Deputy Kelly is in possession and has ten minutes left.
Private Members' Business. - Energy Policy: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy B. Desmond on Tuesday, 21 February 1978:
That Dáil Éireann, recognising the prospect of a serious gap in our future energy resources, aware of the need to acquaint itself with up-to-date knowledge of the economic, technical and environmental issues associated with nuclear and other sources of energy and in view of its need to determine an appropriate energy policy for the country in the future, deems it expedient:
(1) That a Select Committee consisting of 12 members of Dáil Éireann be appointed to be joined with a Select Committee appointed by Seanad Éireann to form the Joint Committee on any proposal to construct a nuclear power station in Ireland, to examine such proposals and programmes and to report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas;
(2) That the Joint Committee shall be empowered to print and publish such reports, proceedings and submissions together with such related documents as it thinks fit; and
(3) That the Joint Committee shall be empowered to hold public hearings and commission expert evidence on such proposals, including national energy resources and alternative sources of energy supply to the nation.
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" in line 1 and substitute the following:—
"has full confidence in the Government to determine an appropriate energy policy for the country, having regard in particular, to the necessity, because of the long lead times involved, for the taking of urgent decisions on the ESB's generation plant programme to meet the expected demand for electricity throughout the 1980's, and the necessity to diversify as far as possible energy sources while at the same time, giving adequate consideration to health, safety and environmental issues associated with nuclear and other sources of energy"
—(Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy.)
I briefly outlined yesterday the attitude of the Fine Gael Party towards the Labour Party motion calling for an inquiry. I explained the reasons that were uppermost in our minds and in particular that we were not all that concerned as to the safety and environmental aspects because we have faith in the people who are charged with this area of our life. We were concerned with not making an immense investment without being certain that no other options were open to us. We urged, and again urge this evening, that the Minister should hold a public inquiry. It should not be a problem to think of a proper structure for this inquiry. I would remind the Minister that in an interview in The Cork Examiner on 18 January the chief executive of the ESB stated that not only would he welcome such a public inquiry but that he thought such an inquiry was inevitable. He was prepared and willing to have an inquiry which the Minister is now denying us.
The Minister refers the public to the ESB. The ESB have made up their minds, and to refer us to the ESB for the purpose of debate is not giving an opportunity for a debate at all because the ESB have already made up their minds. It would be a debate only in the sense that the Bill in respect of ground rents means the abolition of ground rents. If that provides for the abolition of ground rents, then a debate with the ESB on whether we ought to have a nuclear station would be a debate.
The body with the statutory duty to inform the public and to advise them and the Government in regard to nuclear matters are the Nuclear Energy Board, but that board have kept a remarkably low profile since this issue was raised. That board are supposed to disseminate information to the public on nuclear matters. Have that board spent 6p, have they been let spend 6p by the Minister, since they were appointed? As far as I know they have not spent any money doing what is supposed to be their job. Assuming that they are impartial, they are the body that should be conducting this inquiry and it is by that board that the public should be directed.
I want to draw attention to a further advantage that delay would have in this matter. I do not advocate excessive delay, but I suggest a year or 18 months during which a proper inquiry can be held, in which people who are technically qualified but not fanatically committed one way or the other can give reasoned judgment which the public and Members of the House can accept. An additional reason why delay would be positively beneficial is that if we had an 18-month moratorium it would imply two further seasons of seabed exploration which might give us a chance to see if we could strike it lucky. If we did, it would transform the energy picture—if there were further substantial oil and gas strikes, particularly oil. I am not saying it would necessarily make nuclear development superfluous for all time but it would transform the situation, because the basis of the argument which the Minister put up here last night is that we are over-dependent on imported oil, a point of view with which I entirely agree. However, that situation would be entirely transformed if we were lucky in our seabed explorations, and a delay of a year or 18 months would give us two full exploration seasons which would be an advantage.
The present situation has several bad features about it which I am afraid are only to be expected from a Minister who is a by-word for finding a disagreeable way to do things if it is possible to find such a way. He is a by-word for petulance, for making a debate personal and for bringing into it a sneering tone if he possibly can. He is the wrong Minister to be in charge of a matter like this. He is going about it characteristically in the wrong way, and that could be seen here last night. Deputy Desmond spoke for 40 minutes—I heard every word of what he said. It was a temperate and in no way politically partisan speech. He did not attack the Minister. He ladled out some bouquets to the Government and he said some critical things about the Government which he himself had served. But the Minister got up and instantly referred to Deputy Desmond's tongue being in his cheek. In his third or fourth sentence he spoke about the way the voting had gone on the Contraceptives Bill.
That is not the kind of tone to adopt in a matter like this. This has not been up to now a party political matter but it will become that very quickly if we get that sneering tone from the Minister. He went on to sneer at environmentalists. I have said that the main concern I have is not so much environment or health oriented as economic—should we think of an investment with a limited life of 30 years? However, we recognise that environmentalists and people concerned about health hazards are sincere and genuine and that they deserve better than to be sneered at. The tone of voice in which the Minister referred to the Friends of the Earth and the distinguished recipient of the Lenin Peace Prize in one breath will leave them in no doubt as to what he thinks about their contribution to this debate. It is an unworthy tone for a Minister to adopt in regard to a matter of this kind.
The Minister also spoke about what he called facile suggestions about wind, waves and biomass energy sources. For his information, these "facile suggestions" are receiving serious attention from the EEC Commission. Money is being spent on investigating these technologies and we are getting some of that EEC money. Some of that money is being put into development here of mixed biomass and wind power to see if that will provide a usable quantity of energy. At the very dawn of this technology, for a Minister to be describing it as facile is risking putting him in the same category as those who said that the Shannon Scheme was a white elephant. I see the Minister arriving in the House now. I would willingly have delayed these remarks but because I was short of time I could not wait for his arrival.
Ten days ago it was reported that the Minister had refused to receive a deputation from Wexford County Council in relation to Carnsore Point. I know Deputy O'Malley is not the Minister in charge of planning, but he is involved with energy and it is unseemly and wrong of him to take this line with people who are officially charged and who have an official function in regard to the people of the area in which this development is envisaged.
I am glad Deputy Burke, the Minister of State, is over there because I wish to give a further indication of the level at which this thing is being treated, the lack of seriousness with which it is being treated by the Minister and the Minister of State. Last week or the week before, Deputy Burke replied to some questions on behalf of the Minister, who was abroad. He stonewalled on this question of a public inquiry. He persisted in pretending to the House that the only kind of inquiry which could possibly go on, one which he thought was quite adequate, is a planning inquiry. There is an enormous difference between a planning inquiry and one into the right and wrongs of nuclear development. If Wexford County Council, or An Bord Pleanála on appeal, were to decide this pure planning question on large issues of national policy in regard to whether we should have nuclear energy, they would be ultra vires. They have no legal power or authority to make a decision of that kind on those criteria. They can only make decisions of a planning kind on planning criteria.
These things make me profoundly unhappy and uneasy, particularly the frame of mind which the Minister is bringing to bear on this matter. He is making it into a political matter when there is no need for it. He is giving it a tone and an atmosphere which it does not deserve. I strongly urge him to accept the motion and not to continue with this pretence and charade that the ESB can conduct a debate on a matter on which they have already made up their minds.
I appreciate that the motion and the amendment are couched in broad terms, not associated with any particular area in the country, but as a Deputy who has represented Wexford for three decades it will be realised that I have a special interest in this matter in that Carnsore Point has been more or less the designated area for the establishment of a nuclear energy station. Although the proposed site of the station is in County Wexford, needless to remark I would be concerned also if the site were in any other part of the country. I am concerned about the Carnsore area, about the people who live there, about their general well-being, having represented them here for such a long time. It is generally agreed by Members of the House that there is a need for a new form of energy. We are informed that our requirements in energy will be doubled within the next eight years if we are to provide for the industrial, agricultural and domestic needs of our people.
The differences of opinion centre around the type of energy to be provided, the safeguards, cost and other factors involved. However, we are limited in the main sources. It is recognised that oil will be scarce and dear by 1985. I do not know if anybody would contest that assertion but all the signs point to a scarcity of oil and a steep increase in price. Oil will be very expensive unless we are fortunate enough to discover some of our own.
It has been suggested here that coal-fired stations be used to produce energy but we will have to import coal and if oil becomes scarce and dear the same will happen with coal. I know people have other ideas as to how we might produce energy but it appears to me that nuclear energy could provide the volume of energy that will be required here in a relatively short period. It is a sure source of supply and does not necessitate an increase in imports of oil or coal. To some extent turf can be written off for the purposes of the type of energy we are discussing.
There is an undoubted case for nuclear energy, having regard to cost, availability and the general economics of such a venture. Last night there was mention of hundreds of millions of pounds. I have no figure to quote for the cost of erection of a nuclear power station. Deputy Kelly suggested the cost would be £350 million while Deputy Desmond mentioned a figure of £500 million. Although I am no expert on the matter, I reckon it would be good value. An energy station would last for about 30 years and that would be an investment of an average of £10 million per year. If this kind of investment is not put into the production of nuclear energy we will have to put up with the consequences.
I know we must look further than the provision of jobs. It was said either in the debate here last night or during the weekend that the construction of the station would provide approximately 2,000 jobs and that there would be a permanent staff at the station of some 400 or 500 people. That is very attractive for any constituency. I would welcome with open arms the creation of 2,000 jobs in my constituency or in any part of the country as well as the prospect of permanent jobs for hundreds of people. However, that would not, and should not, be the reason why I would opt for the establishment of such a station in one part or another of the country. Despite the attractiveness of the promise of jobs, my primary concern and the concern of all should be for the environment and for the safety of life, whether human or animal. It is clear there is no controversy about the fact that extra energy is required to create new jobs—I am not referring to the construction work or to the operation of the station—and also to maintain existing jobs. It is of vital importance that we arrive at a decision as to the best and safest method of producing more energy in the next seven or eight years. Therefore, the question is the safety aspect of such a station.
The fears of some people are understandable. Last night the Minister referred to the "flat earthers". Not all of the people involved could be so described. Even in my constituency there are people who have fears and if the station is established their fears must be dispelled. These people should not be written off merely as cranks or flat earthers. Many of them are genuinely concerned.
The greatest concern lies with members of Wexford County Council. They have an important role to play in this matter. It is regrettable, as Deputy Kelly has said, that the Minister for the Environment refused to meet the county council. I think he referred to the Minister for the Environment?
No. It was reported that the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy refused to meet them.
I beg the Minister's pardon. If it was the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy he should have had the courtesy to meet them. They have an important role to play. They will have to decide whether planning permission will be given for this venture. This has been on their plate for quite a long time. In 1974 there was an announcement from the ESB that a nuclear power station was to be erected at Carnsore Point and they applied for planning permission to the Wexford County Council. That application specified a reactor, either an American-type pressurised or boiling light water reactor or a Canadian heavy water reactor. The application has not yet been adjudicated on by the Wexford County Council.
Because they were concerned and because they did not think they had full knowledge of all the facts members of the council and officials visited Brussels in order to get further information to help them make up their minds when the planning permission came before them. It appears to me from their last visit that their minds are not made up as yet. All the information available should be furnished to them.
If it is suggested by the county council, I would ask the Minister to ensure that there is a public hearing on the planning application. At that hearing all sides should be allowed to present their case. I know the Minister has no time in this debate, but perhaps he would let us know whether there would be an appeal by the ESB against a decision of Wexford County Council if they turn down the application from the ESB.
At the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis the Minister seemed to suggest that while Wexford did not want it many other places would be delighted to take it. I do not know if that is right or wrong. Apart from the function of the Wexford County Council in this matter in my view there was an important development some years ago. This development was concerned with the Wexford creamery and the Wexford milk producers. They were concerned at the proposal to establish the nuclear power station at Carnsore Point and they expressed this concern to An Foras Talúntais.
They stressed in their submission to An Foras Talúntais the risks affecting agriculture, milk and milk products in particular. They asked that studies be made. After several meetings with senior staff of An Foras Talúntais, the ESB, the Wexford creameries and the Wexford milk producers it was agreed that the research centre at Johnstown Castle, which houses An Foras Talúntais, would undertake an independent study of the proposal. We must all be aware of the special concern of An Foras Talúntais for agriculture in that particular area, not just because their headquarters are located at Johnstown
Castle, which is about three or four miles away from Wexford town and ten or 11 miles away from Carnsore Point.
This study took place over a number of years. A report was presented by An Foras Talúntais to the Wexford creamery and the milk producers. I would like to emphasise that this was not a local study of the problem and the work was no amateur effort. This study group consulted with and got information from various experts in Britain, some of the European countries, the United States of America and those who are experts in Ireland. Those whom I have mentioned had experience of the operations of nuclear power stations and knew the effects of them.
I do not know if many people are aware of the existence of a copy of this particular report, to which I refer. In case anybody might think it was a local investigation or a local study that was carried out I would like to give the names of the people who were consulted and gave information in that study. They were: The Director, Meteorological Service, Dublin, the Director, Central Statistics Office, Dublin, Staff of the Nuclear Energy Board, Dublin, Staff of the Project Department, ESB, Dublin, Dr. I. McCauley, Trinity College, Dublin, Dr. N. Mitchell and staff of the Fisheries Laboratory, Lowestoft, Mr. N. Villeneuvre, Canadian Embassy, Dublin, Dr. J. Carr, Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London, Dr. R. Bruce, Letcombe Laboratory, Wantage, Berks, Mr. J. Kirkbride and others at Windscale Works, Cumberland, Dr. R. Kirshmann, SEK/CEN, Mol, Belgium, Mr. F. Luykz, EEC Health and Safety Directorate, Luxembourg, Members of the Swedish Farmers Federation/ Milleu Group, Mr. D. Morgan, Mr. J. Shrove and Mr. D. Gander of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, Britain, Mr. H. Waterson of the Advisory and Development Service, Scotland. Many other people were visited and interviewed as well. In this particular study farmers in the vicinity of places where there were nuclear power stations, such as Windscale, Hinkley Point and Berkeley and Hunterston, were visited. I merely mention that to illustrate to the House that this particular study is a valuable document. I doubt if many Members have read it, possibly because they would not be as interested and concerned as some of us, particularly those who live in the particular area.
This study was conducted over a period of four years. Their conclusions are embodied in this report which is entitled Nuclear Power Station at Carnsore Point, The Agricultural Implications, published by An Foras Talúntais. I would like to read it into the Official Report, but there is no necessity for it because I am sure it is available from An Foras Talúntais or possibly is available in the Library. Despite that there are some passages which I believe should be quoted. Most of those passages are included in the summary at the beginning of the booklet. I would like to congratulate that study group for the manner in which they tackled their job, how positive they were in their suggestions and opinions and also how objective they were. They were charged with inquiring into the environmental consequences of a nuclear power station at Carne. They examined it under two headings. This is what they had to say:
The environmental consequences of a nuclear power station were examined under two headings: normal running conditions, and major and minor accidents. Under normal conditions the radiological consequences of the proposed station we felt to be negligible. Occasionally radioactive substances would be released through the atmosphere and the sea. However these releases would have no effect on agriculture or man because the amounts would be very small, the releases would be monitored and rigidly controlled by law, the material would be rapidly dispersed by atmospheric and marine turbulence and because the only radioactive substances released to the atmosphere in significant quantities would be chemically inert gases which do not combine with or form part of the food eaten by man or animal.
I stress "man" because some people might say that this was a study done to try to discover what effect the nuclear station would have on animal life or agriculture in general. It says here "no effect on man".
They were also asked to consider the environmental consequences involving major or minor accidents and had this to say :
The probability of a serious accident leading to a large release of radioactivity was deduced from authoritative US and British sources. The most likely accidents involving damage to the nuclear reactor and melting of its core would probably have little direct consequences outside the boundary fence. More serious accidents with large-scale radioactivity releases to the atmosphere are less likely; the average likelihood of an accident involving loss of one life, one acute illness, the temporary evacuation of one square mile or one million dollars of property damage to land outside the boundary fence of reactors located in the USA has been calculated as about once per fifty thousand years. For the reactor site at Carnsore Point, the risk is probably at least ten times less.
They also considered and made comments about the disposal of nuclear waste and had this to say:
The disposal of nuclear wastes was also examined. Low activity wastes would be encased in concrete or bitumen and stored in a suitable repository while highly-active spent fuel wastes containing a small percentage of plutonium would probably be stored by the reprocessing utility in Britian or France as part of a fuel supply/reprocessing contract.
Therefore, it can be said that we cannot be positive where these particular risks are concerned.
There is one very important aspect of which the Minister should take notice and that is the public relations aspect. On public relations An Foras Talúntais had this to say at page 46:
The probable licensing procedure for a nuclear power reactor in this country is outlined in chapter 9. The public relations campaign for Carnsore Point has already resulted in a considerable amount of information being given to the public in open discussion between the ESB and both community leaders and the local public in the Carne area at public meetings and even on national television. On several occasions senior officials of the ESB have publicly pledged to put all the facts before the public as decisions were being taken on the propriety of siting a power station at Carnsore Point and it is important that this be done.
I would go a little further. I think the information should be given to the public and those concerned before decisions are taken. In that way we would allay many of the fears that have been expressed.
At page 47 of the report it is stated:
It is important that if and when a power reactor begins operation in Ireland, the local community be consulted at regular meetings on plans for expansion and change, be informed about all major and minor accidents on schedule repairs and leakages of radio activity, be given independent results of radio activity monitoring of the environment around the plant and be kept informed of all matters pertinent to environmental safety and protection as affected by the power station.
If we were to accept what has been suggested in this document in the matter of public relations we could allay many of the fears that exist.
Last night the Minister spoke about the publication of a Green Paper on the production of energy in general. He also mentioned the White Paper. In that I presume we would have positive proposals about nuclear energy and I would suggest there should be a full and open public debate on all aspects of nuclear power including that contained in the Green Paper. I know there is a risk in this. I do not want to drag out this matter of public debate any longer than it should be. Public debates could go on for the next seven or eight years. As was pointed out, there have been many public debates but there are still people fearful of the consequences of the establishment of a station such as this at Carnsore Point. We will always have people who will have doubts. I am not saying we should take risks but, with the information from the ESB, from the Nuclear Energy Board and from this particular study I have just mentioned, we can all make up our minds. If that is not possible I suggest that in the near future there should be a full public debate. How, when, or where I cannot say but I merely ask the Minister to consider such a debate. I am pretty well satisfied with the information I have got but there are people in south Wexford who believe there is a potential grave danger. It is important to give them the fullest information because we do not want a conflict. There have been conflicts, physical conflicts, in other parts of the world. We do not want that. We want to do the right thing for the country as far as energy is concerned. It appears to me nuclear energy is the energy that should be developed. Let us convince the people it is desirable to go ahead with this development.
I support the amendment. In considering this question of nuclear energy the first question we have to ask is: Why more power? Why do we need this extra power? We all know we need growth in industry. We need our economy to expand and diversify. We need jobs for our young people and we want a future for our country. To do all this by providing energy for industry and an increasing number of homes we need extra supplies of electricity. The ESB have calculated they will need to more than double their output in seven to ten years if they are to meet the growth required in supplies of electricity. They have estimated a growth rate of 8.5 per cent per annum. This is a conservative estimate because some would regard the figure as being of the order of 10 per cent per annum. Looking at our current generating capacity we find it amounts to a total of 2,500 megawatts and the need in seven to ten years would amount to approximately 5,000 megawatts. The proposed nuclear generating station would provide approximately 25 per cent of present output or 12.5 per cent of the future level of output. There is a construction programme approved which will raise the capacity to 3,400 megawatts by 1985. This includes Kinsale gas and an extension of existing power stations. There is urgent necessity to raise the total to 5,000 megawatts or thereabouts. The gap is approximately 1,600 megawatts. One nuclear station would provide 650 leaving a balance of something in the region of 950 megawatts still to be provided. Consequently there would appear to be room for further development still, including coal, if that is found feasible.
I welcome the statement by the Minister that he is considering alternative projects in addition to a possible nuclear source of energy. I also welcome his statement that, having considered all options and all possibilities, having looked at the additional hydropower and all the other sources, and at the long-term effects of the various other contributory sources—redeemable sources, as they are called—the only new source that can make a significant contribution to our needs for some time to come is uranium and nuclear power generation. Our options therefore are somewhat limited because, apart from nuclear power, we can only fall back on traditional sources.
Deputy Kelly said his main concern was about the cost of nuclear energy. He referred to the cost as stupendous. Deputy Corish has indicated that these large figures in regard to capital investment when broken down into annual sums are not quite so vast as Deputy Kelly suggests.
In addition we must face the fact that nuclear energy would be our cheapest source of energy. We might refer to the comparative United Kingdom costs for energy. Here Deputy Kelly suggested that there were very few sources of information from the Nuclear Energy Board but I would refer him to one which is very interesting, illuminating, factual and comprehensive on the subject. It is a paper entitled Nuclear Power Implications and Issues by Mr. C. Cunningham, Chief Executive, Nuclear Energy Board. This was a paper delivered at the national energy conference in September 1977. That paper outlines very clearly the views of the Nuclear Energy Board on the various possibilities and options. It is an extremely readable paper for such a complicated technical subject. Of course it does point out that there are now some 150 power reactors in operation and approximately 300 ordered or in course of construction throughout the world. Not only are there 150 functioning but there are a great many more being built in different parts of the world.
One of the most interesting aspects of that paper is that it gives comparative costs for United Kingdom energy sources. This is very close to our situation and consequently these figures are particularly interesting. For coal it states that the cost would work out at 0.97 pence per kilowatt hour. For oil the figure is 1.09 pence per kilowatt hour and, for nuclear, 0.67 pence per kilowatt hour. On the figures given by the Nuclear Energy Board and gleaned from experience in the United Kingdom nuclear energy is 40 per cent cheaper than oil ex the generating stations. Of course, there are other factors which arise thereafter. Taking the energy source as delivered from the generating station and comparing coal, oil and nuclear, nuclear is 40 per cent cheaper than oil. Consequently, we must be interested in nuclear energy as a future source of energy.
This paper also mentions:
It is also worth noting here that the overall cost of nuclear power is much less sensitive to escalation in fuel cost since the fuel cost component for a nuclear station is only about one-third of the total cost of generation while it is about two-thirds of the total cost for a coal or oil fired station.
Consequently, one is in a much stronger position, from a long term point of view, if one invests in a nuclear energy station. This means a source of fuel which is cheaper for industry, which will help to make industry more competitive in the future and maintain competitiveness with other industries in Europe. It will enable us to maintain and sustain exports, lead to more jobs, particularly for school-leavers. It will also lead to a lower or maintenance of consumer prices. If we do not invest in low-cost energy sources we will be less competitive, and we must have higher consumer prices, or import all of our products from abroad.
This form of energy will also be cheaper for the housewife. It would lead to cheaper electricity. As we know already the cost of electricity has gone so high that ESB bills are causing a major problem in many homes in this country. One would not need to know very much in that direction to realise that many people's power is being cut off at present because of this inability to pay electricity costs and they are having to make arrangements to pay arrears by instalments and various other means. Unless we opt for cheaper energy we can expect that kind of situation not alone to continue but to worsen. Therefore future school-leavers and consumers will not thank us if we procrastinate on decisions such as this, the very technical and complicated one of nuclear energy.
I agree with Deputy Kelly when he said last evening that we must all be concerned about conservation. We must not delay on other measures of energy conservation and utilisation, or on making use of alternative renewable energy sources. For instance, in the case of conservation, we need improved insulation for new houses and indeed existing ones. We need new standards, more education and incentives in an endeavour to do something positive about the desired conservation of energy. We also need to examine such matters as district heating mentioned by Deputy Kelly. We need a commitment to implement a pilot scheme in a large new housing development in one of the growth areas. There are many such schemes on the continent.
We need also to pursue research vigorously. The biomass experiments being carried out here with EEC backing are one interesting example of a benefit we can reap from a new energy source. We need to keep in touch with the work being done on wind, sun and wave energy. As the Minister has said, these new kinds of energies—especially these renewable energy sources—are likely within the next 20 years or so to contribute a small proportion only of our total energy needs.
As Deputy Corish has said, the environment is a major factor and one with which we must all be concerned, whether it be close to Dublin, Wexford or on the west coast. Deputy Desmond expressed fears about safety and health and spoke about public fears in this respect. Deputy Kelly was not quite so concerned in that regard. He seemed reasonably happy with the measures proposed by the technical experts and was concerned mainly with the cost factor. That was a point he reiterated this evening.
In relation to the environment I was glad to note that Deputy Corish had complete knowledge of what has been going on. There is another copy of the document—Nuclear Power Station at Carnsore Point—over here and the Deputy has saved me making some references to it. I should like to congratulate Mr. Brian Coulter and the distinguished people who worked with him on the agricultural implications of this nuclear power station at Carnsore Point presented by An Foras Talúntais. As Deputy Corish said it is a very extensive, comprehensive and technical consideration of the factors involved. Deputy Corish gave us a number of the conclusions reached. One he did not give was the final paragraph in the summary which states very clearly:
Under these circumstances, and if the Nuclear Energy Board exercises its role in regulating the design, construction and operation of the power plant, the safety procedures and sabotage precautions, the monitoring and control of releases of radioactivity to the environment and the training and testing of station staff, then there should be no radiobiological consequences to the agricultural community from the proposed nuclear generating station.
This is a very comprehensive and explicit statement of the conclusions of this study, which was very comprehensive in itself.
I might also refer to Sir Brian Flower's report, the Sixth Report on Nuclear Power and the Environment, which refers to current levels of radiation in the UK and shows how low the nuclear power industry is in relation to a variety of other industries. The Minister gave these figures in his speech last night and I will not dwell on them again, but they indicate that the smallest of levels is coming from the nuclear power industry as it is run at present. I agree with Deputy Corish that the question of public relations is extremely important because although the information may be available in valuable books and reports people have to understand and be convinced about these matters. It is important to convey the details as clearly as possible.
Waste disposal must be a precondition of any arrangements that are made with the uranium suppliers. In relation to waste disposal it is quite possible that Britatin may even reprocess waste in some of their specialised generating stations.
Where?
I will come to that in a minute. The next item that arises is the question of safety. The Minister dealt fairly extensively with this and made reference to the USA and the Continent. If we look at Britain, we find that there are 11 standard nuclear generating stations in existence. In addition to that, there are four other fuel processing stations and these include the reprocessing stations. The total including atomic energy authority stations comes to 20. There are 20 such stations functioning across the water from us, beside Liverpool, Manchester and London. They are spread all over England. I would refer Deputies to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's—Sir Brian Flower is the chairman—Sixth Report on Nuclear Power and the Environment, September 1976. This report shows how extensive these power stations are in Britain, and it is interesting how many of them are on the west side of Britain nearest to us, and there does not seem to be any great difficulty with these at present.
The question of how many accidents are likely to occur has been raised. The Nuclear Energy Board paper to which I referred gave some interesting statistics in this respect. It pointed out that 500 people are killed each year on the roads, that is almost ten per week. That is the normal risk associated with driving. We are prepared to drive cars with the risk of 500 being killed each year. The Foras Talúntais report indicates that there is one fatal road accident every 15 hours, one rail accident every two months, one petroleum fire accident every six months, one fatal accident from lightning striking every nine months, one falling meteor accident every 100,000 years, and one nuclear accident at a location like Carnsore Point once in every 400,000 years. Consequently they conclude that there is negligible practical risk if the station is conducted properly.
Another important area is the strategic importance of nuclear energy. In relation to the stocks of nuclear energy, it is a fact that when fuelled the uranium which is used for fuelling will last for one year, consequently we would have that amount of stock on hands for a year ahead.
The diversification of energy sources is another aspect of strategic importance. We are currently 80 per cent dependent on oil while the ESB are 67 per cent dependent on oil. All Members of the House would agree that it is important not to be overdependent on oil as a source of energy. Another strategic aspect is the technology which comes with nuclear energy. As we can see, Britain is very far advanced in the technology of nuclear energy. We have a great deal to learn which will put us in a position to assess and be involved in future developments around the world, so that we will not be quite so far behind in that respect in relation to other countries.
There is one element which came up in the debate which is very important, that is the question of urgency. Deputy Kelly in his contribution to the debate urged the Minister to go easy for 12 to 18 months. The Deputy also said that Norway was building a coal station now, and that this is a new development which we ought to look at fairly closely to see what is in it for us. Deputy Kelly did not say that Norway has discovered immense coal reserves and that regular coal mining is expected to commence in 1982 at a rich coal deposit called Svea. The annual planned production of coal is at present one million tons at Svea, along with an unspecified cutback from the present 430,000 tons at Longyearbyen. At these production rates currently known coal deposits are estimated to last for 20 years, although the potential of the area could be as high as several hundred million tons of coal. Of course the Norwegians have to rely on coal. They have the supplies and resources and have discovered immense new coal reserves. For this reason Norway does not envisage being into nuclear power before 1990, because of their policy review timetable and the lead time for such stations to come on stream. Being into it in 1990 means starting in 1980. In the 1980s Norway will continue with the building of fossil fuel fired stations and finalise the development of hydro-electric stations, which of course with their mountainous areas and very strong water power are a major source of energy. Norway is richly endowed. Not alone have they very large hydropower resources but they have found oil in large quantities and now have found new probably very large coal deposits. We should not become too involved with waiting for 12 to 18 months to see what Norway is doing in relation to coal. Delay has been too great already. An Act was passed in 1971 establishing a Nuclear Energy Board; there was a decision in 1973 by the Coalition to go ahead with the nuclear station and, as has been pointed out, it was a decision in principle. Here again, in relation to urgency, I would refer Deputies to the statement of Deputy Peter Barry on 29 March 1977, at column 574 of volume 298 of the Official Report:
...there is the possibility of no energy, if the people in democracies who are now objecting to the establishment of nuclear energy stations get their way and these stations are not established.
Does the world grind to a halt while at the same time the Eastern bloc countries, who have not got the problems that democracies have, continue to build nuclear stations as they are doing now? Who tackles that problem? This is one of the most important questions tied to energy but in relation to democracy that faces the western world at the moment. There is no democracy, there is no European Community, no IDA, no OECD from the time of the removal of energy. We are not talking about the scarcity or the price of it but the removal of it.
Governments will have to be unpopular maybe or perhaps to fall and be willing to take the risk of paying that price knowing that what they are trying to do in their own country is providing a form of energy to fill this gap when the finite fossil fuels run out, and before fusion energy comes in.
Consequently, Deputy Barry was concerned that the matter be dealt with urgently. The question arises then of starting an inquiry now as is proposed by Deputy Desmond and supported by Fine Gael. I ask why we should start an inquiry now? Let us look at the facts. First, we have a comprehensive report from An Foras Talúntais. This was referred to by Deputy Corish. Secondly there is Britain's comprehensive report—the Flower Report—and there is also their deep experience in this area. Thirdly, we have the Nuclear Energy Board. I have referred to the paper by their chief executive. We know that this board is acting and will continue to act as a watch dog. Fourthly, we know that the ESB began training people for such a project in 1968 and, fifthly, we know that in this regard there would be a Cabinet decision that would include the decisions of the Ministers for the Environment, for Industry, Commerce and Energy, of the Minister responsible for consumer affairs, and of the Minister for Health.
The Coalition reached a decision in principle but did not proceed to act on that decision. I have every confidence in this Cabinet and I welcome the Minister's announcement that the Government will take a decision shortly on whether to reaffirm in principle the 1973 decision to go ahead with a nuclear generation station.
I support the amendment in the name of the Minister.
It is important to bear in mind that the question before us is not that of the country going nuclear but of the process by which the various matters should be considered. I find it surprising that an ostensibly democratic party would oppose this proposal, which is essentially aimed at trying to ensure that every last vestige of comment and interest is examined fully and that everybody concerned is given the opportunity of putting his views on record before a final decision is reached. Any suggestion that the need for full discussion should not be met is unhealthy, would lead to grave reservations on the part of many people and would perhaps cause more disquiet than, say, the Minister intends causing.
The first regrettable aspect of this question is that the decision which in the words of one of the Ministers of State is imminent, is being made outside the context of a clear comprehensive statement by the Government on our energy needs for the future, whether that statement be in the form of a Green Paper or a White Paper. There is reasonable evidence to indicate that the arguments are being accepted rather glibly by the Minister regarding the necessity for a nuclear station or for it to be located in the area proposed.
The energy projections on which, apparently, the decision is based, imply a basic lack of wisdom. Energy needs do not inevitably and inextricably continue to increase at the same rate, that is, at a rate of from 8 to 10 per cent. There will be a tapering off in that regard. There is reason to believe that the arguments put forward in favour of this projected growth rate were based on one year's sale of electricity by the ESB. That would be a most unsatisfactory base on which to determine the projections.
The second point is that we have the Shephard Report on the present and projected financial position of the Northern Ireland electricity service. That was supported by the ESB and showed to be without foundation the growth rate as argued by the authority in that case. The ESB lent their weight to this case.
As the previous speaker has pointed out, much more consideration and research is needed in the field of domestic and local means of energy creation. I shall not go into those now except to say that there are local resources which have not been either examined or exploited fully. The whole question of fossil fuels, for instance, and of other energy sources has not been tapped or examined fully. If such examination had been carried out. I would be much happier about the decision we are talking about.
Perhaps the basic question that causes concern is the nature of this decision and particularly the safety aspects appertaining to it. The basic fuel involved is uranium, the safety, military and economic implications of which are very serious. I am sure the House is aware that extensive uranium mining is in progress on this island. To date, though, there is no indication of the progress of this mining with the exception of a statement from the EEC Commissioner, Mr. Richard Burke, who indicated that uranium prospecting in Ireland has produced promising results. As soon as he said this, Mr. P. J. O'Connor, head of the national uranium reconnaissance unit in the Geological Survey Office, confirmed that although no uranium deposits were found there had been uranium showings in various parts of the country. It is important that all aspects of this matter be taken into consideration. Substantial amounts of EEC money are being spent in the pursuit of this exploration.
There are serious implications, too, in regard to our neutrality. The Euratom Treaty to which we are cosignatories would put us in a relatively weak position regarding the control of uranium mined here. As a supplier to NATO we might find that in the event of a fairly substantial repository of uranium being found, the Euratom Treaty bound us to part with this. In other words we might find that uranium mined here would be used for warfare in other countries. That is something that I am sure nobody here would like to see happening. Consequently, we must think of some safeguards in this area.
It has been argued that if nuclear stations are safe they are hardly economic and that if they are economic they are probably not safe. That element of disquiet in the public mind needs to be met. There, is, too, the question of waste, and this is fundamental. I am not happy with the Government suggestion so far, which seems to imply that the people involved in exploration should be left with the responsibility of disposing of the waste. This is undoubtedly the area in which looms the major health question. Already there is substantial evidence of serious contamination in the Irish Sea from the Windscale plant. There is no other reprocessing plant either in Great Britain or on the horizon in this country for the foreseeable future.
It is reasonable to assume that Windscale will be the site for reprocessing the radioactive waste from this country and there is substantial medical evidence from a variety of sources which, if time allowed one could quote indicating that there is some cause for concern that the saucer-shaped Irish Sea could, if subjected to further radioactive waste, be a serious health hazard. That is a fundamental point. Already, Windscale discharges several kilograms of plutonium annually into the Irish Sea. No one knows where it goes. It is one of the most toxic substances known to man. One-millionth of a gram, we are told, can cause cancer because of the alpha radiation it emits. If the Irish Sea is a repository for our future waste, I would not be happy with the position.
While we sit here, the European Commission have seen fit to formalise a major public debate on the issue, the first session of which took place before Christmas, and there will be further sessions to discuss, in the way in which this topic should be discussed, non-emotively, in a calm fashion, all the issues. What we should consider is basically the question of examining all the options here, ensuring that everybody in the public sector or indeed in the private sector, who wants to put his views on record has an opportunity of exercising his democratic right so to do. That is not an unreasonable request. It is one which should find a responsive chord in a democratic State. An unhealthy rush to make a decision must be questioned. I do not know what the motivation is. I do not see any immediate demand or need for a decision within the next few weeks.
The Deputy's time is almost up.
I may not have put the case as well as I would like to have done. Time did not allow. For any Member of the House who wishes to seek it—and I recognise that the devil can cite Scripture for his purposes—there is ample evidence indicating that nothing less than full consideration of all the factors involved is required. The economic arguments, the question of disposal of waste, safety health factors and the moral aspects, need full public examination before this major commitment, with all its implications for the kind of society we will have in the future, is made. I would seriously recommend to the Government that they should reconsider.
In the first instance, it is important to state what this Motion is not about and what this party and, I suspect, also the Fine Gael Party, are not about and what we are not against, because this is being viewed and argued as a negative Motion. It is not a negative Motion. It is an attempt to be positive. That is why it is so important. It is not against the ESB. It is not against the Nuclear Energy Board. It is not against nuclear power as such. Nor, indeed, is it against Carnsore Point as the site for a possible nuclear station.
I must congratulate Deputy Corish on his speech in which he showed a balanced consideration of many of the issues involved, presented to the Dáil in a way which I believe did him credit and did the Motion in front of us credit as well.
It has been inevitable that the debate has spread from time to time away from the Motion itself into the merits and demerits of nuclear power. I do not propose to take that particular line, except momentarily here and there, for a couple of reasons—first of all because I believe the Motion itself in its own right is an important one and gives us plenty to talk about; secondly, because I do not believe that this House is at the present time competent to decide on the merits of nuclear power on the paltry amount of evidence that we have before us, and this is precisely why we put down this Motion, because the amount of evidence we have before us is paltry. This is why we want an Oireachtas Committee. This is why we want production of all the relevant documents and information.
The Government have made considerable play of the fact that progress towards nuclear power continued under the previous Administration. This is true. It is also true that the Nuclear Energy Board, as such, was set up in 1971, by a Fianna Fáil Administration. We must remember that 1971 is now some seven years ago. While it is true that there has been a seven years' delay in planning a nuclear station, if you look at it that way, it is also true that there has been seven more years of knowledge about the way in which we ought to be making projections about energy needs and about alternative sources of energy. The frame of mind which was common not only in this country but in other countries, in 1971, when the Nuclear Energy Board was set up, was a sort of "wise men" philosophy —find the wise men and leave it to them. I have no doubt that the Nuclear Energy Board is composed of extremely wise men and that they have done to the best of their, no doubt, considerable ability the task entrusted to them but in the seven years since the Nuclear Energy Board was established there has been international reaction, especially on the issue of nuclear power, to the idea that you can and should leave a decision of such overwhelming magnitude to a relatively small body of men, however competent.
I will give the example of Sweden, where almost exactly the same process seems to have happened but a few years earlier than it seems to be happening in this country. In Sweden, in fact, ultimately, a general election was fought and lost, at least partly, on this particular issue. In Sweden Now, which is an independent Swedish magazine, Mr. Per Ragnarson described with great clarity what happened there. I quote:
The Swedish public didn't have the slightest idea of what was happening. The controlling clan of less than 10 people were so convinced of the excellence of nuclear power and the superiority of their own wisdom that they never, in their wildest imagination, could foresee a future controversy with the public over nuclear energy. But it came. And it was tough.
Later on he points out that even the responsible Cabinet Ministers at that time in Sweden later had to admit that they did not sufficiently understand briefs which they presented to the Swedish Parliament. This happened in Sweden and I think the results of the last general election in that country showed the growing public disquiet with the habit of handing everything over to the wise men, however wise, however serious or however well-intentioned they may be. This is something which is the relict of a Victorian system of government. We want a different kind of society in this country. We want a different kind of democracy, with more participation and more information about decisions. That is why we put down this Motion.
I would now like to turn to the attitude taken by the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy to this whole subject. His attitude, all too common, unfortunately, on the far side of the House, can be divided quite easily into two different components. The first one is his action in setting up a whole series of straw men whom he caricatures as the only opposition to this particular project and whom he then proceeds to knock down. His second argument is the big stick one: if the naughty boys in Wexford do not like it, all these lovely jobs will be taken away and given to Sligo, Mayo or wherever. This is unworthy of the subject we are discussing; it is unworthy of the Minister and his role.
Speaking at the Ard Fheis on 18th of this month the Minister said: "We want an informed debate on this". He went on to say: "We don't want members of the Flat Earth Society shooting off at a tangent". This is barroom stuff. It may be good enough for a Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis but it is not good enough for the people of this country. It is instructive to remember that not all of the reactions, even from organisations and societies which might fit into this caricature of the Minister, have been opposed to nuclear action and nuclear policy. The Solar Energy Society, for example, in a lengthy statement on a nuclear power station at Carnsore Point specifically avoided coming down against nuclear energy and asked instead for the kind of public inquiry for which we are asking here.
Let us look very briefly at the history of the relationship between the Nuclear Energy Board and the Government. In the first report of the board it was noted that they had visited the Carnsore site. The second report for the year ending December 1975 noted that the reduction in the demand for electricity had led the ESB to suggest that there might be some delay in the introduction of nuclear power to their network. The report went on:
However, because of the long lead time associated with planning and constructing a nuclear power station, the ESB was anxious that the board's assessment of its site report on Carnsore Point should be completed as originally planned.
The third report for the year ending December 1976 informed us that the board had, with the help of experts from the Commission, completed their assessment of the ESB site report and presented this to the Minister. It went on to say that before giving formal approval for any particular site the board would require additional and more detailed submissions from the ESB.
We have here three fundamental documents: the ESB site report, the board's assessment of that site report and the additional information which I assume has been made available by the ESB to the Nuclear Energy Board. At least one of these documents, the site report, was furnished to the AFT for their report and is actually quoted verbatim in that report. It is not available to us. The very minimum that we need before any decision is taken is these three documents, so that informed public opinion can be brought to bear.
I should like to turn briefly to the AFT report because it has been dealt with very effectively by Deputy Corish and others. I accept that An Foras Talúntais did an excellent job based on the information available to them, and probably it would have been difficult to do a better job. Two things must be said about the report. First of all, it is not the whole job that needs to be done. We do not need only a report on the safety of nuclear installations. We need reports, up-to-date assessments and projections about future energy sources and needs. An Foras Talúntais did not do this; they were not asked and they could not have done so. I am not blaming them. I am saying that this is only half the story. The second point is that they took their decision on the basis of the evidence available to them, and I am prepared to accept that they had a substantial degree of very important evidence available.
All political decisions must necessarily be taken in the framework of some kind of ignorance. No Cabinet in the world can be aware of all the relevant information before they take a decision, even a decision of this magniture, but it is important to find out whether the necessary ignorance is changed, through a process of disregard for public opinion and other matters, into culpable ignorance. It is because we are afraid of culpable ignorance that we put down this motion.
In 1973 a decision in principle may have been taken. It is now five years later and there has been more research into the kind of projections being done and the kind of energy needs in the future. We want to see this evidence really brought to bear where it counts before the decision is taken. All the modern evidence shows that we are heading into a period of considerable uncertainty, both about the projected rise in energy needs and the projected future utilisation of energy. The Watts Committee in Great Britian, part of the Government's Advisory Council on Energy Conservation, suggested that up to 88 per cent of present energy could be saved by conservation methods. That estimate may be too high, but practical experiments on the ground have proved that conservation methods could save at least 20 per cent in terms of home heating. Great Britain is spending £100 million within the next couple of years to bring two million council houses up to reasonable conservation standards. They would not do this if they did not believe that spending the money in this way and providing jobs in this way was cheaper than spending the money on providing the jobs to provide the energy which would otherwise be lost.
In an 18-month study the International Institute for Environment and Development estimate that by the year 2025—that is, fifty years from now— they will need in Britain only 60 per cent of the energy now used for transport, heating and servicing buildings. This institution is not an anti-nuclear lobby. They say "Yes" to nuclear power for Britain, but they want modest nuclear power. Their assumptions are generous. They assume that the number of households with cars will go up from 56 per cent to 80 per cent, that homes and offices will be bigger, that people will be warmer, and that ownership of electrical appliances will be trebled. More and more a basic question mark is being put against the fundamental assumption that rising energy demands are inevitable if there is to be economic growth. This is the fundamental question which the Government have not attempted to answer, and on which to date we have not had any absolutely convincing fundamental evidence.
I will turn very briefly to the employment implications. It is not enough to say, as the Minister has said, that the alternative is between the jobs that would be provided in the building and staffing of a nuclear station and no jobs at all. If we are not to build this station, we will need hundreds and thousands of other jobs in conservation and in the production of other sources of energy. We have not heard about this and we have not heard a convincing argument against it. I suspect that many permanent jobs which are mooted for this station at Carnsore Point may be provided for members of the armed forces marching around outside it trying to maintain security, which is an issue at least as important as safety.
We have been told that we need to reduce our dependence on oil. Of course we do, partly at least because oil contributes to our balance of payments problems.
The Deputy's time is almost up.
Undoubtedly we will have to import fuel, and we will have to pay to export it for reprocessing. We need time, and we can get this time by launching a full-scale conservation policy. We need this anyway, and the danger is that we will lose out both ways and that we will have neither a full-scale conservation policy—which we need whether we get nuclear power or not—nor a nuclear power station whose justification has not been adequately proved. We need to experiment with conservation and with pricing policies and we need above all to be open-minded. The Green Paper, I suspect, will be a farce. It will be a careful selection of evidence designed to buttress a decision already taken in principle. We need to be open-minded before the decision is taken and not afterwards. I have an open mind but on the basis of the evidence before us to date the Minister has not. That is why this amendment is a tragedy for democracy for this country.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 23 February 1978.