Vol. 505 No. 1
14 Mr. Currie asked the Minister for Public Enterprise the consideration, if any, given to the proposal made on 15 April 1999 to the Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport involving decommissioning of nuclear facilities, an end to reprocessing, including Sellafield, and a programme of nuclear clean up described as the grand bargain; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13081/99]
I am aware of the proposals made by Dr. Gordon Thompson for a nuclear grand bargain. These proposals were previously referred to during a debate in the Seanad on 3 March 1999 in connection with a motion on nuclear fuel reprocessing in the course of which I outlined the Government's position.
Under the terms of the proposed bargain, France and Britain would agree to stop reprocessing and, with the involvement of other nations, would initiate a vigorous programme of nuclear clean up in Russia and elsewhere. Dr. Thompson suggested that smaller countries not directly involved, such as Ireland, could play an important role as facilitators of the bargain. The Government fully supports the suggestion that reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel should cease and be replaced by nuclear clean up activities. However, the approach to be adopted by Ireland needs to be realistic and based on our best assessment of what is likely to achieve success.
It does not necessarily follow that the nuclear reprocessing companies in Britain or France would abandon their reprocessing activities because of their participation in a major clean up programme. These companies are already involved in such clean up operations and may see further clean up operations as a useful commercial extension of their existing activities, including reprocessing.
The EU PHARE and TACIS programmes provide assistance to the central and eastern European countries and to the states of the former Soviet Union in the form of specific co-ordinated activities which are aimed at assisting with the closure of unsafe and aging Chernobyl-type reactors, the upgrading of other reactors to acceptable western standards, the improvement of radioactive waste management and assisting with clean up operations.
I am anxious that we pursue our nuclear safety objectives in a realistic fashion, taking account of our best judgment of the likely outcome of any diplomatic initiatives we adopt. Implicit in our approach is the Government's wish to see an end to reprocessing.
Additional InformationWe are also anxious to contribute in any way we can to the promotion of improved safety standards and environmental protection globally. Any initiatives to this end, such as the EU PHARE and TACIS programmes, are actively supported by the Government.
I had hoped the Minister of State would have said something useful. I am disappointed he was not allowed to finish his reply.
Would the Minister of State agree that, in addition to world stability and stability in Russia, this proposal would have certain advantages for Ireland in terms of ending the reprocessing at Sellafield, which has been our aim for a long time, reducing the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, particularly the risk of such weapons getting into the hands of terrorist organisations, bringing tangible benefits to our economy and giving opportunities to entrepreneurs? Would the Minister agree that we, as a neutral state, should give serious consideration to this proposal as it would be in line with our record on nuclear disarmament at the United Nations?
I agree. There are huge benefits for Ireland incorporated in this proposal which are in keeping with the aspirations of this and previous Governments. We have to be realistic about this. This is not a fairy story. We are dealing with companies which are involved, as I was for many years, in the harsh world of commerce. BNFL and its French counterpart are also involved in the corporate world and will do things for profit. Obviously that which is suggested would be beneficial and is in line with Government policy. The Government policy is to continue the campaign against Sellafield. We do that vigorously and at all times. I am happy to raise this matter with my counterparts abroad, whom I meet regularly.
I have asked the Energy Minister in the UK, Mr. John Battle, to come and speak to us on nuclear issues and specifically some relating to his own portfolio. He will come to Dublin on Friday next. I will certainly put to him that which is proposed here and will stress once again our aversion to reprocessing activities at Sellafield and our aspiration and demand that they be discontinued.
I am glad the Minister of State is showing considerable enthusiasm for this proposal. I hope he will push it extremely hard and, if so, he will be supported from this side. Will he agree that one way he might approach it in view of the practical problems he spoke about and which I accept, would be —
The time for Priority Questions has now expired. We must proceed to Question No. 15.
May I finish my sentence?
No. The time has expired. The Chair has no option but to operate the order of the Dáil which lays down six minutes for each question.
I imagine more flexibility should be shown. I was in the middle of a sentence.
The order of the Dáil does not provide for flexibility.
Everything depends on flexibility and judgment.
We proceed to Question No. 15.
That is ridiculous.
