Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 30 September 2004
10 Mr. S. Ryan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he has sought and received assurances from his British counterparts that adequate procedures are in place to prevent the hijacking of an aeroplane in British airspace to crash into the Sellafield plant, in view of the serious consequences of such a development for citizens here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22590/04]
View answerDue to the risk posed to Ireland by the potential transboundary effects of an accident or incident, including a terrorist attack by aircraft or otherwise at Sellafield, the security arrangements and procedures established at Sellafield by the United Kingdom authorities have been a particular ongoing concern of the Government. My predecessor repeatedly raised these concerns by direct correspondence and in face to face meetings with my UK ministerial counterparts, as have officials of my Department in meetings with their UK counterparts. The United Kingdom in response has given assurances that it is satisfied with the security arrangements and that these are subject to continuous review.
In March 2003, my predecessor, the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, wrote to the UK Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ms Patricia Hewitt, MP, regarding concerns about the possibility of terrorist attacks. She furnished a reply on 16 April 2003, which was published as an appendix to the reply to Parliamentary Question No. 141 of 14 May 2003. In her reply, the Secretary of State indicated that the UK is satisfied that arrangements for ensuring security in its civil nuclear industry are robust, additional measures put in place since September 2001 to reinforce security are appropriate, and these security arrangements are subject to continual review. In a further exchange of correspondence earlier this year on security related issues at Sellafield, the Secretary of State indicated that the Royal Air Force maintains a high state of readiness in the air defence of the UK, including the defence of particularly sensitive targets and its state of readiness is kept under constant review.
The assurances and information on nuclear security issues received from the UK authorities are welcome as far as they go. However, our legitimate concerns form a basis to develop an agreed, structured and meaningful system between the UK and Ireland for the exchange of security sensitive information without compromising the security needs and concerns of the UK with regard to such information. This point has been emphasised in exchanges with the UK and I assure the House I will continue to make this point at every opportunity.
Will the Minister elaborate on his use of the phrase "as far as they go" while referring to the assurances given by the UK authorities? May I assume from it that he does not accept their assurances or believes them to be less than adequate?
What I mean by that phrase is that we have a legitimate concern on this issue which is best addressed by developing a structured and meaningful system of exchange of clear information on it. While I fully understand the reason the administration of another jurisdiction has concerns about making available security sensitive information, it should be possible to provide the structured system of exchanging information we seek without compromising its security needs.
Do we have something to be worried about? The Department has correspondence on this issue which became critical in 2001. If someone crashed an aeroplane into Sellafield, we would all be at risk. It appears the Minister is not happy with the assurances the Department has received. Does the public have cause for serious concern that the security arrangements regarding Sellafield are not adequate?
That is incorrect. As I have stated clearly, it would be much better if we could have a process for the exchange of information, rather than simply assurances.
Does the Minister agree that assurances obtained from the British Government, which cannot protect its Parliament or Prime Minister against a flour attack or pro-hunt protesters, are dubious? Does he now agree that the only way to deal with this sensitive issue is at Prime Minister level? Will he urge the Taoiseach to demand from Tony Blair a detailed security report on Sellafield? We do not enjoy the economic benefits of Sellafield but we are exposed to all the risks.
I am not sure that the prime ministerial level is the appropriate one at which to have this exchange of information. Clearly, one would have to have people with the appropriate——
I do not mind how it is done once it is done.
As I have said to Deputy Gilmore, there is a need for some process.
To correct Deputy Allen, it was the pro-hunting lobby that invaded the Palace of Westminster, not the anti-hunting lobby.
That is what I meant to say. It is Sellafield that I am worried about.
Further to the Minister's reply, will he tell us whether his ongoing concern relates solely to the installation of Sellafield, given the number of shipments to and from it and other installations, including the flotilla making its way across the Atlantic? Is his concern simply based on the political dimension rather than the practicality? Sellafield is referred to so often in the media that it seems to draw attention when in fact other installations, which are of serious concern in their own right, such as Wylfa or Sizewell——
Will the Deputy ask a question?
Are we talking about a more comprehensive approach or is the Minister's concern just in response to media agitation?
It is unfair to suggest it is just in response to media agitation. Both sides of this House use Sellafield as an expression of our concern about a range of facilities.
I just want to be sure.
It happens to be the one that is very close to us and which is referred to frequently.
As I stated, the UK authorities have not been disposed over the years to disclosing details of security measures. They have provided assurances. It would be best, from the point of view of the two neighbours, to establish a process whereby we would have more than assurances and be part of an information exchange.
Question No. 10 is a very good question. Has the Minister applied his mind to the environmental consequences of a plane being taken from Irish airspace to be crashed into the Sellafield plant, given that we are about 70 miles from Britain and given the proximity of our airspace to the plant? Has the RAF, the British Government or any other body views on this prospect, bearing in mind that a jet airliner can travel at more than 600 mph?
OCNS, which deals with the issue in the UK, has a general responsibility in this regard, including a responsibility to deal with hazards from aeroplanes irrespective of their origin. However, Deputy Morgan's point is valid. There are many small and medium-sized airstrips not just on this side of the island but on the far side of the Irish Sea that are very close to the Sellafield installation. The Deputy's point illustrates the validity of the concerns that all parties, both in Government and Opposition, have on this issue.
There are about 30 seconds remaining in Question Time if any Member wants to ask a brief supplementary question.
Given that there are 30 seconds remaining, maybe we could talk about the real Cabinet reshuffle. Let us work on one now.
The 30 seconds have elapsed. That concludes Question Time.
The Deputy blew his 30 seconds.
