Eoin Ryan
Ceist:31 Mr. E. Ryan asked the Minister for the Environment the reason for the failure of the Government Committee on Sellafield to meet once in the past year in view of the fact that he is Chairman of this committee. [17856/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Ministerial Group on Sellafield.
The Ministerial Group on Sellafield and the Irish Sea met on three occasions in 1995 and established the parameters for a comprehensive strategy to deal with all potential sources of radioactivity which could affect the Irish public and environment.
The functions and responsibilities of individual Ministers in relation to nuclear matters have not been altered in any way because of the existence of the committee. Ministers and Departments concerned continue to advance the measures for which they are responsible within the parameters established by the group and in consultation, as necessary, with other Ministers and Departments.
The ministerial group has played its part in bringing about the present situation whereby nuclear matters are receiving an unprecedented level of attention. To demonstrate this, I propose to mention a number of the specific measures and steps which have been taken.
The safety of the British nuclear industry generally and of Sellafield, the THORP reprocessing plant and magnox reactors, in particular, and the continuing threat they pose to the health and safety of Irish people and our environment is still a cause for concern. The Government is continuing to pursue its concerns in this regard with the UK authorities and has called for the early de-commissioning of magnox reactors which are now operating beyond their design life. As Minister for the Environment, I have availed of all opportunities to raise these concerns at bilateral, EU and wider international level. For its part, the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications has requested the European Commission to carry out inspections and verification of the radioactive monitoring facilities at magnox reactors in the UK under Article 35 of the EURATOM Treaty so as to ensure that they are in compliance with EU standards.
Ireland's concerns in relation to nuclear power and, in particular, the safety of the British nuclear industry and the reprocessing of, and transport and storage of nuclear materials was raised at the International Atomic Energy Agency's annual general conference held in Vienna last month. Ireland has urged that the entire question of reprocessing and management of surplus plutonium stocks should be examined urgently.
Ireland has opposed the proposed development of a rock characterisation facility at Sellafield, preliminary to the construction by NIREX of an underground nuclear waste storage facility. Last January, the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications made a submission on behalf of the Government to the public inquiry in the UK which is investigating the proposed facility. The submission outlined the Government's concerns and called on the inquiry to recommend against the NIREX proposal.
The possibilities for legal action against the Sellafield/THORP facilities are under consideration.
Still?
A judgement which may be significant in this regard is awaited from the Supreme Court. Consideration is also being given to the scope for action under the Paris Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from land-based sources and the more recent OSPAR Convention which Ireland will ratify this year. The Government remains committed to legal action against Sellafield if a sustainable case for it can be shown to exist based on sufficient evidence of environmental or public health impact.
The possibility of a review and update of the EURATOM Treaty so as to place greater emphasis on health, safety and environmental aspects is also being pursued. To this end, the Departments of Transport, Energy and Communications and Foreign Affairs, in consultation with the other Departments represented on the ministerial group, prepared a discussion document which has been submitted by the Irish delegation at the current Intergovernmental Conference for consideration in the context of the revised European Union Treaty.
An initiative has been taken by the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, within the International Maritime Organisation, seeking to strengthen the code of practice governing the carriage by sea of irradiated nuclear fuels. An Irish resolution seeking to have matters covered by the present code extended so as to cater for route planning, advance notification of shipments to coastal states, contingency arrangements in the event of emergencies and other appropriate considerations was accepted by the IMO and is being addressed by that organisation's Marine Safety and Marine Environmental Protection Committee.
Requests have been made to the Oslo-Paris Commissions and the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD to undertake a thorough technical review and assessment of both the reprocessing of non-reprocessing options for spent nuclear fuel management, as well as their impact on radioactive discharges into the marine environment. Work is well under way on these matters.
Ireland ratified the Nuclear Safety Convention in July 1996 and efforts have been made to have all members states of the EU and the International Atomic Energy Agency do so as soon as possible. In addition, Ireland has actively promoted a new global Convention on Nuclear Waste Management on which negotiations are proceeding in Vienna.
It is clear from the account I have given that relevant Ministers and their Departments are continuing to make significant progress on the basis of a comprehensive strategy established with the assistance of the ministerial group. While there are no particular difficulties or considerations arising at this time which would warrant an early meeting of the group, I constantly keep that suggestion under consideration.
We have 13 minutes to deal with these five Priority Questions. I want to facilitate all Deputies concerned so brevity in questioning would help.
And in the answers.
I do not see why the Minister set up the committee if it does not bother to meet. It seems to be against the whole trend of what we expected and of what the Government promised when it took office. Under the Programme for Government the Minister said this would be given priority. The Minister said he would set up a committee which would work tirelessly but if the committee is not meeting I do not know why he set it up.
I will explain it again.
Is there any further information concerning media reports that BNFL is looking for an increase of discharges from Sellafield? In his reply the Minister said the scope for action under the Paris Convention would be looked at. What scope for action? What is happening there?
Is it not time for the Government to back the four residents of Dundalk who are taking action? The Government should at least indemnify them for costs in case they run into difficulty. These are four private individuals and they should receive the Government's support to ensure they do not run into huge legal costs.
We have been waiting two years for the Attorney General to tell us whether there is a case. I know the Attorney General's office has received much bad publicity over the last few years but it seems extraordinary to have to wait two years for an opinion.
The committee was established by the Government on my initiative because much individual work needed to be co-ordinated so that everybody knew what was happening. The object of setting up the committee was to establish a work programme for the Government as a whole, not for the committee to undertake the job that is proper to each individual Department but to co-ordinate. We met primarily to draw up that action programme which is ready.
I have answered parliamentary questions about its contents previously and I will happily do so again. It is a matter for each individual Minister and agency to operate it. This is happening with constant reference back to me as chairman of the committee. I do not engage in meetings for the sake of it. Even in a disparaging way and with the most jaundiced of views, the Deputy will have to accept that my comprehensive response indicates a busy action programme and shows that the Government is taking every possible initiative——
There is much planning. The Minister should answer the questions.
——not only to voice our total opposition to the entire nuclear industry in the United Kingdom but, much more important, to advance our case in every international forum available to us.
Under the current Intergovernmental Conference process we are looking for a EURATOM Treaty amendment. I have been directly involved in some of the negotiations, and widespread support is not forthcoming from many of our EU partners. This cannot be done unilaterally but at every opportunity every member of the Government says the same thing: that we want much more stringent standards and monitoring and, in particular, the older and out-of-date magnox reactors in the United Kingdom closed down.
The Deputy asked a number of specific questions. We will oppose to the best of our ability any additional discharges from any nuclear facility in the United Kingdom. Any legal avenue open to us to voice our opposition will be taken.
On the Dundalk case, in January the Supreme Court reserved judgment. We await its decision. I have no control over its timing but, as the Deputy knows, there have been informal discussions between counsel for the State and counsel for the people directly involved. We have put no impediment in their way in advancing their case.
On the role of the Attorney General in crystallising a case for the State we need empirical data which stands up.
I know that.
When Minister for Health, I established for the first time a national cancer register with the result that there are now data available, for example, on the incidence of cancer and cancer clusters. It takes time to compile convincing epidemiological evidence. I have also had bilateral discussions with my colleague in Northern Ireland on conducting a study——
Is the Minister having a full study conducted?
One needs to conduct an epidemiological survey of the entire country to make comparisons. One cannot say that the incidence of cancer on the east coast or in Louth is high unless one can make comparisons. One needs sufficient time to do this.
I would welcome any suggestions the Deputy may have in relation to other action the Government could take. This is a national endeavour on which all parties agree we must work. I regard it as a priority.