The arrangements were reviewed by the inspectorate which the embassy says is satisfied that they provide an adequate framework for safety cover. I am not directly involved in the matter, but I assure the House that none of the emergency facilities is affected. We have sought assurances on this point. If anything goes wrong, arrangements are in place.
Can we offer them the services of the Taoiseach?
In his reply to my question, the Minister said there were issues surrounding the EURATOM Treaty which had to be taken seriously. When he says the issues must be taken seriously, does that mean there is a bottom line which the Government has identified? Does that include scrapping the treaty and the transfer of its nuclear safety provisions into the general body of EU legislation? Will the Minister elucidate the issues the Government considers to be serious?
I could, but I will not. As the Deputy is well aware, we are involved in many complex cases on behalf of the people. I do not want to prejudice those cases through anything I might say here. The Deputy can take what I said in good faith.
