asked the Minister for Energy whether he has assessed the practicality of taking legal action against Britain regarding the operation of her nuclear plants; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
39.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - British Nuclear Plants.
57.
asked the Minister for Energy the representations which the Government have made to the British authorities concerning the continued expansion and development of the Sellafield nuclear plant, especially the decision to process there, 4,000 tonnes of nuclear waste from West Germany; if it is intended to initiate legal action against the British authorities regarding the continued incidences of radioactive pollution from the plant; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 57 and 39 together. My predecessors have made, and I shall continue to make, vigorous representations to the UK authorities——
(Interruptions.)
Good man Minister.
——urging that Sellafield be closed and opposing expansion of the UK nuclear industry at Sellafield, or at any nuclear installation especially on their west coast. Since I took up office I have protested to both the UK and the German authorities at plans to transport spent fuel for reprocessing from Germany to Sellafield which was the subject of Question No. 39 on the Order Paper. I pointed out that Germany has decided for environmental reasons not to go ahead with its own reprocessing plant at Wackersdorf, and that it is not acceptable that it should simply transfer the problem and its attendant risks to the Irish Sea area.
The House is no doubt aware that the practicality of taking legal action regarding the operation of nuclear plants, in general, and Sellafield, in particular has been under consideration for some time. On the basis of discussions between my Department and the Attorney General's Office it is clear that at present there is little effective scope for taking such action. This does not, however, rule out the possibility that circumstances in the future may make it possible to take such legal action, and I will continue to give the matter a high priority.
Where does it leave the Fianna Fáil promise that they would take Britain to court if the aged Magnox reactors were not closed down and the emissions into the Irish Sea were not stopped?
Ask Fianna Fáil.
Let the questions be relevant please.
I do not know why the Deputy asks me that question.
(Limerick East): Cá bhfuil Bobby?
Would the Minister elaborate on what approach he plans to succeed in closing down Sellafield?
I think this is an extension of the scope of this question.
We must be realistic in this. It is a legitimate position for the Irish Government to take up——
It is a different Government.
——to object to what is happening and what has happened at Sellafield. In fairness to British Nuclear Fuels, the discharges which were the initial cause of concern there have dropped substantially. The discharges are now at a very low level. That has possibly been the result of the protest of the Irish Government and others in drawing the attention of the world to this problem. The reality is that because of the age of these nuclear power stations, it is legitimate for us to have concerns about the safety factors. That is my primary concern. It would be the ideal situation for this country if this and a number of other nuclear plants in Great Britain were closed. Such closure would eliminate the threat to the people living in this island in regard to their health and their future wellbeing. The reality is that we are not in a position as of now to demand closure and expect to have the station closed tomorrow. I am realistic enough to accept the practicalities on the ground but it is a very legitimate position for us to take, to have it as a policy that we want this station closed and to continue to avail of whatever opportunity is available to us to call for the closure of all these nuclear power stations, to bring pressure to bear on the British Government to do something about them also and to continue to express our concern because of the danger that would be involved in the event of an accident. I stated in reply to an earlier Dáil question that our Presidency of the EC presents us with an opportunity to bring the whole question of nuclear safety to the surface and to give it a higher priority. That would be very much part of Ireland's programme during its term of the Presidency and I, as Minister for Energy, will play a role in that as will other Ministers also. I have no doubt that the Taoiseach, as President, will play a major role in it.
I want to dispose of Deputy Bruton's remaining question also.
A pillar of the Government's approach to Ireland's case is that legal action would be taken. The Minister is now suggesting that this is not practicable at the moment. What sudden change has occurred? The previous Minister indicated to us in the House that he saw substance in the grounds presented by Greenpeace for a successful case to be taken. What effectively has changed?
In reality nothing has changed. If I, as Minister for Energy, am satisfied that there is a case that can be sustained, then a case can be taken. I could recommend to Government that a case be taken and the matter could be considered by Government but, having examined the evidence, having consulted the Attorney General and having carefully read the documentation sent to my Department by Greenpeace, it is quite clear that there would be no guarantee that a case, taken at present, on the type of evidence that is being put forward, would have any success. It would be foolish of me, as Minister, to indicate that I would favour the taking of a case against the British authorities when I am not convinced on the evidence before me that the case would succeed.
I want to call a final question here in the name of Deputy Richard Bruton, Priority Question No. 58.