13 June 2006

Environment

Ireland and the EURATOM Treaty

Ciarán Cuffe asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views on whether Ireland’s nuclear policy as presented by his Department’s submission (details supplied) to the British energy review is compatible with Ireland’s membership of and part-financing of EURATOM and if the credibility of that policy would be strengthened if Ireland withdrew from EURATOM. 

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. Roche): The recent submission by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to the British energy review consultation process affirms the Government’s position on general nuclear power and, in particular, UK nuclear policies.

The Government’s concerns over the current and future UK policy on nuclear energy relate to the potential impact on the environment and health of Irish citizens. In particular our issues relate to the Sellafield nuclear plant where there are ongoing safety concerns, the potential for a serious accident or incident and the ongoing radioactive discharges to the Irish Sea, all of which remain to be resolved.

The Government would have favoured an extensive review of the EURATOM treaty in the EU constitution discussions, leading to a significant updating of its provisions. It has made clear that this continues to be its position. It is important, however, not to lose sight that EURATOM does good work in health and safety areas. In the absence of consensus among member states to update the EURATOM treaty, the Government’s policy is to steer EURATOM’s activities towards nuclear safety and radiological protection. EURATOM is active in both areas. For example, EURATOM Directive 96/29 lays down basic safety standards for the protection of workers and members of the public from the dangers of ionizing radiation. It represents major legislation in radiological protection.

Membership of the EU obliges Ireland to make its contribution to the EU budget. There is no separate contribution from Ireland towards the budget of EURATOM. Accession to the European Union has been of such major benefit to Ireland that I do not see any public appetite to withdraw. Membership of the EU does not come with à la carte options.

Following the recent European Court of Justice decision regarding jurisdiction on the matter of the legal dispute between Ireland and the United Kingdom concerning the commissioning and operation of the MOX plant at Sellafield, I expect a more active and visible role by the Commission in this area. I have made it clear to three EU Commissioners — Stavros Dimas, Commissioner for Environment, Franco Frattini, Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security and Andris Piebalgs, Commissioner for Energy — that having taken Ireland to the European Court of Justice on the matter, I expect the Commission to show the same enthusiasm to pursue the UK on it.


Ciarán Cuffe: I take issue with the suggestion that we must go with the prix fixée menu. I believe we can eat à la carte. Other member states have requested that part of their contributions to the EU budget are not given to EURATOM. EURATOM receives €1 billion of the €100 billion annual EU budget. Much of that money is spent on researching the next generation of nuclear reactors. Ireland contributes €8 million every year to the EURATOM budget, spending more on it than it spends on the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and nuclear safety.

How then can the Minister look the UK Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, in the eye and tell him to shut the Sellafield plant when the Government spends millions of euro on EURATOM? How can the Minister take a case to the European Court of Justice regarding the MOX plant when the taxpayer is funding research into the next generation of nuclear reactors? Some reports presented to the Oireachtas Committee on the Environment and Local Government show that EURATOM is conducting research into gas-cooled fast reactor systems, lead-cooled fast reactor systems, molten salt reactor systems, sodium-cooled fast reactor systems, supercritical-water-cooled reactor systems and very high temperature reactor systems. EURATOM is not about nuclear safety but about pushing the nuclear energy agenda at a European level. Large amounts of EURATOM funding are going into making the next generation of nuclear reactors. How can the Minister claim he is doing everything he can to shut the Sellafield plant when taxpayers, through his intercession, are funding research into the nuclear industry to the tune of €8 million?


Mr. Roche: The hypotheses on which Deputy Cuffe bases his assertions is false. I suspect the Deputy knows just how false it is. No à la carte attitude can be adopted in the contribution to the EU budget. I could debate long and hard with Deputy Cuffe on my personal views on EURATOM. I did so during the course of the Convention on the Future of Europe. Ireland and Austria stood alone on that issue and towards the end of the convention, it was Ireland, Austria, Germany, Sweden and Hungary which pointed to the inadequacies of EURATOM and sought a review. It is false for the Deputy to suggest that any member state can hypothecate moneys it makes to the EU budget. There is no point in recreating that false premise. Every member state makes a contribution to the EU budget and it is used in a variety of ways.

If the Deputy were to ask me if I believe funding for EURATOM is the most prudent use of European taxpayers’ funds, I would say no because of its constitutional arrangement. If he asked me if it could be better spent, I would agree with him. However, it is simply untrue, deliberately misleading and mendacious to suggest that any member state government would have the opportunity to ring-fence its allocation to the EU budget.

The future of the EURATOM treaty must be debated. As a member of the Convention on the Future of Europe, one of my regrets was that it did not enter into that area. I forecasted accurately that citizens in Europe concerned with the issue, whether they lived in a nuclear-powered state, would take a view on it. Their concerns can be attributed — in a small part — to the difficulties into which the constitutional treaty got. The Government has no enthusiasm for the type of EURATOM activity described by the Deputy.

Ciarán Cuffe: All bets are off regarding the future of the European constitution. There is now a role for smaller member states to take the lead in suggesting their concerns regarding the constitution. Ireland has been surprisingly mute in its discussion of any aspiration to disengage from the EURATOM treaty. Europe Inc. spends more on research into nuclear energy resources than it does on renewables. The Government must stand tall and withdraw from the EURATOM treaty to ensure our taxpayers’ money is spent on renewable energy rather than on the next generation of nuclear power plants. I will repeat my question that was not answered. How can the Government take a court case to the European Court of Justice regarding the MOX plant in the UK when it is contributing millions of euro every year to the future of the nuclear industry?


Mr. Roche: The answer is simple. Taking court action against the UK is the appropriate course of action. We will deal with that when we come to Deputy Stagg’s question. I do not disagree with the Deputy on diverting funding from EURATOM activities to renewables. Some of our neighbours are even investing in cleaning up their nuclear messes. If the Deputy has any doubts on the Government’s view on nuclear energy, I suggest he dips into The Accidental Constitution, the definitive work on the EU constitution. From it he will see that Ireland did take some significant interest in that area.