Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Oct 1996

Vol. 149 No. 3

Case Against BNFL: Motion.

Mr. Magner

I move:

That Seanad Éireann

(1) welcomes the Supreme Court Judgement of 24 October, 1996 on the Dundalk residents case against B.N.F.L. and

(2) takes note of Government policy on nuclear safety and radiological protection and in particular commends the Government for the following:

(a) the continued efforts to monitor the activities of the nuclear industry in the U.K. and elsewhere and

(b) the steps which the Government is taking to minimise consequent risk to the Irish public and the environment.

Fianna Fáil has tabled an amendment to this motion. There has been, and it is in our interest that there continues to be, a bipartisan approach to matters relating to Sellafield and the British Government. I accept Fianna Fáil's amendment which I hope will enhance the spirit of bipartisanship in the House and elsewhere. I would like to place the efforts of this Government in context while underlining the fact that it has been extremely vigorous in pursuing a policy which will ensure the dangers posed by the Sellafield complex are minimised and, hopefully, eliminated at some stage. I would like to quote an article in today's The Irish Times.

The four Dundalk-based plaintiffs who won a notable victory against Sellafield's operators, British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), in the Supreme Court last week characterised the Government's reluctance to support their case as "disgraceful". This may be over stating matters. The Government, itself a defendant in the case against BNFL, probably did everything that was legally possible to support the case — but it has certainly been very circumspect in its approach.

The irony is that this Government has been more active than any of its predecessors on the issue of Sellafield and the potential threat it represents to the people of the Republic. Last January, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Mr. Emmet Stagg — to his great credit — travelled to Cumbria to give evidence against a preliminary plan by UK NIREX to store radioactive waste deep underground at the Sellafield site. He was the first Irish Minister ever to intervene directly in a British planning inquiry, and his presence underlined the marked shift of emphasis in the approach of the Irish authorities to the nuclear threat from Cumbria.

In retrospect, it is a pity that the Fianna Fáil Government — flush from its famous victory in the 1977 general election — was not represented at the inquiry that year which led to the £1.85 billion Thorp plant at Sellafield winning approval. But then, and despite questionable safety standards, we didn't see BNFL's nuclear reprocessing operation in quite the same way we do now; after all, the ESB was planning its own nuclear power station at Carnsore Point. Another two years would pass before the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania, which had such a dramatic effect on the future of the nuclear industry, and eight years before the Chernobyl catastrophe.

Throughout the 1980s, there were several more accidents or incidents at Sellafield itself, fuelling public fears about its safety. But apart from issuing the odd statement, successive governments here did much too little; it was this record of inaction on such an important issue that helps to explain why the Dundalk plaintiffs took their case against Ireland and the Attorney General as well as BNFL. There are indications that they may be prepared to confine their action to the operators of Sellafield, dropping the State as a defendant, and Mr. Stagg has said this would improve the chances of underwriting their costs in an action which is bound to prove both lengthy and expensive.

The Dundalk plaintiffs want the Thorp plant closed down because of the harmful effects its operation would have on them and on Ireland in general. But BNFL is relying on a 1994 judgment in the English High Court, which dealt with the same issues now being raised here — and found in the company's favour. In view of the seriousness of the matters at stake and the daunting costs involved in arguing them in court, the Government must, at the very least, seriously consider more full-blooded support for these plaintiffs; anything less would denote a return to the sorry days of complacency about the threat posed by the nuclear industry.

In that context, I accept the timely amendment tabled by Fianna Fáil. There can never be a return to complacency by a Government of any hue as matters have moved on in a dangerous way. Members will know of the work of Adi Roche and her team with the children of Chernobyl. Indeed, this House was host to children from Belarus in the Members' Restaurant a number of years ago. In her book Children of Chernobyl is a quotation by Albert Einstein which would remove any trace of complacency. He said: “The splitting of the atom has changed everything except our way of thinking and thus we drift toward unparallelled catastrophe.” We have serious indications of the truth of Albert Einstein's prophetic words. On 27 March 1979 we faced the possible meltdown of a nuclear reactor in Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania which we saw in all its horror in Chernobyl on 25 April 1986. The House and the people can be comforted by the fact that no Government of whatever hue can be complacent about nuclear power or the effects of nuclear accidents.

The Sellafield complex on the west coast of Cumbria, about 100 miles from the east coast of Ireland, contains British Nuclear Fuels reprocessing plants. Nuclear fuel is recycled to extract uranium and plutonium for reuse for civil and military purposes. The new Thorp plant which opened in March 1994 forms part of that complex. People talk about Sellafield as if it were a single building operating in a particular way. I call it a nuclear theme park because it has so many parts to it, some of which we know. The site also contains four Magnox reactors called Calder Hall as well as a vitrification plant for high level radioactive waste.

Sellafield is a huge employer and its nuclear activities extend to many other areas of Britain's home and export markets and to the defence industry. To that extent, we are facing a British Government which will attempt to frustrate and defeat the Irish interest in this matter because of its economic and military priorities.

Since Deputy Stagg was appointed Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications with responsibility for nuclear safety and radiation protection, he has made the issue of nuclear power his main public and private priority. Public and political opinion is firmly opposed to nuclear energy. Our nuclear policy objectives place a heavy emphasis on nuclear safety and radiological protection. The Government remains opposed to any expansion of this industry, especially as certain serious problems remain unresolved, including the risk of serious accidents and problems relating to transport, reprocessing, storage and disposal of waste and the decommissioning of nuclear installations.

Despite the Exxon Valdes disaster in Alaska, the environment improved in a short number of years. We cannot expect that to happen after nuclear accidents. We know that from Chernobyl and Belarus where vast areas are still uninhabited and will be for a long time. There is no comparison between the scale of destruction from nuclear accidents and that from natural disasters.

Many European countries, including Britain, have retained nuclear energy as an option for power generation but we remain firmly opposed to this option. A dominant factor in the public's opposition to nuclear power is the risk from the UK's nuclear industry of a catastrophic accident similar to Chernobyl. This fear is now getting the priority it deserves. In April this year we commemorated the tenth anniversary of the tragic nuclear accident at Chernobyl. The horror of this ongoing disaster brought home to many people the serious radiological, health, environmental and socio-economic consequences of a nuclear accident. It demonstrated above all that radioactivity respects no frontiers.

Because of its proximity to Ireland and its complex nuclear operations, Sellafield has long been a source of grave concern to successive Irish Governments. The history of mismanagement and the frequency of incidents at the complex over the years confirmed the view that the plant should be closed down. The four aging Magnox reactors, which are now 40 years old and well past their sell by date, should also be closed down.

A blueprint for action has been drawn up to implement the various proposals on Sellafield and the Irish Sea. A ministerial task force, chaired by the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, was established to co-ordinate a concerted strategy for progress in the Government's policy on Sellafield and related concerns. The blueprint will guide the further coordinating work of the task force which will oversee its practical implementation.

Earlier this year the Minister of State, Deputy Stagg, met the British Ambassador and expressed the Government's grave concerns about the number of incidents at Sellafield and other UK nuclear plants. The Ambassador was informed that the history of mismanagement and the frequency of accidents at the complex confirmed the view that it should be closed down. While we welcome the openness with which the British Government reported these accidents, we wonder how many accidents were not reported and were deliberately concealed. When the accident occurred at Chernobyl, the Russian Government and some of the major western states which have a vested interest in the nuclear industry, denied information not just to people on this island but throughout Europe. I have serious reservations about the full extent of accidents at the Sellafield plant.

As I stated previously, the Sellafield complex houses four aging Magnox reactors. The Minister has called on the UK Government to phase out these Magnox reactors in the interest of nuclear safety and radiation protection. These aging monsters pose a continuing unacceptable threat. The EU Commission has recently been requested by the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications to review those reactors under Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty and to ensure their compliance with EU basic safety standards.

I commend the motion and the amendment to the House. I commend the Minister for his excellent work in ensuring that whatever can be done to protect this country from the scourge of nuclear accidents at Sellafield and elsewhere will be done.

Mr. Hayes

I second the motion. I am delighted to have an opportunity to debate this matter. There must be an all party approach to this issue if we want to be successful. Last week a group of people from Dundalk were vindicated in the Supreme Court. The Government owes a great debt of gratitude to those people for the courageous stance they took. The judicial route is often difficult for individuals because they do not have the backing of the State. However, they were successful in their case against British Nuclear Fuels Limited.

I agree with Senator Magner that this Government's record on Sellafield has been encouraging. In an article in The Irish Times on 26 August, Lorna Siggins said this “Government is perceived to have adopted a more robust approach to Irish opposition to Sellafield, and legal action as well has not been ruled out”. The Government has moved on a number of fronts, including establishing a task force. The Minister also opposed the UK NIREX development, which was a new step in our opposition to Sellafield.

A quarter of the entire energy source in the United Kingdom comes from nuclear power. The deregulation policy of the Tory Government means nuclear companies are now private interests, as in the case of UK NIREX. We face a difficult task but we will only be successful if there is cross party support. We should develop co-operation between local authorities and community and interest groups, as the Dundalk residents have done, not just on the east coast of Ireland but also on the west coast of Britain.

That coalition needs to be developed not only in the narrow Irish interest but also from a British point of view. If we are to succeed in this issue, it requires a change of mind from the British Government because it is directing the nuclear policy which could have devastating effects throughout Ireland. We must have a change of heart at the top.

There could be no better issue discussed during the third strand of talks than that of Sellafield, if we are to advance the issue and achieve real results in closing it down. We must encourage and cajole the British Government to move from its position of supporting the British nuclear industry. We must move bilaterally on that front. It will be a sign of good faith if the British Government does so.

We must also move on a European level. The Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, succeeded in passing the Waste Management Bill, 1995, through this House. If waste management is a European issue, the British Government must take cognisance of good practice and the change in energy resources taking place throughout Europe. Just as we must be aware of the relevant EU regulations, so must it.

One issue already discussed by the European Parliament which I would like addressed is that of changing responsibility for monitoring and controlling radiation levels in the world from the Atomic Energy Agency to the World Health Organisation. The Atomic Energy Agency has served us poorly. Its 1990 report discussed evidence of diseases linked to fallout in a variety of countries but did not make a causal link, to the detriment of many countries in Europe, particularly the Chernobyl region in the Ukraine. I do not believe the Atomic Energy Agency has a proud record in monitoring this situation.

The central issue which will be discussed in the courts is how we can change the burden of proof. The challenge is not for the objectors, the residents of Dundalk or the Irish Government to prove that real danger exists, but for BNFL and British nuclear policy to show that no danger exists or will ever exist.

I welcome the motion. I am delighted the Minister is accepting the Fianna Fáil amendment. It shows the spirit of cross-party support for this issue. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Mulcahy

I move amendment No. 1:

After "environment" to add:

";and calls 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 that the Government is removed as a defendant in the case and thus remove the outstanding obstacle to the Government funding the case."

I welcome the Minister. We, on this side of the House, are gratified that the Labour Party has, on this occasion, decided to accept our amendment. I say that in a generous spirit because politics can sometimes get in the way. This issue is above and beyond politics.

It arises from a case brought by four people: Constance Shortt, Mary Kavanagh, Mark Dearey and Ollan Herr, who are residents in County Louth and are pleading that their health has been affected by the presence of Sellafield and the Thorp reactor.

On one level, these four people are saying their lives have been affected and, on another, all Ireland is affected and concerned. We have seen from the Chernobyl disaster that if a nuclear reactor or reprocessing plant has a serious fault we would all be affected. Dublin could become uninhabitable, people could be killed and there could be hundreds of thousands of cancers. We are all urgently concerned, as some speakers have said.

I pay tribute to the Minister and was delighted when he travelled to England and made his objections. Dublin Corporation has been fairly active in that regard and engaged consultants in England to advise it on what is involved. I understand legal representatives of Dublin city have at various times made legal representations in the High Court cases involved.

The four people taking this case are to be commended for their endurance and bravery as are their legal advisers. I imagine that this is case is not well resourced. It is a tribute to the legal system that lawyers are prepared to take on these cases where there may not be light at the end of the tunnel.

What is hoped will be achieved is the closing of Thorp. This may not be possible because there is a huge vested interest involved. It is no exaggeration to say that Thorp is socially and environmentally unacceptable to the Irish people, particularly from a health perspective.

We have decided we wish to remain a nuclear free country. Dublin and other local authorities have declared themselves to be nuclear free zones. The Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, Deputy Gilmore, accepted an amendment to the Harbours Bill, 1996, that no ships with nuclear cargo would be permitted to enter Irish ports. That is a marvellous development.

The action the four Louth residents bring seeks reliefs under a number of headings. Mr. Justice Barrington in a recent Supreme Court decision stated that the plaintiffs' claim, moreover, that British Nuclear Fuels, before carrying out the said Thorp project, should have carried out an environmental impact assessment as required by EC Council Directive, but failed to do so. That is a very serious charge because British Nuclear Fuels is a company whose shareholder is the British Government and the British people. The allegation is that a major plank of European environmental impact assessments was not carried out. It is an important point.

The second point concerns a breach of the Euratom Treaty and the third point is that the site at Sellafield has already caused considerable personal health and environmental damage and economic loss in the area where the plaintiffs live. The fourth point is that the project involves a significant risk of serious accidents which could involve incalculable harm to civilians and property.

They have had the benefit of expert opinion including that of Mr. John Henry Large, a chartered engineer, who has described what goes on at Sellafield. In addition, Dr. Mary Grehan, a medical practitioner in the Louth area, has carried out an extensive study of physical abnormalities detected over a period.

In a sense it is exciting because new legal frontiers will be discovered. The Supreme Court said that an action can lie in this jurisdiction against alleged torts or civil wrongs committed outside the jurisdiction against people here. This is largely without precedent. For the first time a civil action based in Ireland will be taken against the British Government for wrongs allegedly done in Ireland.

As the Minister will agree, the issues are complex not just from a legal viewpoint but also from the health, technical and environmental viewpoints. The funding of such a lengthy and complex action will be very expensive and, obviously, British Nuclear Fuels will fight the litigation tooth and nail. They have shareholders who take profits and make a good living from this business which we do not support.

Thorp has not yet been fully commissioned but when it is it will be one of the largest nuclear reprocessors in the world. It is frightening to have this time bomb waiting to explode on our doorstep. The issue is bigger than the four brave people who have taken the court case, it concerns everyone on this island. I commend the Labour Party for tabling this motion and I thank the Government side for accepting the Fianna Fáil amendment. It is a practical amendment for which the people of Louth and Ireland in general will thank us.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I second the amendment. This issue is bigger than all of us. The other night I saw a television film about Chernobyl with the chilling message that it was the final warning. One of the actors in the film, which was based on fact, said the next time an accident of that magnitude occurs it will wipe out the world.

Senator Hayes correctly said that one quarter of Britain's electricity is generated by nuclear power. Given the way I feel about such power, I would not mind if England was in the dark tomorrow morning. According to Senator Mulcahy the UK's nuclear stations are among the largest in the world and are sitting just a short distance across the water from us.

It is irresponsible for any country or government to continue in the manner in which the UK authorities are going. Regardless of shareholders and the money involved, once it explodes there will be no need for money. The shareholders will not have to worry either because they will no longer be there. What happened in Nagasaki during the war would only be a little pop compared to what could happen if something went wrong with Thorp.

The Opposition is happy with the Government's motion and we are glad it accepted our amendment. I hope it will find agreement with the Start group to ensure the Government will be removed as the defendant in this case. It is easy to point a finger at government responsibility. During the debate on the Harbours Bill, the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, Deputy Gilmore, was ready to accept my amendment concerning nuclear power. It was probably the first legislation ever to ban from Irish harbours any vessels carrying nuclear weapons or waste.

I cannot understand why successive Governments have not put strong legislation in place to enable us to take our case to the European Court or even to the World Court. In that way we could voice our objections which are not being heeded. People on the east coast who live close to these nuclear plants claim their health is being damaged as a result. It is good that we can all agree on an occasion like this. What we read in newspapers has frightened all of us. If something happened we would all be wiped out, not just those on the east coast.

I support Senator Hayes who said that people with objections both here and in England should be mobilised to make their case in a better and clearer way. As politicians, we will go along with a group who lobbies us on an individual basis. In the same way, if English people lobby their politicians they will get the message passed up the line and hopefully something will come of it.

I welcome the amendment and I praise those who took the initiative and went to court. I hope that following this historic case the fight will be funded by the Government. The Government should give any help it can to those people to ensure we are on the right road towards legally closing down the United Kingdom's nuclear power stations.

I thank the Minister of State as well as those who tabled the motion and accepted our amendment.

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

I thank the Labour Party Senators for tabling this most timely motion which gives me the opportunity to up date the House on developments since I last addressed it on this issue eight months ago. The House will recall that I undertook at that time to return so that I could be assisted by Senators' opinions and they could be kept abreast of developments. I also thank the Fianna Fáil Party Members for the amendment they have tabled and to which I will refer later. I thank Members who have spoken so far for their kind remarks.

As we all know, the nuclear power industry was born of the bomb and nuclear reactors were first built for military usage. In the 50 years since then, the world has been learning to live with the use of nuclear energy for civil purposes. The learning process to some has been exciting, to others frustrating, and to others frightening.

The history of nuclear power has been littered with false hopes. From the beginning, it was proclaimed to be plentiful, cheap and safe. However, the elusive Holy Grail has never been achieved and the history of nuclear projects and incidents has belied the earlier hopes that were held.

Here in Ireland, public and political opinion is firmly opposed to the production of nuclear energy. This Government, and indeed previous Governments, has taken a strong stand against the threat from the nuclear industry, especially in Britain. It is one issue where there should be and is consensus across the political spectrum. Since I became Minister of State, one of my top priorities has been to deal with public concerns about nuclear power and to emphasise the need for enhancement of nuclear safety and radiation protection worldwide.

While recognising that certain countries have retained nuclear energy as an option for power generation, we remain opposed to any expansion of this industry especially as certain serious problems remain unresolved. These include the reprocessing and transport of nuclear materials, problems relating to radioactive waste disposal and the decommissioning of reactors which have reached the end of their useful life.

However, above all, the dominant factor is the ever present risk of a catastrophic nuclear accident, whether due to human or operational safety failures. As Senator Magner remarked, Chernobyl has demonstrated that radioactivity respects no frontiers. The Government shares the general concerns of the public about nuclear power, especially concerning the British nuclear industry. My views on nuclear operations have been made known to the British authorities on many occasions and in international fora.

Previous Governments have exerted pressure in this area throughout the years but to little avail. The Government decided that a more positive and realistic approach should be taken with regard to Sellafield and its effects on the Irish Sea. We recognise that a meaningful and ultimately successful strategy will entail consistent action over many years.

In its policy document A Government of Renewal the Government set out its views on nuclear threats arising not only from Sellafield/Thorp but other installations and made proposals for dealing with these concerns. Each of the actions proposed have been implemented or are being actively tackled by Departments.

The major focus of interest from the public's point of view relates to British Nuclear Fuel's facilities at Sellafield, which lies on the west coast of Cumbria approximately 100 miles to the east of Ireland. It contains British Nuclear Fuel's two reprocessing plants where spent nuclear fuel is reprocessed to extract uranium and plutonium for reuse. The new Thorp plant, opened in March 1994, forms part of the Sellafield complex.

There are also four Magnox reactors on the site, called Calder Hall, in addition to numerous high level waste storage tanks and a vitrification plant for transferring this waste into a glassified form. The UK authorities have also identified the Sellafield area as a potential site for a nuclear waste dump to be built about the year 2010.

The Government strongly opposes the continuation and expansion of reprocessing of spent fuel by British Nuclear Fuels at Sellafield. The main reasons for this are, first, the increase in risk to the health of the public and of environmental contamination arising from discharges of radioactive effluent; second, the risk of accidents arising from the reprocessing activity and the storage and transport of nuclear fuels, plutonium and radioactive wastes; third, the accumulation of large amounts of radioactive waste on one site close to the Irish Sea and to Ireland; fourth, the risks of nuclear weapons proliferation from increasing stocks of plutonium; fifth, the so far unsolved problems of long-term safe storage and disposal of radioactive waste and, sixth, there is no demonstrable economic benefit from reprocessing which would balance and justify the risks involved.

The Government considers that the Thorp reprocessing plant, which began operations in 1994, represents an additional and unnecessary risk to the health and safety of the public. When Thorp was originally given the planning go-ahead in 1977, nuclear power was still generally believed to have a prosperous future and spent fuel reprocessing was thought to be a key factor in the uranium fuel cycle. Today, the arguments for reprocessing are not convincing. The anticipated expansion of nuclear power has not materialised and the plutonium and uranium recovered from spent fuel reprocessing are adding unnecessarily to the huge stockpile of nuclear materials which exists world-wide and which is considered by some countries, including Ireland, to be a major security, health and environmental as well as a political problem.

The EU Commission examined the implications of Thorp and issued an Opinion on 30 April 1992 under Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty that the implementation of the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from Thorp is not liable, either in normal operation or in the case of a range of accident scenarios, to result in radioactive contamination, significant from the point of view of health, the water, soil or airspace of another member state. Notwithstanding this Opinion, many requests were made to the UK authorities from Ireland and elsewhere during 1993, to hold a wide-ranging public inquiry into Thorp and to have an environmental impact assessment undertaken, but these requests were refused by the UK Government.

The decision by the UK authorities in December 1993 to proceed with Thorp in spite of two detailed submissions from the then Government was extremely disappointing given our strenuous objections. While BNFL may think Thorp is a major step forward in its nuclear programme and a cornerstone to its international activities, it is to my mind one of the biggest white elephants produced by the nuclear industry.

The four aging Magnox reactors at the Sellafield site, built as far back as 1956, are considered by me to have a higher risk of a major accident when compared with modern reactors. The life span of these reactors has been extended by the UK authorities for mainly economic reasons. It would cost £1 billion to decommission just one of these. According to its 1996 annual report, BNFL is now hoping to run them for at least 45 years. Another cause of concern is the routine radioactive contamination of the marine and aerial environment from Sellafield which, I believe, should be prevented and eliminated.

The House may be aware that, for the first time, the State actively participated in a UK public planning inquiry and objected formally to a further planned development at Sellafield. UK NIREX, a publicly owned nuclear waste disposal company, has plans for an underground nuclear dump near Sellafield. For the moment it wants planning permission for a rock laboratory underground to test the geology and hydrogeology of the area.

Although NIREX say the siting of a dump is not inevitable, at the inquiry I strongly contended that the massive expenditure and resources already incurred in the project meant that NIREX had no intention of seeking an alternative site. In the meantime I am looking at further possible options open to the Government in the event of planning permission being given. Copies of my submissions to the planning inquiry have been sent to the EU and the EU Commissioner with responsibility for the environment and nuclear safety.

It is not yet known when the inquiry inspector's report will be available. When it is, the UK Secretary of State for the Environment will have to consider the report and recommendations. I am consulting with the Attorney General about what further action is open to me under EU and international law detailing my objections to the rock characterisation facility.

I now turn to the Supreme Court's recent jurisdiction decision concerning BNFL. The House will be aware that in 1994 four County Louth residents initiated legal action against British Nuclear Fuels regarding Thorp. The plaintiffs sought an injunction to restrain operations at the Thorp plant on the basis that they maintain it has not fully complied with the EU Directive on environmental impact assessment and also the justification principle under Euratom legislation. Ireland and the Attorney General have also been named by the plaintiffs as co-defendants in the substantive proceedings.

In March 1994 the High Court made an Order allowing the County Louth plaintiffs to serve a plenary summons outside the jurisdiction on British Nuclear Fuels but over the past two years BNFL have sought to have this decision overturned. An appeal to the Supreme Court was heard on 24 and 25 January 1996. On this occasion as previously, counsel for the State gave support to the plaintiffs in their case to maintain BNFL as a party to the proceedings in the substantive case to follow. The State has also agreed to make available to the plaintiffs' solicitors a very large amount of official files and documents to assist the County Louth residents in the preparation of their substantive court case. A number of Departments and the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland are co-operating in this process. My Department has already disclosed to the plaintiffs the nature of the documentation available there concerning Sellafield and related aspects relevant to the substantive case.

The decision of the Supreme Court last Wednesday which finally established the jurisdiction of the Irish courts to hear the substantive case brought by a group of County Louth residents against British Nuclear Fuels concerning Thorp is, therefore, very welcome. Effectively, it has rejected BNFL's appeal.

On behalf of the Government, I congratulate the four people who took this action, namely Constance Shortt, Mary Kavanagh, Mark Deary and Ollan Herr. I want to pay tribute to those four brave people who have selflessly stuck to their guns, with no possibility of personal gain and with the potential for great personal loss. Their stand has been compared to David and Goliath and we know that result of that contest. We are all pleased with this result.

In its judgment, the court was unanimous in its decision to uphold the 1995 judgment of the High Court establishing the jurisdiction of the Irish courts to hear the substantive case. I believe this is a significant decision on the right of access by citizens on issues of concern to them in the courts of their own country.

The judgment confirmed the entitlement of the County Louth plaintiffs to sue for damage arising in Ireland from the Irish courts. The extent to which they could pursue their claims based on European Law was considered to be a matter for the trial judge. The County Louth residents were awarded their costs against BNFL — they had already obtained costs in the High Court. The State was ordered to bear its own costs.

Legal issues arising from the judgment are now being assessed in conjunction with the Attorney General. The County Louth residents were given leave to serve summons on BNFL within four weeks of the date of the judgment. The substantive case taken by the plaintiffs will then be scheduled for a hearing in the High Court; it is not possible at this stage to state when the case will actually be heard.

I am not opposed to the Fianna Fáil amendment which in some ways enhances the Labour Party motion and thereby better reflects the thinking of the Seanad and public. I would urge a continuation of this bipartisan approach. It is most desirable that this House, the Government, the Opposition and the people are at one on this important national issue.

Mr. O'Toole

Hear, hear.

Mr. Stagg

I have offered to meet the plaintiffs involved in the court case because it was indicated publicly on their behalf that they were anxious to co-operate with the State towards shared objectives of both parties. The latest correspondence I have received from the plaintiffs' solicitors points out that they would prefer a meeting on this subject with legal representatives attending on both sides. I have sought urgent comments on this modified suggestion from the Attorney General. I received a letter today.

My colleague, the Minister for the Environment, is calling a meeting of the Committee of Ministers on Sellafield tomorrow at which this subject is being discussed. It is clear there is widespread opposition in this country to all operations at Sellafield. The Government is committed to taking all possible action open to it to secure the objective of the eventual closure of the plant.

The Committee of Ministers on Sellafield last year asked the Attorney General to reassess the possibilities for legal action against Sellafield. My Department, acting on the advice of the Attorney General, is organising the gathering, investigation and processing of the available scientific evidence which might provide grounds for legal redress by the State. One possibility includes the question of recourse to arbitration under the Paris Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Land Based Sources.

Additional scientific information and studies which have recently come to hand concerning the tank storage arrangements for highly active liquid waste at Sellafield are under consideration. In that regard, I wish to express my horror at the possibilities arising from this practice at Sellafield. This highly active liquid waste is stored in 21 separate tanks which are cooled by a variety of systems. If that cooling system were to fail for a short period of just eight hours the resulting pollution would be equivalent to 100 Chernobyls 100 miles from Dublin. If the breeze was blowing in the wrong direction from our point of view at that time, agriculture in Ireland would be wiped out forever; scientists say it would be for a period of 100,000 years. That is forever as far as I am concerned — two ice ages occurred in an equivalent period. It is nonsense to suggest that the time involved is measurable. That does not count the immediate effect on the people's health and lives. The BSE problem would fade into absolute insignificance in comparison.

Proposals have been made from outside sources for further research which is considered to be necessary into this aspect of the matter and these proposals are under active consideration. Detailed consideration continues to be given to all options for legal redress.

The biggest threat to Ireland in terms of the UK nuclear installations is, as I said, a catastrophic accident. I am, therefore, continuously monitoring the frequency and totality of UK incidents with a view to highlighting the need for significant safety improvements. My Department is also pursuing the establishment of formal bilateral arrangements between Ireland and the UK concerning the transmission of information subsequent to incidents at nuclear installations and general matters related to nuclear safety and radiation protection.

My Department is assisted in its role of nuclear safety and radiological protection by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland — the RPII. The RPII's statutory role and functions are contained in the Radiological Protection Act, 1991. In particular, the institute concerns itself with hazards to health associated with radiation both from nuclear plants and medical uses. It monitors radioactivity throughout Ireland on land, sea and in the air. The RPII also assists in the development of national plans for emergencies arising from nuclear accidents and in the implementation of measures to deal with radiological emergencies.

My Department, of course, cannot directly monitor on site the day to day operations of Sellafield. However, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland monitors the levels of radioactivity in Irish waters to study the distribution of contaminating radionuclides, identify trends and assess the risks to public health. In relation to the Irish Sea, the monitoring programme involves the routine sampling and analysis of sea water, seaweed, sediments, fish and shellfish along the east coast. Samples of sea water and sediments are also collected from the Irish Sea.

Sellafield discharges continue to cause contamination of the Irish Sea. Such contamination is objectionable and unacceptable and I consider that all radioactive discharges should be progressively reduced and ultimately eliminated at the earliest possible date. International conventions on discharges from land based sources place such an obligation on member states so as to prevent pollution of the seas.

The national emergency plan for nuclear accidents was published by my Department in 1992. As Minister responsible for nuclear safety and radiation protection matters, I have responsibility for the emergency plan and for ensuring the co-ordination of the responsibilities and functions of relevant authorities. 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.

A test of the plan took place in October 1992 involving the main Departments and agencies. The plan was further tested in May 1993 as part of an international emergency exercise arranged by the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD. Arrangements for a further review of the national plan are currently in place and I am pleased to inform the House that next month Ireland will be participating in a major international nuclear exercise.

This exercise is being organised by the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and will comprise at least three different test exercises in 1996 and 1997, each with a different "accident" scenario. Ireland has so far agreed to participate in the first of these exercises which will be hosted by Switzerland. It will involve a number of Departments and agencies in a day long simulated accident with the participation of international organisations such as the International Atomic Energy, the EU, the World Meteorological Organisation and over 30 countries. The exercise will be used to test many important aspects of our national emergency plan.

The Government remains committed to using every available opportunity, in all appropriate fora, to voice its concerns about the safety aspects of the British nuclear industry, in particular the potential hazards associated with reprocessing spent nuclear fuel and the ageing Magnox reactors. We will continue to press for the highest possible safety standards to be maintained and strive to prevent and eliminate radioactive discharges into the marine environment. The cessation of activities at Sellafield will remain a priority for the Government and this will be highlighted and pursued in every international forum.

I am committed to continuing action on these issues and to implementing a meaningful and ultimately successful strategy to minimise and eventually remove the threat posed by the nuclear industry in the UK and on a global scale. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. O'Toole

The subject under discussion will be of most concern to future generations because we are now aware of a number of facts. The Irish Sea is continually contaminated on a daily, weekly and monthly basis and this will not improve while Thorp continues in operation. We are also aware of the nightmare scenario which would leave Ireland a wasteland if there were an easily understood human or technological error in the plant less than 100 miles across the Irish Sea.

It is probably a reflection on everybody that we get so worked up and worried about minor amounts of antibiotics in the food chain and minor levels of disease arising from certain aspects of the beef industry but the biggest single threat to life, limb, agriculture and the future of the State operates on a daily basis less than 100 miles away. The environment is our legacy to our children, their children and their grandchildren and it is our responsibility to guard it. This must be central in what we do as public representatives. This concern should always cement, unite and direct joint action. The day this issue becomes politically divisive it will reflect in the worst possible way on the political leadership of the country.

The Minister's statement was the strongest and most unequivocal I have ever heard made by a Minister on any issue in my time in the House. The Minister should be congratulated for his unwavering and highly effective fight on this issue since he was appointed. I have no hesitancy in offering my congratulations to him. I intended to support the Fianna Fáil amendment, irrespective of whether it was accepted by the Government. However, I am delighted it has been accepted because the signal on this issue must be clear and unambiguous. The Minister has done much in that regard this evening. The open way in which he congratulated the residents and the upfront manner of his involvement in this issue to the extent of participating in the public inquiry in the UK is the type of action people want.

It also proves that green and environmental issues are not the preserve of a particular group in this country but the concern of every party and elected representative. Anybody who tries to bamboozle the general population into thinking that such issues are the consideration of only one group are not doing it any service. Politicians who have no concern for the environment do not deserve to be elected.

The message from the House is one of support for the four brave people in County Louth who took the case. They took on the establishment and put themselves forward. How could they not do so, given the information which has emerged from that area over the past 15 years? A previous speaker mentioned the data on physical abnormalities and the higher incidences of leukaemia and Down's Syndrome. These incidents have gone way beyond the possibility of coincidence and are undoubtedly the outcome of pollution from nuclear waste.

Nuclear waste in some form, however minuscule, is moving into the food chain. The Minister's words should be universally quoted; the Irish Sea is being contaminated daily. The results of tests carried out daily confirm this. No action will be strong enough to satisfy people if the worst happens and it is, therefore, important that political leaders can point to their records and requirements. It is not a matter of vote gathering but of protecting our future and that of our children.

It is crucial to examine the impact of this issue. The worst scenario will turn this country into a wasteland. The fishing industry in the Irish Sea is already suffering. People in restaurants in Dublin ask if the fish was caught in Dingle, Killybegs or Howth and they decide whether to have it on that basis. People will not swim in the Irish Sea and this hits the tourism industry. The issue is undoubtedly impacting on many areas and it is also a consideration in the commercial arena.

The debate would be a milestone if people are comforted and reassured that the Government has done everything possible to date on this issue by raising it internationally, attending local investigations in the UK and using the legal system to support people who have brought the matter to this point. This is government of the people for the people. If it works out, it will be the best possible way forward. However, if it does not work for constitutional or legal reasons or the negotiations prevent the Government taking the step proposed in the motion, it behoves us as public representatives to do whatever we can in a personal leadership capacity to secure popular support for this case. It must be viewed as a people's movement and there is no better way to define such a movement than to have the grassroots and the Government work together on behalf of everybody for the good of the country in the future. I commend the motion and congratulate the Minister on the leadership he has shown on this issue. I wish him well in the future.

Mr. Sherlock

I welcome the Supreme Court decision which clears the way for legal action to be taken against BNFL. Thorp represents an ongoing threat to the health and safety of everybody living on these islands. The case being taken by STAD is, in a very real sense, being taken on behalf of us all. It is for that reason that the State should take the necessary steps to finance the group's action. There is some indications of that coming from the Minister.

The Government has been consistent in its opposition to Thorp in particular, and to the UK nuclear industry as a whole. I am glad this was mentioned by the Minister today. The Minister, Deputy Gilmore, in particular has sought to strengthen the provisions of the INF code to ensure that nuclear materials are included, and has made it clear that vessels carrying such material to and from the UK are not welcome in Irish ports.

The campaign against Thorp must be waged on several fronts — diplomatic, commercial and legal. It has been clear for some time that the Euratom Treaties are outdated and have not kept pace with either scientific or political change. They should be amended to take account of the concerns of non-nuclear jurisdictions sharing land or maritime borders with nuclear states. After all, radioactive fallout is no respecter of boundaries. I am aware that there is considerable opposition within the EU to any such change. However, I hope the Government will continue pursuing this matter at various levels.

British Nuclear Fuels is a business and, like any business, its strategy is determined primarily by the bottom line. The market for the reprocessing service provided by Thorp is shrinking and there may well come a time when Thorp proves commercially non-viable. Diplomatic pressure by the Irish has a role to play in dissuading potential Thorp clients from using the facility. I again commend the Minister for his outright and forthright statement here this evening. There is no ambiguity or ambivalence about that position.

While public concern in Ireland has been largely focused on Thorp, I am equally concerned about the UK's other nuclear installations. Reports of leaks have become commonplace and it is clear that the fines imposed by British courts, while welcome, have done little to force the industry into adopting a more rigorous safety attitude. Indeed, the recent privatisation of a large part of the UK nuclear industry — advertised with the bizarre slogan "a final burst of energy "— has heightened concerns about safety. I am aware that the Radiological Protection Institute and the relevant Departments, have forcefully represented Irish concerns in this regard.

I am confident that this Government will continue exerting maximum pressure on the UK authorities with regard to the safety not only of Thorp, but of the UK nuclear industry in general.

Miss Ormonde

I wish to share my time with Senator Roche. I welcome this debate because it is above politics; it is a health issue. We are debating the case of four brave people who took on BNFL in the highest court in the land to try to highlight the situation, at huge loss to themselves. I welcome the fact that the Minister is accepting the amendment because this issue is not about party politics. This is a health issue, about accidents which may occur, about the storage and accumulation of radioactive waste and the impact this has on the environment, on public health and on every aspect of life.

An example of this is the Chernobyl disaster. I saw a programme on television recently about a baby who has huge injuries to his eye as a result of the Chernobyl disaster. The programme showed what medicine can do to help that little baby. These examples should be highlighted time and time again to show the impact of the Chernobyl disaster on the world. As the Minister said, if the wind had been blowing in our direction or if there had been a severe storm at that time, the impact in this country would have indescribable.

This problem has been going on since the 1980s. Much documentation has highlighted this issue and we have had many public inquiries yet we do not seem to be making any progress. I congratulate the Minister for taking a stand against BNFL trying to relocate near Sellafield. BNFL still does not listen to what the public is saying. Everybody must speak out at length and at every opportunity and we must ask again for Thorp to be closed down. That is the issue at the moment.

Medical research has shown the impact of Thorp on the younger generation. Research and studies have proven that it has had a huge adverse effect. I welcome this debate. We should use our good offices to let it be known that this problem will not go away until we have finally persuaded the UK Government to close the Sellafield site. We must use every means at our disposal — such as EU inquiries and so on — to have these reprocessing plants closed down once and for all in the light of the dangers they pose.

Mr. Roche

I thank Senator Ormonde for sharing her time with me. This is an important debate which transcends party politics. There is nothing as important as life itself. We are talking about the life of the nation. It is no exaggeration to point out that the British nuclear industry is playing a form of Russian roulette with the life of this entire nation. It is no accident that when the British Government decided to site these particularly noxious industries in a portion of their land mass, it sited them in the portion furthest from their own population centres and, by coincidence, closest to ours.

We are all too familiar with the reality and the track record of this industry. This industry is based on deceit. It has its basis in a lie. If we go back over the history of the nuclear industry, places like Dounreay, Three Mile Island, Windscale and Sellafield come to mind. They have all been based on one reality. This dream is a nightmare in disguise. The dream of cheap nuclear energy which was fostered by the nuclear industry and by mad scientists in the 1950s and the early 1960s has turned out to be a nightmare. The reality of the nightmare is that the nations that have been foolhardy enough to commit themselves to this industry are not able to contain it. They have mortgaged the well being, not only of their own people, but of the people on this island in this case, for generations to come.

I live in a maritime county. I am all too aware of the pollution that is the reality of the Irish Sea. I am all too aware of the contamination of the fish stock in that sea and of the health problems that have occurred over the years. Inexplicable clusters of cancers have occurred in County Wicklow and I believe they are in some way associated with the nuclear experimentation that the British Government and its agencies have conducted for the best part of two generations now. I believe that the incident, some years back, of children born with limb defects which cannot be explained in medical terms are attributable at least in part to this.

If there was just one accident on the scale of Chernobyl or Three Mile Island in the British nuclear dustbin which they have created on their west coast, we on this island would find ourselves in peril. Problems like BSE and menaces we have had in the past would pale into insignificance. It is an important responsibility of every Government, irrespective of political hue or make up, and of every public representative in this country, to be at one. That is why I compliment the Government side on accepting the Opposition amendment and I compliment the Labour Members on their motion. This is something on which there should be no cruel political divide. We are all at one.

It is because this industry is such an extraordinarily cash consuming enterprise across Europe and there is so much money committed to it, that in Europe there is a lethargy that borders on criminality to it; not just to Sellafield, Thorp or the appalling record of the British nuclear industry but the nuclear industry across Europe. Many of our European neighbours have committed so much to this industry over the last 40 years that they are in a cul-de-sac and are finding it very difficult to get out. There is an adage in politics — when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. That would be a good adage for them to adopt. Some European nations have made a start because they have decided to cancel or slow down future involvement.

However, Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Agency have both proven themselves to be frustratingly impotent to say the least. Euratom and the Euratom Treaty were founded on a need to build a European nuclear industry. Euratom is wrongly focused. What we need is leadership which will dismantle the European nuclear industry. The IAEA and the OECD have been remiss because they have afraid to use the powers of their founding treaties to curtail the activities particularly of the British. If one looks at a series of responses given recently in the European Parliament to questions put to the Commission and the Council by Jim Fitzsimons, MEP, one sees that they are redolent of attitudes of carelessness. They put the issue on the long finger. There is an unwillingness in Europe to take this monster by the neck and deal with it appropriately.

I find that the incremental contamination which is the reality of the Irish Sea and our environment unacceptable. We as a nation decided to turn our backs on nuclear energy even at a time when fossil fuels were becoming expensive and it looked as if nuclear energy could be a cheap alternative. That was a brave decision. No other member state, and certainly none that likes to regard itself as a good neighbour, has the right to foist on us the outcome of their own futile investments in this area. I find, for example, the responses in the European Parliament on Thorp to be unacceptable, complacent and lacking any sign of willingness to get to the nub of the problem.

Politicians have to say no to this industry. Far too many European and British politicians have not only said yes but they have sold themselves, their own integrity and the health and well being of this and future generations.

Mr. Norris

I wish to share my time with Senator Henry.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Neville)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Norris

I welcome the Minister's very positive attitude to the Fianna Fáil amendment which strengthens the motion and I am glad he has found it possible to accept it. It is important that a motion of this kind should not be a matter of party political contention.

The issues have been well rehearsed. The Minister has rightly indicated the concern felt by Irish people at developments, particularly in Sellafield which some of us remember as Windscale. This is a plant with an unfortunate history in terms of its management responsibilities and a series of accidents which occurred there and were concealed from the public. The implications of that concealment are still being dealt with, not just in terms of the impact on the environment but also in terms of the public's perception of the safety of this kind of plant. People are concerned about the safety of nuclear fuel particularly in the light of Chernobyl. Many of us are concerned that the situation in Chernobyl has not been effectively addressed. It is not just a question of the age or design of the reactor. One of the major problems in a facility such as Chernobyl is the chain of accountability. People in charge at Chernobyl are subject to political direction and they can be told what to do, even though they may advise the authorities that certain practices are not recommended. This is highly dangerous.

Something similar applies in terms of the Sellafield project, namely, a lack of public accountability. The authorities at BNFL appear, despite their public relations exercises, not to be accountable to the public either in Britain or Ireland. In terms of what has happened at Sellafield, the British have turned out to be very bad neighbours. They are not living up to the standards one would require from them.

I am particularly saddened that requests from Ireland and other European countries to hold a wide ranging public inquiry into Thorp and have an environmental impact assessment undertaken have been refused by the British Government. BNFL hires extremely sophisticated and expensive public relations bodies to conduct their side of the case, but if they really believed the case they are making, why are they not prepared to be open about it? If they have nothing to conceal, if the figures they produced are justifiable and the scientific case they put forward is genuine, why are they not prepared to put it to the acid test of an environmental impact study? There can only be one reason — they fear the result would be negative for them.

The real goals of BNFL seem to be commercial and for that reason I suspect them. The materials they deal with have lives of many hundreds of years and people will have to cope with the results long after we are dead. We are not just dealing with plans to cope with the generating capacity at Sellafield with its outdated Magnox reactors we are dealing with a commercial proposition to bring into this part of the British Isles spent fuels which other countries have wisely decided not to store on their own territory. This has negative implications and considerable dangers for this country. It is surprising that the European Commission gave an opinion that the implementation of the plan for the disposal of this radioactive waste from Thorp was not liable, either in normal operation or in the case of a range of accident scenarios, to result in radioactive contamination significant, from the point of view of health, water, soil or air space of another member State. It is incredible that they could have come to that conclusion especially in the light of an incident such as Chernobyl, which clearly demonstrated that radioactivity does not respect the easily drawn political boundaries on a map.

The range of accident scenarios must have been very small. Earlier this afternoon I was at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs which listened to evidence from Mr. Ernest Rodker campaigning for the release of Mordechai Vanunu.

Acting Chairman

The Senator's time has expired.

Dr. Henry

Some of the initial concern about Sellafield was the increased incidence of Down's Syndrome. There were eight cases over a short period of time where children were born to girls who had attended a small school in County Louth at a time when it was felt there was a nuclear incident in Sellafield. This was believed to have been part of the cause of the incidence of Down's Syndrome. A small survey conducted by the late Dr. Patricia Sheehan and Professor Irene Hillary is now being extended and Dr. Geoffrey Deane, former director of the Medical Research Board, is taking in a larger area of County Louth so we should get more information on this in the near future. I thank Senator Norris for sharing his time.

Mr. Dardis

I welcome the Minister of State and his acceptance of the Fianna Fáil amendment. Irrespective of political divides, we all want Sellafield closed as we regard it as being inherently unsafe and a serious environmental hazard. I endorse Senator O'Toole's comment that environmental issues do not belong to any one political party or Government.

In respect of what the Minister said this evening, and his responses to questions in the Dáil on 24 October, there is no great difference between the substance of what he said compared to several of his predecessors speaking in debates here and elsewhere. However, there are two differences. The first is he will now meet STAD, whom I compliment and congratulate on their court victory, and the second is in respect of NIREX. It is not surprising that the Government was not represented at the inquiry on Thorp which took place in 1977. There was a public consultation process subsequent to that. It is extraordinary that one of the determining authorities in allowing Thorp to proceed was the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Its competence in the matter would have to be called into question. On 15 December, 1993 the British Embassy issued a press release on Thorp saying public consultation was held following which the Inspectorate reported that the draft authorisations would "effectively protect human health, the safety of the food chain and the environment generally". Further consultation took place after that in which 42,000 responses were received. There is a contrast between the responses received and the assertion that it would effectively protect human health, the safety of the food chain and the environment generally. That must be called into question.

What can be done to advance our case practically, realistically and legally in closing the plant and what action can be taken through the courts? The Minister of State and I realise we are subject to international agreements and many, if not all, our European partners use nuclear energy so most of them have a vested interest in the maintenance of Sellafield and Thorp.

The question of the safety of the plant arises. The advertisements about the virtues of BNFL seen almost daily on British television are offensive but if they are prepared to stand over what is said in those advertisements on the safety of the plant, it follows that there should be no objection at any level to allowing an independent inspectorate to enter the plant and to check if it is safe. There is such an authority. The International Atomic Energy Agency in Austria has expertise in this area. I commend the work done by the Radiological Protection Institute but it can only work at one remove. The British Government will not allow the Institute into Thorp, although it would be great if they did agree. Operating at one remove means we have an arm tied behind our back. If the plant is safe there should be no objection to allowing independent monitoring.

One of the most disturbing things to emerge, apart from the Minister of State's revelation about the potential for devastation on a huge scale, was what we saw on television about Dounreay. There was a waste shaft which had its top blown off by an explosion and it took 20 years for the facts to emerge. That is an appalling indictment of that industry and its disregard for human life and the environment.

When the case was taken by Lancashire County Council and Greenpeace to the High Court in London, it was disappointing that the Irish Government was not joined in it. That should have been done and the courageous people from Dundalk should have been given financial support and every assistance by the Government because they were performing a valuable public duty.

It is pleasing that the Minister of State is to consult with and make documents available to them because it contrasts with an answer he gave in the Dáil. He said he was advised that it would not be prudent or to the State's advantage to divulge details about the authorship and date of publication and content of such studies. That is a slightly different matter and I am not accusing him of misleading the Dáil but it is a slightly different emphasis. What initiatives can we take? One is to pursue objective inspection. There is also the Paris Convention to which the Minister of State referred. We could have been more active on that in the past and we have mentioned that previously in the House.

What initiatives can be taken to ensure that this environmental obscenity is closed down forever? These matters have been raised continuously by previous Ministers at European Council level and the response has not been favourable. If legal action can be taken it should be taken. Whatever assistance can be given to the Dundalk group should be given. They are to be congratulated for again bringing to the fore a matter of huge environmental consequence which has the potential to damage life and cause death, if it has not already done so. The facility should be closed.

Mr. Neville

I support the motion and the amendment. I congratulate the Minister of State for his persistence and energy in ensuring that this issue is fought at every level in order to secure the elimination of a disaster that is waiting to happen. Experience elsewhere, especially in Chernobyl, has shown that Sellafield and the difficulties encountered there by British Nuclear Fuels are indicative of potential disaster. One hates to imagine the effect it would have on Ireland, and especially its eastern coast.

It is accepted by most experts that Sellafield is the cause of health problems among people living on our eastern coast; it is the cause of serious pollution problems in the Irish Sea and it introduces radioactive material into the food chain. I have no doubt that it has a serious effect on people's health at a time when we are extremely sensitive about the quality of our food. There has been a long debate about the effects of the disposal of nuclear waste. No matter how low the British claim it to be on fish life in the Irish Sea, it is a matter of extreme concern and Ireland must continue to oppose the nuclear industry in the UK. We must object at every opportunity both at national and international level. The public is extremely concerned about the issue.

There is a high level of public awareness about the effects of the British nuclear industry on this country and its potential for the destruction of our State if a disaster occurred. The problem of transporting nuclear material must be resolved. Nuclear material is being transported to Britain from as far away as Japan. One is at a loss to explain why waste should be transported that distance to be disposed of in western Europe. As a consequence we have the problem of storing and dealing with radioactive waste.

The Minister of State referred to the problem of decommissioning nuclear reactors when they become redundant and the potential for nuclear fall-out at that time. Nuclear power is a complex area and we must support and respond to public awareness and concern in Irish society. We must also endeavour to educate the British public about the danger in their midst as there is not the same level of concern there when there should be. Every opportunity should be taken to press for the highest safety standards in Britain. We have seen the reports on accidents which have occurred. They were not as serious as they could have been, but we owe it to future generations to ensure a safe environment. We also owe it to future generations to provide them with the quality of life we would wish for them. It is our duty to fight for the protection of that quality of life at every opportunity.

I congratulate the Labour Party for bringing forward this motion and giving us the opportunity to put on record our support for the Minister of State and the Government in their efforts in this regard.

Mr. Magner

I thank Senators for their contributions. This debate saw the House at its best. There are times when the House unites and internal threats to the institution of the State is one such occasion. On this occasion we are discussing an external threat. There are issues which supersede narrow political dimensions and this is one such issue. In that regard I thank my colleagues in Government, Fine Gael and Democratic Left, and the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Group in the Seanad, Senator Wright. I had no difficulty accepting the Fianna Fáil amendment because it strengthened the wish of the House that this nightmare be brought to an end as swiftly as possible.

I have no doubt that at some stage the nuclear industry will cease to operate. Harry Oppenheimer, when he saw the results of the first nuclear test explosion in the New Mexico desert, said that the world had been brought to the edge of a chasm from which there was no return. I visited West Point in upstate New York and saw the bomb that was not dropped. It is on display in the US military academy and it was destined to be dropped on Nagasaki had the Japanese not surrendered. An industry that is uncontrollable in terms of its inability to control and dispose of its own waste within several lifetimes cannot possibly be described as viable in a human context. I draw no distinction between dropping an atomic bomb from an airplane or having a nuclear plant sited on the ground. Both have the same destructive force and results.

I am pleased the Labour Party was supported on this motion tonight and I am grateful to Senator Wright and the Fianna Fáil Group for their amendment. On issues such as this, which transcend narrow political considerations, I hope the spirit of bipartisanship will continue. I pay particular tribute to the Minister of State, Deputy Stagg, for not only his work in the past but for the dedication he will bring to this task in the future. I, my party and the House are grateful for his efforts, as was generously expressed this evening.

Mr. Wright

I am out of order but I wish to make a point to the Minister of State. We recognise the work he has done since his appointment and we welcome the acceptance of our amendment. The amendment was put down following a court decision last week. We support the case and I hope the various obstacles can be eliminated in the coming months to ensure this issue transcends politics. I hope last week's decision will be supported.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Fitzgerald)

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Magner

Next Wednesday at 2.30 p.m.