Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 1 Jul 1993

Vol. 433 No. 3

Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing Plant.

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

8 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications if his attention has been drawn to the fact that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution have submitted a report on the statutory public consultation exercise on the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) at Sellafield which, it is understood, reaffirms the original draft authorisations proposed by HMIP; and if the Irish Government will be willing to challenge any decision to allow the commissioning of THORP before a fresh public inquiry is called by lodging a formal complaint with the International Court of Justice, in view of the fact that the Government demanded such an inquiry in their submission to the public consultation exercise.

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

21 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the reason for his view that Ireland does not have a sustainable legal case against Sellafield; and if he will seek advice from lawyers who have worked with Greenpeace and other environmental/antinuclear groups on this matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 21 together. The Deputies will be aware that I sent a detailed and wideranging submission to the UK Minister for the Environment and the UK Inspectorate of Pollution. This submission conveyed in the strongest possible terms the Government's total opposition to the continued operation of all nuclear activities carried out at Sellafield and to any expansion of these activities. In particular the submission expressed the Government's grave concerns about commissioning the proposed new THORP plant on the site and the proposed new levels of authorised discharges from Sellafield into the atmosphere and the Irish Sea and called for a full public inquiry to be held before any decision is taken to proceed.

On 28 June the UK Secretary of State for the Environment announced that, after consideration by him and the UK Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of the report of the Inspectorate of Pollution, it has been concluded that no points of substance have been raised that should cause them to reconsider the terms of the draft authorisations. However, because a number of submissions had raised questions as to the justification for the operation of THORP it has been decided to delay the commissioning of the plant until a further round of consultation to deal with the wider issues has been held. It is understood that this consultation will take place over ten weeks.

It is my intention to object in the strongest possible terms to the conclusions reached with regard to the draft discharge authorisations. In addition, while our original submission raised important questions on the basic justification for THORP, I will make a further submission to the UK authorities after consideration of any material made available as part of the further public consultation. Deputies can be assured that I will also continue to press the UK authorities to hold a full public inquiry on THORP.

While the Government has always been and continues to be committed to legal action against Sellafield if a sufficient case for it can be shown to exist, it cannot initiate such action without a firm legal case based on sufficient evidence. The Attorney General has advised that any such legal action would have to be based on scientific evidence as to the injurious effects of operations at the Sellafield plant on Ireland.

Furthermore there is no evidence to suggest that activities at the entire complex, including the proposed operation of the THORP plant, are or will be in breach of EC law and international conventions which would sustain a successful legal action.

The Government is open to information and evidence from any source to support a sustainable case regarding closure of Sellafield. It is not, however, prepared to proceed to legal action without a sustainable case.

In matters of law and legal opinion, the Attorney General alone is the Government's adviser.

There have been changes since the Government stated its objections and I thank the Minister for reminding the House of them. Question No. 21 relates to whether the Minister or the Attorney General has been in contact with the legal advisers of organisations, such as Greenpeace, because there appears to be a difference of opinion in regard to what is possible. Would the Minister indicate the outcome of any such meetings? Given that there is still a chance the THORP could be commissioned in spite of the Government's submissions would the Minister be prepared to take any action since the public inquiry demanded by the Government has not been forthcoming? Would the Minister consider withdrawing Irish taxpayers' money from contributions to EURATOM or rejecting the electricity link with Britain, a proportion of which would be nuclear powered?

The Deputy is raising quite a number of other matters.

The last few supplementaries are separate questions which would deserve a considered reply.

Regarding the other issues which the Deputy raised, the Government is available at all times to take submissions from any interested parties who feel they have a contribution to make towards strengthening the case for Ireland. That facility is available to every organisation. My Department is open to all submissions. Regarding the quality of evidence and whether it is sufficient to sustain a legal action, that is a matter on which the Attorney General will have sole legal opinion. That is the constitutional position. People in Greenpeace may contact my Department at any time regarding any submission, advice or assistance they may wish to provide in helping to collate evidence that may not be available already.

May I ask the Minister when he was informed about the decision to delay the commissioning of THORP or if he obtained that information from the public media, as did everyone else?

I would have obtained the information when it was first announced publicly.

Publicly.

Would the Minister accept that the issue of the safety of Sellafield is of major concern to Irish people, particularly those on the east coast? In view of stated Fianna Fáil policy that Sellafield should be closed, would the Minister indicate to the House if he will be pursuing this matter at EC Council meetings and will he seek to have an independent European inspectorate established with a view to determining the safety or otherwise of nuclear reactors, particularly the one at Sellafield?

The Deputy will be glad to know that it is not only Fianna Fáil policy to close Sellafield but it is the agreed policy to this House.

The Minister is in Government.

It was one of the few occasions during Private Members time when all Deputies were in agreement. Fianna Fáil were in Opposition at the time and were glad to assist in this regard. I wish to confirm that the issue was raised at last week's Council of Energy Ministers in Luxembourg in the context of assistance being given by the EC to render more safe nuclear stations in central and Eastern Europe as part of a programme that is being run by the Energy Council. I pointed out that it would greatly strengthen our standing in that regard with those countries if we were to use more widely Article 35 of the EURATOM Treaty to have an inspection of nuclear plants within the EC. That would encourage others, who are in a worse economic position and who depend on these stations, to upgrade those plants. It is an issue which is continually highlighted by my Department at these fora.

Was the issue of THORP and the recent developments outlined in the question raised at any of the meetings of the Anglo-Irish Conference? Has there been any contact between the Minister's Department and Greenpeace and their legal advisers? I appreciate the Minister is available, but have contacts been made?

As far as I am aware, Greenpeace was in touch with the Department prior to my coming into office in regard to the preparation of the Irish case on the THORP issue. I understand there is a good relationship between the Department and Greenpeace because a universal position is being adopted on this issue by Irish people, of whatever political or other persuasion. This facility continues to be available at all times.

As to whether these issues have arisen at meetings of the Anglo-Irish Conference, I will endeavour to determine that for the Deputy.

Barr
Roinn