I propose to share my time with Deputies Eoin Ryan, Costello and Broughan.
Private Members' Business. - Commissioning of THORP: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Sargent on 1 March 1994:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to immediately initiate the necessary legal proceedings to prevent commissioning of the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) at Sellafield in view of the fact that the Government has cited at least three EU Directives which the plant will contravene and given that British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. has indicated that it will be ready to begin reprocessing at THORP from 7th March, 1994.
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To delete all the words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann approves the actions taken to date by the Government with a view to the closure of the Sellafield plant, including THORP, and notes that the Government is continuously re-examining all possible options open to it, including diplomatic and international pressure and legal action, to achieve that objective."
—(Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications)
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Deputy Sargent's motion gives us an opportunity to discuss this important matter. Obviously I will be supporting the Government's amendment. The Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria poses the single biggest threat to out national environment and to our people. The decision of the UK authorities to sanction THORP, which is due to commence operating on 7 March 1994, is extremely regrettable. I suggest it flies in the face of democracy. The public has been treated with contempt. Despite a request for a full scale public inquiry by individuals, organisations and institutions, including the Irish Government, which made submissions in January and October 1993, no such inquiry was held. The UK consultative process was a sham, given that the decision was taken to proceed with the plant without the necessary public inquiry. The Irish Government's thoroughly researched and well presented case in its two submissions were disregarded completely.
There is a history of accidents at nuclear plants, for example, the Chernobyl disaster. There is also history of accidents in British Nuclear Fuels plants at Sellafield. A parliamentary question was tabled yesterday to the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications but he was unable to give details of the list of accidents at the Sellafield plant. He stated that the exact location and other specific details of the incidents are supplied by the UK authority on a confidential basis under informal procedures agreed at meetings of the Ireland-UK contact group on nuclear safety. Consequently he was not at liberty to disclose such specifics. That is regrettable. I understand that the health and safety executive in the UK published such a list of accidents and it would be helpful to Members if we could have a list of the incidents that have taken place at this plant. We should have this information.
The British Radiological Protection Authority has stated that in the UK THORP will increase cancer deaths from radiation by 200 for each year of its operation. That is a startling statement. The greatest fear is of the unknown. We do not know the effects of increased emissions and discharges from the extended plant at Sellafield. Studies by Dr. Patricia Sheehan have shown some medical evidence of clusters of cancers and that the expanded plant will have an effect on the health of people in this country. The greatest threat, however, is a threat of a nuclear accident. This is a new plant, using new technology and expertise and the chances of an accident are probably greater in these circumstances. There is also a threat arising from the storage and disposal of nuclear waste. In the past the proposed repository was found to be unsafe and the long term consequences are unknown. The transportation of uranium and plutonium through the Irish Sea also poses a threat and there is no need to point out that there have been accidents and collisions at sea. There is therefore, a risk associated with increased exposure to radiation, to public health and of environmental damage.
The Government is considering all the options, diplomatic and legal, to bring about the closure of Sellafield and I congratulate the Minister on his efforts to date. A legal action in Britain or the European Court, under European or international law, must be an option. Before we go down this road we need a strong, sustainable case as failure could make a bad situation worse. I call on the Minister and the Attorney General to keep this matter under review.
It makes little sense to proceed with THORP. Since expansion was first suggested the economic considerations have changed while the strategic and security reasons are no longer as important as they once were for the United Kingdom authorities. It is regrettable that a quick decision was taken to proceed with the proposed expansion.
Sellafield is a menace, we must continue our efforts to bring about its closure and oppose the operation of THORP.
I share the sentiments expressed by Deputy Haughey and welcome the motion tabled by Deputy Sargent as it reflects the concern expressed about the threat THORP and Sellafield pose to health and the environment. I congratulate Deputy Sargent on the stand he has taken; he has been steadfastly opposed to Sellafield and THORP.
The Deputy and the Government are at one on this issue. I welcome its amendment which categorically states it is Government policy to bring about the closure of Sellafield and THORP. People are frustrated and impatient because we have been able to achieve little or nothing despite the constant complaints on both medical and environmental grounds. There have been clusters of cases involving leukaemia and other forms of cancer and stillbirths, the finger is being pointed at Sellafield although it would be difficult to take a successful legal case on medical grounds. There has also been damage to marine life.
We are dealing here with two issues Sellafield nuclear power station is now an old plant. In the 1960s and 1970s we contemplated the possibility of constructing a similar station at Carnsore, County Wexford, which was the subject of a heated debate. Hardly a citizen would now be in favour of constructing a nuclear power station on this island. Views and technology change and there is no longer the same emphasis on the use of nuclear power in meeting our energy requirements.
We must continue to monitor Sellafield and ensure that we gather as much information as possible. I hope that some day we will be able to bring about its closure. THORP is a horse of a different colour and we need to implement the lessons we learned from Sellafield. We could question the viability, the value and purpose of THORP, and the Minister was very trenchant in his views last night.
The costs associated with THORP are enormous. The figure of £3 billion has been mentioned. Given that most of this has already been invested it will be extremely difficult to prevent the project from proceeding.
Questions must be raised about its location. When British Nuclear Fuels was considering possible locations Sellafield was not considered the most suitable. There are problems with the rock formation surrounding the deep cavern selected. A site in Scotland would have been far more suitable but, for economic reasons, Sellafield was chosen.
The purpose of THORP is to produce 50 tonnes of plutonium during the next decade at a time when plutonium is no longer regarded at a useful energy source. It is more likely that THORP will be used as a storage area for unwanted fuel. I am concerned that this will be stockpiled in an area where leaks were reported during tests.
The Minister outlined the arguments succinctly in his submissions in January and October last year. He suggested that a public inquiry should be held but, regrettably, this was rejected by British Nuclear Fuels and the British Government. The Minister also suggested that an environmental impact assessment should be carried out but this, too, was rejected.
I hope we will associate ourselves with the case being taken by Greenpeace and Lancashire County Council who are seeking a judicial review of the legality of the British Government's decision to grant a licence to THORP. It would have been beneficial if we could have been associated with or even initiated that. I know the constraints on the Minister, but the question could be opened up if we got a public inquiry based on the case made by Greenpeace and Lancashire County Council.
The question of whether there is a basis for legal action can be looked at from two angles. The Minister has already listed three directives that BNFL are in breach of because of the absence of an environmental impact assessment, a balance between the dangers of exposure to radiation and the benefits to society, and lack of freedom of access to information. On those three grounds alone there is a case to be made. Whether it would be successful is open to argument.
The Irish Government should be seen to be doing everything in its power to ensure that all steps are taken to prevent the commissioning of THORP. Diplomatic measures have been taken, including the exertion of pressure at every level in the European Union, via the Paris and London Dumping Conventions, the International Economic Energy Agency, etc. Even though there is doubt about the outcome, we must take a chance on there being a successful conclusion to any action we might take in the domestic or international media. In the light of the number of EC directives that have been ignored in the development of THORP it would be in our interest to take legal action. Even if it were not successful it would be seen that we take the health of our people and the totality of our environment, both on land and at sea, with the greatest seriousness. The danger is that once THORP is in operation it will be virtually impossible to do anything about it.
I support the amendment but we must remember that on this issue time is precious and if we leave it too late it will not be possible to take action. It can only be taken before THORP is fully operational.
I am grateful for the opportunity of speaking to this motion. The Government is deeply concerned about this and the Minister has done all in his power to deal with it. I hope the situation can be reviewed with a view to taking legal action on the grounds already submitted to the UK Government.
I propose to share my time with Deputy Broughan. I welcome this motion and congratulate Deputy Sargent on putting it down. The apprehensions of the Irish public about Sellafield are well founded. People have a deep mistrust of what goes on in Sellafield, what went on in Windscale and now what may happen when THORP gets under way. Over the years we have heard half-truths and lies from BNFL on matters within the plant in Sellafield. People should be very concerned and we should constantly remind BNFL, the British Government and the British public of the dangers of nuclear fuels and the record of Sellafield and Windscale.
I congratulate Greenpeace, who have been very good at briefing politicians on events in Sellafield and have done much work on this issue, as has Lancashire County Council. They gave Dublin Corporation much help and supplied briefing notes on various issues. When I was chairman of the planning committee we took the first ever objection from outside Great Britain to the power plant at Hinckley Point. That was the first time an objection from somebody outside England was accepted as being appropriate. Although we did not get very far with it, we got much help from Greenpeace and others and broke new ground. It is because of that original case taken by Dublin Corporation that BNFL are listening to us now.
Because of European Union regulations BNFL had to get an environmental impact study when applying for the licence for THORP. However, that was not carried out by an independent body but by themselves. Nobody should be allowed to carry out an environmental impact study on something they are doing themselves. One only has to look at the history of BNFL to realise how crazy it was to allow them to carry out such a study. Their record is poor. Originally there was Windscale. Then the name was changed to Sellafield and now there is the THORP plant within the Sellafield complex.
It has not been definitely proven that Sellafield is the cause of health problems, but there is disturbing evidence and we are reminded of clusters of people on the east coast of Ireland and on the west coast of England and Wales who may have been affected by radiation. When I visited Sellafield some years ago many people told me of their concerns in regard to the plant. The visit was an eye opener in the sense that I realised there are plenty of jobs in the area and that many of those working in the plant are unsympathetic to lobbying against Sellafield and THORP.
This Government's policy is consistent with that of previous Governments in trying to close Sellafield. There are two legal possibilities. The first is to take a case to the European Court. The Minister explained the Government's position in that regard and I believe he is correct. If we took a case to the European court and lost it we would be in a very weak position in future. The Minister outlined the arguments for and against taking a case to the European Court and his record proves that he will not shy away from a good fight if he believes he might win. A second opinion is to take a case against the suppliers of radioactive material to our national courts to ascertain if local requirements are being breached. The Minister should examine that option because there is major controversy in France about the disposal of nuclear waste. When THORP is up and running the French may no longer dispose of their nuclear waste, they may dump it in the THORP plant which will get bigger and bigger.
I welcome this debate and support the Minister's amendment to the motion as I fought a case against Sellafield for many years.
This is my third or fourth time to speak on this matter, I was the first Member to raise the issue in the 27th Dáil. The Minister is moving towards the view of the majority of this House, namely, that sooner or later we will have to take a definitive legal stand on THORP. My colleague referred to the implications of losing a case in the European Court, if we lose we face the prospect of years of contamination from krypton 85 gas and iodine and there will still be 200 cases of cancer every year. I would not mind losing such a case, but I would like to have a go. The Minister has an outstanding record in his field and has unravelled many problems, I ask him to deal with this one head on.
I commend my colleague for suggesting we should take legal action against the German and Japanese companies, who send shiploads of nuclear waste up and down our coastline on a regular basis. That is unacceptable. Will we have a revamped Irish Navy or British or European Navy policing our coastline in an effort to protect us from contamination in the case of an accident. As our consultant in Dublin City Council, John H. Large, stated, one cannot insure one's house against a nuclear accident. I congratulate the Minister on his submissions and for the brave stand he took at the Paris and Oslo Conventions, but I urge him to take a step further. Under Directive 85/337 a legal case could be taken against Minister Gummer to make him reconsider his position and against the operators of the utilities which will contaminate our seas and air in the years ahead. I commend the Minister for his approach and urge him to take further action.
With your permission, Sir, I would like to share my time with Deputy Molloy.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
While I fully recognise the difficulties in the way of legal action as set out in the Minister's speech last night, nonetheless the Progressive Democrats will vote in support of this motion as an expression of our deeply felt concern at the imminent commissioning of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield which is due to come into operation within a matter of days.
What is proposed in THORP at Sellafield is not simply an extension of an existing conventional nuclear reactor producing thermal energy from nuclear fuel. THORP consists of a reprocessing plant which will gather nuclear waste from many countries, particularly Japan. From this waste, unused uranium is salvaged for reuse, in addition, 7,000 kg of plutonium will be produced annually. As well as the reprocessed uranium and the plutonium, there will be substantial quantities of residual waste which will, of course, be heavily radioactive and which cannot be disposed of in a safe and permanent way in the foreseeable future.
To what use will this plutonium be put? It was envisaged 20 years ago, when the THORP project was planned, that there would be up to 700 fast breeder reactors in the Western World by the year 2000 which would require plutonium as a fuel. In fact the development of nuclear technology has been such that, outside Japan, there are scarcely any fast breeder reactors who would require to buy plutonium from Sellafield. Uranium has remained surprisingly cheap and it is available in adequate quantities. It is very unlikely that further fast breeder reactors will be built.
The only other use for plutonium is military. There are a relatively small number of countries with a military nuclear capacity and many of those that have such capacity are decommissioning their weapons. The Cold War is over and I hope there will not be a requirement for plutonium for military purposes again. The availability of large quantities of plutonium is simply an encouragement to certain lunatic regimes to develop nuclear weapons. It is also an encouragement to terrorists to get their hands on plutonium when the consequences could be catastrophic for millions of people. Within a few years, the stockpile of plutonium at Sellafield will be by far the largest in the world, it may well become a focal point for terrorists and we have our share of those in this part of the world.
All the incoming waste, the outgoing plutonium and enriched uranium will have to travel by ship on the Irish Sea. These ships, which are potentially vulnerable to an accident at any time, will travel within 30 miles of our coast. The Irish Sea is narrow and shallow. It simply could not absorb a significant quantity of radiation if one of those ships sank. The British Government, who owns British Nuclear Fuels, has given all sorts of assurances about safety but it is doubtful whether its assurances can be accepted or believed.
Right back to the beginnings of Sellafield, or Windscale as it was then known, in the early 1950s, there have been various leakages and accidents. British Nuclear Fuels Limited has an unenviable record for telling lies and covering up. Two of the accidents were particularly serious, the Windscale disaster in 1957 and the major accident at the Headend reprocessing plant in 1973 which has remained shut since then. Why should British Nuclear Fuels Limited be believed now when experience over the last 40 years shows it had no entitlement to be believed during that long period?
Last night the Minister set out at some length the various legal options from which he felt we were cut off and which were not open to us. I do not agree with all the views he expressed. In particular, his statement that "any such legal action would have to be based on scientific evidence as to the injurious effects of operations at the Sellafield plant on Ireland. No such evidence is available as yet however".
That strikes me as insupportable as a legal proposition. Both Irish and English law allow for relief known as a quia timet injunction — to restrain the use or retention of something which is inherently seriously dangerous. It is not necessary to wait until there is scientific evidence of damage done, if there is inherently a potential serious danger in either the process or in the storage of hazardous materials. If my neighbour wanted to store in a large tank a substantial quantity of petrol overground against my fence I have no doubt that I could get an injunction to restrain him or her. It would be a curious jurisprudence that did not allow for such an injunction.
It would be impossible to have evidence of the kind the Minister says is necessary for the simple reason that the plant is not yet in operation. By definition we cannot have the evidence, but is the legal position one that if we are not fried alive we can take no proceedings? Does the Minister or the Attorney General want to defend that proposition? On the Minister's reasoning, it would not be open to us as a country to take proceedings unless some of our citizens were either dead or seriously injured by radiation. That is an absurd proposition.
The Minister mentioned that one of the potential legal fora which we looked at is the International Court of Justice at The Hague. It seems that that is a court to which we might have recourse because under international law it is not permissible for one country to carry on activities within its borders which would be seriously damaging to another country. However, Ireland cannot resort to the International Court of Justice at The Hague because while we accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the first such court in the 1920s and 1930s, we have never acceded to the compulsory jurisdiction of the post-1945 court. The rules of the court are that if one does not accept its jurisdiction as a defendent one is not entitled to seek its protections as a plaintiff; that is common sense. We are estopped from going to The Hague at present, but because of the importance of this issue to Ireland, would it not be worth our while accepting the jurisdiction of The Hague Court so that we could, if so advised, initiate an action under international law, as opposed to Community law, against the United Kingdom?
The British are believed to have expended nearly £3,000 million on THORP. They claim it will be profitable, but I doubt that. They are trying to get some of their money back. They are doing so in the mid-1990s in circumstances that are totally different to the commercial and technological climate that existed in the mid-1970s when this decision was made. Are they entitled to do so at the potential expense of millions of their own citizens and of our citizens? The Progressive Democrats believe the answer is "no".
For many years now there has been unanimity amongst all parties in this House in opposing the continued operation of the British nuclear fuel plant at Sellafield where spent nuclear fuel is chemically re-processed to extract uranium and plutonium. As we know the Sellafield site contains Calder Hall, the first industrial scale nuclear power station as well as the new thermal oxide re-processing plant, THORP. A vitrification plant for high level radioactive waste was also commissioned on the site in 1991. On 23 July 1991, UK Nirex Ltd., the British nuclear fuel industry's waste disposal executive, announced that it had chosen Sellafield as the site at which it would concentrate its further investigations for the development of an underground repository for intermediate and low level radioactive waste.
Ireland's case for the closure of the Sellafield complex is based on the belief that the Sellafield plant is inherently unsafe. The Minister, and his predecessors in office over the past number of years have on numerous occasions requested the United Kingdom Government to close Sellafield and emphasised Ireland's total opposition to the plant. The questionable safety standards at the plant, its history of mismanagement and the frequency of accidents and other incidents there in the past, confirm the view that the only way to resolve concerns about Sellafield would be to close it down.
The coming on stream of THORP will pose additional risks for the Irish public as it will mean greater levels of waste on site, more discharges to the environment and the transportation of material to and from Sellafield. The THORP plant, now due to come into operation, is the largest single expansion at Sellafield; it will reprocess spent fuel rods from light water nuclear reactors, extracting uranium for re-use and also plutonium. It was one of the largest civil engineering projects in Britain, costing nearly £3 billion. It was approved by the United Kingdom Government in 1978 following a protracted public inquiry and parliamentary debates and has, I understand, a lifespan of about 25 years.
As Deputy O'Malley outlined, the United Kingdom Government see Sellafield as an important source of foreign currency and British Nuclear Fuels is understood to have already received orders in excess of £9 billion for the reprocessing of spent fuel at THORP, with the UK nuclear utilities and with a number of Japanese, German and other customers.
Under Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, operations at the Sellafield plant could not begin until British Nuclear Fuels Limited formally received the European Commission's opinion on discharges from the plant. The Commission, however, concluded that the implementation of the plan to dispose of radioactive waste from the THORP plant was not liable either in normal operation or in accident conditions to result in contamination from the point of view of health, water, soil or the air space of another member state. Notwithstanding this opinion, it continues to be the unanimous view of all parties in the Dáil that all discharges into the marine or aerial environment from nuclear installations should be prevented and eliminated by the use of the best available technology and environmental practices. The extension of Sellafield facilities through the bringing on stream of the THORP plant poses additional risks for the Irish public and all parties in the House must continue to strongly object to it.
During my time as Minister for Energy, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland examined the consequences for this country of the operation of THORP. The assessment was done on the basis of data supplied by British Nuclear Fuels regarding the quantities of liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents to be discharged from this plant. The liquid effluent normally discharged into the Irish Sea from THORP will contain predominantly tritium, but also several other radionuclides, including caesium, ruthenium and plutonium. The institute estimated that these discharges would give rise to an annual radiation dose of about 1 microsievert to a heavy consumer of seafood caught off the east coast of Ireland. This will add to the dose of 4.6 microsieverts received by the same consumer in 1990, due to the accumulated effect of discharges up to that time, as determined from the institute's analysis of fish caught in the Irish Sea in that year.
The principal radionuclide in the gaseous discharge from THORP will be krypton 85. It was estimated that this discharge would, at the maximum of the plant, give rise to an annual dose to a member of the public here of about 0.1 microsievert. The dose arising from the gaseous discharges for all activities at Sellafield is estimated to be a few times this amount.
The average annual dose received by a member of the Irish public from all sources of radiation is about 4,000 microsieverts. When THORP is in full operation, therefore, the total radiation dose which will be received by the most exposed member of the Irish public due to all routine discharges from Sellafield will still amount to no more than a fraction of 1 per cent of that received by a person in Ireland from all natural and artificial sources of radioactivity. At least that was the conclusion of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland at that time as reported to me.
However, an additional major concern to Ireland is of course the risk of an unplanned release of radioactivity due to a serious accident at Sellafield. The institute considered the possible consequences of the types of accident which one could reasonably visualise as happening to THORP and which would result in discharges into the Irish Sea or to the atmosphere, depending on the nature of the accident.
From an accident giving rise to atmosphere discharges, the estimated highest dose to an adult living at the nearest point in Ireland to Sellafield, and eating only locally produced food, would be approximately 70 microsieverts. A dose to a heavy consumer of seafood from an accident resulting in a liquid discharge into the Irish Sea, would be approximately 120 microsieverts. These doses could be reduced if short term restrictions were placed on the consumption of certain foodstuffs.
For comparison, the dose received by an Irish adult due to the Chernobyl accident was estimated in the range of 120-150 microsieverts. The conclusion of the institute was that while all discharges of radioactivity from Sellafield are undesirable, any increase in them would be even more undesirable. The additional radiation doses to a member of the Irish public from the THORP plant, either in normal operation or in certain foreseeable accident scenarios would not be such as to cause a significantly increased risk to health.
All parties in this House wanted to see all discharges of radioactivity into the marine and aerial environment progressively reduced and ultimately eliminated. It cannot be emphasised too much that the occurrence of an accident in THORP or elsewhere at Sellafield, with consequences more serious than those mentioned above, cannot be ruled out and remains a serious and legitimate concern for this country.
I was pleased to note in the Minister's speech last night reference to the intensification of the programme for the monitoring of contamination levels in the Irish Sea to determine the effects of radioactive discharges on the Irish marine environment and the atmosphere.
In my time as Minister for Energy, I pressed the Attorney General throughly to investigate the possibilities of taking legal action against British Nuclear Fuels and the United Kingdom Government over Sellafield, but I was continually advised that no case had been identified. As Minister, I publicly expressed my commitment to take legal action if a sufficient case could be shown to exist, but had to accept the Attorney General's advice that the Government could not initiate legal action without a firm legal case based on sufficient evidence.
It proved difficult to find convincing evidence to establish a direct cause and effect link between the Sellafield operation and health effects in Ireland and there was no evidence to suggest that the activities at the Sellafield plant were in breach of European Union law. The Law of the Sea, the Paris Convention, the United Kingdom Courts and the International Court of Justice were all looked at by the Attorney General and the same obstacle existed — lack of sufficient evidence. As THORP has not come into operation, evidence in that regard could not be factually presented.
The reality is that the United Kingdom Government has ignored all our expressions of concern. It has contemptuously dismissed them, claiming that the highest safety standards are applied and that its nuclear plants are as safe as man can make them. Man's knowledge in this area is limited.
As has been so well outlined by Deputy Sargent, much remains unknown about these dangerous substances. Arrogant British claims about their safety standards will be of little comfort here if there is a Chernoby1-type accident at Sellafield, which is only 70 miles from our east coast. I know the horror of the Hiroshima atomic bomb, having met a group of survivors of that explosion whose bodies were maimed, disfigured and distorted by radiation. In recent times, a survivor of Chernoby1 visited my home, and the future life of that young person is bleak in the extreme due to the horrific effects of exposure to radiation.
I recognise the dangers of the scenario outlined by Deputy Sargent. We are not complacent in this House about these dangers, but it is most frustrating that an otherwise fairly friendly neighbour, the United Kingdom Government, is continuing contemptuously to dismiss our genuine fears. Even our attempts to get the European Union to agree to an EU inspection force to examine all nuclear installations within the community, including the Sellafield plant, within the competence of Chapter 3 of Euratom Treaty has failed to get community-wide acceptance. Every possible opportunity was availed of by the Department of Energy in my time to win support at European Union level for this independent inspection force, but the selfish interests of member states with nuclear power succeeded in blocking progress.
I urge the Minister to continue to investigate the possibilities of legal action. He would have the full support of the Progressive Democrats. He should continue to press the United Kingdom to change its attitude and recognise the genuine fears of the Irish people about the threat posed by the Sellafield plant to all on this island. He should continue to press also at European Union level for a positive response in this regard.
I wish to share my time with the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Treacy.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I congratulate Deputy Sargent on placing this motion before the House. Since I became a Member I have had an opportunity to participate in debates on the activities of British Nuclear Fuels Limited at Sellafield and the development of THORP. One has only to look at the record of these debates to realise that the same has been said time and time again. The previous speaker referred to his concerns about THORP. I put a number of questions to Deputy Molloy, when Minister for Energy, and his response was that there was no scope for action in this matter. That response is used by successive Ministers for Energy.
Those of us who have participated in this debate are familiar with letters from the British Embassy containing facts about British nuclear power stations and the proposed radioactive waste storage plant at Sellafield. I am sure the British authorities will write to a number of Members who participate in this debate, highlighting the British case on Sellafield.
The developments in this area may be frustrating for the general public who are involved in environmental protection, pollution control and projects such as the healthy cities project in which Dublin city participates. While these projects operate in the best interests of the general public, we have allowed, since 1978, a £3 billion investment in a plant which, if a simple accident were to occur there, would wipe out all our efforts. This is a cause of frustration to people who have done trojan work in this area. They believe that those in authority should initiate the legal process necessary to stop the development at THORP. With respect to the Minister——
Will the Deputy vote for the motion?
We all know what happens in terms of party Whips.
Is it fear?
That is one thing I do not have. We all heard the Minister's comments on this matter. He was congratulated by all sides of the House on his work to date. He lodged a formal detailed complaint with the British authorities on behalf of the Irish people in his early days as Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. Successive Ministers for Energy went down that road, but it did not result in the closure of Sellafield or put an end to the development of the THORP reprocessing plant. The only way to put an end to the activities of the reckless villains, British Nuclear Fuels Limited and the British authorities, is to take legal action.
In terms of nuclear accidents, there is no such thing as national boundaries. A single nuclear accident can destroy the lives of thousands of people in a wide geographic catchment area. If there is a similar accident at the THORP plant Ireland will suffer greatly. I cannot understand why the Attorney General or some legal eagle — I see Deputy McDowell in the House — has not put sufficient evidence together to enable the Irish Government to take legal action to stop this plant going ahead. We have tried every other avenue but have failed.
I have in my files an article from a newspaper which states that deadly shipments of plutonium to nuclear reactors will pass through the Irish sea. It goes on to say that both the Japanese and French authorities have kept silent about the routes to be taken by the ship but that it will be accompanied by shikishima which will carry a cannon and machine gun to counter any terrorist attack. The decision to have these shipments which will travel the Irish sea escorted by warships is a very serious matter. Deputy Broughan referred to the need for us to improve our facilities to monitor this development.
For far too long the general public has heard the same rhetoric in the House about this matter — one has only to look at the debates to realise that Members genuinely sought to address the problems posed by this development — with no progress being made. The amendment clearly states that the Government will examine all possible options open to it, including diplomatic — the best channel — international pressure and legal action. In supporting the amendment, I assure the House that this matter is regularly discussed at Fianna Fáil parliamentary meetings and it will not rest until we receive a full and satisfactory response to our concerns.
I thank Members who have contributed to the debate on this important matter. I believe that this House is at one in its opposition to operations at Sellafield in general and, in particular, to the start-up of THORP.
In the debate last night a number of points were raised to which I would like to refer. Deputy Sargent indicated that we were on record as saying that the commissioning of THORP will be in breach of EU law. I totally reject that attribution. He referred to three EU directives — the Basic Safety Standards Directive, the Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment and the Freedom of Environmental Information Directive. None of these three pieces of European law provides any obvious basis for legal action The EU Commission has satisfied itself, and has clearly stated in a press release, that it has taken all the necessary steps to ensure the conformity of the THORP plant with the Euratom Treaty. The question of whether an environmental impact assessment prior to start-up is needed is still under consideration by the Commission but, as Minister Cowen explained in some detail last night, there are major problems about establishing any case based on the EIA Directive.
As to the Freedom of Environmental Information Directive, the Touche Ross report, which was referred to, is a financial document on the economics of THORP and does not deal with environmental matters.
Deputy Sargent also stated that British Nuclear Fuels indicated it cannot guarantee to keep discharges within proposed limits. He also expressed concerns about Krypton-85 gas. We have asked the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland to expand its programme of testing of levels of radioactive contamination of the marine and aerial environment with a view to detecting any unexpected changes in our environment and to monitor the levels of exposure of the Irish population to radiation arising from the start-up of THORP. Special equipment has already been installed at the institute's laboratories to monitor atmospheric levels of Krypton-85 gas, the main contributory factor to the increase in atmospheric discharges resulting from THORP.
In other words, the Minister welcomes THORP.
That is hypocritical. It is necessary that any radioactive discharges be kept as low as reasonably achievable, and I assure the House that this issue will be closely monitored in the relevant international fora. In line with the Oslo and Paris Conventions on the prevention of Marine Pollution in the north-east Atlantic, we will seek to have all radioactive discharges from Sellafield and THORP progressively reduced and ultimately eliminated.
Deputies Allen and Durkan suggested that the Government's position on this matter amounted to a soft approach and that we should make a strong and vigorous approach through all international bodies. I reject any suggestion that the Government's opposition to THORP has in any way diminished. As Minister Cowen outlined last night, we have taken all the action we can and pursued our case with vigour. Apart from the two submissions, the Government has consistently argued the case against THORP at every opportunity and in every international forum.
The Government's submission in October 1993 has been widely welcomed and praised by national and international environmental interests and our contributions at the Oslo and Paris Commissions on Radioactive Wastes and the London Dumping Convention have also been favourably commented upon by such organisations.
As I have said, it is a grave disappointment that, despite widespread concerns and reservations about THORP, it is now being allowed to open by the UK authorities. Our opposition to Sellafield, and to the nuclear option in general, will continue. While the Government has always been and continues to be committed to legal action against Sellafield, if a sufficient case for it can be shown to exist it will not initiate such action without a firm legal case based on sufficient evidence as to the injurious effects of operations at the Sellafield plant on Ireland. As we already outlined, no such evidence is yet available. Deputy Molloy, a former Minister for Energy, is fully aware of this.
Furthermore, there is no evidence to date to suggest that activities at the entire complex, including the proposed operation of the THORP plant, are or will be in breach of EU law and international conventions which would sustain a successful legal action. The Government remains open to information and evidence from any source to support a sustainable case regarding the closure of Sellafield.
In tackling these ongoing and long term issues, a combination of political and economic forces offer a more hopeful prospect than legal action unsupported by hard evidence which would convince a court that real material damage and injury will inevitably ensue if operations were to commence. There are risks but the quantification and proof needed to sustain a case is not there. Legal action has not succeeded in specific cases brought by the residents of the Sellafield area who are much more at risk to any damaging effects from its operation than the population of Ireland.
That is very comforting.
It has nothing to do with THORP.
The Minister, without interruption.
A hasty and ill-conceived legal action could have little or no hope of success in resolving the problem which it seeks to address. Failure in such a case can confer legitimacy on an operation to which we are opposed that it did not necessarily possess prior to taking such action and it might well prejudice a better founded case at a later date.
I reiterate that the Government remains committed to maintaining vigorous and sustained diplomatic and international pressure on the British authorities with regard to operations at the Sellafield complex, including THORP, and will continue to examine all options open to it to achieve the objective of the eventual closure of the plant. I wish to restate strongly that legal action remains a possibility when there is sufficient evidence that there is a clearly identifiable breach of national, European or international law and that the British Government fails to take any action to remedy the breach. I repeat once again, it is not a sufficient basis for legal action that we do not like or agree with THORP. We are totally opposed to it and will continue to be.
I regret Deputy O'Malley is not present in the House but I welcome his conversion to opposition to this plant because 20 years ago he promoted the idea of nuclear energy in the south east.
The Minister of State should not refer to 20 years ago.
At least now he has an opportunity to support this motion for whatever reason.
The Minister of State has destroyed his argument with those remarks.
I wish to share the remaining time with Deputy Sargent.
That is satisfactory.
I compliment Deputy Sargent on putting forward this motion which Democratic Left will be supporting fully. We are familiar with debates on Sellafield in this House. It is often an opportunity for Members to vent anger on such a "safe" issue about the British Government. I do not lay the blame for the imminent commissioning of THORP on the British Government. I lay the blame on this Government for its failure to take appropriate action to stop THORP coming into operation and for its failure to convince the British Government by diplomatic or other means.
The Government has produced some impressive statements and politically correct documents about Sellafield. It has made submissions but these have been mainly for domestic consumption in an attempt to respond politically to the concerns of the people. At the same time the Government has been privately signalling to the British Government that it could proceed with THORP and that they recognised the realities of the situation.
Totally untrue. Marxist propaganda.
The Member in possession must not be interrupted.
I would like less abuse from the Minister.
The Deputy should give the facts.
If the Minister had adopted a stronger approach with the British Government in the first place — which he is willing to do in this House——
Substantiate it.
Allow him to substantiate it. If the Minister kicked in the door of the British Government as well as he kicked in——
The Deputy kicked in many doors in his time.
The Minister acts the bully boy in the House and the choir boy when it comes to talking to the British Government about THORP. This is a case of nod and wink politics, nodding to the people that the Government is opposed to Sellafield while at the same time winking at the British authorities that they could proceed with the commissioning of THORP. How else can one explain the gulf between ministerial rhetoric and Government inactivity?
The Government has failed the credibility test on this issue. In 1990, during the so called Green Presidency, the Taoiseach, then Minister for Finance, signed a document sanctioning EU loans for the building of THORP.
The Minister should answer that.
Successive Governments have failed to make Sellafield a central issue in Anglo-Irish discussions. When was this issue last raised by the Taoiseach at an EU summit? Successive Governments have failed to take legal action to stop the commissioning of THORP, claiming they needed a watertight case before proceeding. Nobody goes into court with a watertight case. What type of evidence is the Government waiting for in order to proceed? How many people must develop cancer? Are we waiting for people to die from the effects of this plant before the Government proceeds with this case?
The Radiological Protection Institute has evidence of plutonium in seaweed in the Irish Sea. There is also evidence of plutonium in fish. Where would that have come from? The evidence is there but the Government does not have the will to proceed with it.
Apart from the environmental case against THORP, an economic case has emerged for the abandonment of the project. Because THORP will produce a product that is no longer in demand, the British cabinet had to consider abandoning it, but apparently the likely political embarrassment of abandoning the project was the main reason they decided to proceed.
If the Irish Government had initiated a legal case or even threatened legal action while the British Government was considering abandoning THORP, it might have made a completely different decision. For several critical months the decision on the THORP project was tottering and because this Government had not made a sufficiently strong case and did not have the bottle to take a legal case against it, THORP is proceeding.
Sheer fantasy.
The last time this issue was debated the Labour Party contended that a legal case should be taken. Deputy Molloy stated that a legal case should not be taken. It seems to be the other way around tonight.
On a point of order, can I ask Deputy Gilmore to stick to the facts? I never made any such statement. I always said we would take a case if we had one.
I recall Deputy Molloy making such a statement because I asked him the questions.
Deputy Gilmore, without interruption.
Deputy Molloy was in office for three years as Minister for Energy and he did not take a legal case against the British Government. He shares the responsibility for this.
People are tired of political rhetoric on the issue of THORP and Sellafield. They want to see their Government doing what they are demanding by taking the UK authorities to court to stop this plant being commissioned.
I thank Deputy Sargent for allowing me some time and compliment him for moving this important motion. The THORP plant represents the greatest environmental threat to the east coast and to Dublin in particular. I agree with Deputy Gilmore that the Minister is citing his legal advice that there is no sustainable case simply as an excuse for inaction. The Government is afraid to embarrass the British on this issue; it does not have the courage to do it.
The Taoiseach made a remark at the time of the Downing Street Declaration that it was better to try and fail than to do nothing. This is a clear example of a parallel situation. The threat is so serious that it is best for the Government to bring this case before the European Court of Justice and to take whatever legal action is open to it. If that results in failure at least it will have made some effort. To do nothing about the bigest potential threat to this city and a huge section of the population is a scandal.
As a representative of this House on the Council of Europe, I attended a meeting yesterday of the environment committee in the Palais due Luxembourg in Paris. At that meeting we discussed Energy Europe 2,000, a plan for environment minded energy policy. Because of the seriousness of the threat posed by THORP I availed of the opportunity to raise the fears which I said were felt by the Irish Government — I wonder now should I have mentioned the Government. I also raised the fears of the people of this country, those of the people of Dublin in particular.
I was heartened by the support I received from European parliamentarians, particularly those from the Netherlands. A Mr. Esma came out very strongly demanding that the committee take heed of what I was saying and that, as part of that report, the council of Europe should examine the implications of THORP for Ireland and for the environment here. He made the point that there are member states on the Council of Europe who have contracts with THORP, principally Germany, without which contracts the overall development there would be uneconomic. He said that for that reason alone the Council of Europe should take a stand on this issue. I accept that was a small stand for me to take but if the Irish Government followed with genuine efforts to highlight the potential threat that Sellafield/THORP pose to this country, it would be supported by the vast majority of our people. Its inaction will be condemned by the vast majority of our people.
Ba mhaith liom ar dtús buíochas a ghabháil leis na daoine agus na Teachtaí go léir ar gach thaobh den Teach a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht seo ar son an rúin agus ina choinne.
I bet that British Nuclear Fuels are laughing this evening at the Government amendment because it serves to scatter completely the focus of what was intended by my tabling my motion. It is about realism. Indeed, the Minister had the gall to begin his contribution by talking about realism, a word I picked out of his lengthy contribution and on which we need to dwell since it was with realism that I embarked on my motion.
I want Sellafield closed as much as does the Minister but I am not going to table a motion saying let us close Sellafield when the legal case against us is fraught with difficulty, as the Minister well knows, when the Merlin and other cases taken have been very strong going into court but have fallen apart because of the ambiguity and difficulty of being 100 per cent certain about health factors.
I am talking about THORP, about a plant that has not yet come into operation. I want to ensure that we dwell on that issue. All the other factors spoken of have distracted people from the real issue. I am sufficiently realistic, for instance, not to call that nuclear law be brought into line with that in the food industry which has to prove that any new development or additive is safe for human consumption. The nuclear industry assures us that it is all right; it does not have to prove its case by subjecting people to any of those poisons. In addition, I am more realistic than the Minister for Health who tabled a similar type motion and wanted Sellafield closed. I wonder how he will vote this evening. I am being more specific.
The Minister spoke about not specifying a basis. It has been perceived by legal people that the basis is contained in the Minister's submission and can be developed. European law is there to protect us and ought be invoked. I will not go into all the legal aspects about which I spoke last evening because time does not permit me. Nonetheless it is important that the Minister implement those directives, the EIA one especially warranting comment.
I know the Minister has spoken to Greenpeace before and hope he will again. Greenpeace on the proposed THORP plant said:
It is most definitely in breach of EU Directives and the Government should follow this line and take an immediate action in the European Court.
Greenpeace concluded:
The EIA Directive is being disregarded in a number of ways by the United Kingdom. It is not enough for Ireland to simply request an EIA. It is now time for legal action to protect and safeguard Irish health and environment.
It is time to look beyond the cosy confines of Cabinet to ascertain what possibilities lie out there. The Minister must be somewhat more aggressive, something with which he is at home in political terms. We must be legally quite aggressive and there is no better man than the Minister with his legal background.
We should continue to examine all the options available to us. There are, for example, the supply countries, the facts mentioned last evening, that many of them do not have high level waste stores at present. Goodness knows what they will do when Greenpeace says they will have to take back their waste. We will be faced with that in the future and that may leave open another option for us.
Next Monday is the deadline, THORP is the issue and, if we do not act on it, next Monday will be too late. The Government should take action quickly because if it does not others will. The Government should bear in mind that it should not depend on the likes of Greenpeace to take a case in the United Kingdom, or even to take a case from here; it should not depend on Friends of the Earth International, which is at present preparing a case for the European Court on this issue. In addition it should not be necessary for our local authorities to leap frog over the Government on an international issue of this type and magnitude. For example, I know that the General Council of County Councils a couple of days ago suspended their standing orders to pass a motion, such was the urgency of THORP, and THORP is the issue.
Are we leaving it up to volunteers? Are we leaving it to local authorities? Those questions must be answered. The Minister talks about not wanting to lose. Where would that attitude get us in other circles? For example, were the Minister offered the job of manager of the Irish soccer team, would he be afraid to go out on the pitch for fear of losing?
(Interruptions.)
We want a little bit of get up and go; we want a bit of action and all this talk about fear of losing is absolute rubbish. I would have liked to have used another word but I must adhere to what is acceptable parliamentary language.
The quiescent Irish.
Does the Minister not feel somewhat ashamed that groups with very scarce resources — groups that will never get Structural Funds and so on — are putting all of their available resources at risk along with the threat of the costs which the British High Court, the European Court, or any other court can throw at them? That shame must be borne in mind when we take a decision on this matter.
I appeal, for what it is worth, to those members of the Cabinet who at least were, if they do not remain, members of CND — the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Stagg, the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Michael D. Higgins and the Minister for Health, Deputy Howlin — to come out of hiding from behind the skirts of Government diplomacy. There is no point in saying they are voting for the Government amendment because they love Labour more than they love the health and welfare of the Irish people or that they love Fianna Fáil or the possibility of going into court. We have to be and show how serious we are about the issue. The British Government will not respect us one iota for saying we are being very careful; we will just keep talking it out. I am afraid they will not talk out this problem. I appeal to all Deputies, particularly those on the Government side representing the east coast, who have stood on various platforms stating that had they the chance they would take a legal case. This is a specific issue, not about health factors or proving that somebody contracted cancer because of the location of Sellafield. It is about European Union law which is being breached and we must dwell on that.
I appeal to the Minister to focus attention on his amendment in so far as it applies to THORP. Government Deputies representing the east coast should consider what they are doing by voting for the amendment which scatters the focus of what I endeavoured to achieve in my motion. I ask them to consider voting for it.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 41.
Tá
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bree, Declan.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Costello, Joe.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Walsh, Joe.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connor, John.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Keogh, Helen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Owen, Nora.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Ferris; Níl, Deputies Rabbitte and E. Kenny.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.