Sellafield Nuclear Plant: Motion.

Mr. Ross

I move:

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Minister for Foreign Affairs to summon the British ambassador to accept a formal protest from the Government on the threat to Irish citizens from Sellafield.

The basis for this motion is the fact that the Government has not been effective in its opposition to Sellafield. I am dubious about whether it is serious about this issue and I will question whether it has achieved anything in this regard.

The Government is aware of the dangers posed by Sellafield, as is the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, who has expressed this fact on many occasions. However, the Government's effectiveness in countering those dangers has been zero. Protective measures may or may not be in place in the event of a disaster at Sellafield, but there are no measures to prevent such an occurrence.

I regret that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, who is referred to in this motion, is not in the House. This is indicative of the Government's lack of seriousness about this problem which it hopes will just go away. This motion seeks to bring an end to the cosmetic and ineffective measures the Government is taking. It is based on the fact that we want a serious diplomatic incident to prove that we are serious on behalf of the Irish people about what is going on at Sellafield.

The Government's amendment is a clear signal of its unacceptable self-satisfaction at what it is doing. The motion calls for a formal protest by the Government by summoning the British ambassador. However, the suggestion behind the amendment is, "We are doing very well, thank you, don't rock the boat".

The Government has achieved nothing in 20 years of protest or by various attempts to bring the Sellafield authorities to courts in Europe and around the world. The amendment proposes that the House should not call in the British ambassador because, apparently, that would be embarrassing, but that is what we want. We want to send a message to the world that Ireland is serious, capable and willing to rock the boat on this issue and the Government should not seek to amend the motion in this ineffective way.

I will examine what has been achieved as regards Sellafield and I am interested in the Minister of State's reply to two questions. I hope he will outline what the Government has achieved in its attempts to close Sellafield. How far has it got in this regard? It has achieved nothing and the situation has worsened. The MOX plant is open. We protested about this plant, but the situation worsened. The Government has been to the courts and is in the middle of a cosmetic court case, but this has achieved nothing. I ask the Minister of State to outline what the Government has achieved.

Let us not have the usual rebut on how much effort the Minister is making. Let us hear why the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, is not bringing in the British ambassador and publicly dressing him down about the dangers posed by Sellafield to the Irish people. Let us have those two issues addressed. I predict that the Minister of State will read another script outlining how hard he is working, but nothing will have been achieved.

I wish to outline the reasons Sellafield should be closed and why the situation is much more serious than the Government admits. The history of Sellafield is a disaster for Ireland in particular. The first recorded serious radioactive leak occurred in, I think, 1957, but nothing happened. There was a more serious leak in 1976 which was covered up. The contamination caused by that leak is still in Cumbria, but we were never meant to know that it happened. There was an even worse leak in 1978, the contamination from which remains in unused buildings in Sellafield 22 years later. There was also an unauthorised discharge into the Irish Sea in 1983 and an explosion in 1992.

However, much more serious than the above incidents was the discovery that the authorities at Sellafield falsified the safety records in 1999. This tells us that we are in danger because of negligence and carelessness and that the lives of Irish people are in danger, but luckily this has not happened yet. It also tells us that the authorities at Sellafield are liars and that they falsify records. It tells us that we do not know how bad the situa tion is. We know the situation is, and has been, bad, but we do not know whether we are being told the truth or the whole truth all the time. All we know is that we have been lied to. This leaves us in the dark and vulnerable, yet we have a Government which is engaged in cosmetic shadow boxing with the British Government on this issue.

In its annual accounts BNFL uses the phrase "decommissioning nuclear waste". This is an appropriate phrase, but the decommissioning which is going on is less effective than that taking place in Northern Ireland. I do not know whether people are aware that it takes at least 100 years for this decommissioning process to render nuclear waste harmless. Therefore, even if we stop now, it would take 100 years to remove the dangers posed by the nuclear waste which has been produced.

BNFL lost £210 million last year. On its balance sheet it includes costs of £16.1 billion for what it calls "nuclear liabilities". That is more than half of Ireland's national debt on BNFL's balance sheet in case it cannot eliminate this menace. Like others, I believed the reason for nuclear energy and BNFL was that it was, in some way, more efficient, economic and made more money. However, that is not the case. BNFL is bust; it is subsidised by the British taxpayer and is continually losing money. The company has the extraordinary habit of paying bonuses to its board members. The chief executive gets £350,000 a year and a safety bonus which he has never failed to collect. The idea of someone at Sellafield being paid a safety bonus is quite extraordinary and unacceptable. It is indicative of the unreal world which surrounds Sellafield.

Not only is Sellafield losing money but there is no justification for its existence either morally or economically. What is the price of security at Sellafield? We do not know. We know that following 11 September it became a no-fly zone. I am not aware if that remains the position but we know a territorial army was present in the area. We know all sorts of hidden costs paid for by the British Government ought to be in a profit and loss account. It is a most extraordinary fantasy world which exists across the Irish Sea in Cumbria.

I want to address the reason this matter is so urgent. Many of us have, for many years, rather silently and not loudly enough paid lip-service to the need to dismantle Sellafield. The events of 11 September changed that, as the Minister is aware. The events of 11 September alerted us to the fact that this is a constant imminent danger. It is far more serious than ever.

I recently spoke about this matter to a spokesman for BNFL. I asked him what would be the consequences if Osama bin Laden or somebody else decided to send a suicide bomber into Sellafield. His response was calm but ruthless; they have budgeted for 4,000 deaths locally. That is their estimate, an extraordinarily macabre and morbid response. We must look at this as a real possibility. We are living in a world filled with terrorism and suicide pilots. Sellafield is a real target. It would be no good saying afterwards there was nothing we could have done. We could easily dismantle the plant.

The dangers to the environment are indisputable. Greenpeace has proven, quite convincingly, that the Irish Sea is the most contaminated in the world. Eight million litres of waste per day go into the Irish Sea. The incidence of childhood leukaemia in the area has risen by ten times. That does not prove Sellafield causes childhood leukaemia any more than cigarettes cause cancer but the anecdotal evidence is so convincing we should take it seriously.

This is no anti-British crusade, this is no anti-British sentiment. It is far more serious than that. I find it embarrassing from time to time to find myself on the same side as Sinn Féin on this issue. No doubt they find it embarrassing also.

Mr. Norris

Much more, I imagine.

Mr. Ross

It is a very serious national problem which, to some extent, unites us. Let us look at what happened in Chernobyl. Scientists tell us if there is an accident at Sellafield the situation will be far worse. We must realise the seriousness of this problem. That is why I find the Government's attitude awry. I do not believe the Government, through its current policy, will achieve anything regarding Sellafied. I do not believe it seriously wants to achieve anything. What it is doing is cosmetic, ineffective and simply and solely playing to its main constituency. I would like to see the Government proving to the world that it is prepared, at least, to embarrass the British nation by calling in the ambassador, making a formal protest and drawing the attention of the world to the menace which threatens our citizens.

Mr. Norris

I congratulate Senator Ross on pursuing this matter which we have discussed on a number of occasions. I shared time with him on the last occasion and he has now very graciously asked me to second this very important motion. Like Senator Ross, I deprecate the Government's decision to table an amendment to this motion.

I do not think the Government is embarrassed about calling in the British ambassador, I think it is embarrassed by the fact that the suggestion came from Senator Ross. The Government might well have done so if it had thought about it. It is a pity the Government cannot accept the suggestion in the spirit in which it is meant. It is time we delivered a rebuke. Senator Ross previously suggested that the British ambassador might be invited to come to this House to answer questions from Members on the issue. That was ruled out. He has now suggested that the Government deliver a rebuke directly. It is appropriate that we do so. Ambassadors are required to learn about the strong feelings of the countries to which they are posted.

I agree with Senator Ross that no one could describe him as anti-British. I doubt very much if many people would characterise me as anti-British. This motion strongly criticises the British Government and is, for that reason, to be taken as having greater effect. Although I am half English I have to stand up and say they are continually bad neighbours. Foot and mouth disease was almost spread into Ireland as a result of their laxity in terms of safety precautions. Thank God for our efficient Ministers, civil servants and decent farmers who were able to keep the disease out of Ireland.

Mr. Lydon

Hear, hear.

Mr. Norris

The insidious nature of the nuclear threat is that it is invisible – we can see animals and take precautions against them coming in but we require a very sophisticated defence in terms of nuclear reaction to deal with the dangers of nuclear plants. There was a story a couple of days ago on "Five-Seven Live" with Mr. Myles Dungan – which, unfortunately, I only caught the end of – regarding another problem at Sellafield within the last week. I understand it also involved a military establishment. This is very worrying.

Senator Ross has listed a catalogue of information in relation to the very foundation of this establishment. In the 1950s when I was child people thought nuclear energy was the way of the future, that it was clean and would not cause contamination and we would be done with the dirt, filth and back breaking labour of the miners in England. How wrong we were. It is contaminating in a much more sinister way. When I was a child, Sellafield was called Windscale. A fire at the plant blew the roof off, resulting in the escape of radiation which caused contamination on this side of the Irish Sea. The name of the plant was subsequently changed to Calderhall and later to Sellafield. That suggests to me the British are uneasy about this facility if they feel the need to keep changing its name.

Senator Ross has put on the record the lies and evasions told by British Nuclear Fuels, which continually employs the most sophisticated spin-masters. Even it cannot conceal the reality of what is happening. Another development took place during the week. The way this material comes out is, if I might say, rather intriguing. It is a bit like Ben Dunne's accident which led to the setting up of the tribunals. On this occasion a senior nuclear physicist took an action against BNFL for constructive dismissal. Mr. Ronald Hanas, who was responsible for monitoring the control of plutonium and uranium at the plant, said radioactive material was often left unsupervised and that inspections by the Environmental Protection Agency were treated as "a bit of a joke". It is some joke. The joke will be on all of us if we do not do something about this. He said that there was an unwillingness to disrupt operations or draw attention from the head of the site, and safety issues were therefore slack. He is one of their senior scientists in charge of uranium and plutonium facilities, and that is what he said. They are convicted out of the mouths of their own experts.

I do not want to rehash all that was said in the last debate on 10 October, but we can learn from it. One very interesting contribution was made by my colleague on the Labour benches, Senator Ryan, who teaches engineering design. He put five criteria on the record of the House: the plant should be technically feasible, it should make economic sense, it should be safe, it should be environmentally acceptable and it should serve some social purpose. How many of those criteria does Sellafield fulfil? The answer is only, and marginally, the first. It is possible to embark on the process, but it does not make economic sense, and I refer anyone who is interested to our contributions in the last debate. Not even the Japanese are going to take MOX because of the record of lying and breaches of safety. They have indicated that. It is not economically viable.

The third criterion is that it should be safe. Can anyone think that it is safe when their own experts say that it is not? The safety is a joke. The fourth criterion is that it should be environmentally acceptable, and we know that it is not. The fifth is that it should serve some social purpose, which it obviously does not.

There are seven Seanad Bills with the Dáil. The Radiological Protection (Amendment) Bill, 1998, shows concern in that area. The Containment of Nuclear Weapons Bill, 2000, also shows concern, as does the Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill, 2000, and the Law of the Sea (Repression of Piracy) Bill, 2000. These are all germane to our concerns. The people and their representatives are clearly exercising their minds about this.

It is possible to use this facility in certain ways, rather than waste it – I put that on the record the last time. These things could be encased in ceramic rods, which have a further economic use. Britain could be a leader in this technology. I referred the last time to turning swords into plough shares. I am afraid I do not always articulate and it emerged as "turning sordid plough shares". I have turned a few sordid plough shares in my time, but this is turning swords into plough shares.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

May I ask the Senator to get to the end of the furrow?

Mr. Norris

The Leas-Chathaoirleach never loses an opportunity for his laboured wit.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator is generous as always.

Mr. Norris

This is an investment which has gone sour, but the British have the gambler's instinct to recklessly continue along this line. They are gambling not only with the money of the British taxpayer and the health of the British people but with the health, welfare and safety of the Irish people.

I once more congratulate Senator Ross on putting down this motion. I hope it will strengthen the Government's hand in dealing with the British. There probably will be a vote, but I am sure Senator Ross would not wish this to be construed as an intention to weaken the Government's hand. What we on this side of the House, led by Senator Ross, seek to do is to strengthen the Government's hand by the strength of our feelings.

Mr. Lanigan

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

Seanad Éireann, concerned at the threat to the health and safety of Irish citizens and to the environment that is posed by the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Britain;

recalling that the Taoiseach has repeatedly raised the concerns of the Government and the Irish people with the British Prime Minister and noting that the Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise and his officials have regular meetings and contact with their United Kingdom counterparts to express Ireland's concerns;

recalling that the Government has, for the first time, initiated legal proceedings against the UK in relation to the commissioning of the MOX fuel plant at the Sellafield site;

noting that the issue of Sellafield is being discussed at the British Irish Council;

endorses the Government's strategy and actions in relation to Sellafield.

In moving the amendment to the motion, I welcome the Minister of State to the House and compliment him on the huge amount of work he has done in recent years to get some semblance of fairness and reality into the operation of the Sellafield plant. Everybody agrees that in recent years huge emotions have been stirred up by the operation of the Sellafield plant. There is no need to go into the chronological order of the problems that have been associated with Sellafield. Everyone realises that the Irish people have not wanted Sellafield and have argued against it because of the threat to their health and safety caused by its operation. The invitation to the ambassador to ask him to convey our concerns to the British Government is not realistic. We are dealing directly with the British Government and there is no reason to bring in the ambassador.

Senator Norris read from a report. A special report on Britain's nuclear industry by Rob Evans and David Hencke of The Guardian stated that staff at British Nuclear Fuels Limited com plained privately that British diplomats had failed to stand up for the state-owned company against Irish Governments that have persistently campaigned against BNFL's Sellafield plant. Their source was secret papers obtained by The Guardian. BNFL also admitted that the current Irish Government had more success than its predecessors in opposing Sellafield. The frank memoranda by BNFL's public relations branch revealed that the company had struggled to placate the Irish who for years have pressed to close the complex in Cumbria.

Over the past year BNFL suffered a series of blows, forcing the Government to rethink Sellafield's future. A spate of safety rows, culminating in Japan returning spent fuel, have jeopardised BNFL's lucrative contracts worldwide. In one leaked memorandum, written before the visit to BNFL by Sir Edward Edwards, Britain's ambassador, in May last year, the British Government grumbled that in its dealings with the Irish Government the British Embassy should stand four square behind BNFL. It claimed that this had not always been the case. The clear message was that BNFL is an important exporter within strict UK and international regulations.

The memorandum also said that since Sellafield was high on the Anglo-Irish political agenda, BNFL has worked to improve its image in Ireland and benefit relations between the two Governments. It admitted that ultimately a realistic objective for their work in Ireland is damage limitation. In terms of the motion, it is good that they are talking about damage limitation. We are not trying to change this. The leaked memorandum stated that the Irish Government had been more successful than any previous Government in dealing with the Sellafield problem. The memorandum acknowledged that the policy of the Fianna Fáil led Government since it came to power in 1997 has been to continue to oppose Sellafield. It has been less vocal than the previous Government, but perhaps more effective, and we must acknowledge this.

Irish Governments have long been pressing BNFL to stop discharging into the Irish Sea waste that pollutes Ireland's shores. We stand over the work that has been done by the Government since 1997 in its targeting of Sellafield. This is the first Government to take the Sellafield case to the international courts. Although we did not win at the UN Tribunal on the Law of Sea, the tribunal stated that we not only had the right to take the action but that UNCLOS has jurisdiction in relation to Ireland's case and Ireland has rights under UNCLOS to seek to protect the marine environment of the Irish Sea. Fianna Fáil will not bow its head in its efforts to close Sellafield. We have always fought to have Sellafield closed and other Governments continued this fight. The Government has fought strongly by taking cases to court. It is right to get emotional about the damage being done to our citizens. While I do not agree with the motion, I believe the House would unite in supporting a motion condemning the Sellafield plant.

Neither this House nor the Government wants the Sellafield plant, especially the new MOX facility, to continue in operation. However, there is nothing more we can do other than to express the hope that the plant will be considered in a broader context than the economic benefit it brings to the surrounding area. Most people in Great Britain see only that 40,000 jobs in greater Cumbria depend on it. The British Government could not afford the loss of these jobs, nor could it afford to close down the plant because of the prohibitive cost of decommissioning it. However, if the debate is broadened to consider the impact of the plant on human lives, it will become apparent that it should be closed. All in this House are agreed on that.

The suggestion that we are more at risk from the Sellafield plant following the events of 11 September will only signal it as a target for terrorists.

Mr. Norris

What about the Official Report?

Mr. Lanigan

There is nothing to be gained from repeating the assertion that the Sellafield plant poses a terrorism threat. Senator Ross referred to cosmetic court cases, or, as he would not use such a term, perhaps it was his colleague, Senator Norris.

Mr. Ross

On a point of order, I used the term.

Mr. Lanigan

The Government was the first to take a court case on the Sellafield plant. While the court accepted that the Government had such a right it did not accept its case. Perhaps it will on the next occasion.

Mr. O'Dowd

I welcome this debate. It is one of a series that will continue until the Sellafield plant is closed. I wish to concentrate on the question as to whether the plant would be able to withstand a terrorist attack.

On 11 September, the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania had reduced its height by thousands of feet long before it crashed. It was reported in American newspapers that it was believed to be heading for a dam in the area or the Three Mile Island nuclear plant. We must face the reality that the real threat to the Sellafield plant arises from its inability to withstand a direct hit from the type of plane and aviation fuel that crashed into the twin towers on 11 September.

The United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Authority organised a conference on the threat of nuclear terrorism last November. The authority published a report, a copy of which was given to the Taoiseach some months ago. Will the Minister of State publish the report and will he indicate what the authority has to say about the threat of nuclear terrorism to the world and especially to Europe? I have contacted the authority and it has told me it is for the Govern ment to decide whether to publish the report but the Department of Public Enterprise has advised me differently. I ask the Minister of State to clarify this.

The danger at the Sellafield plant arises from the radioactive waste contained in the storage tanks on site. The Minister of State is aware that some of the waste has been stored there since 1957. The capacity of the building to withstand a terrorist attack is based on the risk assumed to be in the nuclear industry before 11 September. In non-nuclear industries, action will be taken if the risk of an incident is greater than one in 10,000. In the nuclear industry action will be taken if the risk of an accident is greater than one in 100,000. However, the risk of an attack on the Sellafield plant similar to that on the twin towers on 11 September is one in one million. The plant was not built to withstand such an attack. The risk has not been factored in.

The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland met with British Nuclear Fuels, not in England but, at BNFL's insistence, in Ireland. Participants at the meeting were sworn to secrecy on the detail they were supplied with. However, nobody was sworn to secrecy on the views of the RPII and the Government following the meeting. Is the Minister of State happy with the result of the meeting and is the Government satisfied that the implementation of security arrangements means that the Sellafield plant is safe? If the Minister of State does not indicate this we can only assume the Government is not satisfied.

I do not believe the Sellafield plant is safe. Visitors to the plant will see that it is wide open to an attack. Those in al-Qaeda, on which President Bush has spoken so often and acted so promptly, are the world experts on car or truck bombs. It is arguable whether trucks or cars could get into the plant but trains certainly can. They run by it every day and there is no reason why one could not be commandeered by these terrorists, loaded with explosives and brought into the heart of the plant. There is also nothing to stop an attack on the plant from the sea or the overlooking heights.

These are all very important issues that must be addressed but, even more importantly, we need to know what the Government is doing to ensure that the plant is closed. I acknowledge the Minister of State's work in the law courts, especially on the law of the sea. The court made a very important decision and the Government effectively won its case. For the first time it secured the right to be consulted about what is happening at the plant. The British Government, which argued that the case should be dismissed, effectively lost. I am confident that some progress has been made. I do not wish to turn this debate into an attack on the Government. It is not my way to do business on this issue, nor is it the Minster of State's. However, the inadequacies in the Government's response must be pointed out.

What is the risk of a plane crashing into the Sellafield plant? The no-fly zone around the plant extends for a radius of two miles to a height of 2,000 feet. It would take a plane only seconds to crash into the plant. It is indefensible that there is not a minimum ten mile no-fly zone around the plant. That is the extent of the zones around nuclear plants in America. The Department of Public Enterprise has informed me it has no record of having made any representations about the no-fly zone around the Sellafield plant. That is unacceptable. Why is the Government not pressing home this point? If one stands at Sellafield and looks up at the sky, one sees dozens of planes passing overhead every day. The Government must press for the extension of the no-fly zone. It is not good enough and I will not accept it.

There is also the issue of the record of meetings between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister. There is no record arguments made by the Taoiseach since 11 September. The Department told me no such record exists. Why are there no records? Where is the openness and transparency in the Government's approach to Sellafield? We are all in favour of its closure, but where is that consensus? Where is the transparency in the Government's approach? It is not there because there are no records. Therefore, it can be said that no efforts are being made to push these points home.

I, the Minister of State and others know that within one hour of the Official Report of this debate going onto the computer in Leinster House, a record will be on the desk of the chief executive of BNFL. Every published article and everything that happens in this House is recorded and BNFL and the British Government is very much aware of what we say. That is why this debate is important. We may disagree and criticise the Government for not doing enough, but it is important to have the debate. We should continue to put on record our objections to this plant. There is universal support in the country for its closure and I am delighted the Independent Senators selected this as the most important issue for a Private Members' debate. The country agrees with them.

Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise (Mr. Jacob)

I have been in the Seanad about six times during my watch to talk about nuclear matters. It has been a pleasure to do so and I am glad to be here again this evening. I fully respect the spirit behind the motion tabled by Senator Ross and Senator Norris but the Government has put down an amendment because the Senators' motion fails to recognise that the Government's campaign against Sellafield, including in particular the current legal action by the Government against the UK regarding the Sellafield MOX plant, has brought matters way beyond the stage of presenting a formal protest to the British ambassador. In common with Senator O'Dowd, I laud the two Senators for putting down this motion because it gives us a chance to air this subject again. I also agree with Senator O'Dowd that it is important to keep debating this issue. I want to persuade Senator Ross, Senator Norris and their colleagues that a great deal has been done in this area and that no more can humanly be done.

I was delighted when I was given responsibility four and a half years ago for nuclear matters and leading the Government's campaign against Sellafield. I have endeavoured to do all that is humanly possible in that regard. First, I met the most relevant UK Minister, Mr. Michael Meacher, MP, and I outlined Ireland's legitimate concerns to him. I spoke about our concerns regarding the possibility of a major incident or accident, although a terrorist attack was far from our minds at that time. I agree with Senator Ross and others who mentioned the new perspective since 11 September. The level of urgency has soared in that regard and this must be reflected in our ongoing actions.

I explained to him that the threat of an incident or accident which would affect the health and safety of the people of this island was our uppermost concern, particularly given our proximity. There are also ageing magnox reactors and a high level of waste, as Senator O'Dowd mentioned. This is stored in liquid form and is of major concern to us. The UK authorities are endeavouring to make that safer by a vitrification process but that is too slow – it is not at the speed the Irish Government wants. We have exhorted them to speed up the process because, as it stands, it will take until 2015 before the current stocks of liquid waste are dealt with. We have exhorted the British authorities to ensure that the process is expedited and to put on additional lines.

We have reminded them of the contamination of the Irish Sea. The assertion that the Irish Sea is the ocean most contaminated by radioactivity in the world is often quoted, but that is far from the case. However, any level of radioactivity in our waters is totally objectionable and we will not stand for it. Discharges into our marine environment caused by these plants are also objectionable.

These issues have all been spelt out repeatedly to the UK authorities and Ministers, starting with Michael Meacher, who is still a Minister for the Environment, the Minister for Energy, John Battle, and his successor Helen Liddell. We met all of them in London and they were also good enough to come to Dublin with their officials. We went over this with them ad nauseam but as we went over the detailed facts behind our objections, after about a year and a half, I came to the conclusion that while I was getting a very courteous hearing from and interaction with UK Ministers, we were not getting very far in terms of action. These plants are there since 1946 and successive Irish Governments have voiced their concerns about them, but have got nowhere.

However, although we said we were keeping legal action under review, I decided to be proactive and to put preparatory work in place for such legal action. I sought legal expertise here and abroad – at QC level in the UK – and other necessary expertise, such as economic and nuclear advice. That work went on for two years up to last May when I met the Taoiseach, whom I had kept abreast of developments, and told him the preparatory work was done. I told him I was ready to move with legal action on a number of fronts. I wanted the Taoiseach to give his imprimatur and to take that information to Government seeking approval to take legal action. Mere Ministers of State do not sit at the Cabinet table, but I was afforded the opportunity to present the case in the first week of June 2001.

Before June was out we had embarked on the legal process under the OSPAR treaty. This was not a reactive measure put in place after 11 September. It was a proactive measure and preparatory work and expenditure had been going on over two years. That was a very important action to take.

In parallel with that, we continued to deal with the UK authorities and voice our disapproval. We also internationalised this campaign. I journeyed to Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland and the Danish Minister, Sven Auken, came to Dublin to see me. Ireland is now globally recognised as being in the vanguard of the campaign against nuclear expansion and the expansion of nuclear energy in developing countries. All that work has been done and I appreciate the support I have had from the Oireachtas in the years that I have been involved with this. I notice that the support in the other House has been on the wane in recent times, but being a hardened politico I can appreciate that that is because of another imminent event.

I fully respect the spirit in which the Senators' motion has been tabled. I hope they accept that the issue has moved on to a point beyond approaching the British ambassador. Senators will recall that the last time I addressed a debate in this House concerning Sellafield was in October 2001. That debate took place following the announcement by the UK Government that it had given the go-ahead to the MOX plant. Since then, the Government has been very active in trying to stop the full commissioning of the MOX plant and in continuing to express its view that operations at the Sellafield site should be ended.

From the Government's counter motion, Members of the House will see that Ireland's strong views have been expressed at the highest levels to the UK Government. Therefore, to protest to the British ambassador would not add anything to the UK's awareness of our position on the matter. Successive Irish Governments have opposed the continued operation and any expansion of the Sellafield plant. With its multiplicity of operations, Sellafield represents a potentially serious threat to Ireland's public health and environment, as well as to our vital commercial interests such as fishing, agriculture and tourism. The Government remains unrelenting in its campaign to bring about the closure of Sellafield.

Since assuming the portfolio for nuclear safety and radiological protection, I have met UK Ministers on numerous occasions. After taking office in 1997, I quickly sought a meeting with the UK Environment Minister, Mr. Michael Meacher. At our meeting in Dublin, I conveyed to Minister Meacher the whole range of nuclear safety issues of concern to Ireland. In February 1999, I conveyed in no uncertain terms to Minister Meacher the strong objections of the Government to radioactive discharges from Sellafield to the Irish Sea and about the proposed decision by the UK Environment Agency to give the go-ahead to the Sellafield MOX plant. At that meeting, I emphasised to Minister Meacher the necessity for the UK to take account, in its review of Sellafield radioactive discharges authorisation limits, of the strong commitments made by the UK Ministers at the June 1998 meeting in Portugal of the OSPAR Commission, at which the OSPAR Strategy on Radioactive Discharges to the marine environment was adopted.

UK Ministers at that meeting gave me an assurance that they would address that matter, and in particular they would address an Irish motion on the rise of levels of technetium 99 in the Irish Sea. It has not been addressed. As Senators will know, the OSPAR strategy provided for the virtual elimination of radioactive discharges to the marine environment by the year 2020 through a programme of progressive and substantial reductions in such discharges.

In May 1999, I met with the then UK Minister of State for Energy and Industry, Mr. John Battle. At that meeting, I reiterated the Government's concerns about the safety of the storage of high-level radioactive waste in liquid form in tanks at Sellafield and I pressed for the speedy vitrification of this waste. I also raised with him our concerns about the safety of the old Magnox reactors in the UK which continue to operate beyond their original design life. While Minister Battle assured me that these reactors would not be allowed to continue operating unless it was safe to do so, I nevertheless called for the closing down of these reactors.

It was as a direct result of my sustained representations to Minister Battle around that time that the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland was allowed access to examine, on the BNFL premises, the BNFL safety standards documentation relating to the storage tanks where the high-level liquid waste is kept. The RPII carried out a two week examination of the documentation at Sellafield and published its report in December 2000. In summary, the RPII concluded that the risk of a severe accident associated with the storage arrangements for this liquid waste was low. However, the RPII made a number of recommendations for reducing the risk further and has maintained contact with the UK authorities as to the implementation of those recommendations.

February 2000, as the House will be aware, saw the publication by the UK's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of three separate reports relating to the Sellafield plant. One of these reports, relating to the control and supervision of operations at Sellafield, and another relating to the falsification of safety related data for MOX fuel pellets produced at the Sellafield MOX demonstration facility, were highly critical of the safety culture and safety management at the plant. Immediately following the publication of these reports, I met with the then UK Minister of State for Energy, Mrs. Helen Liddell, to convey the Government's serious concerns about the reports and called for the cessation of Sellafield operations. As far as the Government is concerned, these reports dealt a severe body blow to the reputation of BNFL as a safety conscious operation, a body blow from which I am convinced BNFL will find it difficult to recover. Even today, two years later, some of the safety improvement recommendations contained in the report on the control and supervision of operations at the plant have yet to be implemented.

In all my meetings and correspondence with British Ministers, they were left under no illusions whatsoever as to the depth of opposition in Ireland to the Sellafield plant. The Taoiseach has, on numerous occasions, raised with the British Prime Minister Ireland's opposition to the Sellafield operations, including the MOX plant, and has called for its closure. Only last week, at a meeting between the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister, this issue was raised, among other matters.

The Government's concerns about Sellafield are regularly followed up by officials of my Department and the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland at meetings of the UK-Ireland contact group on radioactivity matters. This group comprises officials of my Department and the RPII and officials from the relevant UK Government Departments and agencies. It meets twice a year and provides a further opportunity to pursue Ireland's concerns about Sellafield.

In addition to face to face meetings with UK Ministers and ongoing correspondence with them on Sellafield related issues, I have raised our concerns about the nuclear industry and related activities at every available opportunity on the international stage, in the EU, in Paris at the International Energy Agency, the OSPAR Convention and the United Nations in New York. I have also developed links with like-minded countries in OSPAR, including, in particular, the Nordic countries, as I stated before, which generally share our concerns about nuclear reprocessing activities, such as those carried out at Sellafield, and about discharges of radioactive materials into the marine environment.

I have built very strong personal relationships with key Ministers in some of these countries. For instance, and most recently on 17 December 2001, following the general election and change of Government in Norway, I met the new Norwegian Minister for the Environment in Dublin and briefed him on our assessment of the issues surrounding Sellafield and the MOX plant with particular focus on the legal aspects.

This week, I attended a meeting of the British-Irish Council environment sectoral group in Edinburgh. As Senators will be aware, this was established under the Good Friday Agreement as a forum for members to exchange information and to discuss, consult and use best endeavours to reach agreement on matters of mutual interest. The environment group is one of a number of sectoral groups within the BIC and is chaired by Mr. Meacher. Ireland and the Isle of Man have taken the lead within this group on Sellafield and radioactive waste.

The group, at its meeting this week, held an initial exchange of views on a draft discussion paper on this subject which had been prepared jointly by Ireland and the Isle of Man. It was agreed that the subject would be further discussed at its next meeting in the autumn. The inclusion of Sellafield on the agenda of the BIC is of significant importance to Ireland as it gives us a valuable opportunity to discuss the genuine concerns which Sellafield creates for Ireland and some other BIC members.

The Government's strong opposition to the Sellafield MOX plant has been repeatedly conveyed to UK Ministers and departmental officials over the years and in its detailed responses to the five separate rounds of public consultations held by British authorities and Ministers since 1997. As I mentioned before, the Taoiseach also raised Ireland's opposition to this project with the British Prime Minister. We were totally dismayed and angered by the UK Government's decision of October last to give the go-ahead to that plant. At a time of heightened tensions around the world arising from terrorist threats, I find the UK Government's decision effectively to expand operations at Sellafield difficult to fathom.

The Government is determined to prevent the full commissioning of the MOX plant. We see no justification, economic or otherwise, for it. The MOX plant will effectively perpetuate nuclear reprocessing activities at Sellafield and add to the level of radioactive discharges into the marine environment. It will increase the volume of worldwide shipments of nuclear fuels with obvious additional volume of traffic through the Irish Sea, thus pose an unacceptable safety and security risk as well as the potential for a major accident or terrorist attack.

We have initiated legal action against the UK under the OSPAR Convention in regard to the MOX plant. The legal action began in June 2001 and relates to the fact that the UK, on grounds of commercial confidentiality, withheld pertinent information essential to assessing the economic justification of the MOX plant. This action is proceeding on schedule and an arbitration tribunal is in the process of being established under the OSPAR Convention to consider the case.

In parallel with the legal action under OSPAR, the Government has also initiated legal pro ceedings against the UK under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to stop the operation of the MOX plant. Ireland requested the establishment of an international arbitration tribunal under this UN convention to resolve the dispute.

As it was not expected that Ireland's case would be heard by the tribunal until the latter part of this year, Ireland requested the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea, ITLOS, to order a legally binding injunction on the UK to stop the commissioning of the MOX plant and associated shipments of nuclear material. On 3 December 2001, the ITLOS delivered its judgment on the injunction request. While it did not agree to the implementation of the injunction measures requested by Ireland, it imposed obligations of co-operation on the UK vis-à-vis exchange of information and construction of appropriate measures to prevent pollution of the marine environment, pending the hearing of the substantive case by the arbitration tribunal. The Government will also be considering what steps, if any, to take on challenging before the European Court of Justice the UK's decision that the MOX plant is economically justified.

That is the background to the Government's concerns about Sellafield and the actions being taken by it to end its operations. The Government will continue to pursue every realistic means, diplomatic and legal, to bring about a cessation of operations at Sellafield. Clearly it will not be an easy task, but our actions demonstrate that we are fully committed to the process. As in the past, we will continue to harness the support of like minded countries, which have concerns about the Sellafield operations, to maintain a high level of awareness and understanding across the broadest possible spectrum.

Mr. Connor

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate although I am not an expert. This motion reflects the frustration of our independent colleagues, which is shared by many, that all the diplomatic efforts to register with the British Government the real concerns of the Irish Government and people about Sellafield have not been successful. I acknowledge the Minister's efforts, which he catalogued fully, on this matter, to which he devotes much time and effort. He has met British Ministers, Mr. Meacher, Mr. Battle and Ms Liddell, and I do not doubt that he forcefully put to them Ireland's objections. However, the British Government commissioned the MOX plant in defiance of Irish and international objection. I watched Mr. Blair, the British Prime Minister, being interviewed on BBC News 24, the news channel which is broadcast throughout the world, in which he arrogantly dismissed the objections of the Irish and Scandinavian Governments.

I agree we need to crank up diplomatic activity, which is why we must take a further step whereby the Minister for Foreign Affairs should summon the British ambassador to register the strongest possible protest to him. In the world of diplomacy, that is a major step. When one country takes that step with another friendly country, it registers forcefully the anger in the country which initiates such diplomatic action.

In defiance of international public opinion, the British Government commissioned the MOX plant at Sellafield only to give Sellafield economic viability. By its own admission, it felt it was no longer a viable plant unless the new MOX plant was commissioned. We protested loudly about it, but our protests were ignored, as were international protests. The statement the British Government made last October on the mixed oxide plant was to the effect that it would give economic viability to Sellafield far into the future. That was like throwing dust in our eyes in terms of our protests and for that reason we need to up the ante in diplomatic terms. We do not need to go to war or create other incidents. The best instrument at our disposal is diplomacy and levels of diplomatic activity.

I agree with the Minister of State that the Taoiseach has been active in this area, but the Minister of State has borne the brunt of the work. I understand that when the Taoiseach speaks to the British Prime Minister on this issue, it is only on the margins of a Heads of State and Government meeting in Brussels or in whichever country has the Presidency of the European Union, or on the margins of an Anglo-Irish Summit between the two leaders that would be convened primarily to discuss some other matter. When the meetings are over, I presume the Taoiseach reminds Prime Minister Blair about our objections to Sellafield, but that is not enough on a Heads of Government level. There should be a formal meeting between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister with only one issue on the agenda, namely, Sellafield. If that were sought, it would up the ante on this issue and get across the message to the British authorities that we do not accept this plant on our doorstep.

Millions of litres of radioactive water, admittedly of a very low level, are discharged into the Irish Sea from this plant on a daily basis. Specimens of grossly deformed fish have been found in the Irish Sea, and many scientists are of the view that is related to the levels of radioactivity in the Irish Sea. In my opinion and in the opinion of many medical scientists, there is a clear connection between childhood leukaemia on the west coast of Britain, for many miles north and south of Sellafield, and the high incidence of leukaemia in areas of County Louth and other areas close to the east coast of Ireland. We do not have definitive proof of that, but the one condition radioactivity causes in all human and animal life is the scourge of cancer. I am one of the people who believe that the incidence of childhood leukaemia in particular is closely related to emissions and discharges from Sellafield.

This is a real national issue for this country. I do not want to be critical of the Minister of State in any way. I have always admired and acknow ledged the excellent work he has done in this area, but he made the point that real decisions on this issue are taken at senior ministerial or Heads of Government level, and that is where we have to pitch this battle. That is the reason I support this motion. I do not wish to trump the motion put down by my Independent colleagues, but I would have demanded a direct meeting between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister with one issue on the agenda – Sellafield.

The issue of terrorism has come very much to the fore since 11 September. If there was a terrorist attack on Sellafield in the morning, there is no doubt that Ireland would suffer just as much as mainland Britain. We have not received any assurances that this very open plant is in any way immune or protected from a suicide bomber in an aircraft. No-fly zones which restrict an aircraft flying within certain distances of or above the plant are useless. The planes that attacked the twin towers in New York had covered 50 or 60 miles within seconds. That is the problem with these aircraft flying at 500 or 600 miles per hour. Terrorists know how to get the maximum velocity out of an aeroplane flying at a relatively low altitude, which is not easy to do. They fly much faster at higher altitude where the resistance is less, but terrorists can do that and they can get around these so-called no-fly zones. "No-fly zone" is a fine phrase, but 11 September proved that, with ingenuity and the kind of fanaticism we have seen, these so-called measures of protection can be blown to bits.

Sellafield has fuel tanks out in the open with highly radioactive nuclear materials stored in them. They could not withstand the major impact of a large civil airliner striking them and the huge fire and explosions that would follow such an incident. God forbid that this would ever happen but it is now part of reality because it has already happened in a place we thought it could never happen, a great and densely populated metropolis where one would imagine it would be extremely difficult to manoeuvre a 767 passenger aircraft into such a position that it could pinpoint the two tallest buildings in the city. The Sellafield plant is almost in open countryside and is a very easy target. It is not a moving target. It is a sitting duck for that kind of attack.

I support the motion. The Minister of State has been very open about his discussions with the various Ministers in the United Kingdom who deal with nuclear issues, but we have not had a full report on the outcome of meetings between Prime Minister Blair and the Taoiseach, although there was a reference to them in the Minister of State's contribution. I want to know what is going on. Does Prime Minister Blair take the same attitude with the Taoiseach that he took with an interviewer who put a question to him on television last October, when the plant was commissioned, for dissemination and broadcast throughout the world? The public would also like to know that. These discussions, and the attitude adopted by the British Prime Minister during them, should be made public.

Mr. Lydon

I second the amendment proposed by Senator Lanigan, not because the motion is not a good one. It is a very good motion but it is not a timely one because we have gone beyond the stage of calling on the ambassador to accept a formal protest from the Government. I appreciate the spirit in which the motion has been tabled, and I do not doubt the good intentions of those who brought it forward. I am sorry they were not here for the Minister of State's contribution but I am sure they heard it on their monitors.

I want to deal with some of the comments the Minister of State made. The Government has been active on this issue. The amendment was not proposed simply to knock down the motion but because action has been taken. As the Minister of State said, in 1994, when planning permission was granted for the MOX plant, Ireland immediately conveyed its objections to the UK on numerous occasions at official and ministerial level, in private meetings, by letter and so on. Even when the UK authorities held public consultations on five occasions, we sent detailed responses.

On 3 October last year, the UK Government announced that the manufacture of MOX fuel is justified in accordance with European law. If that is the case, and I have no reason to doubt it is, we should be trying to change that UK law. I will go into the reason I believe that later.

On 25 October last year, we instituted arbitration proceedings against the UK under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. It was not expected to hold oral hearings on this matter until the latter part of this year. Because the MOX plant was expected to be commissioned last November, Ireland requested the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea to order provisional measures, a legally binding injunction on the UK to stop the commissioning of the MOX plant and associated shipments of nuclear material.

On 3 December last year, the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea delivered its judgment, which did not agree to the implementation of the injunction we sought, but it decided that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has jurisdiction in relation to Ireland's case and that Ireland has rights to seek to protect the marine environment of the Irish Sea. This is a small but significant step forward. Ireland was pleased with this judgment. It was the first time obligations of co-operation were imposed on the UK vis-à-vis an exchange of information and construction of appropriate measures to prevent pollution of the marine environment. Furthermore, the tribunal recognised that Ireland has a legitimate interest in protecting the Irish Sea against pollution pending the hearing of the substantive case by the arbitral tribunal to be established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is on the grounds that the UK has violated numerous provisions of that convention, which are concerned with the protection of the marine environment. Many Senators spoke of the number of such cases that have occurred. The final elements of this tribunal are being decided. The arbitral tribunal will receive written statements from both parties, the UK and Ireland, to the convening of the oral hearing, but it is not likely to take place before next autumn.

The Oslo and Paris conventions arbitration is proceeding on schedule. Its purpose is to resolve a dispute between Ireland and the UK relating to the withholding by the UK, on grounds of commercial confidentiality, information essential to assessing the justification for the full commissioning of the proposed MOX plant at Sellafield, which in Ireland's opinion contravenes the provision of article 9 of the convention.

That is nothing new for the British to do. They are masters at obfuscation. Senator Norris stated that when he was young, Sellafield was called Windscale. The British change the names of things all the time. Once a name becomes unpopular, they change it. The plant was called Windscale, then there was the Windscale disaster and the name of the plant was changed. They also changed the name of Long Kesh to The Maze, which is a much more comfortable name. Changing the name of this plant, however, did not alter the facts.

Senator Ross stated that a bonus award is given to some workers at Sellafield. I agree wholeheartedly with him that it is ludicrous to give that type of award to people for working there. I believe that most spokespersons for British Nuclear Fuels Limited to whom I have listened tell blatant lies. I heard Mrs. Thatcher's former spin doctor, Sir Bernard Ingham, discuss Sellafield on radio recently and tell Irish people that they had no idea of what was going on and that there was no justification for their fears about the safety of the plant. That is patently ludicrous.

Sellafield can be compared to holding a grenade in one's hand and taking out the pin. It is not a matter of what will happen, if something will happen, but when it will happen. We are sitting on a grenade, the pin of which is pulled out.

Senator Ross stated that BNFL has budgeted for 4,000 deaths in England – it will write them off. That would not be much to the British who wrote off most of Coventry during the war rather than admit they had the enigma machine. They do not mind losing a few bodies here and there, but we mind that here. If Sellafield goes up, we will all suffer.

How far away is Chernobyl from Dublin? It is 20 times further away than Sellafield. The effects of Chernobyl were felt as far as the west coast of this country. We would not have a hope in hell if a disaster happened at Sellafield.

Many Senators spoke of the no-fly zone of ten miles around Sellafield. I agree with Senator Connor that is patently crazy. Any terrorist could fly in there. The British airforce is supposed to be on scramble at any time and be able to blow terrorists out of the sky. As Senator Connor said, in a few seconds a pilot could fly 50 miles to 100 miles. How many seconds would it take a pilot to fly ten miles? Such a terrorist attack could happen.

The Government is doing as much as it can. I compliment the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, on doing everything humanly possible to fight this case and I hope he will continue to do so. I do not know what portfolio he will hold in June. It might be the same one and, if so, I am sure he will continue to do the same work. He is doing an excellent job and that is recognised. Many Senators have paid tribute to the work he has done.

With the typical arrogance that the British portray in most things they do, I wonder if we have a hope in hell of getting this plant closed. I hope we have, but sadly I doubt it.

Mr. O'Toole

I am delighted to say a few words on this important motion. I preface my remarks by stating my appreciation of what the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, has been trying to do in this area. I have been long enough in public life to know that if one starts to measure people by results, one forgets about the inputs. I recognise the inputs. Even though I strongly support the motion, I listened to the Minister of State's argument against it, which made rational sense, but I disagree with it. It is as simple as that. I do not take from the Minister of State's personal commitment on this issue and his attempts to get movement on it.

I have been less than impressed by attempts in the media now and again to trivialise this very important matter. It concerns a health issue, an environment issue and an issue of national interest. We need to examine this matter that way. People, including the Minister of State, have discussed in great detail the problems regarding Sellafield on which we are all agreed. There is a major interest among people as to what politicians are doing about this matter. The interest in green issues, environment issues, is rooted in a great concern for the world around us.

The purpose of this motion is not to have an immediate impact on Sellafield because the world knows it will not make such a great difference to Sellafield, but it will allow us to be seen as part of the political consensus, speaking to Government and the Government listening to us, calling in the British ambassador and saying that this position is not good enough, that the health of our citizens is threatened, we expect action and believe what is happening is discourteous, offensive and unacceptable.

We learnt going to school about the importance of a diplomatic note. I did not understood the importance of it, particularly ag déanamh mo chuid ábhar tré Ghaeilge ar scoil sa Daingean na blianta fada ó shin. A diplomatic note did not appear to be a strong measure. Since I have grown older and have come to understand the nuances of the diplomacy, I understand the importance of it. I would like the ambassador to be called in and told not in an offensive way but in no uncertain terms where the Government stands on this matter. He should be handed a note expressing exactly our views on this issue.

Over the past year I thought the cleverest thing the Government did was decide to take the international case on the basis of environmental law. I felt strongly that was the way forward, on the basis of the laws of the sea and environmental law, the areas on which the case was stated internationally. That impressed many people. This is an environmental issue, an issue concerning the seas and the world around us, and I was disappointed we did not make progress on that basis. It was a clever move that was strategically well thought out and I thought it would bring us over the line given the concerns of the world. I wonder whether there was political interference from important, strong and influential countries towards that decision? Recognising that such a suggestion is unfair when I do not have information, I will not go further than that, but it made me highly sceptical.

Europe has let us down on this issue. The Minister of State, I and many of us here know that we worry about the decision the country took on the Nice referendum. I am not criticising people's reasons for it, but in terms of the overall strategic importance of the country it is an issue we have to revisit at some stage. It reflected a lack of credibility in the European Union. This is one instance when Europe might stand full square with Ireland to move things forward. I know the Minister of State has been working very hard in that direction. That is a hugely important move that could be made.

Young people in Ireland, those on the east coast and those concerned about the environment would be impressed by this movement through diplomacy. As stated by Senator Connor, we do not go to war when we fall out with our neighbours, we use the structures to resolve that issue. In any formula we use the structures and work our way through them. In this case the structures are the various international courts which we have tried, the various international relations and the diplomatic channels. It is reasonable to take this motion on board.

We considered at one time in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges whether we should ask the British ambassador to come in, but the clearly understood view was that it would be a breach of diplomacy to expect an ambassador to be answerable to a national Parliament of another country. It is within the rules of diplomacy to do what is being sought here tonight by Senator Ross. That is something that should be considered. It would be important in terms of its impact and would show concern by the Government. It would also show that environmental, green and health issues are everybody's issues, that they are mainstream issues on which we are prepared to take on our strongest allies. We would have to describe the UK as our strongest ally and our nearest neighbour. It is not something we would do lightly and I do not suggest it be done in any way that would be offensive. It is a matter of us placing on the record formally and firmly that we believe the plant at Sellafield is a danger to us, our safety, our health, our environment and our future, and, therefore, we should take the strongest possible line on it. That is the message we ask the Minister of State to give to the British ambassador so that the British Government is clear on it. I know it is not an easy thing to do.

I say, with some regret, that I have raised this issue with some of the trade union movements on the other island and I have got less than a supportive response on the issue which revolves around the areas of employment and investment in Cumbria. Both Governments should be prepared to ensure that the neighbourhood which might lose a huge investment if Sellafied were to be closed would be compensated by a different kind of investment. We need to recognise that what we are suggesting here has import beyond what we are talking about. It is important that those living there recognise—

Mr. Jacob

The serious economic vacuum.

Mr. O'Toole

Exactly. I ask the Minister of State to accept the motion, to call in the British ambassador, do the business, let us get on with it and let us do what Wicklow is famous for, repel all borders.

Mr. Glennon

Like my colleagues, I welcome the Minister of State to the House and congratulate him on his drive, initiative and persistence in dealing with this issue which has dogged the country, particularly the east coast, since its inception over 40 years ago. In supporting the Government amendment to the motion, I do not disagree fundamentally with the sentiments expressed in the motion. It is a particularly good idea and probably has broad support across the House, but the timing of such an act is inappropriate. In politics as in so many other facets of life, timing is everything.

A few facts about Sellafield are worthy of repetition and of placing on the record. It is the largest nuclear complex in the United Kingdom. One immediately wonders at the location of such a huge complex in such an isolated part of the United Kingdom, but we are all well aware of the reasons for its location. It is nearer to this building than the homes of a significant number of the Members of these Houses. That is a fact which can sometimes be lost. The Irish Sea tends to be classified in our minds with other great oceans, but we forget that at its narrowest it is less than 13 miles wide and Sellafield is less than 100 miles from where we sit.

Another fact that is worthy of mention is that Sellafield used to be known as Windscale, a matter to which some of my colleagues referred. Some PR man made a fortune out of the change of name, but he would have made more had he designed a new logo. The perceived necessity for a change of title, as Senator Lydon said, is an inherent admission of the difficulties and the negativity surrounding the place. Senator Lydon mentioned Long Kesh, which was changed to The Maze. My slightly mischievous sense of humour thought of the caterpillar of official Sinn Féin metamorphosing into the butterfly of The Workers' Party which, eventually flew away. I do not suppose there is such an easy solution to Windscale-Sellafield.

I live approximately 80 miles from Sellafield and have lived there all my life. Unfortunately, with a slow burner of a political issue such as this – no pun is intended in the use of the phrase – a high degree of immunity usually develops on the part of the suffering victims. This is very much the case with Windscale-Sellafield. Windscale-Sellafield is not a good neighbour, nor is the State which sponsors it. Windscale-Sellafield is a dirty neighbour. It is a bad neighbour in that it shows absolutely no respect for its neighbours and the spokespersons for Windscale-Sellafield have been shown to be liars in the falsification of the records. That is worthy of repetition.

Mr. Ross

Hear, hear.

Mr. Glennon

I would like to think I am not known for intemperate language, but I would use the word again. The management of Windscale and of the State which sponsors it, in being parties to the falsification of records relating to the emissions from the plant, lied. There is no greater insult that one neighbour can throw at another. It shows an absolute lack of respect and can only lead to a negative reaction, such as we are seeing at present and have seen for many years. Under the auspices of the Minister of State, we are seeing a positive reaction to decades of insults and offence.

The United Kingdom does not appear to have any shame in relation to Windscale-Sellafield, which is no real surprise. The UK authorities are not ashamed of having commissioned the MOX plant in the face of widespread public international pressure. They do not feel shame because of the ludicrous safety bonus paid to Sellafield's chief executive, an obvious admission of inherent danger which is denied by a spin campaign. They are not ashamed of having to spend millions of pounds on public relations and security each year, or of the deception and concealment perpetrated by PR people in response to numerous negative reports produced by countless scientists of international standing from various countries. Heretofore, the principal fear in relation to Windscale-Sellafield has been of leakage or a repeat of the fire which took place some years ago. Since 11 September, however, we have to face the possibility of international terrorist attacks on the power station.

I wish to briefly mention my experience in the north east of England about a week after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. I met a friend who worked in a nuclear plant in the region and I asked him his thoughts about the job in the light of the previous week's events. He told me that things had been very simple until the previous week, as he used to be sanitised when he came out of the reactor after his shift. After the Chernobyl incident, however, he was sanitised before he went in, as the radiation levels in the atmosphere outside the reactor were far higher than inside it. A Senator mentioned earlier that the distance to Chernobyl from here is 20 times greater than the distance from Windscale-Sellafield, which puts into perspective the difficulties that would arise on this island if a catastrophe was to occur in Cumbria.

On 14 June last, I raised the issue of Sellafield and was supported by Senator Maurice Hayes, who referred to "criminal mismanagement and disregard for safety precautions" on the part of the Sellafield authorities. The reference in the Government's amendment to the fact that "the issue of Sellafield is being discussed at the British Irish Council" is worthy of consideration. The council has great potential for the future of this island, arising as it does from the Good Friday Agreement. I am very interested to note that Sellafield is under discussion at the council and I am certain that it represents the way forward. The Government has formed an alliance with the Isle of Man and I assume our concerns are shared in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. In normal circumstances, I would agree with the thrust of the motion, but I support the amendment as the timing is inappropriate.

Mr. Quinn

I congratulate Senator Ross on putting this motion before the House. Good business management does not involve explaining why certain targets were not achieved or why success was not forthcoming; it is about getting things done. I have to confess that I am amazed that we are debating the scandal of Sellafield once more in February 2002. Two years have passed since it was revealed that BNFL had deliberately and systematically falsified safety statistics over a long period of time. Senator Glennon and others have used the word "lies" and I agree that lies were told. The revelations destroyed for me forever the credibility of the company that runs Sellafield and shamed the British Government, which so slavishly protects every move made at Sellafield. The scandal of the falsified figures brought about a radical change in public opinion and attitudes along the east coast, for example, in Newry, the home town of Senator Maurice Hayes who was mentioned by Senator Glennon, Dundalk and Skerries. The deception was the last straw and suddenly people had enough. Those who had listened to people talking for years started to want something to happen.

I made an accusation in relation to the sincerity of Government policy during a debate in this House at the time. The Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, listened to my points but I know he did not agree when I said the Government was pulling its punches as it did not want to upset its relationship with the British Government on Northern Ireland. The Government was making all the right noises by way of public protest, but its body language transmitted a different message. In effect, I charged the Government at that time with giving the UK the impression that regardless of what it said in public, it was not really all that pushed about Sellafield, a charge which was greeted with shock and horror. The Minister of State said the Government was perfectly sincere and that it appreciated the change in public attitude. From then on, he said, the Government would be tougher and more aggressive than ever and no stone would be left unturned to ensure that Sellafield was closed.

Mr. Jacob

I remember Senator Quinn's comments. As we were discussing the matter, the Government was doing the preparatory work for the legal case which we have now embarked upon.

Mr. Quinn

I do not disagree with the Minister of State, but the Government's assurances are beginning to sound a little hollow, two years on, in the light of what has and, particularly, what has not happened in the interim. My accusation is beginning to look even more credible than it did at that time. What has the British Government done since the falsification of the safety records? It did not close Sellafield, which was considered possible, or restrict its scope, which we considered far more likely. The startling thing about the last two years is that Sellafield has been extended by the United Kingdom. The risks, which were unacceptably high anyway, have been greedily multiplied.

One could understand the tenacity of the British Government's attitude to Sellafield if it had a military or national security dimension, but it has not even attempted to make such an argument. The scope of the facility has been increased for purely commercial purposes; the United Kingdom has equated its national interest with greed. As Senator Glennon and others said, this House is closer to Sellafield than the homes of many Senators. I had not thought of it in that way, but it is a well-worded explanation.

The people of Ireland and a large part of Europe have been put at risk for the sake of simple greed. As part of its commercial strategy, the UK is prepared to quibble, prevaricate and hide behind every fig leaf it can find and it has searched for many. When all else fails, the British authorities are prepared to renege on every promise that has been made in the past and to cover up every new instance of risk. I suggest that they are prepared to lie through their teeth, if necessary. Like Senators Ross and Glennon, I do not use the word "lie" too frequently, but it seems to me that the British Government smiles politely as it does exactly that. Would it dare indulge in such brazen behaviour if it was not sure the Irish Government would tolerate it? Would they have dared to take such an arrogant and dismissive attitude as they did at the international tribunal if they had not known in advance that they were fighting against a straw man, someone whose heart was not really in it?

Much of what has been said here tonight is to do with those legal shenanigans. The past few years have shown the legal moves the Minister has talked about for what they really are, a convenient way of buying time and waiting for public anger to abate. A matter like this will always be settled ultimately by political means rather than by recourse to the courts. That is why I support Senator Ross's motion.

What is needed now and has been needed all along is a strong political initiative by the Government. The task is very simple, to convince the British Government that the Irish people mean business on this issue and will not take no for an answer. They will demand that something happens. Much will be made of the international allies the Government has gathered and the legal actions of the last couple of years. The reality is that it is only when the Taoiseach leads a delegation of other European Prime Ministers to 10 Downing Street and demands comprehensive and immediate action that this much talked about international alliance will have any real meaning. We need support at the political level, not just at the legal level. The Government has not understood the vehemence, the strength of feeling in the country on this issue. I worry that if they have not understood it and done something about it, they may find that their lack of action will become an important political issue in the general election.

Dr. Henry

I warmly congratulate Senator Ross on having brought this very important motion before the House. I am a little concerned that the sentiments expressed in the amendment are not being addressed seriously enough by the Government. We can see that a catastrophic accident, so well described by the Minister, would have a terrible effect on all of us and on a very large area of western Europe.

We are in a very poor position regarding the effect of low dose radiation, perhaps from Sellafield. Studies carried out in this country have been thoroughly gone over in recent years by Doctor Geoffrey Deane, the former head of the Medical Social Research Board. He found we had no evidence to show that there was an increase in Down's syndrome or anything like that. We are leaving ourselves in a weak position to show any abnormalities because those in Sellafield could point to our own problems regarding pollution and suggest that various conditions are due to the pollution on this island rather pollution from Sellafield.

When Doctor Margot Wallstrolm, the EU Environment Commissioner, was here recently she pointed out the particular problems we have with water pollution and waste disposal. She commented on the latest report from the Environmental Protection Agency and highlighted in particular the dangers of nitrate pollution. We all know that there is an EU nitrate directive, I think since 1992. We have not brought it into effect in this country yet. Some 38% of our ground water is polluted. Rural supplies are polluted by faeces as well as by nitrates and phosphates. A large proportion of the country is affected by a high proportion of nitrates in the ground water due to the abuse of fertilisers and slurry.

Radiation can cause an increase in instances of cancer. However, it can also be caused by an increase in the level of nitrates in the ground water. It would be very hard for us to suggest that perhaps the increase in oesophageal cancer in this country is due to our proximity to Sellafield when they might raise the nitrates in our ground water. It is the sort of thing we need to clean up rapidly so that if there are deleterious effects to health on this island, we can demonstrate that they do emanate from an extraneous source, if that it is the case, and are not due to our own problems.

Another appalling statistic came out recently from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, which conducted research throughout Europe on the incidence of congenital defects in children. We do not get a proper survey of this in Ireland to show the level of congenital defects on a provincial or even more local basis. These surveyors, who looked at 23 landfill sites all over Europe, found that women who gave birth and lived within three kilometres of old landfill sites had a 40% higher risk of chromosome abnormality in pregnancy than mothers who lived between three and seven kilometres from such sites. A previous study showed a 33% increase in the prevalence of non-chromosonal congenital abnormalities such as spina bifida, cleft palate, heart and gastrointestinal anomalies in children born to women who lived within the three kilometre limit.

We know that the east coast of this country is alive with the most appalling landfill sites. It will be very hard for us to show that the effects of any problem here are due to Sellafield unless we make an effort to clean up our own situation. It is dreadful to think that in County Wicklow, the Minister's county, there is apparently an enormous amount of toxic waste in the landfill sites. In other areas there is hospital waste, which could include radioactive products. In order to demonstrate the damage Sellafield is doing to us we have to be very careful to make sure that we have a baseline here from which we can work. The faster the Government tightens up the regulations regarding landfill and does something about those who flout the laws by bringing them before the courts the better. The nitrate directive should also be introduced as fast as possible.

Mr. Ross

I thank all the Senators who contributed to this debate. I thank the Minister in particular for departing from his supplied script. I appreciate that. When Ministers come in with a script prepared for them by civil servants it is sometimes very frustrating for those of us who put effort into the debate to be then read back something which is quite obviously not a response to the debate.

What the Minister had to say was extremely interesting, very novel and convincing to an extent. I have no doubt that we are all on the same side on this issue. There is no political difference about the ultimate objective of this motion. The difference is about the vigour, the enthusiasm, and whether there is a genuine push by the Government to have Sellafield closed down or whether, as Senator Quinn suggested, they were really playing for time. I would put it a little more strongly. The moves the Governments has taken, while they may have limited value in themselves, show less than complete commitment to closing down Sellafield.

I say that because we have asked in this motion that the Government call in the British ambassador and issue a formal protest but we have had all sorts of excuses as to why that is not a good idea. We are told that the timing is wrong, an old political excuse. The Minister himself said that we had gone beyond the stage of calling in ambassadors, that things had gone so far that we now had the Taoiseach talking to the British Prime Minister on this issue. I wonder, and I will tell the Minister why. We never called in the ambassador before we reached this stage. We have not called in a British ambassador for about 30 years as far as I know. There is a reluctance on behalf of the Government to call in ambassadors because we are frightened of them for other reasons. We do not call in the American ambassador when we disapprove of many of the things the Americans are doing throughout the world. We do not call them in when they execute people, though we disapprove of judicial executions. We do not do that for political reasons, because we have a political alliance with and a political fear of the Americans. For the same reasons, we are reluctant to call in the British ambassador.

It was, I think, Senator O'Dowd who put his finger on this particular flaw in the argument when he said that the Taoiseach should talk to the British Prime Minister about this issue because it is outside the remit of ambassadors. What do the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister say to each other when they meet? Senator O'Dowd put his finger on it – we do not know. Nobody ever tells us. Nobody ever gives us transcripts of those conversations, or a video of the Taoiseach thumping the table and saying that Sellafield must close.

The Government, the Minister of State with responsibility for energy at the Department of Public Enterprise and members of the Opposition know full well what they say. They go through the motions and suggest platitudes. They tell each other that there are political reasons this has to happen, and I understand perfectly why they have to do this. Let us be honest about it, they understand each other's position and they go away having achieved absolutely nothing.

It would disturb the British Government if we did display our disgust at what is happening in a more public way. I am not talking about court cases. A summons to an ambassador in order to make a protest is a very serious event, and it displays that sentiment throughout the world. That is why it is important that this should be done.

Of course the Minister of State's efforts are genuine. In some ways, he has been wronged on this issue. He has been genuine, has put a lot of time into it and has been very sincere in his efforts. The reality is that he has achieved absolutely nothing. Due to the MOX plant, the situation is now worse than it was four years ago when the Government came into office. We cannot just sit back and say that we are taking a court case here, or a court case there. We lose all the court cases.

Mr. Jacob

It is being done. We have started.

Mr. Ross

It has only started and we have lost the first round. We will lose every other round, but it will give us plenty of time to say that we are making an effort, that we are doing everything we can. We should be embarrassing them. We should not be fighting court cases where the odds are against us winning, time after time. We should enter into an alliance with other European countries in a very public way—

Mr. Jacob

Yes.

Mr. Ross

We should be thumping the table at the EU—

Mr. Jacob

Done.

Mr. Ross

We should be calling in ambassadors, as should the Danes. Is that done?

Mr. Lanigan

That is up to them.

Mr. Ross

No, it is not. It is up to us to urge them to join with us.

What happened in this House is unfortunate, because it is a mirror image of what happened in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Behind closed doors in this House, it refused to invite the British ambassador here to give him the opportunity to answer questions in this House. I am not talking about making a demand for his presence, just about issuing an invitation. It was a Government led decision not to embarrass him again. That is why I say we are not as serious as we pretend to be. That is why we must support this motion.

Amendment put.

Tá

Bohan, Eddie.Bonner, Enda.Callanan, Peter.Cassidy, Donie.Chambers, Frank.Cox, Margaret.Farrell, Willie.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Gibbons, Jim.Glennon, Jim.Kett, Tony.Lanigan, Mick.

Leonard, Ann.Lydon, Don.Mooney, Paschal.Moylan, Pat.Nolan, M. J.O'Brien, Francis.O'Donovan, Denis.Ó Fearghail, Seán.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Quill, Máirín.Walsh, Jim.

Níl

Burke, Paddy.Coghlan, Paul.Connor, John.Coogan, Fintan.Cregan, Denis (Dino).Doyle, Joe.Henry, Mary.

McDonagh, Jarlath.Manning, Maurice.Norris, David.O'Dowd, Fergus.Quinn, Feargal.Ridge, Thérèse.Ross, Shane.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Farrell and Gibbons; Níl, Senators Norris and Ross.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Cassidy

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 27 Feb 2002