By agreement and notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, Members will be called in Private Members' time this evening as follows: 7 p.m. to 7.20 p.m., Fianna Fáil speaker; 7.20 p.m. to 7.40 p.m., Fianna Fáil speaker; 7.40 p.m. to 8.10 p.m., Government speaker; 8.10 p.m. to 8.25 p.m., Fianna Fáil speaker; and 8.25 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., Fianna Fáil speaker.
Private Members' Business. - Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing Plant: Motion.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to demand that the British Government have regard to the vote of the European Parliament on 20 February 1986 calling for the closing down of the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield, in view not only of the danger to life and health from accidental leaks and emissions to date, but also in view of the serious risk of a major accident with uncontrollable consequences, and in view of the fact that plans for the further expansion of Sellafield involve a heavy traffic of ships carrying nuclear waste in the Irish Sea.
In the 33 years since the Sellafield plant began its deadly discharge of radioactive waste into the Irish Sea this nation has become aware of its inherent dangers. It is important to put in context exactly what is involved. Essentially two deadly chemicals, plutonium and caesium, cancer-producing elements, have been discharged into the Irish Sea. Something like half a tonne of plutonium lies on the seabed. When one realises that a lethal dose of that element alone is one-millionth of a gram, the enormity of the problem to the health of this nation, the potential risk to this nation from these elements, can be clearly seen.
Sellafield is built on the worst possible location on a shallow sea. The Irish Sea recycles itself every 18 months only, which means that much of this material lies within the sea itself. Much of the discussion taking place in relation to the Sellafield plant is in the present tense but I would like for a moment to dwell on the implications that its deadly emission has for future generations. The fact is that the risks are unknown. That must never be allowed to be taken out of context. It is all very fine for scientists and others to contend that we are within EC regulations, that there is no cause for concern and so on. The situation is much more serious. If you like, we are mortgaging our environment, of which we are only the temporary custodians. We have a right to maintain our environment.
As a bordering nation Britain has no right to destroy or attempt to destroy our environment in whatever way they are doing at present. The British Prime Minister wrote to the Taoiseach only last week telling him that she had no understanding of what concern this nation would have about the risks of Sellafield. The British Minister for the Environment, Mr. Baker, insulted the intelligence of the Irish nation when he said that fears of Sellafield were akin to those of medieval people about witchcraft. That puts in perspective the British point of view in relation to this plant. As a nation we live in fear of a serious accident taking place at that plant. Given the poor safety record of Sellafield it is not unreasonable to assume that there will be an accident which this nation is illprepared to meet. It is a hazardous, archaic plant, many parts of it built in years when its potential growth could not have been envisaged. There are now expansion plans afoot to spend £3 billion in importing foreign waste from as far afield as Japan to be reprocessed and discharged into the Irish Sea. There will then be an increase in the amount of traffic in the Irish Sea, with foreign ships carrying this deadly waste to be reprocessed at Sellafield. That is just not acceptable to this nation. We must raise a very strong voice in opposition to this time-bomb within 100 miles of where this debate is being held this evening.
The recent Black report — which has become discredited by inaccurate information having been furnished to those who contributed to its preparation — has proved emphatically that British Nuclear Fuels Limited cannot be trusted with information furnished, contradictory information, endeavouring to cover up serious accidents that have occurred, 300 of them over the past 30 years. We are an island nation and cannot afford the risk of having these deadly chemicals contaminate food and fish stocks. Anybody who has any knowledge of the low dosage effect of radiation and the deadly damage it can cause people could not possibly live in peace with this plant on our doorstep. The fact of the matter is that people vary in their susceptibility to radiation. One could expose two people to the same amount of radiation; one will get cancer and the other will not. It is an unknown quantity and the risks are enormous. As far as Ireland is concerned it could have serious implications for the future. I want to stress that fact here this evening.
When I raised this matter about three years ago in an Adjournment Debate in the month of July, I was accused of creating hysteria about this issue. I feel as strongly now as I did then. The only way out of this predicament is to demand that this archaic, accident-prone, badly managed plant be closed down. A recent report showed that seismic activity, any type of activity — the figure quoted was anything over five or six on the Richter Scale — could cause problems to that plant, if it collapsed and a fire in one of the reactors burned uncontrollably. Fire did burn there uncontrollably in 1953; we do not talk about these things now, but it did happen before. Fortunately the wind then was blowing across to the Continent, not like the wind that blew from the 1957 fire and in respect of which there is talk of the link with Down's Syndrome children in the Dundalk region. These types of accidents can easily happen. Regrettably Sellafield is being looked on by the British nuclear industry as a moneymaking project. It is, I suppose, the fastest developing industry as far as earning money for Britain is concerned. They are looking after the nuclear waste of other nations, countries that will not undertake that, will not store it. What attitude should we adopt other than to condemn that approach?
The Government's amendment calls on the British Prime Minister to ensure that a thorough review of the safety of the plant is carried out but such an approach at this stage is totally unacceptable to the nation. This is an apolitical issue and there should be total agreement on it. Nobody in their right mind could consider agreeing to the Sellafield plant being kept open. The amendment suggests that it should be determined independently whether Sellafield can operate safely. I do not know what the Government are engaged in but their prime responsibility is to the nation and they should not be condoning or working hand in hand with the British Government in regard to Sellafield.
I understand that the environmental committee of the House of Commons intend publishing tomorrow an all-party report on the subject of safety at Sellafield. My information is that the report will condemn the plant and that the plant will have difficulty trying to maintain its presence following the publication of the report. Why should the Irish Government assist in keeping that plant open? The European Parliament on 20 February voted overwhelmingly to press for the closure of the plant. Most of the contributions in that debate were to the effect that the plant had a lethal future. Why should the Government injure the nation by being party to an arrangement that will allow the British to buy time in regard to the future of Sellafield. The British want time to come up with a very suspicious system of safety at a plant which is totally unsuitable.
I am very conscious of the huge employment content of the plant. Anybody in Ireland would consider that matter but the workers involved should be compensated for working in a hazardous plant. British Nuclear Fuels have awarded huge sums in compensation to the widows of ex-Sellafield workers without admission of liability. There is circumstantial evidence to support the view that people in that region are living in a very unhealthy environment. Medical practitioners and radiation experts have said that. It is a fallacy to say that there is such a thing as an acceptable level of radiation. Some people have said that the radiation level at Sellafield comes within EC levels. That we live in a backdrop of radiation is most unfortunate. It is unfortunate that we have to tolerate it but to be subjected by a neighbouring country to this type of radiation exposure is totally unacceptable.
I have a full dossier on the accidents at Sellafield, the most alarming of which took place this year after we were given assurances by British Nuclear Fuels. That concern was fined £10,000 for exceeding the limits and failing to keep proper safety records at the plant. Accidents occurred there on 24 January, 5 February and 6 February. There have been many accidents at the plant and by the law of averages we can expect more before the end of the year. It would be better if the House was united on this issue and that is why I was disappointed that the Government tabled an amendment to our motion. I am aware that the Tánaiste, and many members of the Government, are opposed to the plant but it appears that the Government are in some way succumbing to pressure on this matter. All the pressure in the world must be exerted on Britain in regard to this issue for the sake of future generations.
We must remember that certain cancers take time to develop. Blood cancers can take up to 30 years to develop. Many medical teams are trying to establish cancer links with the Sellafield plant and that is proving very difficult. It is very difficult to quantify cancer and attribute it to a particular cause. Some people are hiding behind reports and saying it is impossible to prove a link with cancer and, therefore, the plant is safe. I cannot understand the logic behind the reports that support the presence of the plant. The Government should take a firm stand on this and not listen to Margaret Thatcher saying that we do not have anything to fear. This nation has everything to fear. Nuclear discharges at Cap de la Hague are 66 times less than those from Sellafield, which we are tolerating, but people there are objecting to that plant. The Americans closed down a nuclear reprocessing plant because it was deemed to be unsafe but although our sea is being contaminated on a daily basis by one million gallons of radioactive water, we are tolerating it.
I accept that people can draw different conclusions from figures but it must be accepted that there is an element of plutonium lying in sludge which could be dislodged by seismic activity. Geologists say that seismic activity is taking place continuously in the Irish Sea and reaches three on the Richter scale. When that sludge moved before, the beaches of Cumbria were contaminated and closed down. Such movements could cause a lot of damage here. We do not have to wait until a clump of radioactive seaweed lands on our coast before we protest about this. We should not wait until we see foliage and trees affected by plutonium dust. We should not have to wait until surveys are carried out on children born with abnormalities or until our fishing industry suffers.
A responsible decision was taken by the European Parliament a few weeks ago and now we have an opportunity of telling the British Government that our Parliament demands nothing short of a closure of the Sellafield plant. We should not capitulate and permit a bogus investigation to take place. Such investigations in the past were found to be totally onesided. We must think of our future. If the Government force their amendment through the House, they will suffer international embarrassment. The Minister will be seen by the British Government as saying that the Irish Government are content with what is happening at Sellafield. That would be inconsistent with the statements made by the Minister for Energy, the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, or with those of many members of the Minister's Party. This is a let-off for the British, an opportunity lost, and obviously Fianna Fáil will not, under any circumstances, be in agreement with an amendment of that kind.
I should like the House to look on this issue as perhaps potentially the most serious issue on health and environmental grounds which the nation will face in the future. We demand that the Government exert maximum pressure on the British Government to close down Sellafield immediately.
I support Deputy Brady and the Fianna Fáil motion. On 5 February in this House I called on the British Government to close Sellafield and I repeat that call tonight. I said then that enough is enough and that it should be closed down in the best interest of the present and future health of our people, North and South.
At that time the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, said that I was being hysterical and alarmist, and the same accusations were levelled at Deputy Brady three years ago when he drew attention to the very serious situation which was developing. Since then Deputy Haughey, Deputy Brady, Deputy O'Hanlon, Deputy Woods, Deputy Raphael Burke and many others put out a distress call to the Government hoping that sooner or later they would exert pressure on the British Government to close the plant. There should be a united call from this House that enough is enough. Report after report, which would probably fill this Chamber, point to the very serious dangers to the health of our people and to that of future generations. As news of more and more leaks are reported in the newspapers, television and radio, is it surprising that the people wonder why the Government are standing back from the issue?
I was also disappointed that the Government chose to put down an innocuous amendment, because we are accused of playing politics with too many issues. This issue should not be political in any sense because it reflects the grevious concern of everyone in the country. I hope the Government will have second thoughts between now and the vote tomorrow night. We are trying to protect the health of our people and there is a very real danger of an accident in the Irish Sea as ships transport this deadly waste for dumping.
This is a leak a week factory of horror, and any doubts which people might have had three years ago must surely have been dispelled by now. The continuance in operation of this leak a week factory is no longer acceptable to the nation. When will the Government join with us in making a call to the British Government telling them that enough is enough as far as Ireland is concerned? While one can only try to interpret the British Prime Minister's remarks on the issue, it appears as if the British Government put the health of their people and the preservation of the environment in second place behind jobs and the economic development of a deadly industry. Not alone are we suppossed to accept that the plant will continue but also that it will be enlarged.
There was a widespread debate on this issue last week in the European Parliament and a vote to close the plant at Sellafield was passed by a large majority. It is not just Fianna Fáil crying out for something to be done but a majority voice coming from the European Parliament to call a halt and to close the plant. We must not put the health of our citizens behind blind economics. We must protect the environment and the health of our people. I am not being hysterical or alarmist because, as Deputy Brady said, there are mountains of reports and evidence piling up daily pointing to the dangers of this plant. Does anybody believe that the management of that horror plant have any credibility? We have been misled over and over again in relation to the facts. We all know that the plant was built in 1947 to produce material for Britain's atomic bombs. It was then a military establishment and it is run on the same secretive lines today. Even the Irish Nuclear Energy Board admitted recently that the management have been discredited and that we should not give much credence to their statements. How many times have they tried to cover up the facts? However, the truth will out, as it usually does. People will not accept cover-ups or whitewashes and, in time, even the workers in Sellafield will be prepared to say when the facts have been distorted.
Since 1964 this plant has been involved in nuclear waste reprocessing. It is the plant that has been responsible for all the recent incidents. Is it not only natural to expect that a plant which was built in 1947, with an addition being built in 1964, would be cracking? Regardless of what level of maintenance may have been applied during the period of the plant's operation it must crack up inevitably and, consequently, the only sensible course to take is to close it down. We as a sovereign nation are expected to remain quiet so far as this plant is concerned and to accept what we are told by a management who are discredited and by a British Government who are interested only in the economics of Sellafield and in the preservation of the large number of jobs there. Some amazing statements have been made in this House from time to time from the opposite benches in regard to this whole matter. On 5 February last, for instance, the Minister of State at the then Department of Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism told me by way of reply to a question I had tabled that he doubted whether the British Government would have in operation a plant that would be to the detriment of the health of the British people.
Let us contrast that statement with the evidence of the many incidents at Sellafield in recent years. Studies have shown that there is a higher incidence of leukaemia along the west coast of Scotland, which is directly in the path of currents from the discharge point in the Irish Sea. All the evidence available to me indicates that the British Government are prepared to put economics before health. I would not have time this evening to go through all the evidence that is available about the numbers of times that different beaches have been declared safe for use by the public and then subsequently declared unsafe. The beach at Sellafield was closed to the public in December 1983 on the grounds that it was dangerous though a scientist at the plant had been sacked in 1981 for giving what was considered an unwarranted warning to a family about beach pollution there. That is a clear example of the double talk that comes from the authorities who are supposed to control this horror factory. How many more accidents must occur before the plant is closed? Discharges at the more modern reprocessing plant at Cap de la Hague in France have been far fewer than has been the case at the Sellafield plant, but apparently we are prepared to agree passively with the British Government. That is something those of us on this side of the House are not prepared to do on this very important issue.
The Irish Sea is regarded as the most heavily polluted and as containing the highest level of radioactivity in the world. Low level radioactive materials have been discharged into a pipe that extends two kilometers into the Irish Sea but the rules have not been observed. Half a tonne of Plutonium 239 has been deposited in the Irish Sea since 1964. Since one-millionth of a gram is lethal to an individual, the amount deposited and which has a life span of approximately 240,000 years would be capable of killing more than 200 million people. That is the reality of the evidence that is available.
Studies have shown also that radiation is ten to 100 times higher on the east coast of Ireland than is the case on the west coast. I should like the Minister to ascertain from his colleague, the Minister for Health, when the studies undertaken by the Department of Health and which we have been hearing about for so long are to be published. On the many occasions on which Deputy O'Hanlon attempted to raise this matter with the Minister he was told only that the results of the studies would be published soon. We hear the word "soon" in this House much too often.
More has been done in this area in the past ten months than was done in the previous ten years and while the Deputy's party were in power there was nothing done in this regard.
If that little man from Cork is not careful he will find his way out of this House as quickly as he found his way into it. We are interested in scientific evidence, not in political harangue from the other side of the House.
I spent three or four days in the area recently and I was not able to persuade anyone from Fianna Fáil to join me on the trip.
Are the young people of Cork not asking the Deputy about the potential danger to them of Sellafield?
I am saying only that the Deputy should not pretend that his party have a monopoly of interest in this matter.
Is the Deputy not aware that an expansion of the plant is to take place? Are we to keep our silence until such time as there is a major accident in the Irish Sea? There is a responsibility on all of us to call for the closing down of the plant; and, if Deputy Allen is not interested in being associated with that call, he is free to go his own way. How ever, should any such serious accident occur it would be remembered that Bernard Allen was not in favour of any action being taken in regard to the plant.
Each Deputy should observe the rules of the House without condition.
I shall be glad to do so when Deputy Allen ceases interrupting. In December 1983 the British Department of the Environment warned the public not to use 25 miles of beach near Sellafield. Radioactivity levels were 100 to 1000 times normal level after the accidental leak in November 1983. Some samples of fish showed higher levels of radioactivity also.
In January 1984 the National Radiological Protection Board issued a report to the effect that exposure of the public to natural radiation should not be used to justify exposure from other sources. That is a standard defence that is trotted out by people on the other side of the Irish Sea.
At a meeting in London on 17 February 1984 between the Minister for Energy and Mr. Patrick Jenkin, the British Environment Secretary, the Minister said he was particularly satisfied with the talks and that Mr. Jenkin had reassured him that an incident such as the one which occurred in the previous year could not happen again. The Minister said that, while Mr. Jenkin has assured him that scientific evidence available did not indicate adverse effects to the Irish people, he expressed concern at accidental discharges and long-term consequences and pressed that releases from Sellafield must be as low as reasonably achievable. That meeting was reported in The Irish Times of 18 February 1984. There is much more evidence that I could read, but there is not enough time for that. The Minister, because of the sport that he was very good at, will know what a hand-off is. I expect him not to take anymore handoffs from the British Government on any other occassion in which he may meet their representatives. It is regrettable that the Minister does not see his way to discontinuing this playing of politics and accept that it is in the interest of the Irish people that Sellafield be closed. We must not run the risk of a very serious shipping accident in the Irish Sea involving ships carrying waste to Sellafield. We know, too, that at regular intervals beneath the waters of the Irish Sea there are two nuclear submarines. If there were to be an accident involving one of those vessel and one carrying waste to Sellafield, we would no longer be around to raise our voices about the danger. That is why we should speak here on this matter with a united voice.
We all know of the fines imposed on the management of Sellafield because of their mismanagement and we know that sometimes the whole issue causes embarrassment to the British Government. More than 800 construction workers at the Sellafield site staged a half day strike in protest at not being told about the level of a leak that had occurred at the plant. Those workers showed that concern though their livelihoods were involved, but here we are apparently about to raise a disunited voice in relation to the whole matter. In this way we are only playing into the hands of the British Government whose attitude to Ireland has been always to divide and conquer. It may transpire that tomorrow's report will produce more deadly evidence than I am offering, but even if the British read the report of this debate they will realise that the House is divided in its approach to the matter.
There is no need for an Irish Government to play footsy with the British any longer in this regard. That has been the case for far too long. We accepted in good faith many of the statements that emanated from the British, Government to Government, but there is enough evidence that the time has come to call a halt, to close the plant and not to wait until none of us is around to make a protest.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:—
Dáil Éireann, in view of five recent incidents at the Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing Plant, supports the measures already taken by the Government:—
(a) in conveying to the UK Government the Irish public's concern that the number of incidents although of limited radiological impact has caused a loss of confidence in the safety of the operation of the Sellafield plant;
(b) in calling on the British Prime Minister to ensure a thorough review of safety at the plant;
and, while recognising that the setting up of an investigation into Sellafield by the UK Health and Safety Executive is a positive step, supports this Government's arrangement of Ministerial discussions at European level with a view to establishing a community inspection process to determine independently whether Sellafield can operate safely or whether its operations should cease or be suspended until satisfactory standards of safety are achieved.
I will begin by reiterating the policy of the Government with regard to Sellafield. The Government's position is that radioactive discharges from Sellafield should be minimised and eliminated as soon as possible through the use of the best available technology. This position has been stated at every opportunity in contact with the British authorities and at all appropriate international fora.
As this House is aware, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd, the operators of the Sellafield plant, have commenced a programme which includes measures designed to effect significant reductions in radioactive discharges at Sellafield. The sum of £350 million is being spent on a new complex, to be known as Pond 5, incorporrating new technology designed to reduce discharge levels from the storage of the spent fuel before it goes to a chemical plant on the site for processing. This is at present being commissioned. There is £200 million for a new vitrification plant which will turn radioactive waste left after reprocessing into inert glass bricks, and $130 million for a new water treatment plant, which is now in operation and which will reduce routine radioactive discharges to the Irish Sea. A sum of £150 million is being spent for a floc precipitation plant, to be operational by 1991, which will reduce discharges of long-lived alpha radiation; and a further water treatment plant in the form of a salt evaporator to reduce the volume of liquid radioactive waste.
Notwithstanding this programme, recent incidents at Sellafield have given rise to disquiet about the operation of the plant. At a meeting of the Ireland UK contact group on 14 February last officials of my Department conveyed our grave concern at the recent incidents at Sellafield and our annoyance at the inadequate notification procedures. The earliest of these incidents involved the discharge of 458 kilograms of uranium into the Irish Sea on 24 January 1986. This was followed by a plutonium gas leak on 5 February, and on 13 February 1986 a fire occurred at the Drigg low level radioactive waste dump near Sellafield. All three incidents were discussed at the meeting on 14 February. The British authorities assured my officials in the course of that meeting that the radiological emissions to the environment resulting from these incidents were insignificant.
Nevertheless, a prompt notification procedure was agreed at the meeting and notification of more recent incidents has been practically immediate. These involved two incidents at Sellafield, one at Trawsfyndd and one at Capenhurst at Sellafield. There was a leak of 250 gallons of low level radioactive water from a pipe into a containment trench on 18 February. We were informed that two workers were slightly contaminated on that occasion. The incident at Trawsfyndd involved the discharge of 15 tonnes of carbon dioxide contaminated with radioactive elements and we were informed that no raised levels of radioactivity were detected off site. This incident occurred on 21 February. On 1 March there was a leak of plutonium inside the Sellafield plant and two workers were contaminated. Finally, on 2 March one worker was slightly contaminated at Capenhurst Nuclear Power Station during the course of carrying out routine maintenance.
The Government recognise that these incidents are, in themselves, of little radiological significance to the Irish population. Clearly, a balanced view of the situation must be maintained. However, the frequency of these incidents has caused the Government and the Irish people to lose confidence in the safety of the plant. The safety record at Sellafield has been less than satisfactory and the frequency of recent accidents poses the possibility of the occurrence of an accident in the future which could have consequences for this country. This concern is heightened by the recent revelation regarding the errors in the information on radioactive discharges supplied to the Black inquiry. I am also aware of the increasing public concern at the continued operation of the plant. This concern must also be shared by the British public.
For this reason the Taoiseach, at his meeting with the British Prime Minister on 19 February 1986, urged that there be a review of safety procedures at the plant. The further incidents which followed that meeting underlined the necessity, as we see it, for such a review.
Therefore we welcome the announcement of the setting up of an investigation into Sellafield by the UK Health and Safety Executive.
However, it must be recognised that, given the current public concern about Sellafield, any review of the plant must not only be objective but must be seen to be objective. The Taoiseach recently informed the House that the Government would be seeking ministerial discussions in Brussels on the issue of a European inspection force to monitor activities such as those at Sellafield.
Several articles of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM), to which of course we belong, give the Commission several rights with regard to the control and monitoring of radioactive emissions from nuclear installations in member states. The Government will be examining in detail how the Treaty can be applied by the Community to obtain greater control in relation to Sellafield.
I have already had preliminary discussions on the matter with Commissioner Clinton Davis, with a view to having an early meeting to discuss the joint approach by ourselves and by the Commission. I must say, for the record of this House, that his approach to date has been co-operative because he recognnises the Irish interest in the activities at Sellafield.
The Minister for the Environment, Mr. John Boland, TD, took up the matter of a European inspection force at a recent Council of Environment Minister in Brussels. Minister Boland said that the escalation of problems connected with the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant is causing public and political concern in Ireland. The gravest worry is naturally for public health, but there is concern too for the effects on our air quality and marine environment. No one can predict the long term effects of discharges to the Irish Sea and the risk of excessive discharges is also present. The Minister, Deputy Boland, added that there is wide acknowledgement of a communications gap between the nuclear industry and the man in the street. For the Irish public, this communications gap is all the greater since they derive no economic benefit from Sellafield, but there is a perception that this country's health and environment is at risk from it.
Commissioner Clinton Davis responded that, following a debate in the European Parliament last September on the subject of nuclear safety, he asked a committee of independent scientific experts to look into a number of questions related to community policy on radiation protection. He also requested member states to send experts to an ad hoc committee to discuss the idea of a Community nuclear installations inspectorate. Commissioner Clinton Davis is considering the reports of both these committees at present.
The Minister of State at my Department, Deputy Eddie Collins, had a meeting with Commissioner Clinton Davis today in Strasbourg. I have just been advised of the outcome of these discussions. The Minister of State stressed that there is a need for Commission action to ensure that nuclear plant operators, in particular the Nuclear Processing Plant at Sellafield, comply with the highest possible standards of safety. He emphasised that there is growing concern in Ireland about Sellafield. He said that the Commission has a central and vital role to play in the implementation of the Community basic radiation safety standards under the EURATOM Treaty.
In particular, the Minister stressed the Irish Government's position that a European inspection force, which would be internationally regarded as an objective and impartial watchdog, should be set up. He further stated that the issue was of international importance because of the trans-national effects of discharges into the marine environment and the atmosphere. Commissioner Clinton Davis responded that the Commission was urgently reviewing aspects of Community policy on nuclear safety following recent events at Sellafield and would give serious consideration to the issues the Minister had raised.
I will be meeting the Commissioner towards the end of the month for further and more detailed discussions on all matters pertaining to this issue. I will emphasise to the Commissioner the fact that it is the safety aspect of the Sellafield operation which is causing mounting concern in Ireland. The history of Sellafield has not encouraged confidence and the result, we feel, is that the industry has a very negative image. We believe, therefore, that the establishment of an inspection force such as we are proposing should be welcomed not only by people who are concerned on health, safety and environmental grounds, but also by the industry itself.
What about future generations?
I do not think we could expect them to welcome it at this stage.
Pardon?
It is inherent in what I have just said that if the people who are concerned with health safety on environmental grounds and the industry——
There is no mention of it.
If we come to grips with the difficulties, the fears and the problems in the present tense it will naturally follow that we will be catering for the future generations. This inspection force should be in a position to establish whether plants such as Sellafield are safe, and furthermore whether discharges are in conformity with the obligations set out in the EURATOM Treaty, which include compliance not only with numerical limitations on discharges, but also with the ALARA principle, that discharges must be as low as reasonably achievable. We have, of course, stressed to the UK authorities at every opportunity that discharges from Sellafield must conform with ALARA and must, furthermore, be completely eliminated as soon as possible. As long as there are discharges from Sellafield into the Irish Sea, the Irish population will continue to be concerned about the possible impact on their health and safety.
I must emphasise, of course, that the levels of radioactivity are carefully monitored by the Nuclear Energy Board who are engaged in a continuous monitoring programme which monitors radioactivity levels in fish, seawater, seaweed and sediment taken from the Irish Sea. Independent research programmes are also undertaken by the environmental radioactivity laboratories of University College, Dublin, and Trinity College, Dublin. The results of these monitoring programmes have clearly shown that contamination has occurred in the Irish Sea as a result of discharges from Sellafield. However, the radiation dose to the Irish population resulting from Sellafield is very small and would be, on average, less than 1 per cent of the limits advised by the International Commission for Radiological Protection and by the European Community.
A joint Irish-Spanish research cruise is planned for this year to monitor levels and distribution of caesium 134 and caesium 137 in the area bounded by the North-East Atlantic dumpsite, the southwest coast of Ireland and the north-east coast of Spain. This will include an examination of the extent to which discharges from Sellafield and Cap de la Hague have now penetrated these more southerly waters.
The Nuclear Energy Board, with the assistance of the meteorological service of the Department of Communications, also monitor radioactivity levels in air, rainfall and drinking water samples. I am assured by the nuclear energy board that the levels of artificially produced radioactivity in the atmosphere and in the environment are low and do not constitute a health hazard to the Irish public.
The monitoring system operated by the Nuclear Energy Board has been adequate to determine the level of radiation dose to the Irish population which has occurred to date. However, in the light of these recent incidents I propose to have the monitoring procedures reviewed in consulatation with the Nuclear Energy Board with a view to establishing whether monitoring requires any modification. I will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that we will continue to be in a position accurately to measure future radioactivity levels. I might also add that the Nuclear Energy Board published a report in 1984 on their monitoring programme, copies of which are available in the Library. A more recent report will be published shortly and will also be available in the Library.
In November 1983 a British TV programme claimed that there was an excess of young people with leukaemia and other cancers in the neighbourhood of Sellafield. A public inquiry was set up and its report, known as the Black report, concluded that the evidence available did not establish a link between the cancer and Sellafield. However, the Black report did make certain recommendations regarding further studies to be carried out. The Black report also recommended a review of the discharge authorisations and a reduction of routine discharges from the plant. The UK Department of the Environment are in the process of carrying out a review of these discharge authorisations. My Department will be consulted during this review. It is expected that the new authorisations will be introduced later this year.
The Sunday Times reported on 16 February that a nuclear scientist, Dr. Jakeman, formerly employed at Sellafield, has now revealed that the figures given to the Black inquiry on radioactive discharges in the fifties were inaccurate. The article states that BNFL have now admitted that the levels were actually 40 times greater than stated to the Black inquiry. It is also reported that the chairman of the inquiry, Sir Douglas Black, has commented that he considers that he will not be altering his conclusions. It has been confirmed with the UK DHSS that The Sunday Times report is substantially correct.
Further studies are currently being undertaken by the UK authorities on the basis of the Black report recommendations. These include an increase in the number of children originally studied and a re-analysis of data by the Northern Children's Cancer Registry. A UK Department of Health committee will reassess that part of the Black report which is concerned with discharges in the light of recent disclosures by BNFL that the figures provided to the Black advisory group were apparently too low. This health committee will advise within six months as to whether the revised discharge figures should effect any change in Black's conclusions.
As I have already mentioned, many people in Ireland are worried about the possible effects on their health resulting from Sellafield emissions, particularly in view of the recent spate of incidents. The House will be aware that there is concern, for example, about clusters of Down's Syndrome in the Dundalk area. I should mention in this context that the Department of Health have set up a steering committee to examine the incidence of childhood leukaemia since 1970 and of Down's Syndrome in the under 25's. The committee will also undertake a critical examination of the Black report.
Members of this House, and the public, will obviously be concerned at the future action which can and will be taken. The Government will, of course, continue to emphasise to the UK authorities that the Irish population are unwilling to accept any possible risks to their health or environment from an industry which is situated in another country and which is of no benefit to them. Our concern regarding Sellafield was expressed as far back as February 1984, when I met the then UK Secretary for the Environment, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, to discuss the issue of the discharge and dumping of radioactive waste. Following that meeting a contact group was established between Ireland and the UK to provided for a formal channel of communication between the two countries on nuclear matters. Through this contact group, and by other means, the Government have, in recent years, taken steps designed to ensure that we would be kept well abreast of all developments at Sellafield. As a necessary improvement to the working of the contact group, it is our intention to seek a full meeting of officials of all relevant Departments and bodies in the UK and the Republic. We consider that this would contribute to greater cohesion in and prompt receipt of the information being made available.
I assume that the announcement by the UK authorities of the appointment of a team of 12 inspectors to undertake an investigation into Sellafield is due at least in part to the firm representations which the Irish Government have been making, and will continue to make, to the UK Government.
It is like the police investigating themselves. It is ineffective.
I have already mentioned that the nuclear industry must be well aware by now of the very negative image which it has in the public eye. The reality is that the Sellafield issue will continue to fester until such time as the basis for concern regarding its possible effect is investigated. While recognising that the review by the Health and Safety Executive is a step in the right direction, we are of the firm opinion that what is required is an independent inspection of the plant. We contend, furthermore, that it is clearly in the interest of the nuclear industry that they should support such an impartial inspection of the Sellafield plant and also support any measures that might be necessary to improve the safety and environmental impact of the plant.
I should stress at this point that, as far as we are aware, Sellafield has never exceeded the numerical limits which it is authorised to discharge.
They were fined £10,000 only 18 months ago for doing just that.
However, and this is important, the Euratom Treaty requires adherence not only to these limits but also, as I previously mentioned, to ALARA. In a case in the UK Crown Court last year British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. were found guilty inter alia, of not complying with ALARA. It cannot be denied, therefore, that there is evidently scope for improving operations at the plant, and while the programme which has been introduced at Sellafield should result in a significant reduction of discharges, the need for reassurance regarding the safety of the plant remains.
This is one of the points which I will be emphasising in my forthcoming discussions with Commissioner Clinton Davis. I understand that the Commissioner, as well as considering the reports recently presented to him, has received information which he requested from the United Kingdom Government, and he will be submitting it to the article 31 committee of EURATOM, which deals with basic standards for radiological protection. This committee, at the request of the Commissioner, produced the report, currently being considered by him. This report addressed, inter alia, the questions of the lessons to be learned from the Sellafield discharge incident of 1983 as well as from the Black report. I understand that this committee have now been asked to convene to consider the recent incidents at Sellafield and to consider whether the present report needs to be modified in the light of these incidents. This House is aware that there is increasing pressure on the Government regarding Sellafield because many people see the only solution to this problem as the closing down of the plant. Closure of the plant is not as simple as it seems. Firstly, there is already an amount of highly radioactive materials stored at Sellafield which will continue to be stored there, even if further reprocessing is not carried out. These materials will require attention and management and would therefore continue to give rise to concern. If satisfactory standards of safety are seen to be operating and if we can have confidence in the safe operation of the plant without fear of endangering the Irish public, the continued operation of the plant would not be opposed.
However, we need this assurance that the plant is being safely operated, and we consider that the basis for any such assurance must be an investigation by a European inspection force such as we are proposing. The Irish Government are of the firm opinion that it is in the interest of all concerned to support this inspection force at European level and to support any measure that might be adjudged necessary by an inspection force to improve the safety of Sellafield, even if this transpires to mean suspension of operations or closure of the plant.
I will, of course, continue to give this matter my fullest attention, and I will decide on what further action seems appropriate in the light of the ministerial discussions with Commissioner Clinton Davis. I would assure the House that, in the meantime, the Government will miss no opportunity to convey, both to the United Kingdom authorities and at all appropriate international fora, their concern about the spate of incidents which gave rise to widespread public lack of confidence in the safety of the Sellafield operation.
Mention has been made of a letter received by the Taoiseach last week from the British Prime Minister. That letter will be replied to in due course by the Taoiseach. The letter confirms that neither the UK Government nor the nuclear industry are complacent about the Sellafield operations and that continuous improvements are taking place at the plant. This is to be welcomed. However, I must emphasise that what concerns the Irish Government and people is not the recent incidents, which are in themselves of limited radiological significance, but the frequency of these incidents.
I understand that a report on radioactive waste by the House of Commons Environment Committee is due to be published tomorrow, and I await with interest its findings and recommendation. I cannot pre-empt it by making any comments at this stage, but it will be examined carefully by my Department and if there are areas of our concern which are not covered in detail we will take immediate action to seek immediate action by the British Government.
I commend the amendment to the House.
Deputy Pádraig Faulkner.
There are two minutes of Government time left.
I would like to allow Deputy Allen the remainder of Government time.
I support the Government stand on this issue. I have been raising this for a number of years here and I have spoken at a number of seminars throughout the country about this problem. I am delighted that the Opposition have taken some stand on the issue. I arranged for a visit to Sellafield over two years ago and I found it very hard to get a representative of the Opposition to go on a three day visit to Sellafield at that time. I welcome their latter day conversion to the validity of the issue.
The management of Sellafield have been criminally negligent in recent years in carrying out their responsibilities at Sellafield. The evidence is there to show that a conspiracy——
Margaret Thatcher says no, Deputy.
——has taken place to bury the facts on Sellafield, up to now. The Government have taken the right attitude in insisting that an outside inspection force be brought in to monitor the operations there. I welcome the moves being made by the Government to insist that a European group be brought in to examine the operation. I hope Mrs. Thatcher and her Government will agree to this in the near future. I should point out and I said this in the House three weeks ago ——
On a point of order, an order was made that a Fianna Fáil speaker would be called at 8.10. Within the order no reference is made to the fact that two speakers will be called within a half hour from the Government side. If you look at the order you can confirm that.
I must now rule that the two minutes are up.
A report was produced by the British House of Commons AllParty Environment Committee which questions the continued operation of the Sellafield nuclear industry and which challenges the nuclear industry to justify the need for the Sellafield Nuclear Processing Plant, justifies, if such were necessary, our motion, which we are discussing this evening and which has been on the Order Paper for some time, demanding the closure of the plant. I noted on BBC television at about noon today that a Sellafield spokesman commenting on the report laid more emphasis on the job losses which would occur in the event of the plant being closed down than on the health hazards involved. While we would accept that any country, in present circumstances, would be concerned about job losses, they must equally accept that where health hazards can be great, then the health aspect of the matter must have priority. We in this House should be determined to ensure that this is so.
My constituency is in almost a direct line from Cumbria where the Sellafield nuclear plant is located, on the other side of the Irish Sea, and the people of County Louth are understandably deeply concerned about the health hazards involved. I attended a number of meetings recently in my constituency, none of which was called for the precise purpose of discussing Sellafield but in every case the Sellafield nuclear processing plant became the prime topic of discussion and the fears of the people of Louth were forcefully expressed and there was a general demand for the closure of the plant.
I submitted a question for written answer asking the Minister for Energy if he will give details of the methods employed in monitoring the water in the Irish Sea vis-á-vis emissions from Sellafield and if he is satisfied that the methods used are of the highest standards. I expected a reply today. Instead I received a letter from the Ceann Comhairle stating that the question was disallowed because it anticipated the debate on the closure of Sellafield in Private Members' Time. While not disputing the Ceann Comhairle's decision, I must, however, express regret that my question was ruled out because the information sought by me, had it been given, would have helped considerably in this debate. When I have asked questions in the past about the Sellafield issue, I have been informed by Ministers replying to the questions that their information is that the level of radiation is not serious etc., and equally questions to health authorities are apt to have a somewhat similar reply but the public are entitled to know how the information supplied to me is arrived at, how the water and the air are monitored and how the information supplied to me is arrived at, how the water and the air are monitored and how the information is evaluated. I do not know, and the public do not know. As my question was ruled out, I had hoped that the Minister for Energy might make some reference to that situation this evening but all he said was that the monitoring system operated by the Nuclear Energy Board has been adequate to determine the level of radioactivity. A further speaker from the Government side should give me the information I require. I would refer to the fact that the Minister in the course of his speech mentioned the number of discharges into the Irish Sea and expressed satisfaction that a prompt notification procedure was agreed at a meeting. Notification of more recent incidents have been practically immediate. I quote from page five of the Minister's speech: “No one can predict the long term effects of the discharges to the Irish Sea”. Early notification is not what is needed but a complete stop to the leakages which can only be achieved by closing down the Sellafield plant.
A major difficulty we face in endeavouring to deal with this extremely serious problem is the fact that there is a total lack of faith and justifiably so, in the veracity of the management at Sellafield. For many years while this industry was operating we have had no information whatsoever about the processing plant there. Now, because of circumstances outside the control of the Sellafield management, we know that for years problems arose at Sellafield because of accidents about which no announcements were made by management and about which the workers in that plant could not speak because of the Official Secrets Act. They each had to sign a declaration of secrecy. Very serious accidents which occurred in more recent times and which it was found were impossible to cloak have changed all that and the matter has become an international issue, and for the first time here the gravity of the matter, which we on this side of the House raised some years ago, is beginning to get the attention it deserves. However, we still face enormous difficulties in getting at the truth. This is a multimillion business with enormous sums of money utilised by BNF in a PRO exercise to paint the best possible picture of the industry. I am convinced that unless a team of international experts are given access to Sellafield to carry out a thorough investigation into the safety aspect of the plant and until we have a group of international experts monitoring the operation on a regular basis, we are going to drift into a crisis situation and then taking action will be too late and totally ineffective. We now know that a small earthquake, such as was experienced recently in Britain, striking closer to the Sellafield area could have devastating results. The proposals in the Government amendment falls far short of what is necessary. The Government have been conveying the Irish public's concern for quite some time to the UK Government and the Taoiseach has written to the British Prime Minister on the matter, only to be told in every instance that there is no problem whatever at Sellafield.
We are now aware that we were given misinformation in the past by the Sellafield authorities. The Black report proves that BNF cannot be trusted. Whether or not the information being supplied at present both by the British Government and the Sellafield authorities is true or false, past experience ensures that the public, particularly here in Ireland, but to quite an extent in Britain as well, will be very suspicious of it and will rightly be very unhappy in the knowledge that nothing will be done about possible health hazards. From now on we can only be satisfied with the findings of international experts and in the interim the plant must be closed.
I would remind the Minister for Energy that Deputy Kirk and I asked the then Minister for Industry and Energy on Thursday, 17 November 1983 if he proposed to seek the setting up of an international body to inquire into incidents of nuclear pollution at Windscale, now Sellafield. The Minister's reply was that he was informed by the Nuclear Energy Board that the extent of the exposure in Ireland to radioactivity from discharges of effluent from Windscale was less than 1 per cent of the accepted EC safety limit and was also less than 1 per cent of the recommended limit set out by the International Commission on Radiological Protection.
I would like to bring to the Minister's attention that it now appears to be accepted that nobody knows what the danger level of radioactivity is. The risks are unknown and in the circumstances it is obvious that it would have been a much more sensible approach by the Minister at the time of our question if he had further questioned the Nuclear Energy Board's submission to him and if he had proceeded to negotiate with other countries with the object of setting up the international body proposed by us then.
In the remainder of his reply to us the Minister stated that Ireland had on several occasions indicated to the UK and to various international bodies our opposition to the discharge of radioactive effluent and dumping of radioactive waste at sea. From our experience now of the attitudes of those involved in this multi-million pound industry, both the British Government and British Nuclear Fuels, it is clear that simply drawing attention to these problems is far from sufficient and that an international grouping must be formed to monitor the whole nuclear industry. At Sellafield, safety precautions are now, and have been for a long time, clearly inadequate. Indeed, an ITV programme recently pinpointed the discharge of a million gallons of effluent into the Irish Sea, and this in itself points to the failure, so far, of the Irish Government to ensure that this grave problem is properly tackled.
In her reply to the Taoiseach, the British Prime Minister stated that Sellafield represented the highest standards of safety and she described its past record as excellent. From our present knowledge of this accident-prone industry, it is clear that these assurances by the British Prime Minister are totally unacceptable, more particularly when no neutral observer could possibly consider the monitoring bodies cited by her to be unbiased or independent scientific bodies. Her reliance, for example, on a body which originally planned the Windscale discharges into the Irish Sea emphasises the weakness of her case, but equally underlines the need for an independent international scientific body to monitor Sellafield's operation. I would also make the point that the workers in the Sellafield plant, the inhabitants of the area around it and many groupings in Great Britain itself are now deeply concerned about the health hazards related to this plant.
On the east coast of Ireland, and in my constituency particularly, we are anxious that we get the real truth. If the truth is that, and all reports point to this, the emissions are harmful then Sellafield must be closed down. If the argument of the British Government and BNF is that there is really no danger, and this is highly unlikely, then it is equally important that we should know this, but the information must come from an impeccable source, not from groupings or individuals who are involved in the business and in whose interest it is to continue the operation and, equally, of course, this must entail the closure of the plant now to allow for the investigation.
I am especially concerned about truth in this matter, because rumours and stories circulating here in respect of health hazards can have a very serious detrimental effect on our tourist industry and on the consumption of certain foodstuffs. There is only one way in which these rumours can be scotched and that is that there be an acceptance that the emissions and effluent discharges are shown to be dangerous and the plant be closed down and the problem thereby eliminated. The matter must be cleared up and cleared up quickly.
The whole question of radioactivity from discharges of effluent from Sellafield has now become not only a national issue but indeed an international one. While I am glad to note this general interest I feel that the matter should have been treated more seriously by the Government when first raised by Deputy Kirk and Deputy G. Brady and myself some years ago. We became particularly concerned about the matter when we read a report by two Irish doctors in a British medical journal linking the births in my constituency of a number of Down's Syndrome babies with a nuclear accident at Windscale, now Sellafield, and we asked the Minister for Health if he had seen that report and if he was aware of the deep concern and apprehension in respect of the matter in the constituency of Louth. The Minister replied that a link between the births and the nuclear accident at Windscale had not been established.
I wish to make the point that the doctors concerned, who were highly reputable people, appeared to have established such a link. I would like to learn from the Minister if this matter has been followed up over the past couple of years and if any conclusion has been reached in respect of it. It is very necessary that the facts in this case should also be made available to the public and if after investigations the Minister is satisfied a link has since been established then the Government should present the British Government with this information. I would remind the Minister that in the area around Sellafield in Britain quite a number of people were stricken with an illness the incidence of which was ten times greater than the national average and yet it was stated that there was no relationship there either between the incidence of the disease and the nuclear plant at Sellafield, which stretches credibility somewhat, to say the least of it.
I think that we must accept, until proved otherwise, that there is a threat to the health and to the lives of people involved in the Sellafield operation, not only to people living and working in the area but to people along the east coast of this country and particularly in my constituency. We do not wish to overreact. The facts are, however that because of misinformation in the past, it is understandable that we should have strong doubts as to whether the data made available to us by British Nuclear Fuels, or, indeed by the British Government, can be relied upon. From whom does the British Government obtain this data? Is it from the Sellafield authorities? The facts are that misinformation has been handed out for many years and this does not inspire confidence. We should also remind ourselves that the plant itself is old and there has been a failure over the years to improve safety standards there.
Let me repeat that there must be a thorough investigation into the whole Sellafield operation. Apart from an investigation into the plant, all the evidence in respect of health on both sides of the Irish Sea must be thoroughly investigated and action taken. It will not suffice any longer simply to say that the incidents at Sellafield had resulted in only slight contamintion and that it was within the limits laid down internationally; nor can we confine ourselves to the contamination of water only. The effects of air emissions must also be monitored. Let me repeat that an international group must be in charge of the investigation and of the monitoring. Nothing else will have any credibility.
The European Parliament recently demanded that the processing plant at Sellafield be shut down. This desision was reached after a debate to which many members contributed. All through that debate, even among those who did not favour closure, there was clearly a complete loss of confidence in the management. We must have particular regard for this decision.
Let me repeat, the Sellafield nuclear processing plant must be closed now and proper investigation carried out at once.
This motion tabled by Fianna Fáil is very timely. It comes at a time when very serious incidents have taken place and this had given great cause for concern about the Sellafield plant, particularly to everybody in Ireland. Sellafield was formerly known as Windscale and during that time a number of serious accidents took place which called into question the desirability of continuing to operate the plant for safety reasons.
In every country very rigid regulations have been introduced in every type of factory to ensure the maximum safety for workers and others who may come into contact with the operations, but here we are considering a plant using radioactive material. It superimposes a grave obligation on the authorities to ensure that every possible safety measure is taken and that no risks whatever would be imposed on anybody coming into contact with such a plant. Experts in Britain have expresed grave fears about Sellafield and many have called for its closure, particularly following the most recent incidents when a number of workers were contaminated by radioactive material.
Though Sellafield is located in another country, its geographical location is far too close to Ireland for comfort, particularly on the east coast. It is even more disquieting to know that tons of radioactive waste are being pumped into the Irish Sea. Tests carried out to sea life have indicated a very high degree of radioactivity. We have been assured that the extent is not so great as to cause concern to humans, but very few people accept that, and the knowledge that the Irish Sea is the most radioactive stretch in Europe gives cause for great alarm and concern.
In such circumstances it is a fundamental responsibility of the Irish Government to call for the closure of Sellafield and to end the very realistic fears we have on this side of the Irish Sea. After the Taoiseach's recent meeting with the British Prime Minister we were told that Sellafield was not the serious threat it was supposed to be, though the Taoiseach had expressed fears and anxieties.
The Government's approach must be much tougher. We should be calling for the closure of Sellafield, as many people in Britain have been doing for some time. A recent report indicates clearly that Sellafield is a radioactive time bomb. It is common knowledge that it has a very serious design fault which could lead to a disaster from a minor earth tremor. The report points out that a minor tremor would destroy key bolts holding up the reactor which in an accident would cause an uncontrollable fire and discharge a very high level of radioactivity. The possibility of this happening is one in 500, whereas the safety standards adopted for new plants is one in ten million.
Earth tremors on this side of the world have become much more powerful in recent years. One has only to recall the experience in Dublin in 1984 when an unusually strong tremor hit the city. The main force of the tremor was in the Irish Sea. This was an experience unknown to Irish people. It increases the risk of a similar occurrence in Cumbria which would have a devastating effect on Ireland following a massive radioactive fallout from Sellafield in such circumstances. The British Prime Minister on a number of occasions recently has said that Sellafield will not be closed down. That shows very scant regard for the environment and not only for the Irish people but for the very large population of Cumbria.
It has been made clear that information relating to a number of incidents at the plant have been suppressd. There has been far too much secrecy and far too many falsehoods surrounding incidents which originally were denied but which subsequently we discovered were not only true but of a very serious nature. The British Prime Minister recently characterised some of these incidents as trivial. What is trivial about humans being exposed to leakages of radioactive material, particularly to plutonium seepage? Scientists have proved that a dust mould of plutonium in a small animal's lung can provoke a massive fibrosis big enough to kill within months. What terrible effect, therefore, would a severe leakage carried by strong winds have on the communities located within hundreds of miles of the plant? The effect on the population would be devastating and according to experts it takes only one-thousandth of a gram of plutonium to cause a serious cancer which would be fatal within one year. Surely it is no coincidence that the incidence of cancer and leukaemia in certain areas geographically located closer to Sellafield is much higher than anywhere else in the country?
Debate adjourned.