Skip to main content
Normal View

Nuclear Safety.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 29 November 2005

Tuesday, 29 November 2005

Questions (6)

Fergus O'Dowd

Question:

6 Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he intends to meet the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair and his Ministers concerning the future of the British nuclear industry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36987/05]

View answer

Oral answers (29 contributions)

Deputy O'Dowd is to be complimented because he is certainly on the ball. The Prime Minister has just recently made another speech on this issue.

We are not hanging out of the rafters looking at it.

The UK White Paper on Energy in 2003 contained no proposals for new nuclear capacity but the option was not ruled out. It was stated that new nuclear plant might be necessary in the future to meet UK carbon commitments related to climate change. The paper envisaged full public consultation before making any decision. However, earlier today, Prime Minister Blair announced a review of the UK's progress against the medium and long-term energy White Paper goals. This will specifically address the issue of new nuclear plant in the context of an updated energy policy statement to be published in the summer of 2006. The UK energy minister will undertake extensive public and stakeholder consultation as part of this review and Ireland will engage fully in this process. Improved co-operative arrangements between the UK and Ireland on nuclear issues will be important in this regard.

Ireland remains firmly opposed to the nuclear industry on the grounds of the many risks it poses to human health, the environment and the economy, as well as risks associated with waste and transport. Environmental consequences have arisen for Ireland from historical and ongoing discharges to the sea from Sellafield and the potential risk for a serious accident or incident at nuclear plants including Sellafield. Any proposals by the UK to develop new nuclear capacity must be addressed in this context. At my recent meeting in London with the UK Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry, Mr. Alan Johnson MP, I restated this position on Ireland's nuclear safety. I did so again last week when I met the chairman and the chief executive of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in Dublin, stressing to them that the safe and speedy decommissioning of existing sites is the only way forward.

I reject the argument that nuclear energy, as a carbon-free and plentiful source of energy, can provide a solution to problems of climate change and energy supply. That is a fundamentally weak analysis. The reality is that the nuclear industry carries with it serious environmental and safety risks and the costs in both economic and environmental terms are unsustainable. The Government will continue to represent this view to the United Kingdom at every available opportunity, including at relevant public consultation processes which may arise from any proposals for new building.

When the Minister last returned from the United Kingdom, the breaking news service in The Irish Times quoted him as stating that following his visit, Sellafield was to close. Suddenly, that disappeared from the news media. What kind of operation does the Minister run if he is unable to clarify exactly what he was doing? If that is what the Minister said, the media were misled by him. Today, the British Prime Minister has effectively launched——

Powerful as I am, I cannot control headlines in The Irish Times.

The Minister changes his mind so often that he does not know where he stands.

There is a conspiracy of silence within his Department——

Deputy McCormack is beginning to sound like a broken record or a corncrake.

There is a conspiracy of silence within the Minister's Department regarding the issue of the relationship between Britain and Ireland in respect of Sellafield and nuclear matters. Recently, I made a freedom of information request to his Department on Sellafield and his correspondence with the British Government in this respect. However, as a result of the Cabinet's decision to shut down the Freedom of Information Act, 90 of the 120 items which could have been released to me were refused. The Minister's policy of keeping the public ignorant is unacceptable, wrong and disgraceful.

What will the Minister do about this issue now? What steps will he take today to approach his British counterpart and to make an assault on Downing Street regarding the concerns and fears of the Irish people in respect of ten additional nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom? The plant which the Minister is supposed to have closed — Sellafield — will be obliged to reprocess the consequential waste.

I am grateful that Deputy O'Dowd considers me to be sufficiently powerful to dictate a headline in The Irish Times.

The Minister is not doing his job.

The Minister does something different every week.

As I stated to the Deputy, a review was announced today which will be published in 2006. As I have indicated, if any proposals for rebuilding emerge, there will be consultations with stakeholders. As I have indicated further, Ireland will be active in opposition in that regard. The characterisation of my position in any other way is incorrect. I am sure it was accidental.

Will the Minister publish his correspondence?

As for freedom of information, Deputy O'Dowd's suggestion that I am anything other than interested in it is bizarre, given that I introduced a Freedom of Information Bill in the Seanad while a Member of that House.

The Minister did not.

The Minister closed it down.

The Minister filleted it.

Deputy O'Dowd is aware that the Minister of the day does not intervene in the processing of freedom of information requests and it is untruthful to suggest otherwise. He is also aware that freedom of information decisions are made by a designated officer, that I would not necessarily be familiar with a particular request and that issues of correspondence between Governments tend to be treated in a specific manner.

These are simple e-mails between the Minister and his staff or people working for him. A policy of secrecy and a cloak of silence exist around his activities. Undoubtedly, the Minister's intentions are good, proper and honourable. However, I am unable to acquire any information and the Minister voted within the Cabinet to amend the Freedom of Information Act. A cult of secrecy surrounds the Government's activities. I tabled a question to the Minister and it is not good enough to state that it will be published in 2006, 2007 or 2008. What is the Minister doing about it now? Will he instruct the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland to conduct cogent, considered and committed research in this area immediately?

The time has expired.

We may have expired by the time the Minister acts. He should do something today in this regard and should not simply let it happen.

I remind the Deputy that he asked whether I intended to meet the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, and his Ministers. I have already met one of his Ministers as well as the decommissioning authority. I am committed to ongoing meetings. As the Deputy is aware, my Department and the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland are involved in continual contacts. While the suggestion that I should assail the halls of No. 10 Downing Street is colourful and headline grabbing, it is not particularly sensible.

The Minister should get off his butt and do something.

However, the Deputy may be assured——

The Minister should go there and do the business.

——that I will continue to devote my energies to this issue. If the Deputy believes he has ideas as to how No. 10 Downing Street could be assailed, I would be pleased to consult him.

The Minister will change his mind and do something else.

The House corncrake is at it again.

Top
Share