As one who has taken a very deep interest in the matter of marine pollution over several years, I do not share the optimistic view expressed during this debate that things are getting better. We are at crisis level in regard to water pollution and I should not like this debate to give the erroneous impression that there is a level of toleration which this nation will accept and that, because conventions are established and rules and regulations exist, all is well.
The main and most insidious pollution comes from Windscale. The name change from Windscale to Sellafield is a public relations exercise to counter the bad publicity about that nuclear cesspit. When that plant was initially established in 1947 its primary function was not the reprocessing of nuclear waste; rather it was planned to refurbish nuclear warheads and develop atomic strategy. It is totally unsuitable as a nuclear reprocessing plant and the Irish Government should be unrelenting in their insistence that the plant be closed down. The House may not realise that many billions are about to be spent in extending the Windscale operation, not to improve the safety aspect but to make it suitable to handle greater amounts of nuclear waste for reprocessing. It is important to realise that it is a commercial, money-making exercise — last year its profits were £54 million — engaged in reprocessing material from Japan and other countries which would not engage in such a dangerous exercise themselves. Nothing short of closure would satisfy me.
I was accused during the Adjournment Debate in July 1975 of being alarmist in my views about Windscale. The public attitude has changed but I am convinced that we will not realise the seriousness of this matter until radioactive seaweed is washed up in Skerries or Sandymount.
The level of emission from Windscale is 1,000 times greater than the American level. Who can monitor this? I am not condoning the breaking of the law by the Greenpeace people but they highlighted the fact that higher levels of radiation were being emitted. America and France do not tolerate these levels, yet we do. I would have no doubts about taking this matter to the Court of International Appeal in order to highlight it and put pressure on Britain. I know that the Minister for Energy met his counterpart in London and pressed the Irish case and that assurances were given. That is not good enough. Unless our officials are present at Windscale and have a direct input, our information will always be secondhand.
The Minister listed various materials but there was little reference to the deadly pollutants caesium and plutonium, one tonne of which is lying at the bottom of the Irish Sea. Any silt shifting around Windscale can drift across the Irish Sea. It is fortunate that it is so shallow and that this does not happen but it is possible that there could be movement of this deadly pollutant. People must realise that it will take hundreds of thousands of years for the radioactivity to fade away. Sellafield is an international scandal which is totally unacceptable to this nation and there must be no stop-go policy whereby we appeal for lower levels of emission.
A recent seminar on this subject was attended by experts from the Nuclear Energy Board and there was no doubt in my mind that the situation was far from satisfactory. Three hundred accidents have been recorded at this nuclear dustbin less than 100 miles from this House.
There is scant regard for the Irish point of view in relation to the operations of nuclear submarines in the Irish Sea. All we seem to do is appeal for the safety of our fishermen, not realising that these deadly submarines are operating at will in the Irish Sea. There are so many Departments involved that it would be easy to choke this issue with officialdom without any real attempt to put Ireland's case unequivocally, without apology, to England.
Given our indented coastline, the perimeter of this island must run to many thousands of miles. If we project it by, say, 50 miles, the square mileage must be very considerable. We have a Department of Agriculture to look after the land but we have no marine Department. We must think in terms of a Department which would address itself to the waters of this island nation. The Minister for Energy and the Minister for the Environment are involved in this matter and there is some confusion about who is responsible. I think the Department of Health is the Department which has perhaps the greatest input here.
Let us go back for a moment to 1975 or thereabouts. At that time I do not think the Department of the Environment existed. We had a Department of Local Government and the people there were engaged in local government administration, housing and so on. Environment was a word in the dictionary and nobody was concerned about it. It connotes preservation. Only 15 or 20 years earlier the same attitude applied in the USA and so the Department of the Environment was born and of course everyone welcomed its birth.
Now we as a nation are not looking to our fields with enough attention. It is all a piecemeal approach with an input from several different Departments. The thing to do — and I would like the Minister when he comes to conclude to take note of what I say — is to form a marine department.
There are tremendous ramifications in relation to our fishing stocks, to nuclear dumping, to pollution of our waterways, pollution of our fields. The thing goes on and on. I had a period in the Department of the Environment as Minister of State and I remember the water advisory council. With respect, I do not think the Department is able to cope with all that should be done. A very excellent idea was put forward by the environmental protection advisory service, something that would be highly desirable, but the Department has now become a Goliath and the whole situation is so grotesque the Department simply cannot cope with all the problems.
Now our marine life and our seas are very much involved and a great deal of international clout is vitally essential in this area. Indeed, it would take the full weight of a Department on its own to have a forcible voice in Europe in the way the Department of Agriculture can make its voice heard and listened to in Europe, for instance, on the Common Agricultural Policy. How can a splintered voice carry any weight in the sort of situation to which I have adverted? There is a kind of parallel with that awful rabies disease which may hit this country at some stage in the future, perhaps in the not too distant future, and should that day come people will then sit up and take notice. But let us try to do something now about our marine life, something positive. People talk about the inversion problem of air pollution where one can go just so far. Take the Los Angeles example where they are unable to cure the problem. They have this inversion lying over Los Angeles. It is said that marine pollution can reach the same stage, a stage at which it cannot be corrected. I remember attending a seminar in Geneva on the question of marine pollution and air pollution and there was no doubt at all in the views expressed but that marine life can be destroyed because marine pollution can reach the stage at which the levels of pollution lying on the seabed cannot be corrected. Apparently that is the major problem. The problem does not exist in inland waters because in those waters it can be corrected.
In our case we have offshore pollution which is caused by the sly and sneaky way in which boats from England go out with a hole cut out in the centre of the boat and just discharge the waste through that hole off our coast. A great many of these boats are being blacked in England and they have great difficulty now in getting them out of harbour. That type of pollution can never be estimated. Future damage cannot be estimated. There will be a build up of low dosage radiation. The situation as it exists is in no way acceptable. I represent a maritime constituency and so does Deputy Barnes and I am sure she will agree that Dublin Bay out as far as the Kish Lighthouse is intolerable from the point of view of pollution. It has been said that swimming in Dublin Bay constitutes a health risk. Sometimes comments like that can be very erroneous in a way. One person will say one thing and another will say something quite different but unless we have the machinery to cope with a problem of this kind — and I do not think the machinery is there and this is the difficulty — the problem will only become worse.
The intention is good. It is a good thing to align ourselves with nations who are trying to do something but I do not think we have the necessary machinery. We are in the unique position in Europe of being the furthest geographically in Europe, the most westerly country, surrounded by so much water, and so our voice should be put by a Department geared specifically for the purpose of coping with the problem of pollution. We have a common accord with Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Greenland and Denmark as against the heavily industrialised countries of Europe and all these countries are being subjected to trans-global pollution of a very horrible type in the form of acid rain. We are also receiving pollution, as the Minister is aware, from the Sellafield plant. That pollution is travelling up along the coast of Scotland and reaching the beaches now. The Minister is perhaps aware of the high increase in lukaemia cases in western Scotland. These are now being investigated. They are apparently attributable to the plant at Sellafield. Here there was the much chronicled report by Dr. Sheehan referring to the mongoloid babies as a result of the accident which occurred 25 years ago and there is enough evidence to cause concern. Any pollution which contributes to blood cancer must be treated with the greatest care.
Now I realise the Department is an excellent Department, doing a marvellous job within its parameters, and I shudder to think what the country would be like without this Department but we must think forward into the next millennium and here I would like to see private enterprise involved because there is a social obligation involved and it should not be left just to officialdom to provide the solution. That is not good enough because I do not think officialdom can provide the answers even with the best will in the world. Where officialdom is concerned it will be a matter of recommendation with no positive action.
The Minister should involve commercial enterprises in doing something about correcting the problem. That would be fine. It is commercial enterprise that is involved and some unscrupulous people have scant regard for our environment. Why not swing it right round to them and make sure that part of their profits are devoted to the preservation of our marine environment? I have little regard for people who abuse the environment and who are not prepared to pay something in recompense. The Minister would get co-operation from many responsible commercial organisations who would be prepared to go along with this idea.
Our seas are heavily stocked with fish, and with shellfish in particular which is a valuable resource. That type of fish is the most prone to radiation from nuclear discharge. I do not want to be alarmist but in this House we should state the facts. The Minister must be aware that fishermen close to the Cumbrian coast realise there is great difficulty in selling fish caught in that area and notices are put up in some shop windows stating where the fish were caught. That is the kind of atmosphere in which we live.
There are 5,500 employees at the Sellafield plant. It is a commercial enterprise and there is a vested interest in keeping it going. There is almost an ironic acceptance of some level of radioactive contamination among the employees. Their attitude is that it is their job and what can they do about it. My answer is that we should not tolerate it. It is not necessary to pollute the sea because much of the nuclear waste could be stored in the ground in especially constructed containers. As far as I am concerned, the Sellafield plant should be closed immediately but if it is to be resited at a capital cost of £3 billion that kind of money could be devoted to finding a practical means of storing the radioactive waste.
I am a little sceptical about what the Minister can do to make sure our voice is heard on this matter. I have spent a considerable time on this issue. The worst outcome of this debate would be if we were lulled into a feeling of false security, that the levels of radioactivity in the Irish Sea or around our coast are acceptable and that the situation is improving. That is not so. In my view it is getting worse daily. I do not think that the Department of the Environment can cope with this problem. The best thing the Minister could do would be to give the House an assurance that he would recommend the establishment of a marine Department. In addition, he should request that his officials have a permanent presence at the Sellafield plant. That is essential. We are only begging the question if it is merely a matter of the Minister depending on his counterpart in England giving some tacit assurance that they will do their best to correct the problem.
The Americans have the most sophisticated nuclear system on our planet — not that I am a fan of that kind of involvment. The Minister should try to persuade the Taoiseach to have a word with Mrs. Thatcher about the Sellafield plant which is causing such a major problem for us. As recently as Monday an approach was made by one person regarding the tragic case in the Philippines, with a marvellous result. I do not want to compare the two issues but certainly this matter is of monumental importance. The Americans would not tolerate it. It would be an enormous gesture of goodwill to this country if we could get an assurance that the Sellafield plant will be closed.
It may be dreadful to say but I guarantee there will be more accidents if nothing is done. I have scant knowledge of the matter but I have taken considerable interest in it: I have studied the equipment used and I have read the reports. I am in no doubt that there will be more accidents. There have been 300 accidents since 1947 and by the law of averages there will be more. The matter is with the Minister and I hope he will take up some of the suggestions made. He should not be content with anything short of closing the plant. I urge him not to be persuaded otherwise or lulled into a feeling of false security by Britain with regard to this matter.
