Vol. 496 No. 3
33 Mr. Currie asked the Minister for Public Enterprise the steps taken to oppose the decision by the United Kingdom Environment Agency to licence and commission a new nuclear plant at Sellafield; the further opposition planned; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [22718/98]
I regret the proposed decision of the UK Environment Agency concerning the commissioning and operation of the mixed oxide, MOX, fuel fabrication plant for Sellafield. However, it is important to recognise that UK Ministers have final decision-making powers relating to this matter. The agency has referred its proposed decision to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for their consideration as to whether they wish to direct the agency to make a different decision or to issue a further policy guidance to the agency.
During 1997 and 1998 my Department made two submissions to the UK Environment Agency detailing the Government's concerns about the proposed MOX plant. In the view of the Government, the claimed economic benefit of MOX production does not in any way outweigh the detriment to society in terms of increased risk to public health, the environment and security. Any extension of operations at Sellafield is totally unacceptable to the Government.
In light of the agency's proposed decision, I have written to the relevant UK Ministers reiterating the Government's opposition to the proposed MOX plant and requesting that they overrule the agency's proposed decision for the reasons outlined in my Department's two submissions on the MOX plant.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he sure that enough is being done to resolve this matter which is of acute concern to everyone on this island, particularly those who live near the east coast? He was reported in a newspaper as stating that we would not lie down under this issue and that we would do everything possible internationally to resolve it. Does he remember saying that? Those remarks underline the concern of everyone in this House. As every representative in the Northern Ireland Assembly, for example, is opposed to this decision and in view of the concerns expressed by people on this island, has the Minister taken any steps to co-ordinate opposition to this decision North and South?
During questions to the Taoiseach, much comment was made about the influence of the General Affairs Council. Why has the Minister not referred this matter to the General Affairs Council in view of his comments that he would do everything possible internationally to resolve it?
I agree with the Deputy that people are concerned about this issue. I confirm that I made the robust comments attributed to me and I will continue to make them.
That is just for the Irish media.
I assure the Deputy and all Members that this matter has been and will continue to be dealt with comprehensively. I have met and written to UK Ministers on numerous occasions. Two detailed submissions were sent to the UK Environment Agency emphasising the concerns of the people and of this and previous Governments about the installations at Sellafield and this proposed plant. They highlighted the fact that the plant would perpetuate the UK nuclear industry, particularly the UK fuel reprocessing industry, and that it would add to the multiplicity of operations at Sellafield, thereby increasing further the accident risk, which is the main concern of this Government and the people.
The use of MOX fuel will lead to more plutonium being produced and to further reprocessing of this fuel when spent. I have stated that plutonium is a dangerous substance and should not be seen or used as an energy asset. We have said that while the bulk of the plutonium for the plant will come from THORP, there is the possibility of supplies coming from overseas sources, thus increasing the security and safety risk associated with transport. The MOX operation will result in additional radioactive discharges into the Irish Sea. No waste management and disposal strategy has been identified in respect of plutonium contaminated material which will be generated from the plant. The economic case advanced for the MOX plant assumes the continuation and justification of reprocessing at THORP.
I ask the Minister not to speak for too long as the six minutes have elapsed.
It is an important subject and I want to impress upon this House and the people that the Government is dealing comprehensively with it and will continue to do so.
We now move on to Question No. 34.
Surely I can reply to the Minister?
I am sorry Deputy, but there were six minutes for that question. I allowed the Minister to go beyond the time to answer it. The Chair has no control over replies.
The Minister's reply was bluster.
It was fact.
It was bluster.
I call Question No. 34.
On a point of order, I thought the time for priority questions was over and that my question was being taken in ordinary time.
Question No. 33 was in priority time.
Does the last question not go into ordinary time?
It always did.
Yes, when priority questions took up all Question Time after questions to the Taoiseach.
I presume you are not making the rules up as you go along.
No. Standing Orders were amended to ensure that those who tabled questions in ordinary time would have a chance to have them answered.
No Minister should be allowed to get away with such bluster.
It is possible to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
I will find some way of dealing with it.
I would have liked to continue that debate with Deputy Currie because it is important. Deputy Yates made a denigrating comment about bluster; there is no bluster.
The situation at Sellafield is getting worse.
I assure the Deputy that I am on top of this brief and will continue to handle it. Unlike Deputy Yates, I have not lost my perspective. I know where I am on this subject. I do not think I am in a pub in Enniscorthy while purporting to be somewhere else.
There is no beef going to Russia now.
I love to do my business in a civilised and cordial fashion.
I am being ravaged by a dead sheep.
Please allow the Minister to answer Question No. 34 without interruption.
