asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he believes the British Government in their operation of the Sellafield plant are in breach of their international obligations, both in respect of pollution of the seas, and in respect of accountancy for nuclear materials to ensure no diversion to military purposes.

On the question of discharges into the sea from the Sellafield plant, I have no reason to believe that the United Kingdom is not carrying out its obligations under the relevant international agreement which is the Paris Convention of 1974 on the Prevention of Pollution from Land-Based Sources. There has been no suggestion to the contrary made by the Commission of this convention, which comprises the contracting States, that the UK is not in compliance with its obligations under the Convention. In addition, I understand that the British Government have recently given details to the Commission of planned measures to reduce further discharges from the Sellafield plant.

In regard to the second part of the Deputy's question, the United Kingdom is, of course, a nuclear weapon State and Sellafield is a mixed facility which reprocesses nuclear material for both civil and military purposes. The UK has, however, voluntarily concluded safeguard agreements with both EURATOM and the International Atomic Energy Agency covering civil nuclear materials processed at Sellafield. Neither of these bodies has detected any anomaly at Sellafield which would indicate the diversion of the safeguarded nuclear material from civil to military purposes.

Is the Minister aware of serious reports that plutonium used by Britain's civil nuclear power stations has been diverted to military uses and moreover that EURATOM and the IAEA inspectors have found that plutonium has passed from Britain to Israel? Will the Minister agree that such actions are in total conflict with international treaty obligations?

The United Kingdom have voluntarily concluded safeguard agreements with both EURATOM and the International Atomic Energy Agency covering civil nuclear materials processed at Sellafield. Neither of these bodies has detected any anomaly at Sellafield which would indicate the diversion of the safeguarded nuclear material from civil to military purposes.

Is the Minister aware that nuclear waste from Sellafield daily pumps up to one million gallons of radioactive waste into the Irish Sea and that ¼ tonne of plutonium, or enough in theory to kill 250 million people, has been discharged to date? Will the Minister agree that all discharges into the Irish Sea must be stopped?

I presume the Deputy is asking me if I accept that emissions from Sellafield are at an acceptable level and, of course, my answer to that is "no". Ireland's position on the question of discharges of radioactive waste into the marine environment is that such discharges should be reduced as quickly as possible to a level as low as is reasonably achievable — the so-called ALARA principle enunciated by the International Commission for Radiological Protection — and that they should be discontinued as soon as possible by using the best technology available. This has been made clear in international fora and has also been conveyed to the UK authorities on a number of occasions.

Accepting the stand of the Government on this issue of levels, will the Minister say when he expects action to be taken by the British authorities who have responsibility for Sellafield to reduce the levels being pumped into the Irish Sea on a daily basis? Is it likely to happen next year, in five years time or in ten years time?

I do not know the answer to that. All I can say is that the British Government recently gave details to the Commission of planned measures to reduce further discharges from the Sellafield plant. How long it will take to bring those measures into effect I will find out for the Deputy.

Had the Minister discussions with his opposite number in the UK Government on this important issue?

No, I have not had discussions but I am aware that the Minister for Energy and the Environment had discussions with their opposite numbers.

What were the results of those discussions?

If the Deputy puts down a question to the appropriate Minister he will get that information or, if the Deputy wishes, I will get the information and convey it to him.

As Foreign Minister the Minister is not aware of the result of those discussions?

No. I have not raised this with my opposite number in Britain because I was aware that the matter had been raised by other Ministers.