By agreement, and notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, Members shall be called in Private Members' Time this evening as follows: 7 p.m.-7.10 p.m., Fianna Fáil speaker; 7.10p.m.-7.25 p.m., Government speaker; 7.25 p.m.-7.40 p.m., Government speaker; 7.40 p.m.-7.50 p.m., Fianna Fáil speaker; 7.50 p.m.-8 p.m., Fianna Fáil speaker; 8 p.m.-8.10 p.m., Fianna Fáil speaker; 8.10 p.m.-8.15 p.m., Progressive Democrats speaker; 8.15 p.m.-8.20 p.m., Workers' Party speaker; 8.20 p.m.-8.30 p.m., Opposition speaker.
Private Members' Business. - Sellafield Nuclear Plant: Motion (Resumed).
Is the schedule agreed? Agreed.
The following motion was moved by Deputy R. Burke on Tuesday, 2 December 1986:
That Dáil Éireann, concerned about the repeated accidents at, and continuing discharges from, the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant and conscious of the dangerous threat it poses to the life and health of the Irish people and to the whole environment on this island, calls on the British Government to arrange for the immediate closure of this dangerous installation.
Fianna Fáil have tabled this motion, because in the light of the recent remarks of the Minister for Energy it appeared it would be possible to get all-party consensus calling on the British Government to close down Sellafield, and that this would be expressed in a unanimous Dáil motion. The Minister for Energy last Thursday described Sellafield as a "dangerous monstrosity" that was invading Irish sovereignty and undermining Ireland's integrity as a nation. He advocated an international campaign to force the closure of the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant. It is clear that the best foundation of any such campaign would be a unanimous resolution passed by this Dáil calling on the British Government to close down Sellafield.
We welcome the decision of the Government on this occasion to support our motion calling for such a closedown, although it is a matter of regret that earlier this year on two occasions when we had a similar motion before this House the Government could not see their way to support it. The loss of time in the Government coming round to the right decision is something we regret because we feel that had the first motion been passed it would have been a step further along the way to having this very serious situation rectified.
If the parties opposite were not prepared to make that demand on the British Government, then any international campaign to ask others to do that for us would lack all credibility. It would be illogical and absurd to expect other countries less immediately threatened by the menace of Sellafield to demand its closure, if we were not prepared to demand its closure ourselves. Trying to shelter behind others would be seen for what it is, moral cowardice.
The Minister's remarks of last Thursday are a vindication of our campaign going back several years on this subject. From the Taoiseach down Coalition Ministers got it wrong, and they did the Irish people no service in repeating anodyne assurances from the British authorities. It is an admission that even their most recent position, to call for a European inspectorate, was a totally inadequate response to the problem. There is no doubt that a clear Irish stand would enormously increase the pressure on the British government. Last March the voting down of the Fianna Fáil motion in the Dáil resulted in disastrous headlines in British newspapers, for example "Irish reject nuclear closure".
The latest leak of 50,000 gallons of radioactive waste into the Irish Sea is another in a whole chapter of accidents. These are manmade errors and obviously accidents much more serious than we have had to date could come our way in the future. It must be obvious to everyone that there are things always going wrong and that Sellafield represents a major hazard to life and health on both sides of the Irish Sea. It is quite impossible to have any confidence either in the competence or the truthfulness of the authorities in relation to plants like Sellafield. Again and again the public have been given false and misleading information and assurances. Indeed, the position up to a couple of years ago was that the authorities at Sellafield were not obliged to announce incidents or accidents at all unless the amount of radioactive waste reached the limit they were allowed by legislation. Had it not been for the fact that members from Greenpeace reported the incident — and this on many occasions was the first that the public heard about such accidents and such incidents — we would not know what was happening. Only in the past two years have they now in, I suppose a public relations campaign, agreed to announce the information as soon as an accident occurs. Still, the Minister answered me in this House that an incident on 5 February was not reported to him and that he had to inquire about it when he heard about if from some other source. Again and again the public have been given false and misleading information and assurances. The nuclear industry is, to borrow a phrase from the British cabinet secretary, "economical with the truth".
The effects of the Chernobyl nuclear accident are a vivid warning to us of the effects of a major nuclear accident. That accident a thousand miles away nevertheless led to increase radiation levels over Ireland. There was in parts of Britain and Europe heavy contamination of food chains to the point that certain crops had to be destroyed and certain products declared unfit for human consumption. We had the controversy, unfounded though the allegations were, in Brazil about Irish dairy products. A similar accident at Sellafield to that at Chernobyl would have serious consequences for the Irish people. If there was fall-out it is along the Irish coast that the effects would be seen most.
I would like to comment on the recent report submitted by the Minister for Health about the incidence of leukaemia in Ireland. The report is inconclusive in that it does not deal aetiologically with the cause of leukaemia. There was a higher incidence in certain parts of the east coast and inland from the east coast. It is important that there be a major study going right back to 1957 to the major disaster at Sellafield, that there be an examination of the causes of leukaemia and that reports be available to people who want to study the incidence of leukaemia or other diseases which may be linked to radioactivity.
I am glad to see the Government are supporting our motion tonight. Calder Hall, one of the older stations the lifespan of which is 25 years, is now over 30 years old and it should be decommissioned immediately. I do not think anybody could disagree with that because by the time a major accident occurs it will be too late. Even if a major accident does not occur but the leaks and discharges we have experienced continue it is not possible to predict the long term effects. There are worrying indications of detrimental health effects not merely in Cumbria but in County Down and all along the north coast. Indeed, radioactive substances have been picked up in Carrigkeen in a study that was carried out off the coast of County Down. The Swedish Government are especially concerned about radioactive elements in their coastal waters traceable back to Sellafield and they contemplate taking legal action.
Deputy, you time is up. The Minister for Health has 25 minutes.
The House will be aware of my concern over Sellafield and the possible health consequences for the Irish public. On Monday last I received the report of a study carried out into the mortality and incidence of childhood leukaemia in this country. I am arranging to have this laid before the House. I have on a number of occasions raised this matter, notably at the WHO plenary session last May. I raised it at that conference, not too long after the Chernobyl affair, and I did so in a very trenchant manner with my counterpart in the UK. Since then I have raised it on almost every occasion when I have had such meetings. The Taoiseach, the Minister for Energy and Minister for the Environment have also availed of every opportunity to express the serious concern of the Irish Government about this.
The background to this study is that in November 1984 an expert committee was convened at the invitation of my Department to advise on action which might be taken in response to professional and public concern about possible health consequences, in particular cancer risk, from previous and current levels of ionising radiation in the Irish Sea region. Sellafield, of course, was particularly in mind. I will deal with this report later.
The accident at Chernobyl has heightened public awareness and concern over the Sellafield plant and indeed other nuclear installations, particularly the old Magnox reactors, in the UK. Chernobyl demonstrated that a serious accident at a nuclear installation can have effects on countries many hundreds of miles distant. It is, however, natural that we should be most concerned about the nuclear installations of our nearest neighbour, the UK. There is particular concern of course, over Sellafield. Radioactive materials are being transported through the Irish Sea from around the world to Sellafield for reprocessing. The possibility of an accident at sea cannot be ruled out as we know in relation to more recent events at home. Sellafield continues to regularly discharge large quantities of radioactive waste into the Irish Sea. While epidemiological and other studies carried out do not implicate Sellafield as a health hazard, neither can they entirely exonerate it. Epidemiological studies cannot always be conclusive and much yet remains to be learned about the degrees of risk associated with various levels or radiation.
There has been a long catalogue of incidents at the Sellafield plant, in many instances resulting in unplanned discharges into the Irish Sea. The Minister for Energy has earlier given the House an outline of the incidents which occurred this year, the latest of which occurred on 27 November when the wrong tank of liquid was discharged into the sea. The liquid in this tank had not been tested for its level of radioactivity.
Showing patience, and bearing in mind that the Irish Government do not administer the plant and bearing in mind that the plant is subject to minimal levels of international supervision, the Government having made multiple representations clearly indicate at this stage that we do not have confidence in the safety of the operation of the plant. The Minister for Energy has also chronicled the long and repeated efforts made by the Government for the setting up of a Community inspection force to reinforce the national inspectorates of member states with a nuclear industry. These efforts we must confess have to date met with limited success but the Government are determined to continue their efforts at Community level and on a bilateral basis.
Faced however with the continuing margin of uncertainty about risks posed by Sellafield, its continuing poor accident record and insufficient support at this time for a Community inspection force, I support the demand for the closure of the Sellafield plant.
I welcome this opportunity of giving the House a summary of the study I referred to at the outset and its recommendations. It is, very relevant to the motion under discussion. That committee which was a widely representative committee did outstanding work and I thank them for their work. They advised that since a national cancer registry is not available a special study to establish cancer incidence should be undertaken in the first instance. It was agreed that since the induction period of acute lymphoid leukaemia in children is relatively short, the mortality and incidence of this tumour should first be studied; consideration of the aetiological factors was not included in the terms of reference of this study since such research would have taken considerably longer to complete. Recent data on mortality and incidence from acute lymphoid leukaemia internationally were reviewed. Since mortality rates vary with treatment, international comparisons of incidence are more valid. Annual incidence rates of acute lymphoid leukaemia worldwide vary from about 30-35/1,000,000 children aged 0-14 years in North America and western Europe to about 15/1,000,000 black children in North America and Africa and Indian children. The average annual incidence rate of 31/1,000,000 children found in the current study is similar to rates in other western populations.
During the total study period, no excess of mortality or incidence was apparent either on the east or south coast of the country and distribution of high rates was quite random over the country as a whole. Deputy O'Hanlon and I are well aware that this was the problem in relation to the cluster in the Dundalk area and we gave special attention to it. The fact that there were more areas with no cases in the west of Ireland than elsewhere may be a reflection of population density.
More detailed examination of mortality rates showed a small excess in coastal strips approximately three miles wide on the east and south coasts for the period 1971-76 but not for the period 1977-82. Deaths were evenly distributed along these coastal strips and no particular area of coast had higher rates than another. On the east coast in 1971-76, an average of 2.7 deaths per year occurred, whereas 1.5 would have been expected if the rate there had been the same as the rest of the country; on the south coast an average of 0.8 deaths per year occurred, whereas 0.5 would have been expected. A strip of approximately 18 miles deep inland of the coastal strip in both areas had fewer deaths than the national average prior to 1977, and when this was combined with the three miles wide strip death rates from acute lymphoid leukaemia in children there were identical to the national average.
I stress that after 1977 the study found no geographic variations in mortality and incidence rates. While we can say that Sellafield has no observable impact in relation to acute lymphoid leukaemia in children since 1977 we cannot, on the basis of this study, exonerate it prior to that date. In the light of the findings of this report and in acknowledgment of the difficulties experienced in compiling the data on which it is based, the report makes the following recommendations: (1) a national cancer registry should be established to monitor cancer incidence; (2) a board, composed of representatives of appropriate Government Departments and scientific experts, should be established which would have statutory responsibility for the monitoring and control of all environmental hazards; (3) an epidemiological research programme inquiring into incidence, trends and causation of cancer should be undertaken.
I am already taking measures towards the setting up of a national cancer register and discussions are continuing with the World Health Organisation and other relevant bodies. I will also have the other recommendations acted on as soon as possible. Studies are also being undertaken at present into the prevalence of Downes Syndrome on the east coast as compared with the west coast and also to determine if Donegal has a higher than average incidence of Downes Syndrome.
I wish to assure the Opposition that over the past four years the matter has been under the closest surveillance at Government level. We have kept in close contact with the UK authorities and the WHO and copies of the report which I received have been sent to my counterparts in Northern Ireland, the UK and to the WHO. Unquestionably, there is support in the House for international monitoring and control procedures which are so urgently needed.
May I share my time with the Minister of State, if necessary?
It is possible to do so.
My purpose in speaking in this debate is to outline the attitude of the Government, from an environmental point of view, on this important matter. The House will recall that in February of this year the Taoiseach indicated our unhappiness in relation to the operation of the Sellafield plant and the concern of our people in regard to it at a meeting he had with the British prime minister.
It was also announced at that time that the Government had decided to press the European Commission for the setting up of an inspectorate with authority to carry out inspection of nuclear plants throughout Europe. At the first environmental council meeting which I attended in March, I pursued the matter with some difficulty. The House will be aware that the traditional view taken at European level is that matters regarding the operation of nuclear plants are appropriate to the Council of Energy Ministers. Up to the time of the March Council meeting there had never been a substantive discussion among the Council of Environment Ministers on the question of the health and safety of the individual person from the point of view of the nuclear system. We made the point at the March Council meeting — and again at a Council meeting of the Environment Ministers held in Luxembourg in June — that public sensitivity in all the countries in the Commission to the environmental hazards posed by nuclear installations had become much more acute as time went on. Indeed, the calls which we made at the March Council meeting were fully justified by the extraordinary and dreadful occurrence in Chernobyl shortly afterwards.
We have since been following up this matter with Commissioner Clinton-Davis. The Minister for Energy and I had separate meetings to impress upon him the concern of the Irish Government and people regarding the question of the safety of the operation of nuclear plants generally. At the Council of Environment Ministers which was held last week in Brussels, I again raised this matter and noted, with satisfaction, that the Commission came forward in August with specific proposals. I am pleased to report that the Council of Environment Ministers, for the first time at the meeting last week, accepted and indeed demanded that environment Ministers had a particular role to play in this matter. As a result they issued a statement following their meeting stating:
The Council had an exchange of views on the environmental aspects of nuclear safety.
The next paragraph is of supreme significance. It states:
The Council agreed on the primordial importance of protecting the public and the environment from harm through nuclear radiation both as a result of normal operations and in the circumstances of an accident.
The Council agreed that, in addition to work in the IAEA, the Community which is already bound by the EURATOM Treaty and which will shortly be bound by new EC Treaty commitments on the subject of environmental protection, and which has acted as a pacemaker on international co-operation on transboundary environmental issues, has an important and complementary role to play, whilst avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort.
The Council noted that in the light of today's discussion, the Commission will come forward soon with precise proposals for the protection of the public and the environment from the harmful effects of nuclear radiation. It agreed that such proposals should be considered as a matter of urgency.
The fact that the environment Ministers took that decision and issued that statement is a total vindication of the stance adopted by the Government earlier this year and pursued by the Taoiseach and various Ministers at European level since then. As I said, the environment Ministers are now accepting they have a role to play in the matter of nuclear safety. I would like to draw the attention of the House particularly to the second paragraph of the statement which I have read into the record and which states:
The Council agreed on the primordial importance of protecting the public and the environment from harm through nuclear radiation both as a result of normal operations and in the circumstances of an accident.
Implicit in that paragraph is an acceptance on the part of the environment Ministers that the public and the environment can suffer harm through nuclear radiation as a result of normal operations. It has long been the contention of Irish Governments that the plant at Sellafield through its normal operations and because of its nature and age is a plant which is a threat to public health and safety. We have been demanding that that plant be closed as soon as is practicable. The fact that this statement was agreed by all of the environment Ministers under the Presidency of the British Minister is an absolute vindication of the stance we took earlier this year. Indeed, I am pleased to report to the House that there has been a substantial change in attitudes on the part of environment Ministers from a number of European countries in the course of 1986 in relation to the entire question of nuclear safety.
Including yourself.
I have already outlined to the House the attitude which I have taken consistently since becoming Minister for the Environment in February and which I outlined initially at the Council of Ministers meeting I attended approximately two to three weeks after becoming Minister for the Environment.
What did the Minister say at that meeting?
That stance was that the Irish Government believed that this important issue was based on three beliefs: first, that nuclear safety and its supervision has an important transnational interest, secondly, that the Community has a part to play in improving nuclear safety in addition to the efforts of member states and the IAEA and, thirdly, that more specific Community proposals must be brought forward quickly especially for a strengthened regime of inspection to provide greater safety and reassurance for our citizens.
As I said, at that first Council meeting in March the point was forcibly made that this was not a matter appropriate to the Council of Environment Ministers and yet some six or eight months later at a Council meeting of last week the environment Ministers unanimously outlined and stated that they did and do have a role to play and that they intended to see that role being exercised. In addition, the Commission through Commissioner Clinton-Davis indicated very strongly that the Commission now wanted to become involved through the environment Council of Ministers in promoting the entire question of the safety of the general public and of the environment in the context of the operation of nuclear plants.
To turn again to the statement which was issued, the fact that the environment Ministers enunciated that the public and the environment can suffer harm through nuclear radiation as a result of normal operations of plants is a major and important step forward and vindicates all we have been saying regarding the operation of Sellafield. Indeed, one of the extraordinary things in connection with many of the nuclear plants is that their siting in many countries happens to be proximate to the borders or boundaries of adjoining countries. Consequently, they have an important transnational aspect attached to them. The major step forward which has been achieved at European level in convincing our European colleagues with responsibility for the protection of the environment of the role they should be playing and in convincing the European Commission of our duties and obligations in this regard will bear fruit and has already shown a marked change in attitudes through the issuing of that statement following the meeting of the Council of Environment Ministers last week.
It is for that reason, in particular, that the Government amendment to this motion has been entered. The amendment refers to the demands made by the Government in the course of the last year for the establishment as a matter of priority of a nuclear inspection force. Until that force is established by the Commission I do not think that the assurances, however well meaning, that may be given by any of the member states which operate nuclear plants will be accepted lightly by other member states or by the general public. The stance of the Irish Government has played a major part in changing the attitude at European level towards the protection of the environment and of the public. I look forward in the coming months to the implementation of the proposals first put forward by the Taoiseach, and by the Tánaiste and I in February and March of this year.
Nobody believes that.
A significant amount of time has been taken up in this Dáil session by discussing what have come to be called questions of political morality. We have experienced this on the so called social legislation questions and we have questions of political morality raised when we discuss our financial affairs. People say these are moral questions in terms of the extent of the tax and debt burden which can be passed from one generation to another. It seems that there is overwhelming political immorality in a decision of policy makers of one generation to decide on terms of cheap power for themselves and the price to be paid by future generations in terms of damage to their quality of life and to the environment. On that issue Fine Gael have taken a very strong stance traditionally. As a party we have set our face against the nuclear option but that does not represent the end of the matter.
Many parties in this House would now set their face against the nuclear option though not all of them would have done so quite so recently. As we have been reminded in the most chilling fashion recently nuclear power does not stop at national borders. The fact that we have chosen not to travel the nuclear road does not exempt us from the fact that we live alongside neighbours who have made other decisions and find ourselves with installations in some instances as close as 60 miles away. It does not allow us ignore the fact that some of those installations are now well beyond their original life-span — the early magnox reactors which were expected to last 25 years now have had that and more — it does not ignore the concern which understandably exists with regard to Sellafield.
That requires a response and the particular response, as the Minister for the Environment has indicated, from the Government has been to seek to internationalise the problem. It seems to us unthinkable that Irish people should have to rely on the goodwill and judgment of the operators. If one were to describe their management record as laidback, one would be generous. It has been so laidback as to be horizontal. There have been 300 incidents at Sellafield alone. There have been a series of incidents this year alone. Therefore, we have sought to internationalise the issue, and in particular to involve the European Community believing that the Commission has a substantial role to play. The Minister for the Environment has indicated the extent to which progress has been made on that and he mentioned some of the difficulties we faced such as the initial doubts as to whether the Commission had the legal authority to do that. With the assistance of the Attorney General and his staff we were able to convince the Commission's legal services that such power existed under chapter 3 of the Euratom Treaty. We continue to press that road. We continue to play a role within the international Atomic Energy Agency who have responded post Chernobyl though the response was concentrated on what happens after an incident.
Therefore, there have been two conventions agreed, one dealing with early notification and the other dealing with mutual assistance. Admirable as they are, it seems to us to represent only part of the picture. Concentrating on what happens afterwards is fine but much more important is to be in a position to reassure people that the optimum level of safety is being applied. Therefore, we have pressed at every level open to us to internationalise and most specifically we have pressed to involve the European Community and to persuade the Commission to exercise the power it now accepts it clearly has under the Euratom Treaty.
The Minister should conclude.
Inspection, of course, is only part of the problem. It remains the case that people are concerned and feel threatened. Given the manner in which these installations, particularly the one we are talking about, have been run people will continue to feel threatened as long as they are there. Therefore, we said close Sellafield at the earliest possible moment but in advance of that we want inspection and we want that now.
It is a pity the Minister did not say that last night.
It is very interesting to hear the Government tonight say how enthusiastic they are about the approach we have been proposing to them for quite some time. Indeed, it sounds a little like yet another conversion on the road to Damascus. We are of course delighted to see the Government coming to support Fianna Fáil, even though they wish to add a minor amendment to the end of the motion in order to save face. The Fianna Fáil motion is as follows:
That Dáil Éireann, concerned about the repeated accidents at, and continuing discharges from, the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant and conscious of the dangerous threat it poses to the life and health of the Irish people and to the whole environment on this island, calls on the British Government to arrange for the immediate closure of this dangerous installation.
The Government would add:
and urges the European Communities to decide as a matter of priority the establishment of a nuclear inspection force.
In March this year the Government had an opportunity to come around behind Fianna Fáil and join all parties in this House in calling on the British Government to close Sellafield and to put matters in order. By that stage it was becoming abundantly clear that there were serious problems at Sellafield and grave problems developing in the Irish Sea. Perhaps it is the threat of execution hanging over the heads of the Government which is concentrating their minds so wonderfully on this matter and bringing them to support the Fianna Fáil motion. This is, in effect, what they are doing.
The Government's approach has been weak, cavilling and apologetic. There is no need to be apologetic. The evidence is there to show that there are serious problems and we should not apologise to the British or anybody else for our stand on this issue. I know that Ministers and the Government generally would gladly have stood with us on this matter, but they were too weak to do so earlier in the year. Now they are taking up a different position.
In the whole complex of nuclear facilities, Calder Hall must be singled out for special mention. It is a very old and, in nuclear terms, dilapidated and dangerous facility which has the potential to become another Chernobyl, albeit on a different scale. It should be shut down without delay. Any time I have discussed those facilities with technical people, Calder Hall has stood out as a terrifying prospect. If there were any responsible management in British Nuclear Fuels it would certainly have been closed by this time. It is a matter of criminal negligence to allow that time bomb to remain. It is well past its depreciation and should not be allowed to continue in operation. I join with the general call in the motion, particularly on the question of closing Calder Hall.
We are very much dependent on the Irish Sea, which is one of our greatest natural resources, both in terms of our fishing industry and recreational activities. It is not only important to our citizens for recreation but also in relation to the development of tourism and the use of our seaside resorts. I was horrified earlier this year to discover that the rate of silting around Bull Island is being determined on the basis of the radioactivity levels in the lagoon. We are told that these levels are not so serious as to constitute a health hazard according to the current standards, but it is not acceptable that leaks of radioactive material are causing silt to build up on our shores. This has become so regular and reliable an occurrence that it can be used to measure the level of silting. Researchers can now confirm from radioactivity tests the yearly rate of silting deposits on our shoreline ever since Sellafield was opened on the north west coast of England. It has been building up over that long period. I came across that information accidentally as I went to look for the stakes which were used to measure the level of silting. I discovered that the stakes are not used any more because the leaks from Sellafield are so regular and so definable that they can be used to determine the rate of silting. It is time we called for this to stop. There is also a disturbing threat to our fine bird sanctuary right in the heart of Dublin and potentially to the whole community.
Medical experts will argue about the time at which the potential becomes serious, but we should not be in this business. There is far too much leukaemia and cancer in the Dublin area particularly. People are concerned about it. I know that it will not be possible to prove objectively that there is a direct connection and there will be great argument about it. It is an argument we could do without. We have too many of these fatal diseases and we should be eliminating anything in the environment which even potentially contributes to the ill health of our community.
The implications of the threat from Sellafield should transcend party politics and I am happy to see that the Government have agreed to an all-party approach on this matter. It is not the first time this kind of thing has happened. Denmark has called on Sweden to close its nuclear plant. This motion gives us a unique opportunity to come together and say something in the name of all the Irish people. We must speak loudly and clearly and unequivocably. We must not be weak or afraid. History will show that we were right to take this step and those members of the Government who have decided to come across and join us on this motion — albeit with a minor variation at the end of it — will be glad in time that they took this step. We welcome the Government's decision and we trust that this will lead to a co-ordinated and cohesive approach to this problem, resulting in a sustained effort to bring about the closure of these plants to ensure that the environment is made safe for our people.
Is aoibhinn liom an ócáid seo a bheith agam labhairt arís ar an ghné tábhachtach seo. Im thuairimse níor tháinig os comhair an Tí le fada mír atá chomh tábhachtach leis an ceann a chuir Páirtí Fhianna Fáil faoin ár mbráid aréir. Is maith liom go bhfuil glactha leis ag an Rialtas. ach caithfidh mé a chur i gcuimhne dóibh go raibh a leithéid seo de rún os a gcomhair faoi dhó cheana agus níor tháinig siad linn.
One of the most important duties of parliaments and governments today is to struggle to save humanity from nuclearisation. There is a generally welcomed admission of this duty, especially in so far as it pertains to nuclear armaments. At the United Nations we are happy to join in expressions of anxiety and abhorrence as we contemplate the dramatic and fatal consequences of what I think is the inevitable use of inhumane nuclear weapons. We are a party to recommendations requesting the prohibition of radiological weapons. Accordingly, I have for years found it very difficult to understand — indeed I found it inexplicable — how the Government here were happy to live in the shadow of what to me is one of the most dangerous radiological weapons there could be — that is, the ageing nuclear plant at Sellafield.
Straight away, we know that British Nuclear Fuels, indeed the British Government and until last night our own British-subservient Government, have said that Sellafield is not intended as a weapon of destruction, that Sellafield has social and economic considerations and that we should be very careful, as was said to us by representatives of the Minister of State's Government last year, not to be alarming the Irish people of dangers that only existed in our imagination. One is happy to note the deathbed conversion of the Minister of State, the Minister for Health and the Minister for the Environment. One could ask in respect of the history they have given of their interest, when did any of those three Ministers announce publicly before what they have said here tonight? I see no evidence of that, none whatsoever.
Deputy, I——
The Minister of State may, as is his custom, come in with L. and H. Debate interruptions, but I ask him to indicate when, before the placing of this resolution before the House, he stated publicly his request to the British Government to close Sellafield?
The Deputy is embarrassing the Minister.
He is dangling now some document before me and if later, on reading it, I see that he made that call two, three or four years ago, then I shall be happy to withdraw the accusation I have made.
There is no doubt that in deference to that traditional, characteristic attitude of Fine Gael Governments towards our neighbours, they were slow to rock the British boat. It is only now, when a Minister of the Labour Party exerted belatedly his feelings about Sellafield, that they are rowing in with him. It can be the only reason they have remained so oblivious to the dangers there; it can be the only reason that Minister of State Birmingham and the Deputy on the far side voted against the same resolution that we had in this House only some months ago.
Let the Deputy read my paper on the subject.
What way did Deputy Barnes vote?
The votes are what count in this House. Words are cheap. The Deputy is recorded in the Official Report, as are all the other people, as having withstood our efforts to get the Government to draw the attention of the British Government to that horrible nuclear radiological weapon that they have sited within 60 miles of our coast.
I am thankful that at the eleventh hour our Minister for Energy has, as it were, broken ranks and refused to respond to the exortations and perhaps the ordinances to which he has been subjected. Because this Government have been fearful to upset our British colleagues, they have thrown into the Fianna Fáil republican motion a little addendum about Europe. Blame Europe. Ask Europe to do something about it. I appreciate that our membership of the EC has a function in this but, initially, our attack must be on that Government who presumed to place so near to us, 30 years ago almost, this plant which has an average of one accident per month, the incidence of those accidents increasing to an alarming degree in the last few years. I note that the Minister for Energy has told us that the average radiation dose is only 5 per cent of what is regarded as acceptable. There is no radiation dose that is acceptable to me.
Hear, hear.
Again, we must discover, in respect of the average dose, if that one in respect of Sellafield would include the people of the western islands. Has a survey been taken in respect of those people on the eastern coast who are, as we all know, in greater danger than anybody else in respect of Sellafield? I must admit to what history has shown me in respect of any assurances that can be given by any British Government or agency and their capacity to distort and to indulge in what I would regard as the politics of convenience and give us assurances that we know cannot be sustained. I am appealing to the Government, if it is the last thing they do while in office, to make known to the British Government the view of this House, in circumstances where there is absolute agreement by all parties now, that Sellafield must close. We do not want any further surveys; we do not want any further assurances from the source we know cannot be relied on. I do not think we are being overdemanding in that respect. I notice that that Government presumed in the last few days to send here their Attorney General to require of us to prohibit the publication of a book which they felt could be dangerous to them. Bearing that in mind and having regard to their attitude towards us and their preparedness at all times to accept reciprocity, I do not think they can charge us with being over-demanding if we, in deference to the regard we must have for the safety of our people, not to mention the effects on tourism and other industries, ask them to accept now the evidence that is there and which is admitted by them. Perhaps the evidence can be doubled to get the reality of the situation. Without any accident at all, Sellafield's presence is a danger to the people of this country. Naturally, that consideration must take precedence over all else. In addition, Sellafield is dangerous to fauna and flora and there is no doubt — bear in mind what happened at Chernobyl — as to what would be the consequences of a serious accident at Sellafield.
I know that at this stage we cannot alienate any of the new found support we have received now — third time lucky. We thank the Members of the Labour and Fine Gael Parties for the conversion referred to by my colleague, Deputy Woods, as being comparable with that of St. Paul on the road to Damascus, but which I regard as the death bed conversion.
Deputy Hugh Byrne to conclude at 8.10 p.m.
I would like to support very strongly the motion before the House calling for the closure of Sellafield. Nuclear power as a source of energy has taken on great significance over the past few years. Nuclear power as an energy source has also taken on great significance from the point of view of its danger to mankind over the past few years and, unlike anything else, the more we know about nuclear power the more fearful of it we become.
I have had an interest in this issue for quite some time because, as everybody knows, Carnsore, County Wexford, was the site chosen for a nuclear powered generating station for the ESB. The ESB bought about 200 acres of land in the Carnsore area and carried out initial tests on durability of concrete etc., at that time. They subsequently applied to Wexford County Council for planning permission. As a member of Wexford County Council during that period I can say that the council and its officials investigated as far as was possible for lay people in the nuclear field, the whole nuclear energy issue. Officials and councillors went to see nuclear installations in Britain, Germany and the USA. There was a great deal of anxiety expressed at the time, but Wexford County Council were prepared to give the proposals every consideration. In other words, we did not allow an anti-nuclear bias to throw it out. It was considered properly. In this debate and, indeed, in all the discussions on the issue, let us be very clear in our minds that any decision we arrive at will be arrived at for the right reasons.
This country must now be aware of the consequences of nuclear power as an energy source. The terrible fear of the people in County Wexford, and indeed in the rest of the country is heightened by the failure of the management in Sellafield to control the plant. The assurances that Chernobyl could not happen, that Three Mile Island could not happen, that Sellafield could not happen, are so hollow. The assurances that tighter controls would be imposed at Sellafield following Chernobyl only served to heighten anxieties and fear. Surely this was an admission that they had not control, and since then, and very recently, there have been more serious leaks which show that literally, those people are fooling around in the dark. The assurances from the operators, British Nuclear Fuels, and the British Government cannot be taken seriously anymore.
The cover-ups, the deception, the gross incompetence, that is part and parcel of Sellafield cannot be accepted by us any longer, and I am delighted that this Government have at last agreed that Fianna Fáil were right in calling for the closure of Sellafield last March and May. At that time the Government had the audacity to suggest that we were being alarmists. It is interesting to note and very desirable, that they have swallowed their pride, that they have admitted their mistake and that for once, this U-turn obsessed Government have made an acceptable U-turn and they are now calling for the closure of Sellafield. Let me plead with the Government whose credibility rating is at zero, who are the laughing stock of the world, who buy votes from their backbenchers at any price for survival, to stay on the course they have now adopted. Deputies Cluskey, Taylor and Skelly have been purchased, as has the U-turner supreme Deputy Michael O'Leary. And Deputy Alice Glenn — what is her price? The shenanigans in the lobbies will be interesting to watch.
The Taoiseach in answer to a Private Notice Question to Deputy Haughey said on 1 February, and I quote from the Official Report:
I will be urging the British Prime Minister that there should be a thorough review of safety procedures at the Sellafield plant.
The Tánaiste and Minister for Energy in Private Members' Time on 6 May 1986 said: "The Minister for the Environment and the Minister of State at my Department, Deputy Collins and I have had separate formal discussions with Commissioner Clinton Davis on this matter." We all know how seriously both the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste were taken in those discussions: The subservient attitude adopted by our Government to Britain leads us to believe that we can expect no response to such demands from the present Administration. The Tánaiste went on to say in that same debate that the levels of radio activity were carefully monitored by the Nuclear Energy Board.
Yet, it is well known that this very amateur outfit, the Nuclear Energy Board, have been so far out in their predictions that they no longer have any credibility. On 30 April 1986, when speaking about the Chernobyl disaster, the Nuclear Energy Board stated that "Prevailing weather conditions were unlikely to carry contamination in the direction of Ireland in the immediate future. Yet three days later, contamination arrived. As the levels peaked over the following week the Nuclear Energy Board claimed that the radiation did not present a significant health hazard. Now, six months later, the Nuclear Energy Board have not completed their analysis of the amount of radiation absorbed by the Irish public from the Chernobyl fall-out. Who could have confidence in the Nuclear Energy Board, in the Tánaiste or in the Government?
The experts are disagreeing with one another. Dr. Ian McAuley, senior lecturer in Physics at Trinity College claimed that no adverse effects would be found in the short or long term as a result of the Chernobyl fall-out, but Professor Karl Morgan of the Nuclear Engineering Faculty at the University of Georgia, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics, and former chairman of the International Commission for Radiological Protection claims that the impact of Chernobyl on Ireland will be 24 cancers, 12 of them fatal, The Irish Times 1 December. This must be accepted as clear proof of the terrible uncertainty of nuclear energy.
The Sellafield reprocessing nuclear plant is now an uncontrollable monster. The more assurances we are given, the more accidents and leaks there are. It is a greater potential threat to this Island than war. Its leaks of radioactivity to the atmosphere are put in proper perspective when we consider the Chernobyl catastrophe. If the Chernobyl cloud could travel more than 1,000 miles east, it is frightening to think what the consequences might be if a similar accident occurred at Sellafield which is less than 100 miles east. This 30 year old ramshackle nuclear waste reprocessing plant at Sellafield has a proven record of disaster after disaster so bad in fact they had to change its name from Windscale to Sellafield. The Germans began a publicity campaign to sell nuclear to their people saying "Sellafield could not happen here". Sellafield in its present condition could not operate in West Germany —The Guardian, 5 May 1986. Sellafield or Windscale or what ever they chose to call it, must be shut down immediately because not alone is there danger from the plant itself, but there is continuing pollution of the Irish Sea, almost 1 million gallons of effluent everyday from Sellafield. The Irish Sea is the most radioactive in the world. The other threat comes from the shipping on the Irish Sea of the waste nuclear fuel from plants in Spain, Italy, Switzerland and Belgium. The British have a cheek in the light of their terrible safety record to impose this triple threat on the people of this country as if they had the God given right to ride roughshod over us.
Is it not an accepted fact that there are strong links between radiation and cancer? Is it any wonder that those of us on the east coast are concerned at the high levels of cancer there? Is there a connection, or is it a coincidence? The People Newspapers, Wexford, recently investigated cancer levels in a coastal area of County Wexford with alarming results. There is no way such people will believe other than that Sellafield is the cause. To the ESB I say forget you ever thought of nuclear power as a source of energy. Use Carnsore for something else.
Because of my concern I am travelling to Sellafield tomorrow, to meet British Nuclear Fuels and energy officials. This trip has been arranged for a month. To conclude the nuclear safety record is appalling. The experts conflict, the reality is that Nagasaki and Chernobyl are death, a living death. Cancer levels here are higher than average. There is deception and cover-ups. Because we are sitting ducks we demand the closure of Sellafield immediately.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:—
"extremely concerned at the consistent British policy of discharging nuclear-related wastes into the Irish Sea from nuclear establishments such as Sellafield (formerly Windscale), Hunterston, Wylfa, Berkeley, Hinckley Point, Dounreay, Chapel Cross and Calder Hall and
—conscious of the threat to the wellbeing and environment of all the people on this island, as evidenced by the fact that the Irish Sea is now the most radioactive stretch of water in the world;
—calls on the Taoiseach to arrange an urgent meeting with the British Prime Minister, to insist on the immediate closure of Sellafield plant in particular, and to insist also on an immediate end to the policy of dumping nuclear-related wastes into the Irish Sea or other Irish waters;
—and further demands that the Government initiate an urgent campaign of political and diplomatic activity at European and other international levels as appropriate, to ensure that this wholly unacceptable dumping policy is brought to an immediate end."
The Progressive Democrats have on numerous occasions called for the closure of Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant and an end to the dumping of nuclear waste into the Irish Sea. Up to recently the response of the Government has been to seek improved international inspection of this plant with a view to tighter controls and higher safety measures.
The Progressive Democrats are pleased the Government have finally recognised that it is necessary to have this dangerous plant closed down completely and that there is now unanimity among all parties in Leinster House that the demand be made of the British Government to close down Sellafield. The motion in Deputy Brady's name calls on the British Government to arrange for the immediate closure of Sellafield. On behalf of the Progressive Democrats I moved amendment No. 1.
If accepted by the House it will require the Taoiseach to raise the question of closing Sellafield with the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, at the earliest possible opportunity. That opportunity can arise in the immediate future at the next scheduled meeting of both leaders.
The Government amendment to the main motion accepts the demand for closure and calls for an EC nuclear inspection force. This is an important debate in that it marks the complete agreement among all parties in Dáil Éireann in condemning the authorities in charge of Sellafield, British Nuclear Fuels Limited, for their inefficiencies and incompetence in the management of this dangerous plant and for the urgent need now to have the plant closed down before a major disaster occurs.
The Progressive Democrats' amendment recognises that the threat to the safety of our people is not confined to the Sellafield plant but is also posed by at least seven other nuclear establishments which are also discharging either waste or water from reactors and so on, into the Irish Sea. These include a number of nuclear power plants such as Berkeley, Hinckley Point and Wylfa among others, along with Chapel Cross, Calder Hall, Springfields and other British nuclear fuel establishments which are involved with aspects of nuclear power and which also use the Irish Sea as a dumping ground.
It is important to state that the waste being dumped both in the Irish Sea and off the south-west coast contains potentially lethal amounts of radioactivity which, if carried back to humans by sea currents or the marine food chain, could lead to dramatic increases in the incidences of such diseases as cancer and leukaemia for years, and perhaps generations to come. Dumping at sea is completely ostracised by many countries around the world including the Netherlands, West Germany, Italy, France, the United States of America, Sweden and many others who oppose outright such ecological vandalism. Britain, however, has plans to extend its reliance on this form of nuclear waste disposal in the future and its dumping ground area close to the waters of this country.
It is clear that the British Government have been acting in a highly irresponsible fashion in the manner in which they are disposing of their dangerous nuclear waste. It is astonishing to think that Britain is responsible for 90 per cent of all worldwide nuclear waste which is dumped into the sea and of this 75 per cent of it goes into the Irish Sea. However, the Irish Sea is not the only problem; this country has apparently passively agreed to the dumping of lowlevel radioactive waste some 350 nautical miles south-west of Counties Cork and Kerry, the only site in the world where ocean dumping of radioactive nuclear waste is still being conducted, a form of dumping notoriously difficult to monitor.
Again there is a popular myth that the radioactive waste is embedded in steel drums and concrete; in fact, the purpose of the drums is to protect the handlers. The drums actually contain leakage points to allow water to enter as they descend to the seabed site 4,300 metres below the surface, in the pathway of the Gulf Stream as it flows towards Ireland.
With the discharges from Sellafield and the other nuclear establishments mostly located along the west coast of Britain and the amounts of waste that have been dumped in the south-west it is not surprising to find that radioactive caesium is now over 100 times greater in Dublin Bay than in Galway Bay.
Your time is up, Deputy.
I understand Deputy Andrews is giving me a minute of his time to finish.
Deputy De Rossa is speaking after you.
It is not surprising to find that some fishermen will not eat fish caught in the Irish Sea. The Progressive Democrats hope the House can see its way to accepting this amendment which we believe will strengthen the Government's hand in dealing with this important issue.
I support the motion before the House. I welcome the fact that the Government have at last seen sense on this issue. It is a pity they did not accept a similar motion which was before the House in March of this year when exactly the same problems existed and exactly the same threat to the health and life of the Irish people existed. Nevertheless, a late conversion is better than no conversion at all. It should be recognised that while the nuclear power station at Sellafield is the most obvious and immediate threat to us there are other power stations on the British coast which we know virtually nothing about. In an amendment we sought to move we sought to ensure that the Government would immediately initiate a round of talks with countries in a position similar to ours with no nuclear installations of any kind. A treaty should be established to ensure that countries with these installations should be obliged to notify their neighbours and the United Nations immediately of any accidents. They should be obliged to ensure that the plants are kept up to scratch.
It is important to recognise that the problem is wider than the Sellafield issue. There is an additional threat to the health of the Irish people. The Irish Sea has become the nuclear submarine highway in Europe with submarines from virtually all the nuclear power stations in the United States, the Soviet Union, France and Britain constantly travelling on the Irish Sea. Efforts should be made by the Government to achieve a treaty which would ban such traffic from the Irish Sea. There is a further problem of warships calling to Irish ports. We accept the word of those who arrive here that they do not carry nuclear missiles or nuclear weapons of any kind. Given the state of the world and the arms race, it is no longer acceptable that we, as a neutral country, should allow such ships to call here without a categorical assurance that they are not carrying weapons of that kind. We should insist on the right to inspect ships that come here to ensure that they do not have that kind of weapon on board.
While I welcome the efforts of the Government to establish a European inspection force, in view of the failure of that effort to date the Government should, at least as an interim measure, insist on the right to inspect the Sellafield installation. As I said in the debate last March, there is no room for complacency on this issue. There is no room for taking a reasonable attitude and having discussions over a cup of tea. We must insist that the plant close but we must also insist that we have the right to inspect such installations in view of the threat they pose to the people of this State.
I support one part of Deputy De Rossa's speech in relation to the use of the Irish Sea by submarines. He used the words "submarine highway"; I would describe it as a submarine low-way. As Deputy De Rossa said, we had a visit by an American warship recently, the SS Nitro, an unhappy name, and that vessel was berthed in Dublin Bay for almost a week. I called on the Taoiseach — I was going to call on the Government but I did not because I did not think we have a Government — to ask the American Ambassador to identify to the Irish people whether that ship had nuclear warheads aboard. Of course that call was met with silence but I am convinced that nuclear warheads were on that ship.
I am a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and I represent a coastal constituency that takes up a large part of Dublin Bay, stretching from Merrion Gates to the Dublin-Wicklow border. It concerns me that 60 miles across the Irish Sea we have Sellafield leaking almost daily. I am concerned that nuclear waste is being dumped into a precious asset, the Irish Sea, which is being ruined through the efforts of mankind. We must accept some of the blame for what is happening at Sellafield because we have not been determined enough as a nation, led by the Government, in our efforts to get the British Government to close down Sellafield in their interest and in our interest. The damage done by Sellafield has not been properly calculated. We have had reports and analyses giving different views and there is no agreement about the risks from the Sellafield plant. As Deputy Molloy said, to suggest for one moment that the drums dumped in different oceans of the world do not leak is dishonest. The fish stock in the Irish Sea is at risk and people cannot bathe along our east coast because of dumping from Sellafield. That coast from Wexford to the North of Ireland is at risk. The west coast of the United Kingdom has been polluted by Sellafield. I have heard people referring in a jocose way to Sellafield salmon glowing in the dark but how right they are.
The many bird sanctuaries along the east coast from Booterstown marshes to Dalkey Island, and the beautiful coastline from Merrion to Shankill, are at serious risk. Not only is Dublin Bay being polluted by fall-out from Sellafield but it is being polluted with sewage. This is contributing to the demise of a tremendous national asset. We have succeeded in destroying the forests of central Europe with acid rain and in destroying one of the finest river systems in Europe, the Rhine. It appears that poison released from a factory in Switzerland destroyed all the life in that river from its source to its estuary. That is the type of contribution mankind has been making to the environment since the beginning of the so-called industrial revolution. It is a great tragedy. What happened following the accident at Three Mile Island is an example of the damage that can be done to our environment. Closer to home we have the littering of our streets and countryside which is nothing less than a national disgrace.
I accept that in the motion we are concerned about pollution from the Sellafield nuclear plant but we have been haphazard as a race in our attitude to our general environment. I regard this as one of the most important motions to have come before the 24th Dáil. This island belongs not to this generation but to future generations. We hold the island, and the Irish Sea, in trust for this and successive generations, our grandchildren and great grandchildren, until judgment day, if there is to be a judgment day. We have been told there will be and we have to accept that.
If there is a future.
I do not wish to sound too pessimistic about this or draw an unnecessary cloud of fall-out over the debate but our record in regard to the environment has been very poor. I do not think we have been doing enough to ensure that we hand on this country and its precious natural assets in good condition to the next and successive generations. They are entitled to have these precious natural assets handed on.
It is important that there should be unanimity on this. Such unanimity in a debate like this has a strong moral dynamic. It will be pursuasive in international fora particularly when it concerns a country like ours that does not have any nuclear history. Hopefully we will not have a nuclear future. I hope that we will look for other pure sources of energy. We must accept that many sources of energy are not being tapped. The Americans may be this and that in the context of their war machines but mankind owes them a debt for their technical developments. I do not think it is beyond the ability of those involved in American or Russian technology to switch finance from the war machine to search for other natural sources of energy. I do not think the answer is nuclear. We have not tried to use wind or waves as a source of energy. We must try to find alternatives to the Sellafields of this world and I hope we find them soon.
I am pleased that there is unanimity in regard to this. I am privileged to have had an opportunity to contribute to the debate and I should like to assure the House that I will continue my fight for a clean environment on land, sea and in the air. Perhaps Deputy Barnes would like to say a few words in the few minutes remaining.
On a point of order, there is an order of the House to be complied with.
I understood that Deputy Andrews was sharing his time Deputy Barnes.
There is an order of the House in regard to speakers.
I agree that there is an order of the House but I genuinely thought that Deputy Andrews was sharing his time with Deputy Barnes.
We welcome all these Coalition Deputies, people who twice voted against this type of motion before. I should like to ask the Chair to put the motion.
Where was Deputy Haughey in regard to Carnsore Point?
Further conversions on the road to Damascus.
The Deputies disappoint me.
Further conversions.
It is not Damascus but Carnsore Point.
I thought the House was in agreement on this matter?
The Government side are agreeing with us.
The House is agreeing with itself.
Amendment No. 1 put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 1a:
After the word "installation" to add the following:—"and urges the European Communities to decide as a matter of priority the establishment of a nuclear inspection force".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.
A victory for commonsense.
Run back from Carnsore Point.