I move:
That Dáil Éireann, recognising the prospect of a serious gap in our future energy resources, aware of the need to acquaint itself with up-to-date knowledge of the economic, technical and environmental issues associated with nuclear and other sources of energy and in view of its need to determine an appropriate energy policy for the country in the future, deems it expedient:
(1) That a Select Committee consisting of 12 members of Dáil Éireann be appointed to be joined with a Select Committee appointed by Seanad Éireann to form the Joint Committee on any proposal to construct a nuclear power station in Ireland, to examine such proposals and programmes and to report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas;
(2) That the Joint Committee shall be empowered to print and publish such reports, proceedings and submissions together with such related documents as it thinks fit; and
(3) That the Joint Committee shall be empowered to hold public hearings and commission expert evidence on such proposals, including national energy resources and alternative sources of energy supply to the nation.
The motion is dated February 20 and has been circulated to Members. I note that in recent days the Minister has tabled an amendment to it but our motion is self-explanatory. We in the Labour Party, supported by Fine Gael, have suggested to the House that a select joint committee be established to examine proposals of the nature outlined in the motion and the respective programmes of the Government and the ESB and to report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas. The proposal is eminently reasonable and we are perplexed, to say the least, that the Minister has decided to table an amendment negating, in effect, the proposition contained in this motion. We suggest that this motion is an acid test of the policy statement made by the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy at the weekend that the Government wish to see the maximum public debate on the question of the development of nuclear power in the Republic. He waxed eloquently at the Ard-Fheis about issuing directions to the ESB to make the maximum possible amount of information available to responsible opinion, yet he denies Deputies and Senators the opportunity to get together around the table. They should be able to sit down with experts and with their own secretariat and receive submissions from interested organisations. This would enable them to consider in an objective and impartial manner the issues involved. I am, therefore, very surprised at the content of the amendment suggested by the Minister.
I suggest that responsible opinion, whether it resides in the political parties or in the ESB or elsewhere, would not support the Minister's amendment. All political parties are concerned about economic growth and industrial expansion and these twin objectives are the cornerstones of the policies of all the political parties. Inevitably, these policies mean that we require massive growth in energy consumption. We are all aware that since the Second World War the energy demands of the world have risen by about 8 per cent per annum and in the past eight or ten years the energy requirements in this country have practically doubled. Some 80 per cent of the energy production here is dependent on imported oil. Even with conservation measures and even if the industrialised nations were to moderate substantially their demands, the demand for energy is likely to increase. Growth in world population is about 2 per cent per annum, and we must bear in mind that the expectations of the developing countries are immense and that they will require an increasing consumption of energy. I do not profess to be an expert in this field but it appears in the context of the tremendous demands for energy that nuclear energy will have a role to play in the future.
We should also note that Ireland's current electricity consumption per capita is the lowest in the EEC. Even if we accept the ESB projections, Ireland will still be the lowest per capita consumer of electricity in the EEC in 1980 and up to 1985. Despite the massive reserves of coal and the very substantial natural gas production in the UK, their resources are still relatively scarce and they have utilised nuclear energy in diversifying their general resources capacity. I do not want to belabour the point but I would simply say that the stark effects of the Irish energy situation are well known to the Minister and to the House. The Minister has received a submission from the board of the ESB, though I have not received a copy. It is a 79-page document giving the various options, projections and alternatives in terms of energy production up to the end of this century. This document has been in the hands of the Minister for a number of months. I am surprised, because it appears he will take a rather precipitate and arbitrary decision in that regard in the immediate future. If one can read between the lines, he seems to have come down firmly, without any public debate or White Paper or very much explanation in this House, on the construction somewhere in Ireland of a nuclear power station. This House is entitled to a joint committee to review this imminent decision and to act as a watchdog. Even if the Minister announces tomorrow morning that we are to have a nuclear power station, it will take the best part of ten years to have it commissioned and in operation. This is common knowledge in the context of the construction of nuclear stations.
The basic suggestion in the Labour Party motion that we should have a joint committee which would have a parliamentary role in relation to such massive development is eminently fair and reasonable. I would point out to the Minister that we have an antiquated system of debate in this House, whereby we have a conventional exchange of opinions across the floor such as we are engaged in this evening. That kind of exchange is totally inadequate to consider in any depth the issues involved. It does not permit extensive rational discussion or policy formation and it does not provide the opportunity for Deputies to hear expert opinion. A joint committee would constitute the most objective method of Oireachtas evaluation and I strongly suggest this to the Minister. I had hoped that he would accept our motion.
I had hoped this joint committee would act as a dispassionate and impartial parliamentary forum to evaluate the issues involved. Indeed, I had hoped and would have thought that any Government approach to energy policy would have as a prerequisite the publication of a White Paper on national energy resources. The Minister might rightly say that the Coalition did not do this while in office. He might even say that we were seriously remiss in not doing so and, regretfully, I must agree with him. But surely Fianna Fáil should not compound that error. It seems that the Minister is bowing to the conventional wisdom such as he now possesses with just the ESB report in his hand and bowing also perhaps to the conventional wisdom of his Department. From my experience of nearly ten years in the Dáil I have never regarded that Department, with no disrespect to the distinguished public servants present, as having a great reputation in terms of innovation and energy policy and therefore I had never expected to see a prospect of a White Paper; if it did not happen under Deputy Barry, it is not likely to happen under Deputy O'Malley. White Papers seem to be something that that Department run away from.
It is a matter of serious concern that a very arbitrary Government decision involving massive capital expenditure and investment is about to be taken by the Cabinet, rather than by the Minister, with the absolute minimum of public discussion and with no publication of a White Paper. I doubt if that situation would be tolerated by public opinion in any other west European country. It will be impossible for Deputies and Senators to feel adequately informed on these issues even after extensive reading on the subject because of the absence of a joint committee. We shall be dependent on public relations handouts from the companies concerned, on Press releases from the Minister and on our own very limited resources in trying to evaluate the situation.
I do not want to postulate that a nuclear power station in any part of the country is necessarily a Pandora's box containing the prospect of all dangers for the country. Neither do I believe that a nuclear power station will be the ultimate means of saving us in any future economic depression in the event of oil prices rocketing. The truth tends to lie between these extremes. In that context, I have never regarded myself as an extremist but anybody with a serious interest in nuclear energy will be aware of the very strong conflicting opinions that exist about the expansion of nuclear energy in this country, in western Europe and America, in the Soviet Union, China and the sub-continents. There is a strong responsible body of opinion here, and more particularly in Europe, which holds the view that any such expansion will in the long run prove detrimental to health, environmental structures and the very survival of mankind. Equally, there is a very strong body of opinion which holds that economic prosperity and social progress here and in Europe depend on the further utilisation of nuclear energy.
There seems to be a very common myth that the ESB, in evaluating these issues, have said to the Minister: "Nuclear energy—we want to build a power station at Carnsore Point". I understand that is not so and that the ESB laid options before the Minister namely, coal stations, a series of coal power stations, fuelled with imported Australian coal with the alternative of conventional nuclear power stations. I believe the ESB have said to the Minister that the decision should be his because there are other variables in the problem. There is the problem of natural gas. The full information is available to the Minister. We do not know if the Minister is about to decide that the ESB allocation of natural gas in Cork is to be chopped or not. If it is, a different problem faces the ESB as regards future power generation. We do not know what is in the confidential files of the Department in relation to oil development and bringing it ashore. The Minister has the most up-to-date information in that regard. I would stress that the ESB do not know the situation as regards natural gas and oil resources off the Continental Shelf because the ESB are not in that business. I share the school of thought that the ESB should have been in that business long ago but that is another argument for another evening.
Therefore, the country has the alternatives of coal or nuclear power. They appear to be the most reliable sources of power and it is up to the Minister to make up his mind. Unfortunately, it seems that he has not only made up his mind but that he has dived headlong into the situation of saying: "We shall have a nuclear power station." In this House we are in no position to assess whether the Minister is making up his mind on an arbitrary basis or on the basis of the fullest possible information. We shall give him the benefit of the doubt in that regard.
There has been a good deal of public comment and discussion about alternatives to coal and nuclear power. I assume that we want to reduce our dependence on imported oil and I am all in favour of diversification in that context. I do not know a great deal about these alternatives such as solar energy which has been mentioned from time to time. We have had alternatives in relation to wind, waves, tidal propositions, suggestions in relation to alleged underdevelopment of hydro capacity and so on, and it seems to me that the majority of authoritative opinion in Europe is of the view that these alternatives will not be likely to contribute any major significant addition to our total energy requirements in the next 20 years or so.
Having read as much as I could on the subject in the last few months I am inclined to that view. I appreciate there is a body of opinion in favour of what we call the clean renewable energies, but although not denying the potential of such systems it seems to me we will have to depend mainly on fossil fuels and nuclear energy to meet our future energy requirements. I have come to that not very firm view and if a joint committee were set up I would relish the prospect of having my information expanded and possibly my views changed if I found the information convincing.
The alternatives that have been mentioned have not yet reached the stage of development which coal, oil and nuclear energy had already reached ten or 20 years ago. We must bear in mind in Ireland that we are talking about the general prospect of a future full-sized commercial nuclear generating station-one or two or three such stations as we decide on general energy strategy.
I had hoped that a joint committee would also have been given the opportunity to take into account the reports of recent initiatives of the EEC in organising public hearings on nuclear energy. There have been two such hearings, one last December and one in January, and I had hoped that the proposed joint committee would have been given an opportunity to review the evidence presented at those hearings. There is a large volume of other evidence available, such as the report of the Windscale hearings, and I would have thought the proposed committee would have been given an opportunity to consider such evidence in detail. Apparently this is not to be and we shall simply have to badger the Joint Library Committee to spend a great deal of money purchasing copies of this data so that it will be available to Members because the Minister apparently is not disposed to consult any further with the Members of the House.
There is also available from the various nuclear energy authorities in Europe, the UK, the US, the OECD and many multinational selling agencies, a great deal of information which could have been made available readily to members of the proposed joint committee, but unfortunately the Minister and the Government, by refusing to set up that committee, have in effect deprived us of that data, a matter of considerable regret.
I feel that even at this late stage the Minister should have sufficient confidence in Deputies of all parties to permit the setting up of the joint committee to enable us to review the situation. There are increasing numbers of nuclear installations in Europe and an increasing number of associated nuclear industries. We have had a number of technical incidents associated with them, a number of which have been publicised. It is alleged that a number have been covered up: the CIA in America have been accused of this by responsible opinion in America, but we will not be able to assess that, apparently. There have been problems associated with the proliferation of atomic weapons but apparently the House will not be given an opportunity to consider these issues.
We have the long standing policy of neutrality, non-alignment, and inevitably if we import a nuclear capacity, even of conventional power generating status, the issues of non-alignment and neutrality will arise, particularly in relation to other countries with nuclear capacities and in relation to multinationals, but apparently the Minister does not want to consult with the House in that regard. I find his attitude in that respect amazing; it is a policy that would not be followed by any other European Minister responsible for energy.
There have been major problems in many countries associated with the reprocessing of waste nuclear fuel and of course there is the overriding problem of long-term storage. I have read reports in which the ESB have stated that in the event of radioactive waste arising it would be exported. I must confess that I take that with a pinch of salt in the long-term because whereas many of the multinational companies will sell fuel readily, they are not disposed at this stage to do any great research into or to devote any great expenditure on the disposal of radioactive waste. I do not know the precise submissions the Minister may have received on that respect but I am concerned about his parliamentary response.
I am not for a moment suggesting that we should not have a power station at Carnsore Point which, apparently, is the senior option of the ESB, marginally as the Minister said, but if people raise questions such as those in relation to the disposal of radioactive waste—as we know, several tons of this have been disposed of off the various continental shelves in steel containers—I suppose the Minister is not unduly worried, but it is not very constructive for the Minister simply to come along and say: "We know people are concerned", and then to indulge at the Ard-Fheis in the usual republican rhetoric of saying: "Well if they do not want it at Carnsore Point we will transfer it to Mayo or Sligo or to County Clare and the people there will be damn glad to have it." That level of Ard-Fheis contribution on a serious issue of this nature is not conducive to an orderly objective public debate on the real issues involved. I was surprised at the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy, Deputy O'Malley, who is usually well briefed in matters such as this, descending to that kind of transferred retrospective rhetoric. I do not think such a proposition was contained in the ESB report which he had received.
The Government amendment to the Labour motion points to the need for urgent decisions by the Government on the ESB generation programme. Even if one accepts that need, the Minister is well aware that it would be eight to ten years before a nuclear plant would be commissioned. I presume a series of coal plants could be commissioned at a much earlier stage. I see no reason why there should not be in operation a joint committee of this House. Members are going to be kept in the dark by the Minister with regard to the Government's considerations in connection with health, safety and the environmental issues associated with nuclear energy. Apparently we will not have any consultation with or information from the Minister other than the occasional Press release. It appears that any future review by Dáil Éireann will depend on scarce Government time or on ministerial convenience. There will be no research or secretarial assistance given to Deputies, even Fianna Fáil Deputies, to review the issues involved.
All of this is in stark contrast to the situation in parliamentary energy committees in Britain, France, Sweden, Holland or the United States. I am a member of the Economic Affairs Committee of the Council of Europe. We have had before us a number of reports on nuclear energy and at nearly every one of the meetings we have had Members of Parliament who are expert in at least one or two of the major disciplines. Many of them have a basic qualification in engineering or science. Some of them have technological expertise or a background in medicine. On the other hand, not one single member of the Fianna Fáil Cabinet has even the slightest competence in the engineering, medical, scientific or technological disciplines. I do not think any of the Ministers of State have such a background. While they may have some economic expertise in evaluating the cost involved, I doubt if the Fianna Fáil Cabinet have the capacity to absorb all the implications involved.
The Minister said he had instructed the board of the ESB to make available to responsible bodies all relevant data and I want to take the Minister up on that matter. I would ask him to place in the Library a copy of the submission he received from the ESB. Presumably Members of this House are responsible people. This will be a further test of the Minister's concern that the public should have the maximum amount of information. I want the Minister to tell us if we will have available here a copy of the submission by the ESB regarding energy requirements to the year 2000. Will he put that 79-page document in the Oireachtas Library so that we may read it and make up our minds on what the Minister is up to in this matter?
I do not know what kind of reactor the ESB may have in mind in the event of their getting a nuclear option from the Minister. I do not know what conventional system of coal generation they have in mind and, therefore, there is difficulty in commenting on this matter. I am sure of one thing, namely, that the scale of capital investment involved will be massive. I do not know the current cost of having a 1,000 Mw nuclear power station—perhaps it is in the region of £500 million to £600 million. Two or three years ago some people said the cost would be £350 million. Let us take a figure of £400 million to £500 million—I do not think it would be less than that; probably it would be nearer to £550 million. Investment of that magnitude will probably be the largest single investment in the history of the State and it is entirely appropriate that the Houses of the Oireachtas should have a prior opportunity of considering the question of such investment. There is no doubt that many members of the public are genuinely concerned about the safety of nuclear power. Many responsible industrial safety experts are genuinely concerned about the long-term effect of low-level radiation to which workers in nuclear plants, and the public generally, may be exposed. A useful way to allay those fears and of ensuring that the national interest is served would be the setting up of a joint committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Another major concern is the question of the escape of radioactivity to surrounding areas. Such concern must be taken into account by any joint committee. Therefore, it is essential that persons expressing this concern should have the opportunity of coming before the joint committee, of making their case and giving us an opportunity of examining the situation. The single most intractable problem is the disposal of radioactive waste and that is a matter that the committee should examine carefully. Unfortunately it appears now that the only prospect of examination that the country will have will be an oral planning hearing by An Bord Pleanála to examine the implications involved. That will be totally inadequate and will not ensure that the matter is dealt with adequately. Therefore, I urge the Minister to let us have a joint committee as I have outlined. Even an oral expert hearing by An Bord Pleanála is not a suitable forum to discuss the wide-ranging and major issues involved. My understanding is that the ESB are not opposed to a public hearing. In fact, I think they would welcome a joint committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas. I hope the Minister will give us an opportunity of dealing with the matter on a co-operative basis.
