I thank you for giving me the opportunity to raise this issue again. I had expected either the Minister for the Environment or the Minister of State at that Department to be here to answer some of the questions I wish to pose. I have nothing personal against the Minister present but I have heard on a number of occasions the viewpoint of the Department of Industry and Energy on this matter. I received a detailed reply from the Minister for the Environment to a question I raised on 30 June and I will refer to that later. I hope tonight to have the problem debated in public again.
Since the matter was raised in June the issue of nuclear dumping and discharge into the Irish Sea from land-based source has taken on serious proportions. In my contribution on 30 June I detailed the discharges taking place into the Irish Sea. As a public representative I find myself in a difficult situation in that I am listening to conflicting scientific statements of opinion and due to lack of information I cannot draw a firm conclusion as to the nature and extent of the problem. On the one hand we hear that sea disposal of nuclear waste is undesirable because of exposure to sea currents and the fear that radio-active particles will be carried into the food chain. Recently serious questions have been raised on two different issues. The "Panorama" programme, which I did not see, raised serious questions regarding the Windscale operations and last week an article in the British Medical Journal reported the cases of six women who have given birth to mongol children.
I must make a strong protest against the way some of these reports have been sensationalised by some sectors of the press. I am not trying to make political capital out of these reports, as alleged recently by a professor at Trinity College. Dr. Ian McAuley published an article in the Sunday Independent on 6 November in which he criticised Irish politicians for reacting in an opportunist fashion to reports, and he accused politicians of showing some interest only when a programme such as the “Panorama” programme on Windscale was screened. He further accused politicians of not releasing information. He stated as follows: “I do not think any evidence has been produced to suggest that any damage is being done to the population here from radio-activity in the Irish Sea”. It can be seen from the record that most of the politicians who have raised this question have done so when there was no publicity on the issue and it was not a matter of live public interest. The matter has only recently aroused public interest due to some press reports. At last it is being treated seriously. I would agree with the conclusion that no firm scientific evidence is available to link up the reports we have been hearing about with the discharges from Windscale but serious questions remain unanswered and they will not be answered unless public interest and awareness are aroused.
The Nuclear Energy Board were represented recently by their Mr. Kavanagh in an interview on television. While attempting to assure everybody that there was no reason for concern he was reluctant when questioned further to give any unqualified assurance that there is no health risk to the Irish population. The Minister in his reply will be giving the reactions of the Nuclear Energy Board. To a large degree their findings and records are meaningless because they are very dependent on figures produced from British sources. They are the wrong body to monitor the situation. They have a history of being pro-nuclear and this whole question should be investigated by an environmental body who would monitor it from an environmental viewpoint. They should also have the right to monitor along the British coastline. The monitoring being done on the Irish coastline has shown that there is no scientific evidence of any problem.
I am glad that the Tánaiste raised the question of nuclear dumping at last week's London Summit. However, the statement that the British Government will carry out a special inquiry into the Windscale operation does not satisfy me. I will not be satisfied until such time as I see how the special inquiry will be carried out, who will be carrying out the investigation, whose monitoring figures will be used, whose advice will be accepted and how long the inquiry will take. Without answers to these questions we cannot judge the usefulness of the inquiry. The indications to date are that this inquiry will be carried out by the British who have a vested interest in the Windscale operation.
On 30 June, I put a question to the Minister for the Environment asking him if he would make a detailed report of the meeting in Berlin in early June 1983 of the Paris Convention; the discussions that had taken place with Britain on the question of the dumping of nuclear waste and on the ratification of the Paris Convention; and if he will immediately open discussions with Britain on the question of nuclear waste discharge from land-based sources in accordance with Article 9 of the Paris Convention. In his reply the Minister said:
As regards the first part of the question, a report on the outcome of the full meeting of the Paris Commission will be circulated by the secretariat in about one month's time. When the item on the agenda dealing with discharges of radio-active substances from land-based sources was under discussion the Irish representative set out this country's position on the matter and, in particular, expressed our concern to protect our marine resources, fishing, industry and coasts from pollution from whatever source and to protect man and the environment from excessive levels of radio-activity. Our representative requested the commission to initiate further scientific studies with the objective of determining more precisely the measures to be adopted to deal with radioactive discharges. The commission decided to refer specific questions relating to such discharges to the Nuclear Energy Agency for further consideration.
Regarding the second part of the question, no bilateral discussions have taken place between the Irish and UK Governments on the question of dumping of nuclear waste. However, this matter was fully discussed at the recent meeting of the London Dumping Convention at which both Ireland and the UK were represented. At that meeting Ireland's position was fully outlined.
I would like to know what is Ireland's position because this House has never been informed of it. I hope the Minister of State at the Department of Industry and Energy tells us tonight or the Minister for the Environment or his Minister of State makes a statement to the House at some stage or that we are given a full debate on the problem not just a short debate like this one. The Minister's reply continued:
As regards the third part of the question, the necessary arrangements for the ratification of the Paris Convention by this country are at an advanced stage.
When the convention has been formally ratified our position on the question of nuclear waste discharge from land-based sources will be reviewed with a view to initiating discussions with the UK in accordance with Article 9 of the convention.
My information is that, even though this is an urgent matter, the Paris Convention has not been ratified. What discussions have taken place? The Minister for the Environment finally stated:
I might add that preliminary discussions have already taken place about the possibility of concluding a formal inter-governmental agreement between Ireland and the United Kingdom on the question of exchange of information about nuclear installations generally and the possibility of discharges from them.
I have asked a few questions concerning what has happened since 30 June. I am aware, in asking them, of the new attitude adopted by Ireland since the Minister for the Environment and his Minister of State have taken office.
I would like to remind the House that the Government departed from their usual stance at the London Convention in relation to the dumping of nuclear waste at sea when they allied themselves to Spain in backing a motion banning dumping of nuclear waste at sea until scientific studies are concluded. Britain are violating that convention by continuing their dumping programme. I believe we must now demand from Britain the right to monitor their discharges because there is a serious question about how these discharges are affecting our environment. The Danish Government have been continually undertaking a detailed monitoring of the Windscale operation and how this has been affecting the North Sea and the Danish population. How much more vigilant should our Government be because of our proximity to the Windscale operation.
I will repeat what I said on 7 July in an Adjournment Debate about nuclear waste disposal from land-based sources: I said:
This problem is a serious international one affecting every country and it has not been aired adequately by this House.
I asked the Minister on that day to allow time in the new session to have this problem discussed in detail. The time is long overdue to have it discussed in detail. In July I asked the Minister to ratify the Paris Convention and to immediately seek a meeting with Britain to discuss the two problems, nuclear dumping at sea and nuclear dumping from land-based sources. I also said that this problem cannot be solved in a satisfactory manner with Britain because I believe our policies are seriously compromised by our inability to bring forward a proper policy on the disposal of toxic waste. Since mentioning that point in the House some months ago we are no nearer to developing a policy on toxic waste. I noticed a press report recently that the IIRS had finalised the study of a site in the greater Dublin area. How near are we now to a final decision?
