asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy if he is satisfied that our energy requirements depend on the availability of nuclear power in the years ahead.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Nuclear Power.
7.
I would refer the Deputy to Chapters 10, 11 and 12 of the Energy-Ireland discussion document on some Current Energy Problems and Options, published in July 1978, a copy of which was furnished to him.
I might add that the Government have not yet taken a decision to confirm, or otherwise, the decision taken in 1973 by the Government of which the Deputy was then a member, approving in principle of a nuclear project.
Is the Minister aware that the estimated figures for energy needs in the discussion document to which he referred have been questioned by some economists who have come to the conclusion that there are grave over-estimations in that document? Would the Minister accept that the need for an inquiry into the use of nuclear power is now more obvious? If there are over-estimates of our energy requirements, obviously that casts doubt on the necessity, as the Minister sees it, for having nuclear power installed to meet our energy requirements.
The Deputy is aware that this is a discussion document and, as such, will give rise to various calculations of energy or other needs. The matter of an inquiry is not related to the question before me.
If the estimates of our energy needs are incorrect, that puts a big question mark over the necessity for nuclear power suggested by the Department.
Obviously it is a separate question to ask whether the estimated energy requirements in the discusson document are correct.
Is the Minister standing over the energy requirements suggested in that document?
I am, yes.
8.
asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy if he is aware of the growing public concern at the possible consequences of the establishment of a nuclear power station in this country; and if the Government will now agree to the holding of a public inquiry on the issue.
9.
asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy if the Government will consider holding a national referendum on the issue of the building of a nuclear power station in this country.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 9 together.
As I have already made clear, I welcome public interest in this matter and I am concerned that the maximum information about it be made available in a balanced way to the public generally.
Some months ago I arranged with the ESB to resume their public information programme, which they had in hands in the past. I also arranged with the Nuclear Energy Board, who have a statutory duty to promote knowledge in nuclear science and technology and to act as an agent for dissemination of information on nuclear matters, to expedite the issue of suitable information material on nuclear matters generally. Furthermore, I hope that the discussion document which I published last July with its emphasis on current problems, with special reference to electricity generation, will give a much clearer picture of the general energy situation in this country and help to resolve any doubts that may exist as to the realistic options open to us to meet energy demand in the coming decade.
Bearing in mind the very great deal of information which has been publicly available for many years past about conventional nuclear electricity stations, I do not consider that a public inquiry, and still less a national referendum, would serve any useful purpose. While I have no objections in principle to the holding of such an inquiry, I feel obliged to say that no valid reasons or cogent arguments in favour of the holding of a public inquiry on the nuclear project have yet been put to me. If they are, I will certainly consider them fully.
I am, of course, always glad to study any representations which interested groups may wish to submit to me.
Is it not a fact that in virtually no country in the world has a proposal to go ahead with a nuclear energy scheme not been met with very serious concern by the general population and that is a factor which has created a demand for a public inquiry? Would the Minister agree that this documentation and the information to which he has referred emanated from vested interests so that it is one-sided? Is it not advisable that either a referendum or a public inquiry be held so that the views of both sides could be heard and, then, if the case of the Minister is as good as is claimed, his side should win?
It is very important in discussing this whole question to draw a distinction between conventional nuclear energy stations and the fast breeders and reactors such as Windscale in respect of which a public inquiry was held. The conventional type of nuclear reactor that is suggested for the Carnsore site is in use in more than 200 sites around the world in countries of various ideological administrations. The need for a public inquiry has not been proved to the Minister.
Is the Minister satisfied that the Nuclear Energy Board are fulfilling their role as a public information centre? They have been remarkably silent. Also, in view of the latest information regarding health hazards to workers in nuclear stations in America where it has been found that the established safe levels have now proved very dangerous to workers, would it not be advisable to have a public inquiry into the whole matter? It has been found in America that 13,000 workers at nuclear energy stations have been exposed to unnecessary radiation hazards.
I would refer the Deputy to my original reply where I said that:
I also arranged with the Nuclear Energy Board, who have a statutory duty to promote knowledge in nuclear science and technology and to act as an agent for dissemination of information on nuclear matters, to expedite the issue of suitable information material on nuclear matters generally.
Has that come to light?
Regarding the second part of the Deputy's supplementary, this is a question that relates to the whole general debate involved in this issue of nuclear energy resources.
When will the debate take place?
Would the Minister not agree that to associate Windscale energy with the Carnsore Point project is to give the impression that they are the same whereas one involves reprocessing while the other is a generating station?
That was pointed out.
Would the Minister not agree also that the attitude of the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy in appearing to have something to cover up while there is nothing to cover up is tending to harden attitudes and to make much more difficult the possibility of an alternative source of energy?
In reply to Deputy Browne, I attempted to draw a clear distinction between Windscale and the Carnsore Point situation. I would not accept that the attitude of the Minister has hardened in any way the various attitudes to Carnsore Point and to nuclear energy generally.
Concerning the Minister's reference to the ESB public information programme, would this include the flying out by them of an executive to Hamburg for the purpose of entertaining a number of Wexford county councillors, to take them to a specific nuclear plant adjacent to Hamburg and to attempt to influence them towards a favourable viewpoint prior to a planning decision being reached?
This is a very long question.
It requires elaboration. Can the Minister say who will be responsible for the cost of this public information programme including the exercise to which I have referred?
I am not aware of the trip to which the Deputy has referred but if he cares to table a separate question in this regard, I shall obtain the information for him. However, I have no doubt that the councillors in the Wexford area could not be bought off by a trip to Hamburg. I suspect they are much too reasonable and sensible for that. So far as the cost of the ESB public information programme is concerned, it will be borne by the board.
On a point of clarification, I did not suggest that the councillors were taken to Hamburg. They were already in Hamburg at an international gathering when the ESB decided to fly out one of their executives. I should like to hear whether the cost of the information programme will be passed to the consumer.
Would the Minister agree that the objective of all this is to ensure sufficient generating capacity for electricity in 15 years time and that at the moment the most likely alternative source to oil is nuclear? Would the Minister agree also that if this is the case the sooner the better there is reached a decision that is both acceptable and seen to be acceptable to the majority of the people? In these circumstances would it not be advisable to have a public inquiry?
The reply to the last part of the supplementary is "no". It is important that we move away from our reliance on oil as our main source of energy. At the time the decision was reached by the previous Government in November 1973 our level of imports of oil was 65 per cent and since then it has increased to 67 per cent.
Is the Minister's mind closed totally to the idea of a public inquiry?
The Minister's mind is never closed. In this regard I refer the Deputy to my original reply where I said:
I am, of course, always glad to study any representations which interested groups may wish to submit to me.
In view of the new information to which I have referred, would the Minister consider the matter in this light and reconsider the question of a public inquiry?
If the Deputy would like to substantiate the information he has given me I should be delighted to have it studied in the Department.
I am calling Question No. 10.
Would it not be much wiser to hold a referendum on the issue now and be guided by public opinion rather than to wait and find that it is necessary to have one eventually anyway?
I have called the next question. We cannot have a free-for-all.