asked the Minister for Energy the total number of accidents or incidents involving discharges of radioactive materials at British nuclear power stations or other nuclear installations reported to his Department by the British authorities during the past five years; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Radioactive Material Discharges.
12.
Under informal procedures agreed at meetings of the Ireland-UK contact group on nuclear matters, my Department are informed promptly of all significant incidents at British nuclear installations which are notified to the UK Department of the Environment. As such, incidents are reported on an informal basis and in confidence. I am not at liberty to disclose details. I am satisfied that the contact group and the notification procedure are a significant improvement in our arrangements generally.
I find that reply totally unacceptable. The public are entitled to know the number of incidents of discharges and leaks that have occurred from British nuclear stations. I would draw the Minister's attention to the fact that it has not always been the case that this information has been refused to this House.
Sorry, Deputy Gilmore, it is Question Time and we must proceed by way of supplementary questions and quotations are not in order at Question Time.
Will the Minister not continue the practice which applied in this House, certainly up to 1986, whereby this information was given and details of such incidents were given? Does the Minister not agree that the public are entitled to have this information?
The vast majority of incidents over the past three years have had no radiological significance for Ireland. Under a typical formal arrangement, which the Deputy seems to be suggesting, we would not have been informed at all of those incidents. It is better to have the fullest possible information available to me. I do not wish to sacrifice this for short term gains in publicity or whatever. The possibility of a formal bilateral agreement has been discussed by the Department with the UK authorities but at present, my view, shared by the UK, is that the multilateral notification agreements established in the EC and the IAEA are a satisfactory arrangement and that the informal agreement with the UK adds considerably to this, so that there is no necessity for a formal bilateral agreement. If the position changes I have not a closed mind on the matter and I will certainly reconsider the present arrangements. Having looked at them carefully, I am satisfied, at present anyway, that existing arrangements are satisfactory.
If the Minister will not tell us the number of incidents, will he say whether the number of incidents have been increasing or decreasing and if the information which has been supplied to him on an informal basis has influenced his recent decision not to proceed to take legal action against the British authorities as a result of their nuclear power stations?
If the Deputy thinks that details and statistics are helpful I can tell him that since October 1985 we have been notified of 114 incidents. There have been only nine notifications since the beginning of this year. We took the decreasing number of incidents up with the UK at the meeting of the contact group which was held in November last and we were informed at that meeting that they had refined the reporting arrangements within the UK, and that the operators do not report to the Department of the Environment incidents of an unimportant nature which occur on site. We no longer, therefore, get reports of incidents of a non-radiological nature. However, we were assured at that meeting that there had been no change in the arrangements for reporting incidents to Ireland.
Is the Minister aware of a recent suggestion by the chairman of BNFL that they would only agree to a European inspectorate of these sorts of incidents and operations if it was at a second remove, not by conducting direct inspections? Could he give an indication that such type of operation would be totally unacceptable and out of tenor with what we need in this area?
The Deputy will agree that any improvements we can achieve in the inspectorate area is an advance and something we would welcome. The Deputy is aware that it will be one of the objectives of the Irish Presidency to work for the establishment of an EC inspectorate of nuclear plants within the Community. I am hoping that we will make some progress in that area. We have brought it up at preliminary meetings prior to our Presidency and intend to have it on the agenda at EC meetings. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, at his general Councils, will probably bring it forward. That is perhaps the correct place for it. As President of the Energy Council, however, I will be availing of whatever opportunities present themselves to bring Ireland's concern in this matter to the attention of, and to gain support from, the other member countries.
Would the Minister agree that 114 incidents is 114 incidents too many in view of the past cover ups by the British authorities of more serious incidents? Will the Minister now confirm that there is a major departure by his Government in relation to their policy on the closure of Sellafield and the demands for a European inspectorate? His previous reply indicates that there is a major departure from Government policy, and what was said in Opposition is different from what is being said now in Government.
I do not know why the Deputy is trying to create a false impression in regard to these matters.
Ask Pádraig Flynn about his statements.
Our real concern in regard to Sellafield is safety precautions. It is important for us to have an adequate inspectorate system in place so that we can be satisfied that everything possible is being done to maintain the highest safety levels in the operation of these plants.
The emissions into the Irish Sea which were the subject of a lot of controversy until recent times, have dropped off dramatically in recent times and I am satisfied that the system whereby we have an arrangement with the British that they inform us of incidents is working satisfactorily. I have no reason at this point to feel dissatisfied with it. I will keep it under constant review. We have been getting information over and above what is required because we are mainly concerned about incidents of a radiological nature. We are getting information on a wide range of areas and have been for some time.
In view of the fact that the Minister raised with his British counterpart the decline in the number of incidents being reported, is he satisfied that the information he is receiving from the British side on an informal basis is in fact accurate? Second, has he made or does he intend to make any representation to the British authorities in connection with the proposed construction of a further new nuclear plant at Sellafield, as reported in today's newspapers?
Irish Governments have continuously made our position known to the British authorities. The Irish view is that the construction of nuclear stations in the mainland of Britain, particularly on their west coast, is of concern to us and we will continue to register our opposition to those proposals where they exist. I am satisfied, from the information available to me in the Department, that we have a good flow of information from the British authorities in regard to incidents. I would be happier if a stringent EC inspectorate system was in place so we would have the opportunity to check on the spot on some of the matters that are being reported to us. We have no reason, however, to doubt the British authorities' good faith in this matter so far.
You have to accept what they are saying because you cannot get your own act together.
I am calling Question No. 15.