Vol. 399 No. 5
3 Mr. Shatter asked the Minister for the Environment whether he intends, at the meeting of EC Environment Ministers to be held on 7 June, to raise our concerns regarding the transportation of nuclear waste from other EC States to Great Britain for reprocessing at the Sellafield plant; and the initiatives he has taken during this State's Presidency of the EC to bring our concerns about Sellafield to the attention of EC Ministers for the Environment.
76 Mrs. Owen asked the Minister for the Environment the action he has taken to express Ireland's deep concern, and particularly the concerns of the people living on the east coast of Ireland, with regard to the proposal by Sellafield to increase their reprocessing production; and if he will raise this crucial issue at the Environment Council meeting on 7 June 1990 and the Heads of State Summit meeting on 25 and 26 June 1990.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 76 together.
The Government have been consistent in their policy on Sellafield and have called many times for its closure, both at meetings with the relevant UK authorities and more generally. Nuclear safety matters are primarily the responsibility of the Minister for Energy at national level and, at Community level, come under the Energy Council and the Euratom Treaty rather than the Environment Council.
My colleague, the Minister for Energy, has raised the Sellafield question several times during his Presidency of the Energy Council, most recently at the Council meeting on 21 May. I refer the Deputies to the replies to Questions Nos. 8, 15, 22, 41, 42, 51, 64 and 70 of 24 May in which the Minister for Energy gave a comprehensive account of his efforts in this matter.
For my part, I have raised the issue of Sellafield nuclear safety and emissions generally at international level at every suitable opportunity, including two international conferences which I attended so far during my Presidency. At the Third North Sea Conference in the Hague on 7-8 March, I expressed my strong concern and that of the Government about radioactive waste disposal in the marine environment and called for the closure of the Sellafield plant. In Bergen on 14 May, at the conference on sustainable development, I pointed out the problems of nuclear waste disposal, of the decommissioning of old plant and the appalling consequences of accidents, and stressed that nuclear energy cannot legitimately be advanced as a solution to climate change at least until the problems I outlined have been resolved.
Will the Minister agree that the shipment or transport of nuclear waste is a matter that falls within the Minister's Environment brief? What direct discussions has he had with the West German authorities to ask them not to proceed to implement their agreement to transport nuclear waste that cannot be reprocessed in West Germany to Sellafield so that it can be reprocessed in Sellafield? What discussions has the Minister had directly with the Japanese Government about the shipment of nuclear waste through the Irish Sea to the Sellafield plant for reprocessing?
I agree with the Deputy that we are all concerned about this matter. Even though it is primarily the responsibility of the Minister for Energy, and it is the Energy Council who deal with all these matters, I have to point out that the Minister for Energy protested about this last year to both the UK and German Governments, especially to the German authorities as they had abandoned the completion of a reprocessing plant in Germany because of environmental concern. The transportation of spent fuels through the Irish Sea is a major cause for concern and the Deputy can rest assured I share his view on that.
Other than sharing people's views and engaging in the rhetoric of concern, throughout the course of the so-called Green Presidency the Minister has had not one direct contact by way of direct discussions on a Government to Government level with the West German Government to ask them not to transport nuclear waste to Sellafield, and there have been no direct discussions of any nature with the Japanese authorities to request that they bring to an end the transshipment of nuclear waste through the Irish Sea.
I appeal for brevity. Time is fast running out for Priority Questions.
I want the Deputy to understand one thing. I do not know whether he was in the Dáil on 24 May when my colleague dealt with this matter at some length, but the matters referred to so far as nuclear questions are concerned are for the Energy Council and the Minister for Energy has made our position known there. Over and above that, I recognise that environmental considerations are involved and I have taken the opportunity on a number of occasions, as the Deputy rightly said, at international level to bring to the notice of those countries that we have a concern. I went further than that——
Will the Minister raise it on 7 June?
It will not be appropriate on 7 June but there may very well be a meeting at international level here——
There will be a bilateral meeting with the West German Environment Minister on 7 June to raise our difficulties in this area. Will the Minister not agree that a club of Energy Ministers from Europe, most of whom are committed to atomic energy generation, have no concern for our worries in this area?
Two Members are standing. This is not in order.
They may not have a concern but I have. The agenda for the Council meeting of 7 June is already agreed——
And it is not on it.
——but there may very well be an opportunity at a subsequent international meeting which I have convened here in June where the matter may get an airing.
We must now proceed to other questions. Question No. 6 to the same Minister from Deputy Alan Dukes.
On a point of order, on many occasions I have been in this House when there have been other priority questions from other Deputies. While 15 minutes are allocated for priority questions you have, Sir, shown some indulgence on occasion and allowed an extra few minutes to complete priority questions. I ask you to show me the same indulgence——
I have done so, Deputy Shatter.
I would also point out that we did not start directly at 2.30 p.m.
I think the time may be noted in view of the Deputy's allegation. It is now three and a half minutes past the appropriate time.
You do not treat all Deputies equally.
I will take no abuse or insolence from the Deputy. He has shown a disdain in this regard persistently and I will not tolerate it.
