Vol. 611 No. 1
8 Mr. Wall asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he raised the privatisation of UK nuclear installations, including installations not being decommissioned, with Mr. Alan Johnson MP, UK Secretary of State, when he met him in October 2005. [36559/05]
15 Mr. Wall asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if the UK Secretary of State, Mr. Alan Johnson MP, indicated at their meeting on 19 October 2005 when the review of the THORP plant, following the serious incident in April 2005, will be completed. [36560/05]
107 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government further to the assurances he received at his meeting with UK Secretary of State, Mr. Alan Johnson MP, on 19 October 2005, his views on whether the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland should be given the fullest information on the assessment of the threat of a terrorist attack at Sellafield and other UK nuclear installations; and the way in which he intends to progress same. [36556/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 15 and 107 together.
I met the Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry, Mr. Alan Johnson, in London on 19 October. The primary focus of our meeting was a discussion on the incident at the THORP plant in Sellafield last April. I took the opportunity to widen the discussion and set out Ireland's views on other nuclear issues, including the possible commissioning of new nuclear power plants.
On the serious matter of the THORP leak, while the leak was contained and had no immediate implications for Ireland, I made clear to the Secretary of State the Government's grave concern over the occurrence and potential recurrence of such an incident. I underlined its particular concern that British Nuclear Fuels Limited's own report had found a culture of complacency at Sellafield which ultimately led to the accident. The Secretary of State confirmed to me that the UK Government is undertaking a review of the THORP plant with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which assumed responsibility for the Sellafield site in April 2005. While I welcomed this development, it is not yet clear when this review process will be completed.
I also sought assurances that the THORP plant will be closed by 2010, as scheduled based on current known contracts. I pressed the Secretary of State on the matter and am satisfied that assurances given in this matter are genuine and that that date will see the closure. I pressed him very firmly because I know Deputies are most anxious about the matter, particularly about the fact that the leak could delay the process. I am aware that the UK nuclear regulator, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, is investigating the THORP incident. Its report, when complete, should be published at the earliest opportunity.
I also raised the issue of security at Sellafield with the Secretary of State and we both noted the improved co-operation and information-sharing processes that the two Governments have put in place. These have come about as a result of the international legal actions which Ireland has pursued against the United Kingdom under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
While the UK Government has indicated it is under some constraint in regard to the provision of security information at Sellafield, within that context the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland has visited the plant and a report of that visit was published in April of this year. Further visits are planned. In addition, a liaison system with the Garda Síochána is also in place and those concerned visit Sellafield on a regular basis. The reports on these visits are confidential, by agreement of both Governments, but the UK Government has provided assurance that risk assessment is continuous and that the security arrangements at Sellafield are under continuous assessment and review.
I also took the opportunity to anticipate future UK energy policy considerations by informing the Secretary of State that if there are proposals to develop and commission new nuclear capacity, because of climate change or any other reason, Ireland would use every opportunity to put forward its view that, with such serious environmental and safety risks, the economic and environmental costs of nuclear power are unsustainable.
Earlier today, in a speech to the Confederation of British Industry, CBI, Prime Minister Blair announced a review of the United Kingdom's progress against the medium-term and long-term goals in the White Paper on Energy. This will specifically address the issue of new nuclear build in the UK. The intention following that review is to publish an energy policy statement in the summer of next year. I understand the UK Minister with responsibility for energy will undertake extensive public and stakeholder consultation in this regard. Ireland will engage fully and proactively in all stakeholder processes to oppose any such development and will take all measures necessary to protect the interests of its citizens.
I am not aware of any developing plans for privatisation in the nuclear industry in the United Kingdom. Obviously, if such plans emerged, Ireland would be opposed to them in principle. We would examine them closely and make our views known to the UK authorities.
The very long-winded response of the Minister is a far cry from "Roche launches nuclear war on Blair". His spin doctor obviously got a different hand regarding the matter than the one he is presenting to us. A large section of the nuclear industry in Britain has been privatised. At a recent meeting of the committee, it emerged that while the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority that has been set up is not directly responsible for that sector, it was aware there were intentions to further privatise the industry. Its own operation for decommissioning is partly privatised. Does the Minister agree that privatisation is a very dangerous road to go down given the importance of safety in the industry? Does he not agree that there is a real danger that privatised organisations will cut corners to make profit? The nature and make-up of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority are such that it is in that category.
I do not believe the Minister answered Question No. 15 although he told us a lot about the accident. Is there any hope or chance that the THORP plant will not reopen? Did the Minister raise this with his UK counterpart when he talked to him? We certainly raised it with the decommissioning agency but it was not its business. In fairness to the ambassador, he assisted somewhat but was not able to give a definitive reply, as ambassadors are wont to do. Will the Minister state what he found out about the plant starting up again? In this regard, I am not referring to the 2010 date.
I share Deputy Stagg's view exactly on privatisation in this industry. Given the litany of extraordinary behaviour, particularly in BNFL, over the years, we share a common concern on this issue. With regard to whether THORP will start up again, and it still has not yet re-started, my primary concern was that there would not be an extension beyond 2010 of either the contracts or THORP. I wanted to get an assurance that there would not be an excuse to go beyond 2010 and, second, I wanted to secure an assurance that there would be no new contracts. I pressed the Secretary of State time and again on the matter and I believe the assurances given by him were genuine. He reiterated the point a number of times. We did not discuss when it might re-open. My focus was on ensuring that it closes in 2010.
In a reply to my parliamentary question on 25 October, the Minister said that the Secretary of State had confirmed to him that the UK Government is undertaking a new review of the THORP plant with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which assumed responsibility for the Sellafield site and operations in April 2005, following this year's serious incident. Is that review completed? Has the Minister been informed when it might be completed?
I have not been informed of what stage the review has reached. At that time the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority was in its relatively early days. The issue I focused on was the closure date. I did not want any excuse to arise from the protracted period of its closure to be used to extend it beyond 2010.
The picture has changed since that meeting. The British Government now intends to build ten new nuclear power stations. Those stations will generate a significant amount of waste and there is only one place to reprocess it, which is Sellafield. Does the Minister not think there is greater urgency about this now? I acknowledge the Minister's bona fides on this matter but does he not believe we should be far more assertive, given the new situation, in pointing out strongly to the British Government that we are deeply unhappy with its proposed new agenda? It must have serious implications for this country. Where will the waste go? The British will not export it; they will send it to Sellafield. Where will the new plants be located? Will they be located on the coast facing this country? That is what concerns us. We must make it crystal clear that we will not accept it.
I agree we will have to make it clear. It is important that this debate in the House is heard. There is unanimity in the House that this is playing with fire. We are aware of the dangers of nuclear power and this nation is committed to remaining non-nuclear. I will continue to make that point in our contacts. We will also use the stakeholder process to put down our marker. The Deputy asked if the stations are likely to be on the Sellafield site. I mentioned that in the course of my meeting and got the distinct impression that there would not be a rebuild on the Sellafield site.
The key issue is where the waste will go. It will go to Sellafield.
They are closing THORP down by 2010. That is precisely the point we were making about the date for the closure. Our big concern about THORP was to ensure that it would be closed down by 2010. We will continue to press that issue.
There is a very definite proposal. It is not just an energy review. The British Government's energy review will report next summer and will look in detail at the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations. That is quite specific. Those stations will create waste and risk for Ireland. There will be no gain for Ireland. Has the Minister dealt with this in any way before it is a fait accompli? Perfidious Albion will do its usual thing and say it is reviewing but the decision is already made. The Minister should take it that the decision has been made and should deal with it as a decision. Will the Minister go in person to the stakeholders’ meeting and present Ireland’s case? I did it previously and I believe it was effective. The Minister should do that.
We raised the question of what would happen to the waste with the decommissioning group that came to visit us. The group said it was examining the geological option. That is the underground dump option for nuclear waste, which we fought previously. It creates a problem that lasts an eternity. It cannot ever be decommissioned. That is what is being considered again because it is the simplest thing to do. I ask the Minister to raise this issue in particular. That option would create a bone of contention between our countries on a permanent basis.
I had not thought of the strategy of attending the meeting. It is a good point and I will bear it in mind when we get closer to it. Prime Minister Blair's speech was at lunchtime today. I do not disagree with the Deputy. There is a determination in some parts of the British Government to push ahead with this. However, I get the feeling that there is not the same determination in other parts of that Government.
A new anti-nuke club.
It is strange how people have changed on this issue in that country. There does not appear to be the unanimity there might be on it. One does not know what would happen if there was a change in management. Let us hope for the best but prepare for the worst. In fact, I will take up the Deputy's suggestion and examine the option of attending the stakeholder consultation process.
9 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the UK Government has cancelled all it plans to run trials of electronic voting in advance of UK local elections in 2006; if, in view of this, he intends to abandon the electronic voting project altogether; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36644/05]
Governments in different jurisdictions, including the UK, will adopt varying approaches to electoral issues according to their own circumstances and priorities at any given time. For example, the UK operates a first past the post electoral system and it is not advocated in this House that the UK should be an exemplar for us in this regard.
The Government decision in February 2000 to move to electronic voting and counting in Ireland aimed at securing a broad range of identified benefits compared to the current manual arrangements, including more democratic outcomes through the minimisation of invalid votes and the more accurate counting of votes, provision of a higher level of service to the public, greater flexibility and speed in the voting and counting processes, and increased use of modern information and communications technologies. The decision followed extensive research on electronic voting systems and experiences in other countries and the trial conducted in Ireland about which, it will be recalled, the main Opposition party was most enthusiastic.
The Electoral (Amendment) Act 2004, which confirms the use of electronic voting and counting at Irish elections, maintains the mandate from the Government and the Oireachtas to work towards implementation of electronic voting and counting. Accordingly, a programme of further assessment, testing and validation of the electronic voting and counting system is under way to address issues raised by the Commission on Electronic Voting and demonstrate that the system operates reliably, securely and accurately. As part of this programme and following an open procurement process, my Department appointed consultants in July 2005 to undertake a security and risk assessment of all aspects of the system. This work is now well under way and will be completed as soon as possible.
It is a great relief to hear the Government has appointed consultants to examine the security of electronic voting and to conduct a risk assessment.
The confidence in our counting ability is such that the Deputy should breathe a sigh of relief.
It will reassure the country. The British Government sensibly decided to carry out tests of electronic voting before committing itself to using electronic voting in elections. The last tests were in 2003 and more trials were scheduled for 2004, but these were abandoned on the advice of the electoral commission. They have now abandoned the whole idea. Whatever the Minister may think of the British electoral system, the British Government has approached the issue of electronic voting more sensibly than the crowd of "electro-Paddies" which purchased machines software without testing them. What will the Minister do with the machines? He has stated that they will not be used in the next general election, so what is to become of them? Will the Minister find some place, such as Zimbabwe or Florida, which may need the assistance of these machines? The machines could be sold as a job lot and we could at least cut our losses. We would not have to pay the €750,000 cost of storing the machines every year. It is time to cut our losses on the botched electronic voting system.
I am familiar with the Deputy's views on the issue. With regard to the UK, 27 different pilot projects were carried out, with the forms of voting ranging from SMS text voting — I do not understand how that would work — to Internet, postal and electronic voting, which would be a similar process to our own. More recently, the focus in the last British general election was on the large-scale provision of postal voting. It is intended to continue their activities in this regard, although there was concern over security.
The UK Government has recently decided not to seek applications for local authorities to pilot the use of electronic voting systems. Electronic voting systems are used elsewhere and we piloted them here.
They are used in Florida.
There was a degree of enthusiasm when the idea was piloted here. If we all had the benefit of hindsight at the time——
If only the Minister had listened to me in the first place.
I do not wish to be disingenuous as I do not know what the Deputy stated at the time, but the Deputy would have demonstrated more prescience than other members of the Opposition. The Deputy asked if we will give the machines away, but that would not be a sensible suggestion.
We could sell them. Is there a market for electronic voting machines?
There would be a charge under the WEEE directive.
A charge would have to be paid if I sold them on. I am looking at the storage issue and I hope to resolve it as I am seeking to identify a storage location with my colleagues. It does not serve a purpose to have the machines in expensive storage on a decentralised basis. They will not be used in the 2007 elections, but I would not hold my breath after that time.
The problem with storage is the ambient temperature and other issues regarding the quality and capacity of the location. The machines cannot be placed in a bin or large space in a basement. Is it not important to now move on and get people out to vote? The numbers of people voting in general elections is reducing, particularly in urban areas. We need more polling stations near where people work or shop. Fewer people are voting now, in percentage terms, than was the case.
The Deputy is correct and we should facilitate people's voting. In the British debate on electronic and Internet voting in particular, a possibility that was thought attractive was that people vote in a booth in a supermarket.
They do not have Fianna Fáil over there.
Given our experience we should make haste slowly. I agree with the Deputy in that changing lifestyles have necessitated that voting be made easier. We should encourage people to vote and ensure we have a proper voting register.
Absolutely.
I intend to take three brief questions from Deputies Gilmore, McCormack, and Cuffe.
How much are the services of the consultants who have been appointed to check on the machines, see if they are affected by damp and ensure that nobody is trying to steal or copy the patents, which would cost the taxpayer on top of the other wasted funding for these machines?
I should be so lucky.
I welcome the Minister's assurance that the machines will not be used in 2007. That will probably see me out anyway. If he reads the minutes of the Oireachtas committees relating to environmental matters he will see I never had faith in these machines.
That is true.
Why is it costing more to store these machines in Waterford than anywhere else?
It is a vexing issue.
There has been no answer to my question. I have researched the figures.
Courtesy demands we wait until Deputy Cuffe asks his question. I will then answer all three questions.
My question concerns the storage of these damned machines. In March, the Minister assured us he was working with the Department of Defence to find centralised safe storage for these infernal machines. Has the Minister made any progress in this matter?
Yes, but for the reasons stated by Deputy O'Dowd one has to ensure that conditions are correct for the machines.
Deputy O'Dea will look after them.
Put them in Willie's care.
We do not wish to upset the machines. With regard to the point made by Deputy McCormack, who is always impatient for an answer, the cost was in the terms of the contract.
Why was this so?
The Minister should be allowed continue without interruption. We have gone well over time.
A contract was drawn up with the returning officer in Waterford——
The man who wanted the machines so badly is storing them in Waterford now.
The Deputy is making it——
He would not listen to anybody only himself.
The Minister, without interruption.
In that case he is a bit like the Deputy because he never listens to anybody either.
We will move on to Question No. 10.
I listen to the electorate, otherwise I would not be here, no more than the Minister would if he did not listen to them.
I suggest that the Deputy examine what his party did in Meath in putting out a superb leaflet praising electronic voting.
Put your face on it.
Deputy Gilmore asked a specific question and I will communicate the figure to him.
The Minister should read the minutes of the committee meetings to find out who was against the issue.
I call Question No. 10.
The Minister is asleep.
10 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views on whether the distributors of free newspapers should be compelled to make arrangements for recollection and recycling of the paper. [36676/05]
Significant progress has been made in recent years in providing systems and facilities for the collection and recycling of waste. Households served with segregated collection of dry recyclables can recycle their old newspapers by depositing them in their recyclables wheelie bin. This service is being progressively rolled out, with over 560,000 households nationally — approximately 42% of all households in the State — already in receipt of such service.
EU Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste requires member states to achieve specified targets for the reduction of biodegradable waste consigned to landfill. A draft national biodegradable waste strategy setting out a range of integrated measures aimed at providing an effective basis for the achievement of the directive targets was published last year. The final strategy, which I hope to publish shortly, will include ambitious targets for the recycling of biodegradable waste, including newsprint. Further progress will be required in expanding the recycling infrastructure to meet these targets.
Discussions are ongoing between my Department and the newsprint industry with a view to developing a producer responsibility initiative for the recovery and recycling of newspapers and magazines. I am concerned that such an initiative should deal fully with all newspapers and magazines, irrespective of the manner in which they are marketed. I am also concerned that the proliferation of hand-outs such as freesheets and promotional leaflets should have regard to the implications for waste prevention and litter pollution.
The general point being made by Deputies Cuffe and Gogarty is that there has been a horrific proliferation of litter in and around the Luas and DART, and I agree with that. What has occurred recently is irresponsible, and I know the conventional newspaper industry shares my views on this. There is concern about what is happening. There were complaints from staff at Westland Row that the new free-sheets were blocking up litter bins and were deposited all over the road. Luas and Dublin Bus also made complaints in this regard. Producer responsibility is necessary from those distributing the free-sheets.
I am delighted that we are ad idem on the matter. I welcome the new entrants to the marketplace. We would always welcome new media such as Herald AM and Metro. However, the downside to their entry to the market is the flurry of paper that is, as the Minister stated, making DART carriages look like Wall Street after a ticker tape parade.
I do not want to single out one producer of waste over another. The principle is that if one supplies a product that must eventually be disposed of, one should pay some proportion of its disposal cost. I am delighted the Minister is in discussion with the industry. When will he regulate in this area and what kind of regulation does he envisage?
We are in discussions. I strongly believe that a partnership approach is the best way of dealing with this matter. Like the Deputy, I welcome the new entrants to the market and I very much welcome outlets for young journalists to make a mark.
I suggest that the producers of these free-sheets should identify the major dirt-spots and clean them up. There have been other producer initiatives, for example, in the fast food industry, where outlets clean a specific area. This could happen in the interim in this case. I will continue to work with the industry because there are a variety of ways to address the problem which is caused by a very unconventional form of newspaper litter. However, additional thought will be needed before we solve the problem. I share the Deputy's concerns.
That is a start. I thank the Minister.
I was surprised that this question was not answered by the Minister of State with responsibility for environmental protection, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe. I was interested to note his comments at the weekend opposing incineration. As this question relates to waste matters and as the Minister of State has not had an opportunity to contribute during Priority Questions today, will the Minister, Deputy Roche, inform the House whether the statement made by the Minister of State is now Government policy on incineration or does it only apply to Ringaskiddy?
To clarify, I did not make the statement.
First and foremost, Deputy Gilmore should read the very carefully worded statement made by the Minister of State, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe.
Did the Minister write it for him?
He was talking out of both sides of his mouth.
There was one message in Ringaskiddy and another in Ringsend.
The Deputy raises a question which has nothing to do with the original question. We will take no finger wagging or hypocrisy on this matter from the Deputy. He should look at the vacillations in his own statements.
Have I hit a sore spot?
Obviously.
It was tragic to see my good friend and fellow Wexford man, Deputy Howlin, having constructed a very good piece of progress on waste in this country, trying to wriggle out of it.
I did not wriggle out of anything.
We will not solve the problem of waste incineration by hypocritical posturing.
Except in Wicklow.
11 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he is still of the view that the limits on corporate political donations are too inflexible; if he will rule out making changes to the limits for donations before the next general election; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36634/05]
The present law relating to election expenditure and donations in Ireland was established in the Electoral Act 1997 and has since been amended on five occasions by means of the Electoral (Amendment) Acts 1998, 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2005. Under current provisions, political parties are allowed to accept a maximum aggregated donation of €6,348 from a single source in any given calendar year, while the limit for an individual public representative is €2,539. I am conscious that the current donation limits were set in 2001 and that over time inflation has eroded their value. There is, incidentally, scope to increase these limits by way of ministerial order having regard to changes in the consumer price index over the relevant period.
Having said that, I am of the view that expensive electoral campaigns do not necessarily add to the electoral or democratic process.
Hear, hear.
I thank the Deputy. Constituency contact in the period between elections and door-to-door canvassing at election time — the tried and tested way — are and should remain the essence of engagement with the electorate in our political system. They constitute the part of the political system that the people enjoy.
That must be what the focus groups are for. They tell the Minister which doors to knock on.
The Deputy should be careful when he refers to focus groups.
I must bring the Minister to Galway sometime. It is near where I come from. I will show him where the tent is.
The Minister stated that donation limits were too inflexible.
While all aspects of electoral law are under ongoing review, I have no proposals at this stage for changes to the donations limits.
The Minister has withdrawn his proposal. He was quoted in The Sunday Business Post on 15 May as stating that the present limits were:
. . . ‘too inflexible'. The minister indicated that he favoured a system strong on transparency, rather than one which concentrated on limiting the amounts given.
Is he now limiting the amounts to the increase in inflation and the cost of living?
The Deputy can take it that I meant precisely what I said. I have no intention at this time of changing the limits.
The Minister has changed his mind.
I have not changed my mind.
He has.
The Minister was against service development charges in Wicklow but supports them in the Dáil.
It is like the Irish Ferries dispute. The Minister has changed his mind.
I have not changed my mind.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
