Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Nov 1995

Vol. 145 No. 6

Nuclear Energy Policy: Statements (Resumed).

Mr. Daly

I thank the Minister of State for his very comprehensive statement, which could set out the basis for a policy in this area. While much discussion and activity have taken place, particularly with regard to the integration of the Nuclear Energy Board into the Radiological Protection Institute, there has been an absence of a clearly defined policy. I take this opportunity to re-emphasise the necessity to draw together the various strands of activity with which different Departments are involved. I compliment the Minister of State on the establishment of the interdepartmental committee which will hopefully issue its report in the near future and set down a formula for an overall framework to deal with this issue rather than the present ad hoc situation.

I also compliment the institute on its work. This has been highlighted in the reports which have gone unnoticed to a large extent. This House should have an opportunity to debate the work of the radiological protection institute annually. The institute is involved in important work on surveys and monitoring duties. This work goes unnoticed to a large extent. It is difficult for the institute to function effectively because its budget amounts to only £1 million per year. I would like to see a substantial increase in funding to expand and expedite the work with which the institute is involved. I take this opportunity to put on record our appreciation to the personnel of the institute for their activities and the amount of documentation they have issued from time to time.

On 26 April 1986 the Chernobyl nuclear reactor went out of control and a contaminating cloud spread across the continent. The tragic consequences of this catastrophe awakened the consciousness of a largely indifferent international community to the global nuclear threat. For the many who had been acutely aware of the aftermath of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and believed such disasters would never happen again, the Chernobyl tragedy was a stark reminder of the nuclear nightmare that threatens mankind. Has the message from that tragedy made an impression on international leaders? I question whether it has, given the strange decision taken by the French Government to resume nuclear testing. This indicates that nothing has been learned from the tragedies of the past.

It is not commonly known that the Chernobyl nuclear plant remains in operation and is rapidly deteriorating. Plans had been made to close down this plant by the year 2000, but these were apparently conditional on funding being made available from the West. The President of the Ukraine sought finances but they have not been forthcoming. Unit 2 of the plant, which was closed following the fire in 1992, has been refurbished. There are 5,000 operators in Chernobyl, the fourth reactor of which was crippled in 1986 and is now in a very critical state. The Ukraine Academy of Sciences recently stated that the levels of radiation and the physical state of construction were deteriorating rapidly. Amounts of fuel and other radioactive materials from the reactor inside the structure would be enough to cause another 30 Chernobyl disasters, according to information provided by one of the academy's leading professors. China has also made the inexplicable decision to resume nuclear testing.

The neglect of the Russia's nuclear industry is a cause of major concern. Russia's nuclear inspectorate, which had access to the Russian installations and some of the more dangerous sites, has been prohibited from examining some of those installations by the Russian President. At present, Russia is endeavouring to seek contracts for the disposal of some of its nuclear waste through reprocessing. There is a possibility that such waste may be directed to Sellafield. A very real cause for concern exists in this regard. It is recognised that Russian nuclear facilities and power stations are dangerous, inefficient and face many problems. They have been described as a disaster waiting to happen.

Each year nuclear power production creates 200,000 cubic metres of low and intermediate level waste and 10,000 cubic metres of high level waste and used nuclear fuel. The radiological and safety risk varies from low to very great. The use of radioactive substances in medicine and industrial research is constantly expanding. Consequently, further risks and threats are posed. Pollution from sources such as energy production and use affects the health of many millions of people.

Our greatest concern is the threatening state of the United Kingdom's nuclear industry. The fears that were confirmed after a series of accidents at UK installations have highlighted the menace of nuclear energy and the necessity to take every reasonable step to protect our population and environment. More than half the world's nuclear reactors are located on Ireland's doorstep. The expansion of reprocessing facilities, the discharge of radioactive waste into the marine environment and the possible dangers arising from the shipment of radioactive materials through the Irish Sea are matters of grave concern to the people.

The time has come for the Sellafield issue to be brought before the International Court of Justice by the Government. I had the opportunity to attend the Rio summit where commitments were made that assistance would be given to countries like Ireland where problems had arisen with neighbours in relation to such issues. Commitments were made to provide technical and financial assistance and legal advice to states threatened by nuclear disasters in areas over which they had no jurisdiction and which did not have the technical and legal advice to help them deal with these issues.

We should now seek assistance from the European Union and the United Nations, through the various institutions with which we are affiliated, to get the necessary legal and technical advice and financial support to challenge the United Kingdom Government on the risk to our population and environment from the unsafe and damaging British nuclear industry which threatens this island.

If the UK Government continues to ignore genuine Irish concerns about Sellafield and other plants where there have been accidents in the past, then we have no alternative but to take it to the European Court or the International Court of Justice to find a way to resolve these matters. Advice given by the Attorney General on a number of occasions was that there were few mechanisms by which the United Kingdom Government could be challenged. The fact that serious incidents have occurred even this week is reason enough to have this matter fully investigated in the international fora. Action should be taken at international level to prohibit the risk to the environment and the population from these unsafe and unhealthy installations.

People will be appalled by recent revelations which indicate that some dumping of radioactive material took place adjacent to the Irish coastline. We had the opportunity to debate on the Adjournment the concerns of coastal communities about the risk to the population from dumping which has taken place over a number of years. Little is being done to identify these locations, to assess the state of these dump sites or to see what action could be taken with the British Government or with the British Government and the European Union to deal effectively with problems at these sites.

I am aware that a study is being undertaken at present which will be concluded by 2000, but that is not adequate. As more disclosures are made each day, the situation becomes more alarming and threatening and in need of urgent remedial action. There is strong evidence that waste dumped around the coastline has deteriorated to such an extent that it will be a hazard to humans and the environment unless something is urgently done to deal with that situation. The Government must take action fairly soon.

I refer to our efforts in dealing with problems associated with nuclear disasters and accidents. I would like to avail of this opportunity to put on record the work done by people like Adi Roche, who has continuously highlighted the tragedy of Chernobyl and the need to help in such a disaster situation. The Government should put in place a mechanism where assistance could be provided to deal with the aftermath of tragedies like Chernobyl. While the work of many non-governmental agencies has been successful in dealing with some of the problems, it is an enormous task which is beyond their capabilities.

In any policy on the nuclear area which may be put in place by the Minister provision should be made for and account should be taken of the aftermath of tragedies like Chernobyl. Financial assistance should be provided to people like Adi Roche to enable the work in which they are involved to continue and accelerate. Adi Roche has highlighted the continuing menacing threat to people in the vicinity of these installations and, as we know, this is not only confined to the vicinity of Chernobyl.

We need a clear policy, and the Minister is the ideal person to undertake its preparation. I compliment the Department's presentation in 1992 on the emergency plan for nuclear accidents. There is a need to bring together the Department of Defence, the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications and so on and to set out a clear policy on the nuclear area, where we stand on the various issues and how we propose to deal effectively with this real and permanent threat. The people need an indication of how the Government proposes to deal with this major hazard in the future.

Mr. Howard

Like Senator Daly, I welcome the Minister's comprehensive contribution on this issue. The Minister said that nuclear safety is matter of concern to all Irish people. He said that there is one issue about which there is consensus across all political parties and he referred to the direct threat imposed on the people by the United Kingdom's nuclear industry. He further stated that over the years all Irish Governments have voiced their concern about the nuclear installations at Sellafield, focusing on the discharge of radioactive waste into the Irish Sea. He said they have argued that the only way to resolve Irish concerns about Sellafield is to close down the plant. These views have been repeatedly conveyed to the United Kingdom Government, as yet to no avail.

The Minister also said the Government strongly opposes the continuation and expansion of the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel by British Nuclear Fuels at Sellafield. He outlined the main reasons for this and they numbered six in all. It is important to emphasis these points in any discussion of nuclear energy policy. It is only proper that this House debate the whole question of nuclear energy and nuclear industry on a regular basis and that is an additional reason for welcoming the opportunity of this debate this morning.

Any discussion on nuclear energy policy here must focus, as it has this morning in the contributions of both the Minister and Senator Daly, on what is happening across the Irish Sea. I know there are issues further afield which can be of major concern to us but the immediate issues of concern are virtually on our doorstep. Therefore, the situation at Sellafield and, indeed, THORP are of major concern to all citizens of this country.

I applaud and commend the sustained commitment of the Government in its opposition to these developments at Sellafield. In particular, I welcome the Government's support for the Dundalk residents in their case against the developments at Sellafield and wish these efforts every success. I condemn the attitude of the British Government in persisting to ignore the legitimate fears of our people. Indeed, these fears are not confined to the people of this island. They are shared by many residents in the United Kingdom.

In the course of his address, the Minister referred to the many dangers which these installations constitute. He referred to the ageing Magnox reactors, which have been well documented. I have some information which emerged recently from the Minister's Department. It outlines some of the reasons for the concern about these reactors and explains why so many share these concerns. Among the reasons which have been advanced are the following: they do not have secondary containment, as the Minister said; corrosion, fatigue and fretting in pressure components and other vital parts must be a safety problem and one which is becoming more difficult to assess; in-service inspection is limited because reactors were not designed from this; graphite degradation, like corrosion, gets worse with age and this has implications for the integrity of the reactor core and the ability to shut down the system to work as designed; and they are vulnerable to accidents initiated by external events.

For example, the boilers for the Calder-type reactors stand out in the open and are connected to the reactors by pipes carrying the reactor coolant that can be seen by passers-by. Again, that is a point which the Minister emphasised this morning. This particular type of reactor is now almost 40 years in service and it is obvious from what the Minister said, and, indeed, from the document to which I referred, that people's concern over the dangers which these ageing reactors constitute is justifiable.

Notwithstanding all that, there have been a number of incidents and accidents at these installations which confirm, unfortunately, our worst fears. Chernobyl was mentioned by both the Minister and Senator Daly. Senator Daly went on to commend the work which has been done by voluntary agencies in this country for the children who have been affected by the accident at Chernobyl. I have had the experience of meeting some of the children who were taken to Ireland in order to be given the opportunity to recover their lost health to some degree. It was wonderful to see them, but it was tragic to hear that the life expectancy of many of them is much shorter than would be the case in other circumstances. It is only when you come face to face with such a tragic reality that the inherent risks in nuclear activity are forcefully brought home to you.

I notice the Minister referred in the course of his speech to the fact that the examination which is being carried out in the Irish Sea does not indicate there is contamination of a worrying degree there. He also referred to the European Commission's examination of the worries which related to THORP. The Commission concluded the likely damage was not of major importance. Nonetheless, when ones thinks of Chernobyl. and other accidents, incidents and issues which have been raised, even these reassurances are not adequate to relieve the anxiety of the people of this country.

The Minister also referred to the fact there is major concern with regard to the proposal to build an underground nuclear dump in the Sellafield area. He spoke of the first step toward that end — the application for planning permission for an underground rock laboratory. We should compliment Cumbria County Council for refusing to grant planning permission for it. We were, of course, told the rock laboratory was for the purpose of testing the site's geology and general suitability for an underground nuclear dump. The Minister said that following Cumbria County Council's refusal of planning permission, the issue is to be taken before an inquiry in the United Kingdom. Arrangements have been made for the Minister to attend and make a presentation on 7 December. I wish him every success and I am quite sure his presentation will carry the same determination which he has shown here in his opposition to this matter.

The decision by Cumbria County County's to refuse planning permission for the underground rock laboratory throws the whole timetable and target date out of kilter. There is another problem in that the nuclear waste which it was intended to store underground is now being stored above ground and continues to constitute an unacceptable risk to the people on these islands. I have been reading an article about the underground nuclear dump. The comment was made that before a decision is reached by the United Kingdom inquiry on Cumbria County Council's refusal of permission, there will be a general election in Britain and there may well be a different Government. It would be interesting to establish the view of that possible alternative Government.

I welcome the work done by the ministerial task force as outlined by the Minister of State. I hope the task force and the Attorney General will be successful and find an opportunity to take legal action against Sellafield and British Nuclear Fuels in addition to the action by the Dundalk residents which they support.

Fears continue about the risks inherent in the transportation, reprocessing, storage and disposal of waste and in the decommissioning of nuclear installations. These concerns affect all countries, regardless of whether they pursue the nuclear option. I am conscious of the comments made by both the Minister of State and Senator Daly about central and eastern Europe where there are a number of ageing nuclear plants that are developing into a dangerous condition. We recognise the dangers that can arise from a repeat of Chernobyl and there is a major risk of such an occurrence. This is an international problem requiring international action. I am sure our Government will be at the forefront of all attempts to put in place the international action required to ensure the safety of these plants.

For years, Ireland has been a strong advocate of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament. I share the Minister's concern about the decision of the French Government to resume nuclear testing. I hope that international pressure, in which I am glad to see we are taking a leading part, will persuade the French Government to discontinue the series of nuclear tests and to go further and become party to the international test ban treaty which is being negotiated at present.

I endorse the Minister's concern about developing United Kingdom policy on the part privatisation of the nuclear industry which contains increased risks for the safety of the nuclear installations that will pass from national ownership into other hands. I say this with a certain measure of reluctance because I generally believe that private enterprise can have a useful part to play in the economic development of countries. However, because of the inherent risks, private concerns are not the appropriate people to have control of nuclear plants.

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this discussion. I support the Minister and the Government in their approach to the problems across the Irish Sea, in central and eastern Europe and to the French nuclear testing exercises. It is important that we continue to express in the strongest terms our reservations about the dangers inherent in all activities associated with the nuclear industry.

Mr. Lanigan

I welcome the Minister to the House to discuss a matter which is of great concern to everybody here and most reasonable people in the world. The nuclear power industry started 39 years ago when the first station was opened in Calder Hall. It was supposed to provide a new method of energy generation which would remove the ecological damage done by producing electricity from coal and other non-renewable energy sources. However, Calder Hall was not commissioned for the production of electricity. Its prime purpose was to produce weapons grade plutonium.

When the Queen opened Calder Hall she talked about the great benefits that would flow from the generation of clean electricity. In fact, they were preparing for the production of the nuclear bomb and the development of the nuclear bomb industry was prompted by Britain's opening of that generation station. We saw in Japan the results of the initial development of that industry during the Second World War. Most of those who were involved in the development of nuclear energy changed their minds over the years about whether they were producing a cheaper form of energy and began to actively campaign for the elimination of the nuclear weapons industry.

In Ireland we have a major worry about the huge complex in Wales which is between 40 and 100 miles from us. In the original advertisements produced by British Nuclear Fuels one always saw pictures of cows grazing around the plant to show there was no danger to the land or animals. They also showed people swimming close to the point where emissions were let into the Irish Sea. The cows had no choice but to graze around the power plant but the people of Wales will no longer swim in the area. At least they have a choice and know the dangers of contamination.

The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland has stated in its annual reports that there is no danger to humans from the contamination levels in the Irish Sea. Many people would dispute that. However, we must remember that those who produce the report for the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland are nuclear physicists or people who are linked to the nuclear business. Although they are working for the institute on behalf of the Irish people we must bear in mind that their opinions might be clouded by the fact that they are members of the profession. If there were no nuclear industry they would not be there except, perhaps, in the context of the natural production of radioactive material such as radon.

There has been a scare about radon and its effects. I do not know what can be done about it. If people are building new houses they should avoid sites where radon emissions are strongest. However, I cannot envisage that happening because I doubt that there will be a policy in the future of resettling people who are living in areas with high radon emission rates. I also doubt that the building industry will have much regard for what happens in such areas.

One matter was not mentioned in the report and I would like to hear the Minister's comments on it. In many areas throughout the country there has been controversy about the MMDS television transmission system; it has been a bone of contention. While we have been told by many experts in the nuclear and medical sectors that MMDS emissions are no stronger than those produced by a cooker in a suburban home, the public, perhaps for commercial reasons, has not really believed their analyses in this regard.

Britain, having been the first country to establish a nuclear power station, is one of the last to stop the commissioning of such stations. It is about 17 years since the United States stopped commissioning nuclear power stations. That policy was adopted for two reasons — a near accident at the Three Mile Island complex in Pennsylvania and the fact that nuclear power is the most costly method of generating electricity. The decision was taken for safety and economic reasons. However, in Britain BNFL has been a subsidised entity in the public service for many years and, being a State utility, commercial considerations were not taken into account. It would have been better if a tenth or more of the money that was squandered on the nuclear energy industry had been put into energy conservation, renewable resources and even into analysing how best to use coal in a less threatening way environmentally.

The nuclear industry not only squandered an enormous amount of money but also generated the most dangerous weapons of mass destruction. We must again blame Britain. Sir John Cockcroft and Sir James Chadwick were the scientists who were most involved at that stage. The progression from the first generation station to nuclear weaponry has had horrific consequences in the world and there is a potential for further conflict.

The attitude of the French Government over recent months as evidenced in their resumption of nuclear tests should not be ignored in this debate. When the Irish Minister spoke about taking legal action against Sellafield the EU Commission examined the implications and issued an official opinion on 30 April 1992. It said that the implementation of the plan for disposal of radioactive wastes from THORP is not liable either in normal operation or in the case of an accident to result in significant radioactive contamination, from the point of view of health, of the waters of another member state. The EU is, of course, composed of nuclear states. I presume this was a majority decision — I doubt that the Irish representative offered that view — and France, Germany and the UK are three of the greatest producers of nuclear power in the world.

The arrogance of the French in resisting all pleas to stop nuclear testing should not be forgotten. We also must look at the statement made by John Major. He said that Britain is a nuclear power, France is a nuclear power and France is quite right to continue the tests to ensure that its nuclear energy programme is as modern as those of other countries. However, this has given great encouragement to countries such as China which has the potential to advance in the nuclear power stakes. China has already conducted tests, although not as many as France and other nations. There is a danger that what is being done by Europeans in the Far East will encourage China to extend its nuclear programme.

The NIREX issue and the application for underground storage space was the first occasion when the county council in Cumbria stood up to the nuclear power industry. It turned down the application. The British White Paper on nuclear energy states, with regard to dry storing, that the Government concludes that the question of whether and when to reprocess spent fuel should be a matter for the commercial judgment of the owner of the spent fuel, subject to meeting regulatory requirements.

It also says that the policy for the siting of dry stores was considered, including an appraisal of the benefits and implications of a multi-storage strategy compared to a single storage strategy with particular regard to the question of safety. It did not point to conclusive benefits deriving from a central stores or storage compared with one or more stores beside nuclear generation stations. The conclusion was that it is the manufacturer's responsibility. The British Government is passing the buck to people who want to store or reprocess spent nuclear fuels.

Governments around the world, with the exception of the Irish Government, are not terribly worried about the siting of stores for spent nuclear fuels. They can get rid of much of their spent fuels by sending them across the Irish Sea, which is one of the most heavily used stretches of water in the world. The dangers of collisions in those waters are enormous. While there are enormous commercial benefits for Wales in having those facilities, the people of Wales are now beginning to realise that there are huge dangers as well as economic benefits attached to such facilities.

It would have been much better for the British Government to invest one tenth of the money they spend on these facilities in renewable energy sources or in a changeover of how best to use coal, turf or other fuels for the generation of electricity. There has been talk about the non-proliferation treaty of 1970 and here we must praise an Irishman, Frank Aiken, who formed the committee that was the catalyst for that treaty. He was ahead of his time in realising the dangers of nuclear proliferation.

The problem with nuclear power is that not alone has it been used for the generation of electricity, but it has been used for the production of the atomic bomb. The number of nuclear weapons around the world at present is a result of a decision made in Calder Hall in October 39 years ago. We must ensure that we support every effort around the world to eliminate nuclear energy from the world scene. We must look at alternative ways of producing energy. We must help in every way to guard against what could happen if the supply and distribution of electricity in Wales is privatised. I believe that when the commercial people have a look at the cost of producing electricity and so forth, the planned privatisation may not go through at all.

I thank the Minister for giving us the chance to air some of our fears on nuclear energy and in particular the implications of nuclear energy for Ireland.

Mr. Maloney

I also welcome the Minister's paper on the nuclear safety policy. Most Irish people would have a problem with this issue because it concerns everybody. I am delighted that it is not an issue on which political parties set out to score points. We are all in agreement that we must face up to this issue very seriously. Irish people are against nuclear energy and thankfully we have never generated energy in this way. We have always had co-operation and agreement in regard to threats to the Irish people. The major threat to the Irish people at present seems to come from British nuclear industry.

This country has seen none of the benefits of radioactivity since it was discovered, 100 years ago, but we have seen massive deaths occurring all over the world because of nuclear bombs and nuclear accidents which have never benefited anybody. Efforts are still being made to improve that industry and make it safer. The British do not seem to have any clear policy as to what intentions they have to slow down the use of nuclear energy.

We know how far it is from Ireland to Chernobyl, but some effects of the nuclear accident there in 1986 were felt in Ireland. The winds blew from Chernobyl into this country and the radiation levels found in sheepmeat on the mountains in Finntown outside Letterkenny were much higher than ever before. It was obvious that radiation released by the accident in Chernobyl found its way to this country and created problems for us. This begs the question of what plans we have in the event of such an accident occurring. The Minister outlined some of them in his statement this morning.

We must always be ready for such an accident. The general public should be made aware of these plans. People do not really know what plans are in place in the event of such a major accident occurring. The recent breakdown at the Welsh nuclear plant caused major concern. The public asked what we would have done if the gases had reached this country, so we must let it be known what is available and how we are going to deal with this situation.

We are lucky that the ESB has never generated electricity using nuclear energy. People may complain about the cost of electricity, but it is much better that we pay in a safe way for the energy we receive than that we tamper with nuclear powered electricity which is accident prone and which public opinion in this country is completely against.

Central and eastern European countries have a nuclear energy culture which we do not have. For some reason their views are very different from ours. I was at a Council of Europe meeting recently in which bio-ethics were discussed. The discussion was about experimentation on embryos and people with mental handicaps and the difference in attitude of western Europeans from central and eastern Europeans was unbelievable. The people who come from this part of the world have a completely different view altogether on that issue, and the nuclear energy agenda seems to create divisions along the same lines.

We definitely oppose any expansion of the use of nuclear energy because far too many problems remain unresolved here at present. Irish people are against incineration. If an incinerator is proposed for Donegal or for Cork the opposition to it is unbelievable. The Minister is welcome to build one in Kildare, but I would advise him to stay well away from us.

Another related issue is that of dumping at sea. The British carried out massive dumping 50 miles off the Donegal coast. Governments through the years ignored this problem. I have no doubt that the reason the Irish Government ignored this was because it was dumping at sea itself. It had no intention of taking on the British in relation to the amount of gases, munitions and so on dumped off the Donegal coast because it was at it itself.

The French Government recently snubbed the rest of the world by its decision to continue nuclear testing at the Mururoa atoll. Nuclear energy is accident prone and I welcome the plans the Minister has made in relation to safety standards. We have to keep up to date with safety standards at all times and see that we are on top of the situation. The British have moved in relation to THORP and Sellafield and those two areas are causing major problems for this country. What will happen if the British say no to us in relation to the objections and complaints that have come in from the Dundalk area? I welcome the Minister's decision to support the Dundalk people in their High Court case. The French snubbed the rest of the world, the British are doing the same in relation to Sellafield. At the end of the day, if they say no, what can we do?

I welcome the Government's policy, stated in the programme for renewal, that Sellafield poses a serious and continuing threat to the health and safety of the Irish people. The east coast seems to have a major problem in this regard and it is possible that there are major dangers in the Irish Sea, but tests and analyses that have been carried out by the EU have not found any specific dangers there within the waters.

Ultimately, dialogue is the only recourse. We must talk to the British to see what can be done to move the situation forward. We are not going to make any major headway if we start to threaten them because they will simply tell us to bugger off.

We are concerned about the THORP plant. If would appear that the British will continue their building programme there. I understand they plan to build a dump around the year 2010. We strongly oppose this situation on health grounds and because of the risk of accident, which we have seen through the years.

It is up to the Minister and others in his Department to consult with the British and get the message home to them that their policy in this regard is something we do not agree with. The British appear to have an attitude that one can bugger off if one does not like it. However, we must object in the strongest possible terms and try and bring the message home to them that we are concerned about the situation.

People have stated that along the east coast children have been born malformed and so on. No real case has been made that these incidents have been caused as a result of Sellafield. However, it is a strong issue, and people are very concerned and vocal about it. It is something we must continue to work at. I thank the Minister for his statement this morning. We are going in the right direction and it is important that we are all together on this.

Mr. Mulcahy

I thank the Minister of State for what was a carefully prepared speech, which was fairly comprehensive in that it appears to have dealt with many of the issues. However, there are a few questions arising from the speech that I wish to address.

The issue of nuclear energy is not a green issue, nor is it an issue that any one party or group has a monopoly on. It is an issue for us all. It is an issue about the way we live, about lifestyle, about technology, about the way the world is today, about neighbouring countries, about sovereignty, about the international arms trade and so on. It is an extremely complex, global issue that is probably one of the most important items of environmental concern for people in this and many other countries. Some people try and corner it as an issue and say that they are more concerned about it than others. This is not the case. Perhaps some people dwell on it to the exclusion of other issues, but that is not to say that they have a greater concern, expertise or a desire to bring about change in this sphere.

In terms of the proximity of the nuclear plants to the east coast of Ireland, indeed to Ireland, Chernobyl was a salutary lesson. There was no mention, perhaps correctly, in the Minister's speech regarding an analysis, which I am sure has been undertaken by the nuclear authorities in this country, as to what exactly would be the effect of a major meltdown, explosion or whatever in Sellafield. Are we ready for it, or is it so horrible and horrendous to contemplate that we do not have a realistic scenario or picture of what would happen if such an incident were to take place?

I am reminded here of the fact that, even though Switzerland is neutral and has been neutral for hundreds of years, it has an extensive system of underground shelters, nuclear bunkers and so on, although it is the least likely country to be the victim of nuclear fallout, at least in a direct way. In theory the story of Chernobyl — one does not wish to be alarmist about this — should lead us to be in a state of utter preparedness on a day by day basis for the possibility that there could be a major problem in one of the English nuclear reactors. By analogy this does not apply only to English nuclear reactors. It could apply to French nuclear reactors also, because the French have a very large programme of civil nuclear power stations. With prevailing winds coming from Europe, these plants are much closer than Chernobyl and their effects could be devastating.

The problem is so large and fundamental that it is hard to come to grips with it in a meaningful way. If we were being honest with ourselves, we might say we recognise how horrendous it is. Indeed, it is so horrendous that if something goes wrong we are finished. We might as well live under this cloud and be done with it, because we are not going to change the minds of the authorities in the USA, France, Germany, England, Japan or other countries that have a significant nuclear energy programme. They have decided, for good or for bad, that this is the way they are going to generate electricity; and if we think little old Ireland is going to change their minds and bring about a nuclear free world, then we are living in cloud cuckoo land.

As a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Sustainable Development, I cannot think of anything more obnoxious to the concept of sustainable development as the nuclear energy and nuclear armaments industries. We would all like a nuclear free world; but if we are being honest with ourselves, can we see such a world in our lifetime? I have to say, realistically, that the answer is no.

This is not to say that we cannot play our part. In this respect we should judge ourselves very harshly in terms of what we have done, or could do, to assist in the nuclear debate, not just on an Irish-English basis but also on a worldwide basis. In this context I ask the Minister to agree with the proposition that no Irish Government has ever done enough, no Irish Government has ever been aggressive enough and no Irish Government has ever been loud enough in its condemnation, especially of our neighbour, on the issue of nuclear policy. No Irish Government has ever really articulated, in an international sense, the abhorrence that the vast majority of Irish people feel about the entire nuclear industry.

Mr. Stagg

I will agree with the Senator, except for what is happening now.

Mr. Mulcahy

I was apolitical in saying no Irish Government, and I include the Government in this. I am sorry to tell the Minister that simply because he has a trendy anti nuclear pin on the lapel of his jacket, it does not compenstate for the Government's lack in articulating opposition to the nuclear energy policy. I was very disappointed, at the first coming together of Fianna Fáil and Labour in Government, at the reaction of both parties to the nuclear issue. I recall pressing the then Minister for the Environment, Deputy Michael Smith, on this topic and was disappointed with his reasons — which I respected but disagreed with — for not taking legal action against the English authorities or for not initiating some other action against them.

I am equally disappointed with what the present Minister for the Environment has done. I am terribly disappointed with the silence of the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs on French nuclear testing. I am not sure whether a Fianna Fáil Minister would have been more articulate on this topic. It is well known that Fianna Fáil is allied to the Gaullist party in the European Parliament and it may have been politically embarrassing to raise the issue. This lack of articulation is way out of step with the basic feelings of ordinary people, who fear contamination of the Irish Sea and a Chernobyl-like-fall-out from England or France and who have a general antipathy to the entire nuclear energy sector.

I commend the decision to assist, albeit in an informal way, the Dundalk residents who are taking a case against British Nuclear Fuels Limited. I know some of the counsel for these people; they are of the highest ability and integrity and some of them are working on the case out of genuine commitment.

There is a contradiction in the plaintiffs' case, which they will have to address. They cannot have it both ways; they cannot have Ireland and the Attorney General as a defendant on the one hand and on the other seek assistance from the offices of the State. I appeal to the Minister to ask the plaintiffs to consider dropping Ireland and the Attorney General as co-defendants and to join them as plaintiffs and give them the full backing of all the legal machinery the State has at its disposal. I would like the Government to say to the plaintiffs that they would like to fight the same people they are fighting.

In the High Court the plaintiffs won the right to have the case heard in Ireland. The Irish courts for the first time took jurisdiction. I do not see why there should ever have been a problem with jurisdiction if we consider the principles of nuisance as enunciated in the Hanrahan case involving a farmer in Tipperary and Merck, Sharp and Dohme. It is high time that the Government, of whatever hue, started backing the people who only started these legal proceedings after a sense of frustration at the inactivity of successive Governments.

The Minister pointed out that an opinion was given by the European Commission on 30 April 1992. He stated that a member state which is considered by the Commission or another member state to have failed to meet an obligation of the EU Treaty may be brought before the Court of Justice. If the United Kingdom is not in breach of the treaty, we should try and change the treaty. What is wrong with saying that it is not good enough that a neighbouring state can have a potentially devastating plant 50 or 60 miles from us? Did we ever receive a letter of indemnity from the British Government? It guarantees its nuclear industry is safe, but did it ever say it would indemnify us in respect of any loss or damage that may be occasioned by its nuclear facilities? I do not believe we ever received any such guarantee of indemnity. Did we ever ask for such indemnity, and should we ask for it? These are the kind of practical steps we should take. I know the Minister will agree with almost everything I said and I look forward to his reply.

Ms Honan

I welcome the Minister and I am glad of the opportunity to make points on this issue. Other speakers have outlined many of the concerns of all of us and I will concentrate on the issue of Sellafield and THORP. All parties in the Oireachtas have been unanimous in their opposition to Sellafield and have always supported the calls by this Government to have the plant closed. Ireland's case for the closure of Sellafield and THORP is based on the belief that it is inherently unsafe. This and previous Governments have on numerous occasions requested the British Government to close Sellafield and have emphasised our total opposition to the plant. The question of safety standards at the plant, its history of mismanagement and the numerous accidents which have occurred there all give rise to grevious concern.

However, we must be realistic. No matter how often we call for the closure of Sellafield and THORP, we know this will not happen. When the THORP plant was built it was one of the largest civil engineering contracts in Britain and had an estimated life of 25 years. It employs almost 10,000 people. The number of jobs this operation provides, the foreign currency it generates and the billions of pounds it brings into the British economy show that Britain has no intention of closing the plant, particularly in the near future.

We should be concerned about the operation of the plant and the powers we and the EU have to inspect it and ensure it is operating to safe standards. We should seek the establishment at international level — we could first do this within the EU — of an appropriate nuclear agency with powers of inspection. The International Atomic Energy Agency only has powers of inspection when it is invited by sovereign Governments. There is no way Britain will constantly ask this agency to inspect its nuclear industry. This is a totally inadequate inspection system.

The Irish Sea is the world's busiest sea lane for submarines carrying nuclear waste. This country has a huge vested interest in ensuring that there is an independent inspection agency. We know that Chernobyl and other places well outside the EU have the capacity to affect us apart from plants nearer home. The idea of an agency with powers to inspect and set down safety standards should be high on our agenda, particulary given that we will shortly assume the Presidency of the EU. The agency I would envisage is one which can inspect when it wishes and does not have to wait for sovereign Governments to invite it to do so. It should be able to assuage the concerns of other EU member states. We will have an opportunity to do this when we hold the EU Presidency.

Our nearest neighbour, Britain, and its Sellafield THORP plant is our major concern. France is also a near neighbour. It is not only a military nuclear power; it also uses nuclear power to generate a substantial amount of its electricity. During our Presidency of the EU we should establish an independent agency that will have powers to inspect these nuclear stations without the permission of the sovereign Governments. That will go a long way towards allaying the concerns of many of our people and all parties in both Houses would support such a measure. It is a practical way of doing something about the problem.

The Minister said that the possibility of legal action against Sellafield is being re-examined by the Attorney General but it has been shown in the past that it must be based on evidence of injurious effect of operations of the plant in Ireland and that has not been available up to now. We do not seem to be able to make a case at the moment. If that is so, we should ensure there are inspection facilities over which we and other member states would have control.

Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications (Mr. Stagg)

I thank Members for their valuable contributions. However, Senator Mulcahy's contribution is a notable exception. His was the only negative contribution in the debate. I regret that he took the opportunity to take cheap political shots. I assure him the badge I wear is not a new yuppie gimmick. I have been wearing it since the 1960s and have been active in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and have been against the use of nuclear energy for many years, probably even before he was born. I reject his cheap shot. His magic wand proposals have been made many times before by people who either do not know or have not taken the trouble to find out what they are talking about. His statements on the US, Germany and even Britain who, with the exception of the Sellafield reprocessing plant, have all stopped building new nuclear generating stations were incorrect. He did not even know that well known and accepted fact. I will pursue the positive and definite proposals made by Senator Honan.

Our nuclear policy objectives place a heavy emphasis on continuous improvements in nuclear safety and the highest levels of radiological protection standards in the use of nuclear power. It is the clearly expressed wish of the Irish people not to pursue nuclear power as a means of generating energy or nuclear weapons as a means of defence. This does not mean that we reject all nuclear related activity. That has never been the case. There are many applications in medicine, industry, research and agriculture where nuclear technology is useful and beneficial and the risks are minimal.

I reassure the House that this Government remains opposed to the expansion of the nuclear power industry especially as certain serious problems remain unresolved, such as the risk of serious accidents and problems relating to the reprocessing and transport of nuclear materials, waste storage and the disposal and decommissioning of nuclear installations. These problems affect all countries whether they pursue the nuclear option.

The implications of the global use of nuclear power is of serious concern to us, particularly in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident in 1986 which clearly showed that radioactivity respects no frontiers. Consequently, the Government has, and continues to, use every opportunity at all appropriate international fora — in particular European Union, International Atomic Energy Agency, Paris Commission relating to marine discharges and International Marine Organisation levels as well as direct representations at all times to the United Kingdom Government — to highlight its concerns about the safety of the nuclear industry.

A direct diplomatic initiative at a formal and high level has been mounted by the Government. Our diplomats have been asked to persuade countries providing raw materials for reprocessing in Sellafield not to enter into agreements for reprocessing and where there are agreements, that they might bring them to an end.

It is this Government's policy to be proactive rather than reactive on nuclear safety matters. The Government's policy agreement, A Government of Renewal, recognises that the nuclear industry in Britain and abroad poses a serious and continuing threat to the health and safety of the Irish people. The agreement therefore sets out a series of proposals which the Government is actively pursuing.

A task force of Ministers was established to develop and co-ordinate a concerted strategy for progressing these proposals. It is important to emphasise this is the first comprehensive initiative taken by any Government to date to address the problems caused by Sellafield and it illustrates the Government's serious commitment on energy matters.

Senator Lanigan referred to the possibility of eliminating the dangers from radon gas. It is easy to eliminate these dangers in existing houses. The cost of the RPPI's proposals to do it would be approximately £1,000 per house. Radon gas can be eliminated in a newly built house at a cost of around £500. That provision will be included in the new building regulations adopted by the Department of the Environment. Senator Lanigan can be assured that we are again examining how people may be assisted in bringing that about.

As I said at the outset, nuclear safety and radiological protection are a matter of concern to all Irish people, particularly in view of the proximity of British nuclear plants to this country, the litany of incidents that have occurred at Sellafield and other plants and the coming on stream of the THORP reprocessing plant. I will continue to object at every opportunity to the UK's nuclear industry in general and to Sellafield, THORP and related matters in particular which pose a threat to the Irish public.

The question of taking legal action against Sellafield remains open if there is scientific evidence as to the injurious effects of Sellafield's operations or there has been a breach of UK or international law. The Attorney General is re-examining this matter with my Department.

In the case of the action being taken by four Dundalk residents against British Nuclear Fuels, the State's counsel will be supporting the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court next January in resisting the appeal taken by British Nuclear Fuels against the earlier decision of the High Court in favour of the Dundalk residents. My Department is also cooperating fully with the Dundalk plaintiffs in voluntarily providing access to its files and documentation for the substantive case even though the Government and the Attorney General are named as co-defendants in this matter.

On the Magnox reactors in Britain, I have expressed in the strongest terms to the UK Ministers for Energy and of the Environment my concerns over the reliability of Magnox reactors such as those at Sellafield, which were built in 1956, and the Wylfa and Dungeness reactors where there have been recent accidents. They have passed their sell by date by a long margin and are now being kept in operation because of the huge cost of decommissioning them and the danger arising from them is greatly increased. The cost of decommissioning one of these monsters is in the region of £1 billion sterling. I have called on the United Kingdom Government to phase out all Magnox reactors in the interests of nuclear safety and radiation protection as quickly as possible.

As further evidence of my personal commitment to nuclear safety matters, I will be presenting at a public inquiry in Cumbria in early December the State's objections to a proposal by the UK company, NIREX, to site a rock characterisation facility near Sellafield. This may be a forerunner to the siting of a permanent repository or dump for nuclear waste at the Sellafield site.

If safety is to remain of paramount importance I believe the UK Government should retain the full nuclear industry in the public sector where commercial pressures do not tend to compromise safety to the same degree as they could in a privatised industry. To my mind, privatisation would lead to increasing pressures on persons and safety as output and profit become more important to private interests in the long term. I welcome the support across the House for the Government's position, although there would normally be different opinions on privatisation.

The implications of the global use of nuclear power is of serious concern to us also, particularly in view of the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident in 1986, which showed that radioactivity respects no frontiers. The existence of vast quantities of separated fissile plutonium and highly enriched uranium worldwide arising from the dismantling of nuclear weapons and the reprocessing of spent fuel continues to be a cause of great concern. As the stockpiles grow, the danger of someone stealing the material and selling it to a country who wishes to make nuclear bombs for use against its neighbours also increases.

The unsafe state of some ageing reactors in eastern Europe similar to Chernobyl is also of great concern. Our attitude is that these should be shut down and decommissioned if they are in such a state that they cannot be upgraded quickly to the internationally acceptable safety standards. I support the proposal to assist the Ukrainian authorities in the final decommissioning of Chernobyl, which is still operating and spewing out radioactivity.

As the 1986 Chernobyl accident demonstrated, distance is no guarantee that significant amounts of radioactive contamination will not reach us. In that case the level was fortunately not high enough to cause an immediate health risk. When I say "immediate" I do not mean no damage was done, rather that people did not fall down dead. It has been established that long term low levels of radioactivity affect people's health. That happened as a result of Chernobyl and precautions must be taken to mitigate against it. The fact that there was no immediate health risk does not mean there is no cause for concern. The other aspect which directly affects us is that because we are a food producing and exporting country, if our good name is damaged it would be difficult to get it back.

I strongly dispute that the officers of the RPII are members of the "nuclear club", as suggested by Senator Lanigan; their concerns are for the safety of the Irish people. It is an independent institute which does a good job for us. Last Tuesday, the Irish Marine Emergency Service was notified about a shipment of uranium ore concentrate going through the Irish Sea on its way from Portugal to Liverpool. It monitored the progress of the vessel which, after unloading at Liverpool, proceeded to Dublin, docking this morning. The vessel was examined by inspectors from the RPII and the Department of the Marine to ensure none of that material was brought into Irish waters. I compliment the institute for that and for its excellent monitoring on our behalf on a 24 hour basis. I have full and absolute confidence in the officials, who are in no way members of a "nuclear club".

Arising from what I have said, we have in place a national emergency plan for nuclear accidents which provides a comprehensive, rapid and effective framework for response to all aspects of accidents involving the release or potential release of radioactive substances into the environment which could give rise to radiation exposure. The plan is now eight years old; it has developed with experience and taken note of changes. We are now reviewing the detail of the plan and will test it within months. I hope Senator Daly's concerns will be met by that point, which I intended to mention in my opening contribution.

I hope I have outlined clearly for the House the current nuclear energy issues and this Government's commitment to ensuring the radiological protection of the Irish people and our diligence in pursuing at every EU and international forum that the highest safety standards for the use of nuclear power are employed. The Government is committed to action against nuclear power. It will not sit passively watching it build up in the UK or on a global scale and do nothing. We will be to the forefront in ensuring our concerns over safety standards and radiological protection are heard and acted upon.

Sitting suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.