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.