Vol. 481 No. 4
I move:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to urgently support the legal case of the Louth Residents Group against British Nuclear Fuels through the provision of the necessary financial assistance towards research and legal costs as well as the appropriate technical expertise and information.
May I share my time with Deputy Fitzgerald and Deputy Gormley of the Green Party?
Is that agreed? Agreed.
This is an important and timely motion. The Fine Gael frontbench considered a number of other issues but this is the most pressing. In the time available, I will outline the background to this case, the political objections to Sellafield-THORP, the Government parties' political commitments and the purpose behind this motion, to resolve the impasse between the Government and the County Louth residents group.
It is only a few weeks since I was appointed Fine Gael spokesman on public enterprise. I have no particular expertise, experience or background in this area but having studied all the papers I could on this matter in the past fortnight, I believe the public owes a considerable debt of gratitude to the four residents from Dundalk and their legal representatives for taking this case on behalf of the people, given the widespread public and political support for the case. They have nothing to gain should they win the case but they face personal disaster in the present circumstances should they lose. We should pay tribute to their courage and resilience since the first hearing in the High Court in 1994 as it is the most inspired form of civic spiritedness one could find anywhere.
This area of nuclear energy and power is the technology of the 1950s and 1960s and with the knowledge we have in the 1990s the question of splitting the atom is acknowledged to be dangerous technology and outdated. Its only relevant application in the future will be military, which is regrettable. In 1956 four Magnox reactors, which are now over 40 years old and represent a risk, were built at Windscale and are in the Calder Hall unit of the Sellafield complex. Its location on the west coast of Cumbria is a mere 100 miles to the east of where we stand, the most densely populated part of this country along the east coast. In March 1994, the Stg £1.85 million THORP construction opened. There was no public inquiry and no environmental impact study was carried out on that development.
On the NIREX development, I commend the former Minister of State, Deputy Stagg, who represented the Government. I read the Seanad debates on this matter which took place in the past 18 months. As a member of the last Government, I am proud of the efforts Deputy Stagg and Deputy Gilmore made on this issue, of which I was only recently made aware. A substantial and concerted effort resulted in NIREX not getting the go ahead and I regret similar approaches were not made in the 1970s and 1980s and at the time THORP was commissioned.
THORP is one of two such reprocessing plants of spent fuel extracting uranium and plutonium, the other being in France. Waste from the worldwide nuclear power industry, including Japan, the Far East, the United States and so on, is being brought to the doorstep of the people and to the Irish Sea. With one quarter of the UK's electricity energy being sourced from the nuclear industry, it is here to stay.
Whatever one's view on nuclear energy, it must be seen in the context of the serious accident in March 1979 at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and on 25 April 1986 at Chernobyl. We all know about the devastation in terms of congenital deformities which children are born with and the cancerous developments and health hazards for those living in close proximity to these disasters. Because there is no economic benefit to Ireland and because of the potential risk of accident, this is something which the people and the Government must oppose. The risk of an accident must be highlighted. There is a possibility of human error, technical failure, failure during transportation and storage and in the cooling plant. There is no technology for the safe long-term storage of the output of nuclear energy because we do not know what the position will be in 100 or 200 years' time. The accumulation of nuclear waste is something which must worry us all.
Radioactivity does not respect national borders or territorial boundaries as we know from the effects and fall out from Chernobyl. There are no assurances that I or this House can get from British Nuclear Fuels which will satisfy us that there will be a future state of knowledge which will indicate that present technology is safe and foolproof or that there is no risk from an accident.
The basis of the legal case taken by the residents group is sound. Their hallmark decision in winning the right of jurisdiction originally in the High Court where they were allowed a plenary summons and subsequently the Justice Barrington decision on 24 October are landmark decisions. This allows a basis for a substantive case to be taken against British Nuclear Fuels. There is a history of mismanagement and accidents, all of which may not have been fully reported. I call on the Minister to set in place a proper communication system between the Irish and British Governments for the free flow of information as the RPII cannot monitor Sellafield directly.
I appeal to the Government to ask the European Commission to review the operation of the Magnox reactors to see if they meet EU basic safety standards under article 35 of the Euratom Treaty. I call on the Government, leaving aside the court case which is the subject of this motion, to utilise the Paris Convention on the prevention of pollution from land based sources, pursue the opinions under it and to put in place a proper transmission system for the monitoring of information on Sellafield.
I draw the House's attention to a debate in the Seanad on 30 October 1996 where the former Labour Senator, Pat Magner, moved a motion less than a week after the Supreme Court judgment, to which I referred. The motion welcomes the court's decision and takes note of the Government's policy. What is unusual about the debate was that Fianna Fáil tabled an amendment which I am pleased the Government accepted. I read meticulously the contributions of Senators, many of whom became Fianna Fáil Deputies. They gave glowing support to STAD and the case and should now exert the maximum pressure on the Government to support the case. As part of my research for this matter, I met the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. I refer to the report on Radioactivity Monitoring of the Irish Marine Environment 1993-95. On page 23 there is a table of all the radioactivity and types of discharges of nucleates from Sellafield — an admission of discharges into the Irish Sea. I was amazed this has been allowed to continue. Not being a scientist, a reading of the risk estimates and conclusions on pages 16 and 17 of that report did not at all assure me as to there being a safe radiation dose nor did it reassure me on all the consequent repercussions for the Irish Sea whether in tourism, swimming, fishing, and natural amenity, leaving aside altogether the human health environment, of breathing, eating and so on. On that reading I became more rather than less fearful and found the RPII an unambiguous opponent and critic of Sellafield. The large accumulation of radioactive waste being stored here in 21 separate tanks causes me the greatest distress. We really must become serious about this.
There was a very non-party political, non-partisan tenor to the debate in the Seanad. I do not wish to inject a partisan element into this debate. The reason for my tabling this motion was that there appeared to be a clear impasse between the residents' group and the Government. My purpose was not to score political points but to get that rapport back on the rails and the Government fully committed to the case leading to a successful prosecution.
There has been much cynicism voiced about politicians in recent weeks. It has been exacerbated by the abandonment of freely entered into pre-election commitments. To preserve the collective credibility of politicians it is important that this House vigilantly monitors the outcome of promises made.
At the launch of the Fianna Fáil election manifesto their environmental and ecological policy document read:
In Government Fianna Fáil will ensure that the case taken by the Dundalk residents is fully funded and, if required, appealed through the higher courts. In Government Fianna Fáil will provide the financial and scientific resources to comprehensively research the effects on health and safety in Ireland of the operation of Sellafield et al. Fianna Fáil in Government will vigorously pursue politically and legally all avenues to have Sellafield and her sister stations shut.
Those are not my words. It was not that the Louth residents group went knocking on the door of Fianna Fáil with a begging bowl, but Fianna Fáil approached it with support. It was a voluntary organisation engaging in its own research, through MacGuill and Company, voluntary fund raising and so on.
The most invidious and unacceptable aspect of this overall problem — following a recent Question Time in the House — is that there is a public perception that the State is fully funding this case, so that now that association is unable to raise money voluntarily. That Fianna Fáil commitment was given freely and unambiguously. As part of the wider Fianna Fáil manifesto, the following was said:
Fianna Fáil in Government will ensure that the case taken by the Dundalk residents is fully funded and, if required, appealed through the higher courts.
There was no possibility of any misunderstanding about those issues.
I refer to the amendment moved in the Seanad by Senator Michael Mulcahy calling on the Government to agree in principle to funding the STAD case against BNFL in the courts and to enter immediately into negotiations with the STAD group to ensure the Government is removed as a defendant in the case, thus removing the outstanding obstacle to the Government funding the case.
There are many things that can and should be done in this case. Actions taken by the last Government should be acknowledged, including the irradiation nuclear fuel motion tabled at the International Maritime Organisation, the reform of the Harbours Act to prohibit vessels with nuclear fuels on board from coming in and out of our ports and the White Paper on Foreign Policy of last year which included a clear commitment on Sellafield.
The previous Government took this issue so seriously it established a ministerial task force to deal with it. From my experience as a former Cabinet Minister, there is no substitute for having a Cabinet Minister with responsibility for an issue at the Cabinet table. The Department of Finance will be against every proposal — that is always its stance — the Attorney General will have his case and one must convince party leaders and others to make things happen. I say this with no disrespect to the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, doing his best in impossible circumstances but a Cabinet Minister should be dealing with this debate. I would be quite happy to see Deputy Jacob elevated to the Cabinet but it is not satisfactory in the power-broking manner in which the Cabinet works in the case of all Governments for a Minister of State to be dealing with it.
The then Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, worked with Ministers of State, Deputies Stagg and Gilmore during his tenure of office. In relation to our commitment I quote from a letter sent by the then Minister, Deputy Howlin, to MacGuill and Company, the solicitors representing LRG on 3 June as follows:
I wish to confirm that I am willing to propose to Government that the existing offer of assistance of up to £100,000 towards the cost of those research proposals already identified by the Department should be increased to a sum of £200,000 without pre-conditions. In addition, I will arrange a meeting at an early date between you and representatives of your clients and the ministerial committee on Sellafield. The agenda will include the position in relation to other costs arising in respect of your clients' actions as well as a mechanism for evaluating future research, including specific proposals already put by your clients to the Department.
There is quite a paper trail in relation to what that actually meant.
That takes me on to the change of Government. I have never before encountered a position in which a group insisted on having a stenographer's report of the meeting of 6 October last — following on a Question Time in the House — between the Louth residents' group, its legal representatives, the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, some public officials, including those from the Department of Public Enterprise and the legal representative of the Government. I do not know who Mr. Daly is but, were I Minister, I certainly would not have allowed him take total control of the meeting and state what was or was not to be done. At that meeting it is fair to say the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, outlined the position in his opening statement. Whatever is the Government's response to this motion, it is important to know what was its position a mere eight days ago. I quote from page 2 of the statement handed out at that meeting which refers to the £200,000:
This represents a full and final settlement relating to State financial support for your action against BNFL. We will need you to acknowledge this.
Let us please not hear it suggested now that the Government really meant something else.
I wish to cite the transcript because the detail is significant. The Government's offer, which was full and final, was £200,000, with no precondition that the Government be dropped as a safe co-defendant. There would be an invoicing system but not a penny more would be given. That was the Government's position which was fairly straightforward. The motion refers to "necessary financial assistance towards research and legal costs as well as the appropriate technical expertise and information". Eight research projects have been identified costing £250,000. A consultant is required for the collating of information technology — Mason's are the acknowledged consultants — and the figure for that is in the hundreds of thousands. That needs a separate item. In regard to the appointment of a health researcher, which post was advertised but not filled, we are talking about a figure of approximately £50,000 per year with the necessary backup. We are not talking about tens of millions of pounds. This is a modest but specific shopping list. There is also the cost of an engineering consultant — a Mr. Large was referred to but we are talking about a nuclear physicist — to do a report as part of the court case. Finally there is the question of legal costs which are specifically referred to and specifically excluded.
The kernel of this issue, which I will go into shortly, is that the Government either wants to win this case or it does not. The Minister of State said during Question Time that "the Sellafield situation is unacceptable". If he believes that he must want to win this case. We do not want a cheapskate case, we want a winnable case and that is what this is all about. It is not a case of getting rid of a group of residents and getting this issue out of the way for the next six months. It is about winning the case, having won the right of jurisdiction arising out of the Barrington case.
Leaving aside the opening statement which set out the Government position, when the Minister of State was asked by the individuals about what happened to the Fianna Fáil promise, he said that this was a Government decision and he had to implement it. I have heard rumours today that this motion will be accepted by the Government. I have also heard outrageous rumours that the Minister of State is being hung out to dry, that he should not have made that statement at the meeting. It is clear from the verbatim report that the Minister of State acted totally in good faith and in accordance with the Government decision. If there is to be a U-turn on the Government decision, let it be on the heads of the Government and not on the head of the hapless Minister of State who is merely passing on the messages from the Cabinet table.
The following question was asked by Mr. MacGuill:
Mr. MacGuill: So, therefore, it is now clear that this is also to be included in the £200,000 offered in full and final settlement of the State's commitment to full public funding, is that so? Minister, is that so?
Minister Jacob: That is so.
We cannot say that was not the final position. That is what was rejected by the LRG. They could not accept the £200,000 as the full and final settlement. We cannot get away from that. It could not be more explicit. The transcript goes on to detail each item to which I have referred — the health researcher, Mr. Large, the nuclear physicist, etc. On being asked about the Government promise, the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, stated:
The position with regard to that, and I want to make it very clear, is that this has been put forward by the Government, all aspects of it. My Department and the Government has considered this whole issue comprehensively on two occasions, on three, in fact, in the last eight or nine weeks and has come to a decision and that is the decision. That is where I am coming from.
On page 33 of the transcript the Minister of State further states:
I have addressed that in the best way I can to you. I am dealing with a Government decision here. Where I am coming from here, I have sought the Government decision, I have the Government decision, I am dealing with it, I have put it in its entirety here before us.
I am fascinated to know how it is possible to reconcile those statements with any other position.
I want to quote from page 37 of the transcript where the Assistant Secretary in the Department states: "We can not expose ourselves to more than £200,000". There are many other salacious quotes I could choose from the document but I want to allow the House to debate the motion in full.
I am conscious of the fact that in putting down this motion, the House cannot debate this matter again for six months. I am not a total sceptic but I am a little cautious. The next six months are critical because there is the threat of British Nuclear Fuels engaging in counter litigation, given that it has had a year to prepare the case. It may say put up or shut up, the case may drag on and may be lost by default.
I ask the Minister of State to state specifically what he understands the words "necessary financial assistance" in the motion to mean. In other words, will it include over and above the £200,000 which would only be sufficient for research? Will it deal separately with the appointment of a health researcher, including the necessary backup, and the appointment of an information technology consultant so that information can be stored on computerised hardware and software in Dundalk? Will he indicate that it will deal with the question of the nuclear physicist's report? It must be remembered that while the State had costs awarded against it, only 20 per cent of LRG's legal costs to date have been met.
I have found the residents group to be reasonable and flexible. Even if the Minister of State did not give a damn about the case, it would be possible to save taxpayers' money by concluding that money spent should be in support of the case rather than the Government being in the position of a co-defendant.
I referred to Deputy Gormley earlier but I see Deputy Sargent is in the Chamber. I propose to share my time with Deputy Frances Fitzgerald and Deputy Sargent.
I thank the Independent Deputies. They are an assorted but friendly group of people. I wrote to them and the two Deputies present have been helpful and constructive in the interests of resolving the problems of this group. They have worked with me on this matter. This is not a cynical political motion. It is a constructive attempt to resolve a real and urgent problem. I commend the motion to the House.
I begin by congratulating Deputy Yates on putting forward this motion which can play an important role in resolving the impasse that has arisen between the residents group and the Government. That impasse must be resolved. There is currently a great deal of cynicism about politics. There has been much talk about the cost of tribunals to the taxpayer. I do not have the slightest doubt that the public would support money being given to the Louth Residents Group to effectively fight this case. There is strong public support for what they are doing. Given that this is probably the most important environmental issue this country will ever face, supporting the LRG is good value for money.
The more one examines what this group has done, the more extraordinary is its story and I have no doubt it will be written about in the future as an example of citizens empowering themselves and using the legal process to ensure that an issue about which they are concerned is addressed. The members of this group have nothing to gain but the community will gain as a result of highlighting a dangerous facility which could have unknown consequences for this country. It is extraordinary that the Government task force on Sellafield no longer exists. Why is this the case? The rainbow Government adopted a vigilant and proactive approach to Sellafield. I congratulate the ministerial task force and the former Ministers, Deputies Stagg and Gilmore, for the proactive approach they adopted to this issue and for not standing idly by. The former Minister, Deputy Stagg, gave evidence at a hearing on a planning decision, the first time a Government Minister had done so. If the then Government had sent a representative to the first hearing on Sellafield in 1977 and had adopted a proactive approach then we might not be dealing with the present difficulties in regard to this plant.
The Government has gone into reverse gear in terms of dealing with what is probably the most serious environmental issue confronting us. We should use every means at our disposal to lobby British Ministers. The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Joe Walsh, whose British counterpart, Dr. Jack Cunningham, is MP for the area, must adopt a proactive approach to this issue. The Minister is responsible for the protection of our food and there is an onus on him to pursue this issue as a matter of priority.
There is ever growing concern about the increase in leukaemia, cancer and mental handicap. I do not want to be a scaremonger but adequate funding must be provided for research. The State has a great opportunity to be seen to support its citizens in a partnership way by giving adequate funding to this group to carry out the necessary research. If we are serious about putting forward the strongest possible case with the best back-up and research then the Louth group must be given adequate resources. The amounts we are talking about are not prohibitive. The issue demands that such funding be provided. There are such serious concerns about Sellafield that it is incumbent on us to support this local group.
When Sellafield was closed in February 1996 because of the weather I voiced my concern about accidents at the plant. It is very disturbing to note that in one year there were 15 accidents about which we know. Our greatest concern is that there will be a serious accident at Sellafield. As we know from the Chernobyl incident, there are no boundaries when it comes to dealing with the consequences of nuclear accidents. Every day people voice their concern about pollution of the sea and leaks from shipments of nuclear waste from all over the world to Sellafield. This raises the necessity to pursue this case not only legally but also diplomatically. Will the Minister say if this case is being pursued diplomatically and if other countries have been informed of our concerns so that they will no longer send their nuclear waste to Sellafield? We know the Irish Sea is heavily contaminated and are concerned about the consequences of this.
The problems of Sellafield continue to grow and multiply. We are worried about the very old reactors at the plant. The cost of decommissioning one reactor is £1 billion. There is a strong case for the Government to support this motion and the residents in their legal battle. It must provide adequate resources to the group so that it can carry out the necessary research which will help it in its legal case.
I thank the Deputies for sharing their time with me. I welcome this motion and congratulate Fine Gael on tabling it. The Green Party raised this matter on the Adjournment and it is timely to follow it up with a wider and more substantive debate.
What has brought us to this point is the failure of Fianna Fáil to honour the commitment in its election manifesto that: "In Government Fianna Fáil will ensure that the case taken by the Dundalk residents is fully funded and, if required, appealed to a higher court". If, as the Minister of State indicated, this will not happen then the only explanation I can think of is that Fianna Fáil lied when it put this commitment in print or the Progressive Democrats Party said it could not do this. If either explanation is true then the Government is not fit to govern as it has lost its credibility. I hope that question is answered in the debate.
If the Government was to follow through on its commitment it would be the first Government to accept this liability. I would congratulate it if it adopted this course of action. It is time for all parties to get off the fence and bring to an end the fancy word games on the issue of Sellafield which have resulted in almost no action being taken. The people in BNFL know that apart from some tweaking at the discharge licences there has effectively been no action.
The Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, must have put the fear of God into BNFL on 30 September when, in reply to a question about the Government's view on increased discharges, he stated, "My Department has reserved the right to make further detailed comments on both aerial and liquid discharge authorisations when the UK Government environment agency issues its draft authorisations". Detailed comments will hardly strike fear in a legal opponent and it is time the Government got real about Sellafield.
On the STAD case, the Government has gone from a position of fully funding the case to an incredible statement by a spokesperson for the Minister at the meeting referred to by Deputy Yates that, "It is STAD's primary responsibility to pursue the case". However, it is the State which has the primary responsibility as it is the State and its public who are threatened and deeply affected in terms of their health and economic prospects. Later at the same meeting the Minister told the solicitor representing STAD, "Obviously I think your level of expectation was very high". However, it is no higher than what was indicated in the promise given prior to the election. It is time to review what happened at that meeting and for the Government to come clean and live up to this real expectation.
Unfortunately this is not the worst example of Government deception to date. For example, even the £200,000 offer had strings attached to it. No commitment was given as to when it would be paid — it was all conditional — or what it was for. We were left with the feeling that funding would be provided, yet we were given very little to clutch at. The Government claims there is already research into certain areas of radiation, yet it is not prepared to tell the group exactly what the areas are or to give it access to the research. This makes life more difficult for these people who have voluntarily given up so much of their lives and resources to pursue this case.
THORP is an environmental nightmare. We remember the fire at Windscale 40 years ago and are aware of what can happen at THORP. We also remember that THORP has increased its Krypton 85 gas output tenfold per annum. The 1977 Windscale inquiry told BNFL to retain that gas and not to release it, but it is being released. Shipments have been increased, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is being destabilised and this State is effectively a hostage to THORP and will be until we deal with the general question of Sellafield.
I appeal to the Government to fund this case fully. The people of Cumbria and of England will thank our Government for doing so. When I was arrested for protesting at Sellafield, the civility with which I was treated by the British police showed me that our Government must work on behalf of the people of Cumbria and Britain as well as its own people. The British Government has sold out its people on this issue and this will cost future generations dearly unless we act now.
The Government has decided to accept the motion tabled by the Opposition. I will put this matter in perspective in view of the statements from the Opposition and its vastly changed stance since it left Government. At all times the previous Government sought to have the State removed as defendants in the case. Deputy Yates mentioned U-turns but he has made a major U-turn on his previous viewpoint. The previous Government approved £100,000 research funding for this case notwithstanding the contents of a letter, mentioned by Deputy Yates, which the then Minister, Deputy Howlin, wrote on the eve of the general election. I do not have the letter to hand but I read it carefully and it is clear in my mind. It stated the then Minister would propose to Government that the offer of £100,000 be increased to £200,000. That never happened so £100,000 was all that was offered to the County Louth residents in respect of research for their case.
The scale of the Windscale fire of 1957 highlighted the potential yet real threat posed to Ireland by the UK nuclear industry. In the intervening years successive Irish Governments have pursued vigorous campaigns directed at securing the earliest closure of Sellafield. These campaigns have included several examinations of whether recourse to legal action against BNFL was viable.
I assure the House that this Government will keep under review the question of taking a legal action against BNFL in respect of the risk to Ireland from Sellafield. That risk is mainly represented by the ever-present possibility of an accident at the plant resulting in serious radioactive contamination to Ireland. There is also public concern about the environmental hazard of Sellafield discharges even though in recent years the impact of liquid discharges to the Irish Sea has reduced significantly since the relatively high levels in the mid 1970s.
It may be asked why a legal action has not been mounted to date by any Government despite receiving the attention of several Ministers and Attorneys General. As the Opposition knows from its last experience in Government, litigation against BNFL raises complex technical and legal issues. This Government will continue to draw upon the best scientific and legal advice before deciding on litigation of such a challenging nature.
Since my appointment as Minister of State I have given urgent attention to the question of financial assistance to the County Louth residents. The House will be aware that the four County Louth residents' independent action against BNFL names the State as co-defendant on the basis that, in the view of the residents, the State has not been as vigorous as it should have been in resisting THORP. The State's own examination of possible legal action and the fact that the State itself is a co-defendant raises policy dilemmas which the Government has had to resolve.
On 6 October, I met the residents and offered them, on behalf of the Government, financial assistance in the amount of £200,000 for research purposes towards their case. Since then, I said in the public arena on a number of occasions that I found those people sincere and courageous in their actions. I appreciate the financial risks they are running and my admiration for them is high. I told them the Government recognises that they have won the right to a substantive action against BNFL, but I pointed out that it was their responsibility to prosecute the case. Bearing in mind their independent freedom of action and in an effort to be co-operative and supportive of the residents' efforts, particularly in their attempts to assemble research, I made a bona fide offer of financial assistance subject to the State being removed as co-defendant in their action. This offer allowed the residents complete discretion to identify the precise research which they see as a priority relating to their conduct of the case. I also told them that other Departments and the RPII would make themselves available to advise and assist them regarding the content and scope of research they may wish to undertake.
Further Government assistance was offered relating to the computerised management of the great volume of documents contained in my Department's affidavit of discovery and this assistance would be extended to any other State documents included in the discovery process. I believe the House should recognise the positive aspects of the Government's willingness to fund research while giving complete discretion to the residents to select those elements of research which they see as most relevant to the pursuit of their case.
Since my meeting with the County Louth residents the Government has been considering its response to the residents' rejection of the offer I made them on 6 October last. Because of the Government's wish to be as helpful and co-operative as possible to the residents — I have sought to use terminology such as "helpful", "co-operative" and "supportive" in dealing with this matter — it has asked me to initiate further discussions with the residents about the level of support which would be appropriate. In any public statements since that meeting, to which I exhorted the residents to come, I always called that our "first" meeting.
What about the words "final offer"?
Or "full and final settlement"?
I look forward to having the opportunity to meet the residents again to discuss this support as early as possible.
In addition to possible legal remedies there is a range of opportunities at bilateral and international level to further our interests, articulate our views and bring about change for the benefit of our citizens.
Following the accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986, there was greater global recognition of nuclear power's potential for damage to health and the environment. There is growing recognition too of the difficulties associated with disposing of a legacy of 50 years of radioactive waste. Ireland and many other states have rejected the nuclear energy option. We recognise however that more than half of our EU partners and many of the major western and eastern industrial nations have opted to use nuclear power for electricity generation. Increasingly also many developing countries, including India, China and Pakistan, see nuclear power as a vital component of their energy policy. How does a non-nuclear country such as Ireland deal with the pace of growth in the worldwide use of nuclear power? How do we combat proponents of nuclear power who point out that the low CO2 emissions of nuclear plants are the answer to global warming which is the great environmental challenge facing us in the 21st century?
In common with other like-minded non-nuclear countries, we actively participate in those international organisations which can shape an improved international safety culture in the use of nuclear power. We believe that the states which have opted for the use of nuclear power have an obligation to ensure the highest standards of safety and radiological protection are employed. The Government is committed to giving absolute priority to promotion of an effective international nuclear safety culture with wide adherence by nuclear states, operators and national regulatory bodies.
Recently Ireland played an active role in the negotiation and conclusion of three new international conventions which will enhance nuclear safety worldwide and which represent the type of significant international commitment which Ireland and other non-nuclear states have been trying to establish for many years. Ireland was among one of the first signatories of the International Convention on Nuclear Safety which was drawn up under the auspices of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency. The convention became effective for Ireland on the date of its entry into force, 24 October 1996. The aim of the Nuclear Safety Convention is to ensure all landbased civil nuclear installations are safe, well regulated and environmentally sound, to promote a high level of nuclear safety worldwide and to strengthen international co-operation in the field of nuclear safety.
Under the convention, each contracting party is required to take adequate national measures to ensure nuclear safety and to report to the other contracting parties on the measures taken. The convention will present Ireland with a unique opportunity to participate in a nuclear safety "peer review" process every three years. The review will assess how participating countries are complying with the obligations of the convention. Furthermore, it will provide Ireland with an opportunity to query the country reports of the UK and others in relation to their compliance with the convention. We see this convention as a major breakthrough in fostering a global nuclear safety culture and providing a forum for extensive information exchange on nuclear safety matters.
In September this year Ireland was again among the first signatories of a new Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. This convention places new and extensive obligations on contracting parties such as provisions relating to general safety requirements, siting, design, construction and operation of facilities and disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste. The convention establishes a "peer review" process similar to that applicable to the Nuclear Safety Convention.
A significant feature of the new convention, and one in which Ireland was active in negotiating, relates to the inclusion within its scope of reprocessing facilities such as those at Sellafield. Contracting parties can make a voluntary declaration that reprocessing is an intrinsic part of spent fuel management. I welcome the UK's commitment to the effect that it would voluntarily extend the convention's scope to reprocessing activities. From an Irish perspective it will be possible to address public concerns about UK reprocessing facilities, in particular the THORP plant at Sellafield during peer review meetings.
The new joint convention also obliges neighbouring countries to consult countries in close proximity on the siting of proposed facilities. These consultation obligations are relevant to Ireland's long-standing objections to the siting of new radioactive waste disposal facilities in Britain. On its entry into force the convention will give firm backing to consultations by the UK with Ireland on such facilities.
Another convention which was also adopted in September this year relates to the issue of nuclear liability. Ireland as a non-nuclear country has a clear interest in securing the widest possible liability regime to include the operators, insurance companies and the installation states concerned. This regime should provide for the highest possible levels of compensation and simple, effective, speedy and impartial mechanisms for settling claims.
The Chernobyl accident and its trans-boundary effects revealed the inadequacy of existing nuclear liability law with many countries unable to obtain adequate compensation for the damage caused by the accident. In September this year, under the auspices of the UN, a protocol to revise the existing Vienna Convention on Compensation for nuclear damage and a new Convention on Supplementary Compensation for nuclear damage were adopted. The new instruments will provide increased funds for compensation for nuclear damage. They also provide for an enhanced definition of nuclear damage, inclusion of environmental damage and economic loss, increased operator liability limits and longer time limits for bringing claims.
However, while we are pleased agreement has been reached on the new instruments, Ireland remains concerned about the adequacy of the funding to be made available to victims of nuclear damage under the protocol and the new convention. We would have preferred to have seen the inclusion of a system of unlimited liability whereby all nuclear damage would have been compensated, but it was only possible to gain agreement on limited, albeit increased funding. Notwithstanding these concerns, it is my sincere hope that the protocol and the convention will provide a framework for the modernisation and strengthening of the international nuclear liability regime and thereby improve nuclear safety internationally.
While the new conventions will make a significant contribution to nuclear safety, we cannot rely on them exclusively. We must, by means of bilateral contacts with the UK authorities and supported by our emergency preparedness programme, be in healthy readiness to deal with risks associated with a nuclear accident and be equipped to protect the Irish population from the potentially harmful effects of radioactive contamination. If the circumstances are right, we may also be obliged to have recourse to litigation with the objective of preventing or ending nuclear activities which present a risk to our citizens.
Why does the Minister not do it now?
Over the years, the expansion of the Sellafield complex and its nuclear activities have been a cause of concern to successive Governments. These concerns relate to the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at Sellafield's THORP plant, the ageing Magnox reactors, and the ongoing question of radioactive discharges from Sellafield into the aerial and marine environment. There has been consistent opposition by successive Governments to the THORP reprocessing plant which began operations in 1994. The plant, which reprocesses spent nuclear fuel in order to extract uranium and plutonium for reuse, was recently granted permission by the UK nuclear installations inspectorate to operate at full capacity. The Government opposes the continuation and expansion of these reprocessing activities, particularly because of the risk of an accident. In addition, the plant's reprocessing activities can only serve to increase proliferation risk and cause potential hazard because of the transport of spent fuel to Sellafield and plutonium back to the country of origin.
I am advised by the RPII that the most significant risk to Ireland from a nuclear accident overseas would arise from atmospheric releases from an installation in the UK or elsewhere in Europe. In recognition of this risk, long-standing agreed arrangements are in place whereby my Department is notified of incidents of a radiological nature as soon as the UK authorities are informed by the British nuclear operators. Generally, the notification arrangements have been working satisfactorily since 1986, although I would like to see the scope of formally notifiable incidents extended to include incidents not involving a release of radioactivity. This matter is being addressed in the context of discussions with the UK authorities on the establishment of a formal bilateral agreement on nuclear safety and radiation protection matters which will formalise incident notifications.
The Government, for its part has prepared a plan of action in the event of a nuclear accident. The main elements of the national emergency plan for nuclear accidents are published in a booklet available from my Department. The plan is designed to provide a rapid and effective response to accidents involving the release or potential release of radioactive substances into the environment which could give rise to radiation exposure. The national emergency plan outlines the measures in place to assess and mitigate the effects of nuclear accidents which occur in the UK or elsewhere and which might pose a radiological hazard to Ireland. As Minister responsible for nuclear safety matters, I am responsible for the emergency plan and for ensuring the co-ordination of the responsibilities and functions of relevant Government Departments, the RPII and local authorities.
Emergency preparedness is underpinned by a constant monitoring programme carried out by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. This programme includes measurements of radioactivity levels in air, on the ground, in live sheep, foodstuffs and in a range of samples from the seas around Ireland. I am advised by the RPII that their current monitoring programme enables a healthy state of readiness to be maintained so that a rapid and effective response can be provided in the event of a nuclear emergency. The vital co-operative emergency arrangements with our EU partners are tested every six to eight weeks. At least one of these every year includes the transfer of simulated radiological data between EU member states. Ireland participates in all of these tests and the experiences gained to date have led to improvements in the international arrangements.
In November 1996 and April this year the RPII took part in the international desktop exercise INEX 2, organised by the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. INEX 2 comprises a series of international exercises to take place in 1996, 1997 and 1998. Over 30 countries, the European Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency have participated in INEX 2 to date. In Ireland's case, the INEX 2 exercise proved to be helpful in reviewing the operation of our plan.
Following the recent emergency exercises, a fundamental review of existing arrangements is currently being undertaken by my Department and the RPII and some procedural and practical improvements have been suggested. While it is my sincere hope that I will not be called upon to initiate the national emergency plan, it is my intention to ensure we are adequately prepared and can provide an effective and speedy response to any nuclear incident.
It must be acknowledged that radioactive discharges from Sellafield have declined significantly since the mid-1970s, but any discharges are objectionable. In November and December 1996 BNFL applied to the UK Environment Agency for a variation of the aerial and liquid discharge authorisations from Sellafield. While the significance of the changes for Ireland in radiological terms is likely to be small, any additional contamination of the environment must be opposed. I have reserved the right of the Irish Government to make a detailed submission on the aerial and liquid discharge variations when the Environmental Protection Agency issues its draft authorisations for public consultation.
In July 1997 BNFL's chairman wrote to me concerning Sellafield's radioactive discharges and announced that BNFL had withdrawn its application for increased gaseous tritium emissions from the THORP plant. While I welcome this partial improvement, I have called upon BNFL for a greater reduction in discharge levels for all radionuclides using the application of best available abatement technologies so that all atmospheric and marine emissions are kept as low as possible and ultimately eliminated.
The recently reported steep increases in the levels of the radionuclide technetium-99 in lobsters and other shellfish in areas of the Irish Sea close to Sellafield have received media attention. While the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland indicates that this level does not represent a hazard to shellfish consumers, the institute is intensifying its programme of monitoring of technetium-99 in the Irish marine environment.
The question of radioactive discharges from Sellafield was raised by Ireland at a recent joint meeting of the Oslo-Paris Commission for Pollution in the North East Atlantic. Ireland tabled a motion, co-sponsored by Denmark, calling for a reduction in technetium-99 discharges from Sellafield to the Irish Sea. As a result, the UK is to report on how it is complying with its obligations under the convention. I hope to meet the UK Minister for the Environment, Mr. Michael Meacher, soon to discuss a wide range of nuclear-related matters, including the question of aerial and liquid discharges into the Irish Sea.
Among the Government's concerns is the safety of the long-term storage of highly radioactive liquid waste in tanks at Sellafield. High radioactive waste stems directly from reprocessing. The RPII has identified the tanks as posing the greatest risk of an accident at Sellafield. The liquid waste is stored in 21 tanks awaiting vitrification, a process whereby liquid high level radioactive waste is processed into glass blocks for long-term storage. In my view, the tank emptying programme needs to be accelerated and the third vitrification line needs to be brought into operation as soon as possible so that waste will be vitrified at the same rate at which it is created. Officials at my Department have raised the matter at bilateral meetings with their UK counterparts and the matter is being investigated further.
The House may be aware of a proposal by British Nuclear Fuels to commission a new nuclear fuel production plant at Sellafield. The new fuel is called MOX and is a mixture of plutonium and uranium. It will be used for conventional reactors and the bulk of the plutonium is expected to come from the fuel reprocessed from the UK's Magnox reactors at Sellafield and from the new THORP plant. This is apparently the final justification for producing yet more plutonium, although the world has already stockpiled more than it can ever peacefully use. The UK Environment Agency has engaged in a consultation process relating to the justification for the commissioning and operation of Sellafield's MOX plant.
I have dealt at some length with the Government's efforts to promote an international safety culture for the benefit of our citizens and the actions we are taking to protect our citizens from the environmental hazard of nuclear power activities in the UK and elsewhere. This is being done to provide a broad view of Government policy on radiological protection in so far as the nuclear industry is concerned.
The most immediate issue raised in the motion is support for the County Louth residents who are making a committed stand on nuclear matters. I hope to arrange a meeting in the near future with the County Louth residents to discuss financial assistance and other support in light of their responsibility to prosecute the case. I trust that these contacts will be fruitful and that I will have positive news on my discussions when I next have the opportunity to speak to the House.
I welcome the motion and thank Deputy Yates for giving us an opportunity to discuss the matter. I also thank him for his kind remarks and assistance when he was a senior Minister and I was a Minister of State.
The last point made by the Minister of State is the most critical. Will he agree to meet the Dundalk group tomorrow morning before this debate recommences? They are in the House and can hear us. I am prepared to give way if he is prepared to respond.
The Deputy should make his contribution.
This is an important part of my contribution.
I accept that but this is not a question and answer session.
I assure the Minister of State that the group is prepared to meet him. If he nods his head I will convey to them that he is prepared to meet them tomorrow and resolve this matter as he said he is anxious to do.
The Deputy should continue with his contribution.
The Deputy should go into the mediation business.
There is no precedent for questions and answers in Private Members' time.
There is no indication from the Minister of State that he is prepared to meet the Dundalk group tomorrow. The residents are willing and able to meet him if he is so willing.
The Minister of State met them when he was in Opposition.
Half way through this century scientists split the atom and declared to the world that, when the energy released was harnessed, an unlimited supply of free, clean energy would be available. Scientists were wrong as they have been before and since.
The first manifestation of that massive energy was displayed when it was used to vaporise over 1,000,000 men, women and children when atom bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The post-war period led to a nuclear arms race between the superpowers and enough weapons were produced to wipe out the human race and all life on the planet ten times over.
At the same time, the so called peaceful use of nuclear power was developed to produce electricity. This ‘peaceful use' was closely associated with the arms industry and was cloaked in secrecy; the hope of clean, free energy was cruelly dashed. Instead, we got a proliferation of nuclear weapons and power stations which supplied neither free nor clean electricity. These stations produced waste which can neither be stored safely nor neutralised. It is waste with which scientists cannot deal. These stations, which appeared like mushrooms all over the industrialised world, were belching poisonous radioactive materials into the atmosphere, regardless of the effects on humanity or the environment. Once these stations were put in place there was no knowledge as to how they would or could be decommissioned.
We then had a series of nuclear accidents — the explosion at Three Mile Island in 1979, the fire at Windscale in 1957 and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. There has also been a litany of lesser accidents. The effects of the nuclear disasters at Three Mile Island and Windscale were shrouded in secrecy and, 40 years later, we are only now getting information as to the health and environmental effects.
Chernobyl is in a different category. While there has been a degree of official denial, the Chernobyl Children's Project ensured that the scale of that tragedy and the effects of the resultant radiation on children, in particular, were known. The world was aghast at the scale and seriousness of the disaster and the nuclear lobby was dealt a near fatal blow.
All political parties are opposed to nuclear power and Ireland has taken an honourable stand on nuclear disarmament. However, it has long been recognised that it is not just nuclear nations that are at risk from radioactive pollution. Ireland and other nuclear free countries are equally at risk. Radioactive clouds know no boundaries as was evidenced by the accidents at Windscale and Chernobyl. Our people are at as much risk from nuclear power as those living in the shadow of the cooling towers. Hence our concern arising from the nuclear complex at Sellafield.
The Sellafield complex on the west coast of Cumbria, about 100 miles east of Ireland, contains a British Nuclear Fuels reprocessing plant. Spent nuclear fuel is recycled to extract uranium and plutonium for civil and military use. The new THORP plant which opened in 1994 forms part of the complex. There are also four magnox reactors called Calder Hall on the site as well as a vitrification plant for high level radioactive waste. There are 21 large tanks holding highly active liquid waste awaiting vitrification.
How are these installations a threat to the health and well-being of the Irish people? The magnox reactors are 40 years old and are past their sell-by date. They are of an inferior design and are vulnerable to terrorist attack or air crashes. They have been kept in commission simply to save the very high cost of decommissioning, estimated at £1 billion each. If that cost was factored into the price of electricity it would be far from cheap. The consequences of a reactor exploding or being blown up would be disastrous for Ireland.
Like the Minister of State, I am seriously concerned about the safety of the long-term storage of highly active radioactive waste in tanks at Sellafield. The UK regulatory authority has also voiced its anxiety about storage arrangements at Sellafield. The liquid waste is stored in 21 tanks awaiting vitrification, a process whereby the product is turned into glass. The backlog will not be cleared until 2015. The situation is totally unacceptable and an accident at even one of the tanks would have catastrophic consequences for Ireland. These tanks must be cooled at all times or they will explode. If the cooling system failed, there would be a chain reaction explosion of all 21 tanks that would make the Chernobyl and Windscale disasters fade into insignificance. If this occurred, and the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland has identified it as the greatest risk to Ireland, there would be large numbers of immediate deaths in the country; there would be long-term deaths from cancers; our agriculture would be permanently wiped out and our tourism industry would end. This is how serious the problem is.
There is pervasive and corrosive pollution of the Irish Sea and the environment caused by the daily radioactive emissions from this nuclear complex. No level of emission is acceptable and I am glad to hear the Minister reiterating this. It must stop and it is the Minister's job to see that it does.
There is a large volume of evidence to demonstrate that these radioactive pollutants have caused serious illness among Irish people and as recently as this month new evidence to this effect came to light. Further research is required and it should not be left to a few Irish citizens to provide it. Research will cost millions of pounds but it will be money well spent as our future may depend upon it. We should also be aware that British Nuclear Fuels and the international nuclear lobby have unlimited funds available to them. The Government cannot ask private citizens to do this work for them. It should, in consultation with the Dundalk residents, carry out detailed health studies, specialised engineering studies and more detailed atmospheric and environmental studies. Above all, the Government must resolve to take action. That resolve seems to be lacking in this Administration. However, earlier last year Fianna Fáil, aware of the widespread public concern about Sellafield and in what we now know was a purely cynical, vote getting exercise, inserted the following into their election manifesto:
In Government, Fianna Fáil will ensure that the case taken by the Dundalk residents is fully funded and, if required, appealed through the higher courts. In Government, Fianna Fáil will provide the financial and scientific resources to comprehensively research the effects on health and safety in Ireland of the operation of Sellafield et al.
That message could not be clearer or more positive. It was widely welcomed, particularly by the Dundalk residents and won support for the Fianna Fáil candidates in the general election. The Progressive Democrats also jumped on that bandwagon. The previous Government who were involved in ongoing discussions with the Dundalk residents had already indicated that an unconditional £200,000 was available.
Nothing came of it. Did they get a red cent?
I pay tribute to the Dundalk residents for the action they are taking and the courage they have displayed.
The Minister is a Deputy for Louth.
The matter received special attention from the incoming Administration. The Minister for State, Deputy Jacob, has informed the House that the Cabinet considered the matter on three separate occasions before issuing their bombshell decision.
Was the Minister there?
What was that decision? The Government who had promised full funding for the legal case decided no assistance, not a single penny, would be provided for legal costs. No payment of any kind would be made unless the residents drastically changed the nature of their case. An absolute cap would be placed on the £200,000 offered as an interim payment by the previous Government or in the words of the Minister of State "full and final settlement". Even this paltry sum could only be spent on research approved by the Government and was tied up with red tape to a degree that would make its use nearly impossible.
This is a betrayal of the Dundalk residents, the general public who accepted the Minister's undertaking and those who have fought against the might of British Nuclear Fuels. I oppose this betrayal and I will not let Fianna Fáil forget its spectacular U-turn. Where was the Minister, who was vocal on this issue, when it was decided to jettison the Dundalk residents?
I challenge Deputy Stagg to say what advice he got on legal costs. The Deputy is being hypocritical.
The Government has compounded this betrayal.
Deputy Stagg, without interruption.
The Deputy is being hypocritical.
I am not being hypocritical. We read out the report.
We got the same advice.
Deputy Stagg did not make the promises.
Deputy Stagg without interruption.
Deputy Stagg made a promise when he was in Government and he did not do anything. He did not spend a red cent.
The Government freely entered into it.
Deputy Stagg strung them out until after the election.
The Government has compounded this betrayal by downgrading the priority given to Sellafield and related matters. It has disbanded the ministerial task force, established by the previous Administration, which gave a focus and authority to our campaign. It has also disbanded the interdepartmental group on Sellafield and placed the weight of the issue on the shoulders of the Minister of State. The message is clear — Fianna Fáil are soft on Sellafield.
Hear, hear.
That is rubbish.
The Dundalk residents are in the House listening to this debate. If the Minister of State can indicate he is willing to meet them tomorrow this matter might be resolved before we conclude.
Deputy Stagg and the residents know it is not that simple.
I am sure that Fine Gael, Democratic Left and some Independents will also oppose this betrayal but what of the other Independents who have become lobby fodder for this minority Administration? Does Deputy Blaney agree we should not pursue the British on this issue? I assure him that Irish life, limb and property are at risk. The Irish environment, commerce and trade and tourism are at risk and the Deputy still appears to be silent. Is Deputy Healy-Rae satisfied with or frightened by this blatant breaking of a solemn promise by Fianna Fáil? If they can welsh on this, where do the promises made to him stand?
Deputy Stagg has not changed his speech.
I compliment Deputy Fox who last week fired a salvo across the bows of the Government and Fianna Fáil in particular. She said:
There is so much public concern about Sellafield that I feel it necessary to fund research to investigate the long-term consequences of radiation for current and future generations of Irish citizens.
The Fianna Fáil environmental policy document published before the election indicated that when in Government Fianna Fáil would ensure the case taken by the Dundalk residents would be fully funded and, if required, would be appealed through the courts. That was a clear promise from Fianna Fáil prior to the election. I call on that party to fulfil that commitment and not to let down the people of Dundalk.
Deputy Fox is to be complimented for her forthright and plain statement. I understand she has contacted the Taoiseach and, borrowing a phrase from the Tánaiste, has expressed her grave concern. She has been assured the matter was considered by the Government and the decision we heard from the Minister of State was conveyed to her. I accept Deputy Fox's genuine concern for the Dundalk residents and the issue of radioactive pollution. It was in that context that she spoke out. I am sure she and others are as shocked as I am by this brutal betrayal, this unbelievable U-turn and by the fact that the Government expected her to support it.
Deputy Fox has more power in this matter than the entire Opposition. She should not be taken for granted. She should use the power given to her by the people and make sure this dastardly decision and betrayal is reversed. I ask Deputy Fox to vote for this motion and to withhold her support from the Government until it reverses its decision and honours its solemn promise to the Dundalk residents and to the Irish people to fully fund the legal and research costs of the case against BNFL. If she does this she will have done a good day's work and sent a message that she cannot be taken for granted.
We want to see the colour of the Government's money, not hear its sweet words.
The Deputy's party gave the sweet words. We have done more than his party in its two years in Government.
Deputy Stagg without interruption.
It now seems the Government has made yet another U-turn and is prepared to accept the motion before the House. What does this mean? It indicates that the Government does not know whether it is coming or going. Before the election it was prepared to fully fund the case. After the election practically no funding was to be provided. Now, a week later, we may be back to a full funding commitment, although I am not sure. It is said a week is a long time in politics but it would seem that an hour is a long time for this Government.
I have the highest regard for the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, but this means he could be hung out to dry as the fall guy on this issue. I am sure he is made of stern stuff and will be able to look after himself. He should not be the fall guy for the dithering of the Taoiseach and his senior Cabinet colleagues.
Does this mean we are back in the Haughey era when decisions taken by the House were blithely ignored by the Government? The House will recall motions calling for funding for haemophiliacs who had contracted AIDS from blood transfusions which were passed by the House and ignored by the Government. The Government must state in clear and unequivocal terms how it will proceed with this case. It must inform the Dundalk residents how much money it will provide and for what. It must accept responsibility for the damage it has done to the case and through misleading the residents. The Government has sent clear signals to BNFL and the British authorities that Fianna Fáil is not and never has been serious about tackling Sellafield.
Fianna Fáil cosied up to BNFL in private meetings in Dublin when, as Minister of State, I successfully opposed the building of a massive nuclear dump at Sellafield. It is not to be trusted on this issue.
Rubbish.
I did not know that. It is terrible collaboration.
Deputy Yates is only playing politics with the issue.
The Dundalk residents, Deputy Fox and others should be rightly suspicious of Fianna Fáil's real agenda. After all, it was a Fianna Fáil Administration which proposed the building of a nuclear power station in Ireland. The bottom line is that Fianna Fáil is soft on the nuclear issue.
We want to know how much money will be paid.
The Deputy is only a "Johnny come lately" to this issue.
