Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996

Vol. 462 No. 5

Written Answers. - British Nuclear Industry.

Dan Wallace

Ceist:

55 Mr. D. Wallace asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications when in 1995 the issue of Irish public concern regarding the British nuclear industry was raised with the British authorities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2427/96]

Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications (Mr. Lowry)

This Government is committed to pursuing realistic and effective courses of action to convey to the British authorities the concerns of the Irish people about the British nuclear industry. Developments affecting nuclear safety have been a matter of major concern to me personally and has been one of my priorities for attention since taking office.

During 1995 there were a number of exchanges, both written and verbal, with the British authorities expressing the concerns of the Irish public, not only in relation to Sellafield, but also on many other aspects of the British nuclear industry. In particular, on different occasions I have voiced my concerns about specific incidents at nuclear plants and the safety aspects of the Sellafield, THORP and the Magnox plants, the privatisation of the UK nuclear industry and proposals for the establishment of a nuclear waste repository near Sellafield.

The Ireland-UK contact group on nuclear safety matters met on two occasions in 1995, in May and October, to discuss issues of public concern about Britain's nuclear industry. During the three months, September to November 1995, I wrote strong letters to the UK Minister for Energy, Mr. Tim Eggar, MP, and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. John Gummer, MP outlining in the strongest terms the very deep concerns of the Irish people about safety aspects of the British nuclear industry, including specific incidents that occurred throughout the year. In November 1995 I presented my statement of case to a planning inquiry in Cumbria which clearly set out my objections to a proposed underground nuclear waste repository in the Sellafield area.

Representations and exchanges of correspondence have continued into 1996. Notably, in January, I attended the public inquiry in Cumbria where I made an oral statement in which I vigorously opposed the granting of planning permission for the construction of a rock laboratory in the general Sellafield area. In February 1996 I met the British ambassador in my office to convey the Government's concern regarding the safety of the UK's nuclear industry and its potential hazards for the health and safety of the Irish people.

The Government is committed to continuing to convey the concerns of the Irish people about the British nuclear industry at every opportunity and in appropriate international fora.

Mary Harney

Ceist:

56 Miss Harney asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the proposals, if any, he has to indemnify STAD in respect of their costs of pursuing legal action against THORP, England; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4978/96]

Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications (Mr. Lowry)

In March, 1995 the High Court established the jurisdiction of the Irish courts to hear the substantive case brought by four Dundalk residents against British Nuclear Fuels in relation to the THORP reprocessing plant in Cumbria. This decision was welcomed by the Government. In January 1996 British Nuclear Fuels' appeal against the earlier High Court decision was heard by the Supreme Court, which has reserved its judgment.

Although Ireland and the Attorney General are named as co-defendants in the substantive case being taken by the Dundalk residents, the Government supported the Dundalk group in resisting British Nuclear Fuels' application to have the order allowing service of the summons out of the State set aside. In addition, my Department and a number of other Government Departments and State agencies are currently making available to the plaintiffs, on a voluntary basis, files and documentation relevant to the issues raised. This is another illustration of the Government's commitment to do all in its power to eliminate the threat posed by Sellafield and THORP.

There have been requests that the plaintiffs should be indemnified by the State in respect of their costs of pursuing the proceedings. The advice I have is that this request raises some substantial issues and, as I indicated in response to a parliamentary question on 12 October 1995, it is considered appropriate in the circumstances to await the outcome of the appeal taken by British Nuclear Fuels before reaching a decision, one way or the other, upon those requests. It is the intention of the Government to positively respond to the request if it is legally possible to do so.