The Minister for Energy is to make a statement, as you are already aware. One representative from each group will be permitted to ask a question on a point of clarification. I will be asking for your cooperation in that regard.
Chernobyl (USSR) Nuclear Accident: Statements.
I welcome the opportunity to address this House about the accident at the nuclear power station at Chernobyl near Kiev in the USSR. It also gives me the opportunity to reiterate the concerns the Government have been constantly expressing about the safety of the Sellafield operation. I want to assure the House that we are steadfast in our resolution to pursue unrelentingly our request for the establishment of a European inspection force. The accident at Chernobyl has brought home to the entire world the nightmare and appalling long term consequences which can result from an accident at a nuclear establishment. We fervently hope that the radioactive plume which has drifted over Scandinavia and has turned back over Eastern Europe and the USSR will dissipate quickly. We hope with equal fervour that any complacency about safety in the nuclear industry will also be dissipated forever. The consequences of such accidents have an appalling potential for disaster. The people of the world have a right to vigilance of the highest degree, constant inspection of facilities, constant review of safety procedures and standards and complete openness about what is going on.
On this question of access to information it is very alarming that the Soviet accident was not disclosed until some days after it happened; and then only after high levels of radioactivity had been detected in Scandinavia. The amount of information disclosed by the USSR since then is simply not acceptable. They have an obligation to fully disclose what has happened. The Irish Government have requested our Embassy in Moscow to get the fullest information possible, about the accident and its effects.
There is still considerable confusion about the issue. According to Soviet statements quoted in the media, a reactor building was damaged by an explosion. A fire started. The reactor was shut down but the graphite in the reactor is still burning. The Soviets are quoted as saying that two people were killed, 197 people were hospitalised but 49 were later released. Life was reported to be normal in the nearby city of Kiev. The Soviets were critical of the western media which they say exaggerated stories of the accident.
On the other hand, reports from Washington last night claimed that the fire in one reactor was still out of control and that a second reactor may also have been affected. American reports claimed that graphite was burning in the first reactor at very high temperatures and that radiation levels were also very high. More recent reports from America suggested that they are not now so certain about the extent of involvement of a second reactor in the accident.
Whatever the facts, the matter is a disaster of international dimensions. While contamination is greatest in the accident area, fallout has occurred in Scandinavia and in Eastern European countries mainly in Sweden, Denmark, Austria and North Eastern Poland. It is some consolation that experts in those countries have indicated that the levels of radioactivity were not a hazard to health.
This House will be aware of the statement issued by the Nuclear Energy Board on 29 April 1986. The Nuclear Energy Board stated that they had been advised by the Meteorological Service that prevailing weather conditions are unlikely to carry contamination in the direction of Ireland in the immediate future. The board indicated that there was therefore no reason for the Irish public to be alarmed. The board are monitoring on a continuing basis and results up to Tuesday show no indications of contamination from the Chernobyl accident.
The Meteorological Office have informed us that the air around Chernobyl is expected to drift slowly south west during the next few days. Their forecast for the next seven days shows that this drift is unlikely to come near Ireland. The office is taking daily samples of the air in Dublin and Valentia and these will be passed to the Nuclear Energy Board for analysis.
Public concern about incidents at nuclear installations — even as far away as the USSR — re-emphasises the point that complacency about anything to do with the nuclear industry is irresponsible in the extreme.
As a country which does not have nuclear installations itself we feel particularly vulnerable to, and increasingly intolerant of any possible risks to our citizens resulting from the nuclear industry in other countries. This is particularly so in the case of the United Kingdom, since it is our nearest neighbour, and since the Sellafield plant, the scene of several recent incidents, is so close to this country.
The Government's position in relation to the Sellafield question is well known and has already been stated in this House. The Government are totally opposed to any discharge of radioactive water into the Irish Sea and want to see these discharges minimised and eliminated as soon as possible using the best available technology. Any radioactive discharge event, if the level of radioactivity is small, is undesirable and should cease. The Government recognise that the incidents at Sellafield are, in themselves, of little radiological significance to the Irish population. However, the frequency of these incidents has caused the Government and the Irish people to lose confidence in the safety of the plant. The safety record at Sellafield has been less than satisfactory and the frequency of recent incidents poses the possibility of an accident occurring in the future which could have serious consequences for this country.
The concern of the Government and the Irish public at the operation of Sellafield, particularly in relation to the recent incidents at the plant, has been conveyed to the United Kingdom authorities on a number of occasions, most recently by the Taoiseach to the British Prime Minister and at ongoing meetings of the Ireland/United Kingdom Contact Group on Nuclear Matters which was set up following my meeting in February 1984 with the then United Kingdom Secretary for the Environment, Mr. Patrick Jenkin.
This House will be aware by now of the Department's view that, as we are being exposed to a potential hazard from an operation outside our jurisdiction, this makes the problem an international one. The view of the Irish Government is that this issue must be resolved by the European Commission under the provisions of the Euratom Treaty. As I have said the Government are adamant that a European inspection force is necessary to determine independently whether Sellafield can operate safely or whether operations should be suspended or cease until it could be rendered safe.
The Minister for the Environment, the Minister of State, Mr. E. Collins, and I have had separate formal discussions with Commissioner Clinton-Davis about this matter. In my meeting with the Commissioner on 4 April 1986 I reiterated the Government's call for the establishment of an inspection force, and the Commissioner agreed with this suggestion.
On 11 April 1986 our Ambassador in Brussels on behalf of the Government, formally requested the Commission to establish a Community Health and Safety (Nuclear Installation) Inspection Force to report to the Commission and in turn to the member states on existing or potential health or safety problems at individual nuclear installations in the Community.
In conclusion, I would like to express the sympathy of the Government and the Irish people to those killed or injured in the Chernobyl accident.
In the unavoidable absence of our Leader, Senator Michael Lanigan, I would like, on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party to thank the Tánaiste for having come to this House at rather short notice to give us this brief explanation as regards this disaster which has occurred in the last few days. I say a "brief explanation" because I know that he has given us as much information as is possible to obtain. We do not wish this disaster on any country. Had it happened in any other country I am sure there would be much more publicity about it. The Soviet Union are reluctant to give information about what happens there. I am satisfied that the Minister and his Department have done their very best to get as much information about the Soviet disaster and also about what is happening in Sellafield and that they have given it to us. What has happened is a frightening thing. When one does not get any proper news one gets false statements and the people in this country are frightened. Anything we can do to allay their worries is something well worth doing. It was mentioned that each party could ask a question. I am not asking a question. I will leave that to any other member of my party who wants to ask a question.
I should like to express appreciation to the Tánaiste and Minister for Energy for coming to the House and making a statement on this disturbing incident in Kiev. I should like to ask the Minister for Energy if we could have an early and up-to-date report on the EC jet project on nuclear fusion. It is 40 years since the nuclear bomb devastated Hiroshima with the resulting revulsion of caring people throughout the world. We have been reading about this historical fact. At this stage it has lost much of its impact on the public awareness. Can the Tánaiste now say that nuclear energy even for civil and industrial use has been curbed or controlled and is safe, having regard to the fact that our scientists have had 40 years to mould it and do work on it? Can our population face the future with confidence in the knowledge that our scientists and experts are in control of the situation or can master or mould this important source of energy especially for peaceful means?
The incident, this week, which has caused so much unease and unrest among all people in the civilised world shows the importance of our Government, our Minister for Foreign Affairs and all our Ministers playing a very significant role of increasing their input into the effort especially at the United Nations to ensure effective nuclear disarmament throughout the world.
Again, I want to compliment the Tánaiste for his vigilance and the amount of work he has put into the ongoing debate regarding the Sellafield complex. While I accept that the unit is there for the indefinite future, we will be continuing to seek the guarantees that our population will be safe from incidental fallout.
Acting Chairman
We seem to have departed now from what was intended here. It was to be a question. Senator Ryan did not adhere to that. It would appear Senator McDonald has followed in the same line. Could I have advice from the Leader of the House as to what we should do?
What was determined and what was read into the Order of the House was that there should be a question for clarification. I am quite content if that remains a precedent in this House. There has been a wandering beyond the single question but it has not given rise to any contention. It has been congratulatory in nature. It does not do any damage to the business of this House, provided it is not taken as a precedent. I would hope that if there are any subsequent speakers that none of them attempts to beat the record which Senator McDonald has established for the length of a single question.
Acting Chairman
Thank you.
I want to thank the Chairman for trying to explain what I was trying to write into the record of the House this morning about how we should approach this problem. First of all, I think it would be inappropriate for me now in asking a question if I did not also join with the two previous speakers in thanking the Tánaiste for the way he has applied himself to this problem. When the House expressed its concern yesterday on two occasions, the Tánaiste, in consultation with the Department, went to extreme lengths to try to elicit for me the information available both from the Eastern Bloc and from the Sellafield Plant. I want to thank him publicly for having agreed to come to this House today to honour us with his presence and to be forthcoming with us in his explanations of the situation as he has ascertained it from his Department.
I have a question, Chairman, to ask the Tánaiste which the Leader of the House now expresses delight about. In the unfortunate event of this country being subjected to wind or rain or some other atmospheric situation over which we, or this Government, have no control — and the Department of Energy are the controlling Department at the moment, with the Tánaiste at its head and Minister of State, Deputy E. Collins, acting with him — and in the event of our stations, which are sampling in Dublin and Valentia, giving notice of an unfortunate "red alert" situation where the samples being taken indicate that precautions should be taken, who is going to be responsible, from the Government point of view through the various agents, for informing the public to ensure, first of all, that we would not have a stampede from Dublin to Galway, or vice versa, or that we might not have a stampede from Dublin to the south east of the country which would create further problems. Who is going to be responsible for co-ordinating it?
The Department of the Environment already have a nucleus of civil defence units throughout the country. I want to pay tribute to them, as a member of a local authority, who knows what they have been doing in this area. They have issued some comments to the "Gay Byrne Show" already of what they would do. Can I take it that the Department of Energy, as a co-ordinating body, will involve the Department of the Environment and the Civil Defence in coping with the problems and that the Departments of Health and Agriculture will then alert the Animal Health Council. Today they are setting up an advisory body on how to deal with the problems together with the producers' bodies and the consumer bodies. Somebody has to be responsible. The Tánaiste and I can tell them at constituency level.
What about the county councillors?
They could do it as well, but there would probably be a section 4 rule directing us not to do it. We have four different Departments. I want to know who is going to be responsible for co-ordinating the information to the unfortunate people on the ground who will be "at panic stations" if the levels are wrong. Perhaps the Tánaiste would clear up that point. Perhaps he has given some thought to it. I want to thank the Tánaiste again for coming in to us.
Acting Chairman
There is a convivial atmosphere here now. It was originally intended that there would be only one speaker from each group. We have no representative, I see, from the Independent benches so would the House agree that more than one from different sides would be acceptable?
I think if we consider Senator Michael Smith as an Independent for the next two or three minutes without giving rise to a general debate——
I do not think it should require that change in Standing Orders for the debate at this stage because already most of the rules have been broken. I intend, in fact, to amend the rules to some degree in my contribution, which will be extremely brief. In the last few days the peoples in all parts of the world have been shocked and shaken by the devastating consequences of further accidents at nuclear plants, this time in the USSR. Because of our proximity to Sellafield and the threat that that continues to pose to Ireland and to people in the UK, have the Government any proposals to deal with this matter at EC level and also to try to have it raised at world fora and particularly, perhaps, in the United Nations? It seems to me that quite a number of those nuclear plants in different parts of the world are now becoming obsolete, very aged and even more prone to accident than we were led to believe up to quite recently. Because of this and the threat that Sellafield presents to Ireland as a whole, will the Government be extending their efforts wider than just the European Community to try to get world opinion against these developments in other parts of the world?
I, too, ask your indulgence to speak very briefly on the issue. To judge by some of the comments of previous speakers from my own perspective, I regard what has happened in Chernobyl in the last week to be among the most serious and significant events that has faced the population of the world in decades, because the impossible has happened. As one who has been engaged in opposing nuclear technology since the late seventies when it was proposed at that stage to build our very own nuclear power station in Carnsore Point in the south-east, I remember very well the attitude that was prevalent among the so-called experts at that time. Those who opposed the technology were regarded as somehow illiterate Luddites who could not understand that this was a perfectly safe technology that had been researched and investigated. It is quite clear now that the impossible has occurred and that we have invested right around the globe in the potential for the annihilation of mankind.
Acting Chairman
I have allowed the Senator more time than was intended.
I will ask a last question. Thank you for your indulgence on it. People have congratulated the Tánaiste for coming here. It is important that we address this most significant issue. I would end by saying that the technology has proven to be flawed and faulty, as we predicted some decades ago. Is it now the intention of the Government to rally European support to phase out this dangerous technology and to look for alternative sources of energy to replace, over a period, this proven flawed, dangerous technology?
The Tánaiste on page 2 of his speech says that the Soviet Union has an obligation to fully disclose what had happened. What contact did we have with the Soviet Embassy? Was the fact that so little information was given and that information was given so late been communicated to the Soviet Ambassador in Dublin?
Thank you. I would like to thank the Senators for their welcome. I am always glad of the opportunity of addressing this House. I hope not to have the opportunity of being a Member for a long time to come. Senator McDonald asked if we would consider making information available on the jet projects. If the House want a discussion on that I will certainly make arrangements and get information to this House on the EC project as soon as possible.
It is difficult to give general advice as to the safety of nuclear plants. As I said in the course of my contribution, I have said publicly for many months as we do not have a nuclear installation and do not have the benefits, then we should not have the risks and we should not have to live with the fears of the possible adverse consequences of nuclear problems in other countries. We cannot afford to be any less vigilant in relation to the standards which we seek to impose upon other countries. We are acting perfectly within our rights as a sovereign State in seeking to impose the highest possible standards of safety which, I assume, we would impose on ourselves if we had nuclear technology in this country.
I can allay Senator Ferris's fears in relation to the Government response in the event of a disaster similar to the Chernobyl happening in the vicinity of this country. I can assure him that the Government would take the appropriate steps in the dissemination of information and that the sub-committee of the Government which would cope with disasters or emergency situations — which I think was taken rather by surprise in the winter of 1981 — would not be found to be wanting on this occasion.
Senator Smith asked, in relation to the question, if the Government are satisfied as to how we are seeking to act within the EC and should we not look in the United Nations context. I believe that, first, we should at least seek to use every opportunity within the EC. We have not as yet completed the process within the EC Commission and possibly within the European Court. I believe that the proper context outside the EC would be the International Energy Agency. That would be a body where these matters are discussed with frequency and at which we are represented. It would be our intention to ensure that those matters are raised with the experts in this area of the International Energy Agency.
Senator Howlin referred to the question of faulty technology. I would have to admit that I am not an expert on whether the technology is faulty or otherwise. It bears out the point that we have to insist, and ensure that our insistence does not fall on deaf ears, on maximum safety standards being applied to the nuclear power stations and the reprocessing plants.
In relation to the diplomatic procedures which have been engaged in, as I said earlier, we asked the Irish Embassy in Moscow to seek out the maximum information available. I think the Senator will appreciate the difficulties which the Irish State may have in this area when you realise the other countries involved and the fact that countries directly affected would seem to have had little impact in terms of eliciting information from the Soviet Union on this occasion. I am not in a position to answer the direct question as to whether the Soviet Ambassador in Dublin has been contacted but I believe that the procedure through our own Embassy in Moscow may have been the direct procedure.