By agreement and notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders Members will be called in Private Members' Time this evening as follows: from 7 o'clock to 7.10 p.m., a Fianna Fáil speaker, from 7.10 p.m. to 7.15 p.m., a Government speaker, from 7.15 p.m. to 7.37 p.m. a Government speaker, from 7.37 p.m. to 7.42 p.m., a Workers' Party speaker, from 7.42 p.m. to 7.50 p.m., a Fianna Fáil speaker, from 7.52 p.m. to 8 o'clock a Fianna Fáil speaker, from 8 o'clock to 8.05 p.m. a Fianna Fáil speaker, from 8.05 p.m. to 8.10 p.m. a Fianna Fáil speaker, from 8.10 p.m. to 8.15 p.m. a Government speaker and from 8.15 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. a Fianna Fáil speaker.
Private Members' Business. - Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing Plant: Motion (resumed).
Is the motion to allocate time for this evening's Private Members' Time as read out by the Minister of State agreed?
Agreed.
The following motion was moved by Deputy G. Brady on Tuesday, 11 March 1986:
"That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to demand that the British Government have regard to the vote of the European Parliament on 20 February, 1986, calling for the closing down of the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield, in view not only of the danger to life and health from accidental leaks and emissions to date, but also in view of the serious risk of a major accident with incontrollable consequences, and in view of the fact that plans for the further expansion of Sellafield involve a heavy traffic of ships carrying nuclear waste in the Irish Sea.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:—
"Dál Éireann, in view of five recent incidents at the Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing Plant, supports the measures already taken by the Government:—
(a) in conveying to the UK Government the Irish public's concern that the number of incidents although of limited radiological impact has caused a loss of confidence in the safety of the operation of the Sellafield plant;
(b) in calling on the British Prime Minister to ensure a thorough review of safety at the plant;
and, while recognising that the setting up of an investigation into Sellafield by the UK Health and Safety Executive is a positive step, supports this Government's arrangement of Ministerial discussions at European level with a view to establishing a community inspection process to determine independently whether Sellafield can operate safely or whether its operations should cease or be suspended until satisfactory standards of safety are achieved."
—(Minister for Energy.)
Deputy Vincent Brady has until 7.10 p.m.
Last night before moving the Adjournment I referred to the blatant irregularities in the Sellafield plant that are being totally ignored by the authorities and by the British Government. Since then a new hard hitting report has just been issued slamming this plant which to date has been the source of more than 300 accidents and radioactive leaks since it opened. The report also confirmed our worst fears as expressed previously by other experts that because of the massive discharge of waste the Irish Sea is the most radioactive stretch of water in the whole world.
Medical research in Ireland points to a high incidence of physically and mentally handicapped babies born in certain parts of the country along the coastline. It surely is no coincidence that the incidence of cancer and leukaemia in certain areas, geographically located closer to Sellafield, is much higher than anywhere else in the country.
Despite that evidence the British Government and BNF Limited continue to assert that there is no danger from the plant and that maximum safety standards are being maintained. It has even reached the ridiculous stage where the recent report stating that reactors should be shut down was rejected by British Nuclear Fuels Limited and they went on to say that they had asked consultants to prepare another report based on alternative engineering assumptions.
Presumably they intend to continue this masquerade until they receive a report which will be considered suitable for them. The irresponsible line being taken by these people is unbelievable and their attitude must be considered highly criminal when weighed against the huge serious risks that are being taken.
My party leader, over 12 months ago, when speaking about Sellafield in the House said that the people responsible should be prosecuted and brought before the courts. At that time Government Ministers took his comments rather lightly but, in view of the recent serious accidents, and in retrospect I am sure that the Taoiseach and his Government must now take that statement seriously, the Taoiseach should be impressing our insistence to the British Government that the plant must be closed. Sellafield is a very old nuclear station and a number of well known engineers said recently that the designers of the early nuclear stations had not taken the possibility of earthquakes into account. A shocking discovery was contained in one of the recent reports which indicated that in the event of even a light earth tremor nothing would prevent a fire of devastating proportions.
There have been a couple of earthquakes of significance not too far from Sellafield, particularly in 1979 and 1984 but one of the main problems apparently is that it is impossible to check the bolts surrounding the reactor pressure vessel because of their positioning inside the concrete shield of the reactor and it is impossible to check whether they are even damaged already at this time. It is also unlikely that they could be repaired because of the intense radioactivity inside the shield. It is not unreasonable to assume that there will be other earth tremors in the Irish Sea which could put the plant at final risk and the continuing operation poses a direct threat to the whole of northern Europe but particularly to the Irish coast.
European laws are being deliberately ignored as a number of minimal safety measures laid down by the European Parliament are not being complied with in the case of Sellafield. The British Government are clearly in breach of directives of the European Commission and proceedings should be instituted by the Commission against the British Government.
The European Community Environmental Action Programme drawn up for the purpose of investigating the level of radioactivity in the Mediterranean and the North Sea over a five year period should now also be extended to cover the Irish Sea because, as I have already pointed out, the Irish Sea is the most radioactive stretch of water in the world.
The urgency of this very serious matter is reflected in the fact that the European Parliament recently passed four motions calling for, among other things, the closure of Sellafield as it presently exists. The members of that parliament did not take these motions lightly and it is very obvious that there is a huge amount of international public opinion which calls for an end to the Sellafield operations.
The fullest possible information about the extent and causes of radioactive emissions has not been admitted by the British Government and it is appalling that in the circumstances the British Prime Minister has repeated over and over that her Government are satisfied that Sellafield is not a cause of danger or risk to anybody either in Britain or elsewhere.
It has been proved recently that information which emerged from an investigation which was commissioned by the British Government some years ago about the operation and safety of the plant has since proved to be downright false in many respects and this obviously does not create confidence in the minds of the general public not only about the way in which this plant is operated but also about the irresponsible attitude that has been adopted by the British Government.
There are, however, in Britain a substantial number of politicians who have called for closure to allow a full safety inquiry but unfortunately that call has also been ignored. It is now quite clear that Sellafield represents an ever increasing hazard to the environment, marine life, animal life and above all human life. One of the greatest worries people have is that, whilst so many reports have been commissioned, the depth of information coming to the public has apparently been censored and the public have not been made aware of the full contents of these reports.
Some individuals involved in the preparation of reports have made certain statements from time to time which have been very disquieting and it is most disturbing that recently the Minister responsible in Britain stated that the record where the operation of Sellafield is concerned is second to none. The Minister's statement cannot, however, give any further cause for confidence in the light of the way in which the Black inquiry was conducted and the misinformation that it produced. No country should be allowed to impose on another the consequences of the disposal of radioactive waste from a nuclear plant simply for the sake of its own nuclear development and employment.
The Fianna Fáil motion is a very responsible one but the amendment tabled by the Government is meaningless in the light of what is happening. I believe the point has now been reached when the Government have no option but to demand the closure of Sellafield. I urge the Minister to accept our motion which is submitted in a non-contentious and non-controversial way.
The Government share fully the general concern at the problems continually being posed by the existence of the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant and do not need to be reminded of their responsibility to the Irish public in this matter. Since assuming office the Government have voiced concern at every opportunity, both in bilateral discussions with the UK authorities and in various international fora, at the dangers to the environment inherent in the discharge of wastes form this plant to the Irish Sea. Indeed, we did not have to wait for today's reports to tell us the Irish Sea is the most radioactive in the world.
While operations have been carried on at the Sellafield plant since the fifties, as far as I can see, prior to the assumption of office by the present administration, little or no notice was taken of these activities at Government level, nor was there any apparent awareness of the effects discharges from this plant might have on the Irish environment. In the very first months of their term of office, however, this Government began to take up actively with the other Governments concerned both the Sellafield discharges and an allied matter, the dumping of nuclear waste in the Atlantic south-west of Ireland. Since then, this Government have been pressing consistently for a solution to the problem. I was part of a parliamentary group who visited Sellafield two years ago.
No later than last week, in the Council of Environment Ministers of the EC, the Minister for the Environment forcibly put on record the Irish Government's concern at the escalation of the problems at Sellafield. He said that our gravest worry was the possible public health risks, but that we were also concerned for the effects on our air quality and marine environment and the danger to Ireland's image as a clean and unpolluted country. He went on to say that Ireland would shortly be proposing the establishment of a European inspection force and besought the Council to interest itself more vigorously in this whole problem.
Outside of bilateral discussions between Ireland and the UK the principal forum through which the Department of the Environment have been making their case for the elimination of discharges of nuclear waste to the sea has been the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-Based Sources, generally known as "the Paris Convention". Under this convention, which applies to the north-east Atlantic area and which has been ratified by both Ireland and the UK, the discharge of certain specified substances, toxic, radioactive etc. to the sea is prohibited or limited. Over the last few years Ireland has taken a leading role in getting the convention to assume a more active part in the control of radioactive discharges to the sea — particularly the Irish Sea, because of the low dilution factor, compared with the Atlantic for example.
At the last annual meeting of the convention a motion was passed declaring the firm intention of all members to take account of the best available technology in order to reduce radioactive discharges coming from all nuclear industries, including reprocessing plants, to the marine environment. I made this comment here almost two years ago when speaking on the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution, on 30 May 1984. So, tragically today's reports are not news to us.
The meeting also called on states which have nuclear reprocessing plants to give priority to discharges from these plants. The relevant states — the UK and France — are to adopt effective measures to deal with discharges as a matter of urgency and to report back to the convention on measures planned and applied, and the results achieved.
We welcome the various measures which the UK authorities have taken in recent years to improve the methods of treatment of waste before discharging, thus leading to a considerable reduction in contamination levels; but our ultimate aim must continually be the ending of the discharges altogether.
The Government disapproves of any radioactive discharges from Sellafield to the Irish Sea and we have continuously sought to have these discharges minimised and then eliminated as soon as possible. We are advised by the technical experts that the present discharges from Sellafield authorised by the UK authorities are well within the safety limits set down by the recognised international advisory bodies and, they say, pose no threat to health or the environment generally. We accept this advice, but at the same time realise that it is based on the present state of knowledge of the subject and that perhaps future scientific discoveries may show that these discharges in fact all along have been causing environmental damage of a nature at present unforeseen. It would then, of course, be too late to undo what has been done.
We are, therefore, opposed to all discharges from Sellafield, even those authorised in good faith by the UK authorities. The recent series of accidental discharges from the plant have, of course, considerably highlighted our anxieties and give added weight to the argument that the only safe course is to abandon these discharges altogether.
I earnestly request that we have a reasoned debate on this subject. The Government are opposed to any radioactive discharges from Sellafield to the Irish Sea and have called for these discharges to be minimised and to be eliminated as soon as possible through the use of the best available technology. That is the Government's clear position.
This position has been stated at every opportunity both to the British authorities and at all appropriate international fora.
The Euratom Treaty, to which Ireland belongs, requires compliance with basic standards for radiological protection. This treaty give the Commission several responsibilities with regard to the control and monitoring of radioactive emissions from nuclear installations in member states.
It is our contention, therefore, that the Sellafield issue is not only a problem for Ireland but must also be of serious concern to the European Commission who can take effective action. It is for this reason that we have been stressing in discussions with Commissioner Clinton-Davies the need, as we see it, for a Community inspection force.
The House will know about the recent incidents at Sellafield. After the first two in 1984, we called for an immediate meeting of the contact group set up by the Minister for Energy and Mr. Patrick Jenkin, the then Minister for the Environment in Britain. Our officials were assured that the radiological emissions in these incidents were not significant.
The Government recognise that the recent incidents at Sellafield are, in themselves, of little radiological significance to the Irish population. This must be stated clearly to avoid hysteria. However, it is the frequency of such incidents that has caused the Government and the Irish people to lose confidence in the safety of the plant. These incidents have caused concern about the possibility of an accident happening in the future which could have consequences for this country. This has given rise to an increasing public concern at the continued operation of the plant. This concern must also be shared by the British public.
It is important to note that the Euratom Treaty requires adherence to limits, not only to limits but also to the principle of ALARA — that emissions should be very low. In a case in the UK Crown Court last year British Nuclear Fuels Limited were found guilty, inter alia, of not complying with ALARA. It cannot be denied, therefore, that there is evidently scope for improving operations at the plant. The House is aware that a programme was introduced recently at Sellafield which is designed to effect significant reduction of discharges. However, the need for reassurance regarding the safety of the plant remains.
A recent report stated that a nuclear scientist, Dr. Jakeman, formerly employed at Sellafield, had revealed that the figures given to the Black inquiry on radioactive discharges in the 1950s were inaccurate. The report claimed that BNFL had admitted that the levels were actually 40 times greater than stated to the Black inquiry. It was also reported that the chairman of the inquiry, Sir Douglas Black, had commented that he considered that he will not be altering his conclusions. It has been confirmed with the UK DHSS and the report is substantially correct.
As long as this type of occurrence is allowed to continue there will remain a loss of confidence at the continued operation of Sellafield. The fears associated with this loss of confidence can only be allayed by a thorough review of the safety of the plant.
As I said earlier, the Minister for Energy met the then Minister for the Environment in Britain, Mr. Jenkin, in February 1984 to express our concern and to discuss the discharges and dumpings of radioactive waste. As a result, a contact group were established between Ireland and the UK to form a channel of communication between the two countries on nuclear matters. The group have been meeting at regular intervals, most recently on 14 February, when the Irish Government expressed our deep concern at recent incidents at Sellafield.
The Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, met the then UK Secretary for the Environment, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, in February 1984 to express our concern regarding Sellafield and to discuss the issue of the discharge and dumping of radioactive waste. As a result of that meeting a contact group were established between Ireland and the UK to provide for a formal channel of communication between the two countries on nuclear matters.
The group have since met at regular intervals, most recently on 14 February 1986 when the Irish Government's concern at the recent incidents was expressed. Through this contact group and by other formal means, the Government have taken measures to ensure that we would be kept well abreast of all developments at Sellafield. As a necessary improvement to the working of the contact group, it is our intention to seek a full meeting of officials of all relevant departments and bodies in the UK and the Republic. This should contribute to greater cohesion in the information being made available to us. I should add that at last February's meeting of the contact group a procedure for prompt notification of incidents was agreed and notification of incidents which occurred following that meeting has been almost immediate.
I assume that the announcement by the UK authorities of the appointment of a team of 12 inspectors to undertake an investigation into Sellafield is due in no small measure to the firm representations which the Irish Government have been making and will continue to make to the UK Government.
As well as recommending further studies, the Black report also recommended a review of the liquid discharge authorisations and a reduction of routine liquid discharges from the plant. The UK Department of the Environment are in the process of carrying out a review of these liquid discharge authorisations.
The UK authorities have undertaken to consult my Department during this review. However, I am dissatisfied with the lack of progress in finalising the new authorisations for liquid discharges, which should have been in place by 1 January of this year but which, in fact, have not yet been agreed. Consultation on the new authorisations is not now expected to commence until after Easter.
Moreover, current discharge authorisations for gaseous discharges specify only that the best practical means to reduce discharges must be observed, without imposing numerical limitations. We would obviously wish to see this situations remedied as soon as possible, but we understand that there are no immediate plans for the introduction of such numerical limitations. This is a matter which will be taken up by us.
The Black report has been referred to and has been discussed in this House on a number of occasions. It did make certain recommendations regarding further studies and these are now being carried out. It is important that they be carried out. They are relevant to departments other than the Department of the Environment in Britain. A UK Department of Health committee will reassess that part of the Black report which is concerned with discharges in the light of recent disclosures by BNFL that the figures provided to the Black committee were apparently too low. This health committee will advise within six months as to whether the revised discharge figures should in any way affect the Black committee's conclusions.
The House will also be aware that our Department of Health have set up a steering committee to examine the incidence of childhood leukaemia since 1970 and of Down's Syndrome in the under 25 year group. The committee will also undertake a critical examination of the Black report.
I must emphasise that the levels of radioactivity are carefully monitored by our Nuclear Energy Board who are engaged in a continuous monitoring programme which measures radioactivity levels. Broadly speaking, the Nuclear Energy Board's monitoring programme involves the collection of samples of fish, seawater, seaweed and sediment at different locations. These samples are processed and then taken to the board's laboratory at St. Luke's Hospital where the levels of radioactivity are determined using internationally recognised testing procedures which the board have advised as being of the highest standard. The methodology used is very complex to describe. Should any Member of the House require details of the procedure the Nuclear Energy Board will be happy to provide full information.
Independent research programmes are also undertaken by the Environmental Radioactivity Laboratories of University College, Dublin and Trinity College, Dublin. The results of these monitoring programmes have clearly shown that contamination has occurred in the Irish Sea as a result of discharges from Sellafield. However, the radiation does to the Irish population resulting from Sellafield is very small and would be, on average, less than 1 per cent of the limits advised by the International Commission for Radiological Protection and by the European Community.
A joint Irish-Spanish research cruise is planned for this year to monitor levels and distribution of caesium 134 and caesium 137 in the area bounded by the north-east Atlantic dumpsite, the south-west coast of Ireland and the north-east coast of Spain. This will include an examination of the extent to which discharges from Sellafield and Cap de la Hague have now penetrated these southerly areas.
The Nuclear Energy Board, with the assistance of the Meteorological Service of the Department of Communications, also monitor radioactivity levels in air, rainfall and drinking water samples. I am assured by the Nuclear Energy Board that the levels of artificially produced radioactivity in the atmosphere and in the environment are low and do not constitute a health hazard to the Irish people.
The monitoring system operated by the Nuclear Energy Board has been adequate to determine the level of radioactivity which has occurred to date. However, in the light of these recent incidents I propose to have the monitoring procedures reviewed in consultation with the Nuclear Energy Board, with a view to establishing whether monitoring requires any modification. I will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that we will continue to be in a position to accurately measure future radioactivity levels. I might also add that the Nuclear Energy Board published a report in 1984 on their monitoring programme, copies of which are available in the Library. A more recent report will be published shortly and will also be made available in the Library.
We must recognise that the Sellafield issue will continue to fester until such time as the basis for concern regarding its possible effect is investigated. While recognising that the review by the Health and Safety Executive is a step in the right direction, we are of the firm opinion that what is required is an independent inspection of the plant. We contend, furthermore, that it is clearly in the interest of the nuclear industry that they should support such an impartial inspection of the Sellafield plant and also support any measures that might be necessary to improve the safety and environmental impact of the plant. This inspection force should be in a position to establish whether plants such as Sellafield are safe and, furthermore, whether discharges are in conformity with the obligations set out in the EURATOM Treaty, which include compliance not only with numerical limitations on discharges, but also with the ALARA principle that discharges must be as low as reasonably achievable.
As long as there are discharges from Sellafield into the Irish Sea, the Irish population will continue to be concerned about the possible impact on their health and safety, as indeed, will the Government. We believe that the Irish people have a right to reassurance in these issues and it is for this reason that we are pressing the matter of a EURATOM inspection force with the Commission.
Recent events at Sellafield warrant serious consideration of the issues which I had raised. The Commissioner has agreed to visit Ireland towards the end of this month for a meeting with the Tánaiste and Minister for Energy, Deputy Spring, other Ministers and myself to discuss the matter further.
The House is aware that I was in Strasbourg yesterday for discussions with Commissioner Stanley Clinton-Davies who is responsible for environmental, nuclear safety and transport matters in the European Commission.
In these discussions I was adamant that there is a need for Commission action to ensure that nuclear plant operations, in particular the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield, comply with the highest possible standards of safety. I referred to the mounting concern in Ireland about Sellafield and said that I was satisfied that the Commission has a central and vital role to play in the implementation of the Community basic radiation safety standards under the EURATOM Treaty. I made this quite clear in my discussions with the Commissioner. In particular I repeated the Irish Government's call for a European inspection force which would be internationally regarded as an objective and impartial watchdog.
I am convinced, and I informed the Commissioner of this, that the Irish Government's stance reflects the views of other Community countries and the serious concerns of the European Parliament as expressed in a number of resolutions recently passed by that parliament. I said that the issue was of international importance because of the trans-national effects of discharges into the marine environment and the atmosphere.
Commissioner Clinton-Davies said that the Commission was urgently reviewing aspects of Community policy on nuclear safety following recent events at Sellafield and would give serious consideration to the issues which I had raised with him. The Commissioner has agreed to visit Ireland towards the end of this month for the meeting to which I have referred.
The publication of the report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons reinforces the Government's position on the UK nuclear industry, and in particular on the operations at Sellafield. The reprocessing of nuclear fuels at Sellafield is the biggest source of radioactive waste. Bearing in mind the unfortunate history of this plant it comes as no surprise that many of the comments in the report identify the problems and shortcomings of current nuclear waste management practices. As the report itself indicates, it has to be recognised that, if no satisfactory and publicly acceptable means for the safe disposal of radioactive waste can be found, the continuing production of such wastes will be put into question. This is the nub of the matter. The proper management of nuclear waste is a matter of major public concern.
The comment in the report which has attracted most attention is that the UK Ministry of Agriculture have confirmed that Sellafield is the largest recorded source of radioactive discharges in the world and as a result the Irish Sea is the most radioactive sea in the world. This clearly illustrates what the Irish Government have been repeatedly saying to the British authorities, namely, that it is not acceptable that radioactive discharges into the Irish Sea should be tolerated for much longer.
However, it is important that we keep a balanced view and are aware of the effects of this contamination. The level of contamination is greatest near Sellafield and decreases with increasing distance from Sellafield. Continued monitoring by the Nuclear Energy Board of fish, shellfish, seawater, seaweed and sediment of the Irish Sea shows that the radiation doses which might be received by members of the Irish public are very small. These doses would be less than 1 per cent of accepted dose limits of the European Community radiation safety standards. I would stress that such a dose is only a very small fraction of exposure to naturally occurring radiation sources. I wish to emphasise this because it would be irresponsible to be alarmist simply for effect. For example, it is important that the public should know that the fish which we harvest from the Irish Sea poses no hazard to the Irish public. Having said that, it also needs to be said that the doses from Sellafield should not arise at all. As I have said, discharges from Sellafield must be eliminated before much longer.
I indicated earlier that radiation levels are highest near Sellafield. I would like to refer particularly to plutonium and other actinides which are discharged from Sellafield and are of major public concern. The UK report draws attention to the fact that "The environment around Sellafield has effectively become an open store of long lived radioactivity". It is expected that very little would be detected in the western Irish Sea. This has been confirmed by the measurements of the plutonium levels in fish and shellfish landed at our ports. However, I was pleased to note that the UK report recommends that discharges of plutonium and other actinides into the Irish Sea should be virtually eliminated.
It did not come as any surprise that the UK report states that the UK Government and nuclear industry are confused and only feeling their way towards a coherent waste management policy. The report describes waste management arrangements in the UK as "amateurish, haphazard and ad hoc” compared with other countries. That is a cause of concern.
The report also recommends that any disposal methods chosen should reduce the quantities of radioactive wastes discharged to the environment "to be as small as technically possible". In general, the conclusions and recommendations in that report must be welcomed. We welcome in particular the following: first, consideration of the abandonment of plans for extending reprocessing facilities (thorp); second, that radically lower discharge limits should be set; third, that limits should be introduced for radioactive gaseous discharges to the atmosphere; and, fourth, that the nuclear industry should be more open with the public. While the report is concerned about the effects of accidents at Sellafield, it does not address the likelihood or effects of such accidents. It also fails to acknowledge the international nature of the problem. This is of serious concern to my Government. The question of closure of the Sellafield plant is not as simple as it seems. There is already a large quantity of spent fuel for reprocessing stored at Sellafield. This would continue to require attention and management even if further reprocessing is not carried out. The Government must be assured beyond doubt that the plant can and will be operated safely without danger to the Irish public and in conformity with the principles laid down by the EURATOM Treaty. This is the central thrust of the Government's policy.
For this reason the Taoiseach, at his meeting with the British Prime Minister on 19 February 1986, urged that there be a review of safety procedures at the plant. We welcome the subsequent announcement that the UK health and safety executive is undertaking an investigation into Sellafield. However, this is not exclusively a UK problem. It is one that transcends national boundaries and is therefore a problem affecting member states of the EC. There is a need therefore for an investigation by a European inspection force such as we are proposing. The Irish Government are of the firm opinion that it is in the interests of all concerned to support this inspection force at European level and to support any measure that might be adjudged necessary by an inspection force to improve the safety of Sellafield, even if this means suspension or cessation of operations until the necessary safety measures are introduced.
I have been anxious to be reasonable in my contribution and to stress two essential factors. The first is the safety at the plant, which has been our main concern and would require the minimisation and elimination of radioactive discharges from the plant. That we have stressed in contacts with the British Government and at European level. The second main thrust of the Irish Government's policy is that this is a matter of international concern and the most effective way it can be dealt with is through a European inspection force under the aegis of the EURATOM Treaty. I believe we have been reasonable. I want to assure the Irish public that the advice I have received from the Nuclear Energy Board is that there is no problem at the moment and that we can safely eat fish. There is a need for concern, but the people can be assured that this Government will take every step to ensure the continued safety of the Irish public and that the doses received by the Irish people are minimised and will be reduced to nil as soon as possible.
Deputy Proinsias De Rossa has until 7.42 p.m.
I propose the amendment in my name and in Deputy Mac Giolla's name, and support the Fianna Fáil motion ——
The Deputy may speak to his amendment but technically he cannot propose it.
My amendment is an addendum to the Fianna Fáil motion. The Minister has stressed his reasonableness, but future generations may not thank us for being reasonable in relation to this matter.
Hear, hear.
A clear case has been made for this plant to be closed. A clear case has been made for the Irish people to have a direct interest in the closure of this plant from the point of view of safety and health. Experts on the Irish side have indicated that the only way this plant can be made safe is to close it down.
The Minister pointed out that he wants a European inspection force. I argue that there is nothing wrong with that if he wants it, but what is immediately required is that we have the right to go into that plant to inspect it in view of the fact that it affects our people. We have a right to inspect that plant to see what can be done to make it safe in the immediate future.
There is no room for complacency on this issue. There is no room for being reasonable on this issue. We must make the strongest possible call from this House tonight and the only way that can be done is to support the Fianna Fáil motion and the addendum I am proposing to it.
The Tánaiste has assured us that less than 1 per cent of radioactivity level has been found on the Irish coast, but he failed to tell us it is 100 times greater on the Eastern coast than it is on the western coast. He said this is 1 per cent of the known safety level. Who decided what the known safety level is? We are totally in the dark because we do not know what the known safety level is, as the Minister admitted in his speech.
What concerns me also, and it may be slightly to one side of this immediate issue, is that reading paragraph 6a of the agreement recently signed by this Government in the EC in relation to European Political Co-operation, it seems that we have locked ourselves into keeping this plant in existence. This is something we should look at very closely at a future date.
The dependence of the British Government on this plant for their nuclear energy and nuclear weapons strategy should not be ignored. If we go pussyfooting to Britain saying "please, would you kindly clean up this place", we will be sent home with our tails between our legs. We must demand that it be closed. We must demand immediately that an Irish observer be allowed access to this plant on a permanent basis. We must also demand that the discharges into the Irish Sea cease forthwith.
British Nuclear Fuels Limited have consistently issued false and misleading information about the operation of this plant. They have denied the seriousness of various accidents and emissions that have taken place. It is clear that, not only is the place itself unsafe structurally, but that its management are incompetent, that it should not be allowed to continue in existence.
There is also the failure by this Government to properly fund our Nuclear Energy Board which is not in a position to properly monitor the radioactive levels in the atmosphere on our eastern coast or in our sea. It has been pointed out that of the 22 staff employed by the Irish Nuclear Energy Board less than half are scientists and they are tied up totally in the licensing of various Irish enterprises which use radioactive materials of one kind or another. It is totally inadequate for the Government to expect us to have confidence that we are being told the truth even by them in relation to the levels of radioactivity when they failed to provide adequate funding for our Nuclear Energy Board.
I emphasise that the only way in which to make Sellafield safe is to close it down.
I want to support the motion in the name of Deputy V. Brady calling for the closure of Sellafield. I listened with growing amazement to the Minister of State, Deputy E. Collins, some moments ago. Since his appointment as Minister of State he has acted as spokesman for the Government on this issue. Indeed, he and they have acted as nothing less than apologists for the British Government and for British Nuclear Fuels Limited. Fianna Fáil have continuously raised this issue. Continuously the Minister of State has defended the British Government and British Nuclear Fuels Limited. For example, in this House on 22 January 1985 the Minister of State had the gall to accuse the Leader of our party of being alarmist when he asked for the closure of Sellafield. The answer given by the Minister of State in January 1985 was that there was no danger to people living in Ireland from discharges from Sellafield. That was his educated comment at that time. My colleague, Deputy G. Brady, raised the matter in July 1983 when he was accused of hysteria, of trying to excite the Irish people about it.
It is a matter of deep regret that the Government could not come with Fianna Fáil, with this House, on the issue of the closure of Sellafield. They have introduced an amendment which merely calls for more independent inquiries and inspections. The health of our people is at risk here. That is the question we are discussing here this evening. Surely it is something in respect of which the Irish Government should not be tied to the apron strings of London. Rather they should go along with this House, calling for the closure of Sellafield. In their heart of hearts I know there are many Members on the Fine Gael benches who believe that constitutes the only way forward. To say that the European Commission are being asked to help us in this matter is not sufficient. The European Parliament set the headline for this Government when they called unanimously for the closure of Sellafield. Why not the Irish Government? Are the Irish Government not prepared to stand up to the British Government and say that they want that plant closed down?
It is not today or yesterday that the Fianna Fáil Party have been calling for its closure. On 30 May 1984, on the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution, I said in this House that in accepting the motion the House should call on the Government to put pressure on the British to have that nuclear processing plant closed down. We must remember all of the lies we have been told over the years by British Nuclear Fuels Limited.
In our election programme — Power Back to the People — for the local elections in 1985, a programme which received massive support right across the country, we said specifically that the British Government must cease discharging radioactive materials into the Irish Sea. We said Fianna Fáil believed that the disposal of radioactive materials from Sellafield, formerly Windscale, constituted a threat to the people and the marine life on the east coast of Ireland and that it must cease immediately. That is the view we have been putting forward continuously.
The Minister of State talked about significant meetings in London with the Minister for Energy. He referred to one meeting in particular, in February 1984. Let me remind the House exactly what emerged from that meeting, a meeting held between Mr. Patrick Jenkin and the Minister for Energy, Deputy Spring. After the meeting the Minister for Energy said he was particularly satisfied with the talks, that Mr. Jenkin had reassured him that an incident such as last year's could not happen again, according to The Irish Times of 18 February 1984. He said that scientific evidence available to date did not indicate adverse effects for the Irish people. Yet the Irish Government are prepared to believe the British Government on this issue. What was significant about the meeting of February 1984?
We are told now by the Minister of State that we will have prompt notification of incidents. There is little use in prompt notification of a major disaster at Sellafield. We will get notification all right. It will be a flash in the sky; that is what our notification will be. There will be no group meetings, no monitoring committees, no more studies to be undertaken then such as the Minister of State talks about. I might talk now as chairman of Dublin County Council. Dublin County Council in November last called unanimously on the British Government to close Sellafield, a unanimous decision taken by the Fine Gael, Labour, Fianna Fáil and The Workers' Party members on Dublin County Council. It should be remembered that it is we on the east coast who will be affected by it, particularly in the Dublin region. I know I speak on behalf of the people of Dublin in demanding that this plant be closed down.
A number of people have already referred to the fact that the Irish Sea is the largest recorded source of radioactive discharge in the world, that it is really a radioactive cesspool. The only solution that will bring peace of mind and security of health to our people as far as radioactive materials are concerned is the closure of Sellafield. The Minister has been conned by the British Government. He has allowed himself be conned. The Irish people will never forgive a Government who allow themselves to be conned by a British Government, to play footsey with them in relation to something which is so serious not only to the lives of this but also the next generation, as has been evidenced by the well documented incidents with regard to Dundalk. There has been the high incidence of Down's Syndrome children born to the girls who were pupils in Dundalk at that time, resulting from the emission from Windscale as it was known at that time.
The Minister will never be forgiven by the Irish people for playing along with the British Government on this issue. This is not the time to be cuddling up to London. This is the time when the Irish Government have a responsibility to stand on their own feet and follow the best interests of the Irish people. Nobody can argue but that the best interests of the Irish people will be served by closing Sellafield.
What is Sellafield, a plant that is closer to Dublin city than Galway? It appears that we are prepared to go along with the British Government, and their mouthpiece, British Nuclear Fuels, a company who have consistently lied and were found guilty by a British court of telling lies in regard to the dangers of Sellafield. The Minister referred to the Black report, a most disreputable report which was based on wrong assumptions and figures which were given to Professor Black by British Nuclear Fuels. That has since been admitted.
I appeal to the Minister, and the Government, even at this late stage, to withdraw their amendment so that a single call can go from this sovereign Parliament to the British Government and British Nuclear Fuels seeking the closure of Sellafield. Only a closure of that plant will do away with the passage of ships carrying nuclear waste from every country in the world in the Irish Sea. How can we be guaranteed that an accident will not take place in the Irish Sea, that a ship will not sink or that something will not go wrong?
Instead of Sellafield being wound down investment has been increased to cater for countries like Japan which has the biggest nuclear industry in the world. We have had an expansion at Sellafield rather than a reduction in its operations and our Government are prepared to go along with the British on this. The Minister in the House is prepared to accuse us of being alarmist and hysterical about this issue. In the past three and a half years the Minister was lied to, as he has since admitted, but he is prepared to go along with the deception of British Nuclear Fuels. He is prepared to be led along and conned by the British Government and BNF. The honourable thing for the Irish Government is to unite the House on the Fianna Fáil motion and call on the British Government to close Sellafield.
I support the Fianna Fáil motion demanding the closure of Sellafield. Coming from a constituency like Wexford it is only natural that I should have an interest in the nuclear industry and its related problems considering that some years ago we had many heated debates about a proposal to erect a nuclear power station at Carnsore Point. I am glad that the determination and courage of the Wexford people won the day and that we do not have to worry about such a prospect. Having rejected such a facility it is galling to find that we are being contaminated by a nuclear plant across the sea which is of no benefit in the short or long term to the Irish people. It is totally objectionable that Irish people should have the health and environment of the nation under continuous danger and threat from the mismanagement of a nuclear station in a foreign land.
Besides the danger from the plant there is another area of concern clearly realted to its operation. Sellafield and Cap de la Hague in France are the only two reprocessing plants in western Europe. Sellafield is a dumping ground for nuclear waste from other nuclear plants throughout the world. Clearly the nuclear industry is big business for British Nuclear Fuels and the making of massive profits is clearly their motivation. They are not one bit concerned about the relevant dangers to their workforce, the health of our people or the protection of our environment.
The Irish Sea is being used frequently for the transportation of deadly nuclear waste from different parts of the world to Sellafield. What happens if an accident occurs during this movement in the Irish Sea? Not only will the Irish Sea and the Irish coast be ruined with determental effects on the livelihood of fishermen but, most important of all, it will have grave effects on the health of our people. There were many illegal discharges from the reprocessing plant at Sellafield. The Irish Sea is regarded as the most heavily polluted and as containing the highest level of radioactivity in the world. Half a tonne of plutonium 239 has been deposited in the Irish Sea and, according to experts, a millionth of a gram is lethal to an individual. Discharges have been many times less at a more modern reprocessing plant at Cap de la Hague in France.
The beach at Sellafield has been closed to the public since December 1983 as dangerous and studies have shown a higher incidence of leukaemia up the west coast of Scotland which is directly in the path of currents. Radiation is 10-100 times higher on the east coast of Ireland than on the west. Incidence of cancer is closely linked to the dumping of radioactive waste. They are all genuine reasons why the plant should be closed.
British Nuclear Fuels have used high powered public relations to con the people. They spent massive amounts of money in the process and conned the Minister, the Taoiseach and the Government. At Sellafield there has been a leak a week, fires and numerous incidents involving toxic fuel, corroded containers, radioactive leaks and dumping into the Irish Sea. Different medical opinions say that leukaemia, cancer and incidence of Down's Syndrome in babies can be linked to such fall-outs and leaks.
The EC Commission, the guardians of EC treaties, are duty bound to take action against the British for allowing Sellafield to be a continuous danger to the public. A few years ago we had Windscale but then it was changed to Sellafield. One wonders why it was decided to change the name. Was it an effort to confuse and con the public even more?
The plant at Sellafield is a time bomb ticking away with enormous potential dangers for our people and our environment. Incidents at the plant have become a weekly occurrence and, unless there is an immediate closure of the plant, sooner rather than later there will be a major human catastrophe. The inept management of Sellafield is an international disgrace. The management have deceived the general public by telling lie after lie about happenings at the plant. We have had cover up after cover up and the appalling practice of using the Official Secrets Act to silence the workers at the plant.
The British Prime Minister's dismissive attitude to the Taoiseach in saying that no problem exists at Sellafield smacks of an arrogant scant disregard for Irish men and women that should not have been tolerated by any Taoiseach or Government. We are not a nation of foolish gombeen people who will allow any British Prime Minister, or her cohorts, to hang the dangers of nuclear activity over our heads forever.
The Government's amendment is a bit of a joke and shows their total lack of sincerity towards the Irish people. Despite the fact that most Deputies on the Government side agree with our motion and have spoken in that vein inside and outside the House, the Minister and the Government have decided cynically to oppose our motion. That type of cynicism has resulted in people outside having a low regard for politicians in general. The Government should support our motion. Already the EC have demanded the closure of Sellafield. What is needed tonight is a unanimous call from the House demanding the closure of the Sellafield time bomb. We owe it to this and future generations to take action now to ensure the safety of their health and the protection of the environment.
The one issue that most young people are aware of at present is the danger of nuclear activity. They have not been impressed by the Government's actions, or, indeed, lack of action, in demanding that the British Government close down Sellafield. As custodians of the nation the Government are duty bound to protect the health and welfare of this and future generations from dangerous situations such as that at Sellafield. They should demand the immediate closure of the plant by the British Government.
I am a representative of a constituency that is probably the most exposed of all constituencies on the east coast. In County Louth medical research was carried out on the possibility of a link between a leak from Windscale, as it was then called, and Down's Syndrome babies born to women who were at school in Dundalk in the mid-fifties. There was a great fear that the link between Down's Syndrome births, various cancers and the close proximity of the nuclear processing plant in Sellafield was due to emissions from Sellafield. People in County Louth, County Down and those living all around the coast are very concerned. Is there not a very strong case to be made for the closure of Sellafield until such time as an international body of scientists have had an opportunity to assess the impact of the various leaks to date?
Recently a general practitioner in the Dundalk area claimed that the rate of stillbirths in her practice was above the national average. Does that not call for an immediate investigation of the impact of the leaks from Sellafield? It is time to set up a body which will examine all the GP practices along the east coast to identify the level and causes of stillbirths in that area. Are adequate monitoring methods employed by the Nuclear Energy Board? Can they satisfy the people that all is well? The evidence and statistics given to the Black committee were subsequently found to be inaccurate. Why was it necessary to distort the facts and to indulge in a public relations exercise to mislead the people of Britain and Ireland?
What effect will this have on our fishing industry on which so many people depend? There is great potential for development and expansion in that industry but the emissions from Sellafield will not encourage confidence in this area. The Government will have to demand that the plant is closed until satisfactory regulations can be imposed to ensure that there will be no further leaks. If there was a major leak which caused a catastrophe with great loss of life, who would take responsibility for it? The Government? British Nuclear Fuels or the British Government? The Minister has a duty to tell us where that responsibility lies.
I support my party's call to close Sellafield now. I speak as a Deputy representing part of Bull Island, Sutton, Howth and Baldoyle. Last Sunday I had the pleasure of attending the opening of an interpretative centre on Bull Island. It was very interesting and a large crowd turned up. Of course Bull Island is one of the finest bird sanctuaries and nature preservations in the world and it is also a major leisure and recreation centre for Dublin's northside. In that sense it is a vital and precious amenity.
I am concerned, as many are, about the silting up of the lagoon and the possible loss of the salt marshes and the waterways. In the course of discussions last Sunday, I raised questions about the rods which had been installed there to measure silting. The rods were installed — and this is very important — to measure the rate at which silting was occurring and I discovered that these rods had been abandoned. The scientists are now using tests to measure radioactivity in the silt as a means of monitoring the build-up of the silt. The radioactivity can be measured and comes directly from the caesium discharged from Sellafield. The work on this is being carried out by Trinity College.
Since 1979, because they know what the emissions are from Sellafield, based on the published data, they can predict the levels of radioactivity to be found in the silt in the lagoon. I am not talking about silt on the other side of the Irish Sea but silt on Dublin beaches. Using these samples they can fix the time when the silt was laid down because of the amount of radioactivity recorded. The figures correspond very well although they are not exact. It is a good basis for guidance on the silting rate and more satisfactory than the rods which were dispensed with. They do cross-checks with the caesium radioactivity in seaweed and fish to see how things stand and to check their levels. Therefore, we measure the radioactivity coming from Sellafield and the sand and silt on Dollymount are radioactive. We know that that radioactivity is coming directly from Sellafield to Bull Island. This requires immediate action as these discharges must stop.
Mrs. Thatcher said that the average level of radioactivity is one tenth of the 1 per cent in Britain but this is the average over the whole population. Those in Cumbria are obviously in a much worse situation. She then said that the average for Ireland is lower but we are concerned about the east and north east coasts where the concentration is greater. Such statements are misleading and we are seriously concerned regarding the people who are directly exposed to leukaemia and Down's Syndrome in Louth, Dublin and possibly Antrim.
At Sellafield, specifically at Calderhall, the reactors are 30 years old and have gone beyond their economic life. This is a very high risk area to which Deputy Burke referred. It is apparently Britain's only source of plutonium and that is why it is still used. New deliveries of nuclear waste from Japan should be stopped and I join with our party in demanding that the Government call on the British Government to close Sellafield. If they do not close the plant, Britain should be taken to the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague. An immediate public inquiry should be conducted into the radioactive levels and/or safety of the environment, including the beaches. I ask the Government to support our motion.
Since I have only a few minutes, I will be as concise as I can. While I will be supporting the efforts of the Minister for Energy to persuade the British authorities to take urgent steps to clean up Sellafield and while I applaud the speed with which the Minister has acted in this matter, I believe that Sellafield should be closed. Credit must be given to our colleague, Deputy Brady, for the way in which he consistently highlighted the dangers of Sellafield over the years. If this plant is not closed there will be a disaster and we have the right to demand its closure because we are at risk. There are no conceivable benefits to be gained in return for that risk, no jobs, no exports, no added value, no balance of payments benefits and no military advantages. All we get from Sellafield is the ever-increasing risk of a major health or environmental catastrophe. There is a maxim in the English common law which if Deputy Wilson were here he could translate. That maxim is sic utere tuo ut aut alienum non laedas. It means “Thus shall you use your own property that you do not thereby cause from it a nuisance and danger to the property of your neighbour.” Surely that is very applicable to the British scene in this case.
Sellafield is a plant containing some of the most dangerous materials known to man. It is built in the vicinity of a geological fault. Its design is totally out of date and it uses technology which is obsolete by several generations. In addition, the plant is run by people who are both dishonest and incompetent. It is clear that we are living uncomfortably close to a time bomb and one that is ticking louder by the day. I realise also that Sellafield is the property of a sovereign foreign Government and that our capacity to coerce that Government to do something they do not wish to do is limited. It is easy to demand closure knowing well that it is not within the capacity of our Government to deliver on that demand.
Nuclear energy has the capacity to destroy our world several times over either through military means or even military accidents but even the nuclear energy which is supposed to be designated for entirely peaceful purposes has that same capacity. The closest we have come to a major nuclear accident was in the nuclear station used for generating electricity at Three Mile Island in the US. Even if we manage to avoid calamity by way of accident or confrontation, we are storing up certain catastrophe in the treatment and management of nuclear waste. I trust that one day the world will realise that nuclear power must be dispensed with but for generations after that happened the world will have to live with the waste that has been accumulated, never knowing when or where it will surface.
No one will convince me that the consequences of the plant have not been witnessed already both here and in the UK. The high incidence of leukaemia in the vicinity of Sellafield and the abnormal incidence of Down's Syndrome in the Dundalk region after a Sellafield fire in the fifties have been linked closely with the plant. The reassuring noises by British Nuclear Fuels about these and other incidents can be described only as pathetic and transparently hypocritical. I notice a report that a fish and chip shop in the North of England were advertising their wares with the caption: "No fish sold here from the Irish Sea. All fish here is from the North Sea." That gives some idea of the implications for our fishing industry, a factor referred to by Deputy Kirk.
There is a tragic irony in the findings of the UK House of Commons committee report published today to the effect that Sellafield essentially is not necessary. Therefore, I would argue that additional monitoring of the position is essential and that the review and monitoring should be carried out with a maximum of environmental expertise as opposed to nuclear expertise and that that emphasis should be relied on by the Government in their deliberations.
After that contribution I expect confidently that Deputy Taylor will be voting for our motion. The Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant is and has been demonstrated to be a positive menace to human life on both sides of the Irish Sea. A major accident there could have horrendous consequences and there have been sufficient incidents to confirm the likelihood of such an accident. Serious accidents today happen on oil rigs, on space missions, in chemical plants and indeed in nuclear power stations. Modern technology cannot eliminate the risk of such accidents. There is, however, a crucial difference between most of the type of accidents I have mentioned and an accident in a nuclear reprocessing plant such as Sellafield. However tragic the immediate consequences of these other disasters, their effects are usually confined to those involved and are of limited duration and local impact. Plutonium, however, is one of the deadliest substances known to man, with a life of thousands of years. The dispersal of plutonium into the atmosphere or into the sea could have widespread catastrophic consequences which would last, for all intents and purposes, not for ten or 50 years but forever. That is not being either fanciful or alarmist. It is the factual reality and even though a mistake could have such an unthinkable outcome, mistakes continue to be made at this benighted plant.
The Irish public must look at the performance and the credibility of the different bodies involved in this matter: the British Government and the management of the Sellafield plant, British Nuclear Fuels, the Irish Government and the Irish Nuclear Energy Board. With regard to the British Government, we regrettably have to have grave doubts about their bona fides. Presumably they see this plant as affecting Britain's national security and, therefore, feel justified in dealing with the matter in a certain way.
The British Prime Minister's reply to the Taoiseach's representations must be regarded as unsatisfactory. It fails entirely to address the question of the competence of the Sellafield management or to provide guarantees of the future safety of the plant. It amounts to no more than a bland, anodyne attempt to say "that there is nothing to worry about". That sort of assurance could be accepted about many matters of mutual concern to the Irish and British Governments which are of ordinary everyday significance. But it will not do where something as chilling as the prospect of a major nuclear explosion and fallout is involved.
This is not something of purely British domestic interest or responsibility. The Irish people North and South have an entirely legitimate interest in the health and environmental effects of a major nuclear complex facing them across the Irish Sea and which, as has been mentioned, is nearer to us than the city of Galway. That interest has been recognised and endorsed by the European Parliament.
This is not something to be dealt with unilaterally by Britain, nor should our approach be on the basis of either intercession or concession. We are entitled to be involved directly as of right. There is already good evidence accepted by the most reputable doctors and scientists that radiation was responsible for an unusual cluster of Down's Syndrome babies in this country. Radioactive elements from Sellafield have been found all the way up the west coast of Scotland and much further afield. As Deputy Woods has pointed out some such elements have been found at Dollymount which is in the heart of this city.
The Black report of 1984 was a classic instance of an establishment whitewash and a cover-up based on data supplied by BNFL that was inaccurate by a magnitude of not one, ten or 20 but of 50 times. Black refused to draw the obvious conclusion that the plant was to blame for the high incidence of leukaemia deaths in the area.
When I attacked the Black report and called for the closure of the plant at the end of July 1984 because it was responsible for contamination which as I said then bordered on a crime against the people on both sides of the Irish Sea, my remarks were called intemperate, illinformed and as reflecting on the integrity of Sir Douglas Black by a BNFL spokesman who went on to say: "I don't think anybody would question the thoroughness or the authority of the team under the chairmanship of such an eminent medical expert". So thorough indeed was the Black report that it ignored data which we know now from the British Prime Minister's letter, were published back in the fifties.
The management of this plant, British Nuclear Fuels, have been guilty of duplicity, deception and lies during a long period. For a while they sought to persuade the public it was quite safe to bathe at Sellafield. Two days after a radioactive slick was noticed at sea, BNFL announced that beaches were safe. A month later with radioactivity levels 100 to 1,000 times higher than normal 25 miles of beaches were declared unsafe, and they have remained so ever since.
On 30 July 1984 a BNFL spokesman stated the following: "What we are saying and I think what is demonstrably proven, is that the amount of discharges for which we are responsible are very carefully authorised and limited by independent government departments". Forty eight hours later the British Director of Public Prosecutions decided to prosecute BNFL for unauthorised discharges. In January nearly half a tonne of plutonium was discharged without authorisation into the Irish Sea. A couple of weeks later a plutonium mist was released into the atmosphere. At first it was said two workers were affected and then it was admitted that there were 15 affected.
The whole string of accidents, which are occurring with increasing frequency indicate incompetent management and a state of affairs which must be regarded as totally unacceptable. We cannot trust any assurances that have been or will be given by these dangerously reckless and dishonest people at Sellafield.
This Coalition Government have consistently adopted a complacent, blind-eye approach, refusing to acknowledge the danger to the Irish people and to act on the basis of such acknowledgement. The Tánaiste and Labour Party Leader, Deputy Spring, went across to London on 17 February 1984 for a meeting with the British Environment Secretary. Afterwards he said he was "particularly satisfied with the talks" and that Mr. Jenkin had reassured him that an incident such as happened in November 1983 — this was a radioactive slick at sea — could not happen again.
When I attacked the Black report, and said: "These figures alone would in my view justify closing down the plant immediately for further investigation and certainly putting a lot of people in jail who have clearly been telling us lies over the past four or five years about this matter", the then Minister for the Environment, Deputy Liam Kavanagh, called this unnecessarily alarmist and said about the level of radioactivity in the Irish Sea: "It's quite sufficient for safety". But a British House of Commons committee today tells us: "Sellafield has made the Irish Sea the most radioactive sea in the world". I was right. They should have been put in jail then and they should still be put in jail, if this Government were doing their duty.
On 22 January 1985, the Minister of State, Deputy Eddie Collins also accused me of being "alarmist" and made this familiar statement: "There's no danger to people living in Ireland from discharges from Sellafield". He has the audacity to come into this House tonight and try to persuade us that he has been active in this matter.
The role played by the Nuclear Energy Board in regard to Sellafield must be severly criticised. They have totally failed to discharge their responsibility. The fact that such a board existed would entitle the public to believe that their interests were being looked after and protected. In fact, the very opposite was the case. The board, to their discredit, allowed themselves to be used as part of the general smokescreen. They continued to utter platitudes and assure us that all was well and that the critics were irresponsible alarmists. Only now when the truth can no longer be concealed are they prepared to admit the danger.
In my view there is an urgent need to replace this facade of a board with something different and effective. A board of this kind might have had a role in supervising the nuclear power station which Deputy Desmond O'Malley campaigned so vigorously for when he was Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy if it had been built. Fortunately it was not, as Deputy John Browne points out. What we need instead now is a board or an agency attached to the Department of Health whose responsibility will be to monitor the whole nuclear radiation situation in the interest of the health of the people and that alone.
Fianna Fáil have been very much aware of the danger that Sellafield represented to the people of this country over a long period and have been doing everything in their power to alert public attention and to persuade this reluctant Government to act, but to no avail.
Both Deputy Gerard Brady, who has rightly been praised for his activities in this regard, and myself have raised the issue on a number of occasions. Ógra Fianna Fáil have organised public meetings because our young people are very concerned about this matter. Deputy Jim Tunney, in his capacity as Lord Mayor of Dublin, arranged a special conference of the heads of local authorities along the east coast to discuss the matter and to convey their anxieties in regard to it.
Unbelievable though it might seem to any sane rational person there are now plans costing £3 billion for a major expansion of reprocessing in the early nineties. The Irish Government who have had full details of the proposed expansion for some considerable time must have this stopped. It is lunacy, madness. The expansion of Sellafield would mean the passage of foreign ships carrying nuclear waste up and down the Irish Sea, thus enhancing the risk of a nuclear accident close to our shores.
We do not hesitate to call for the complete closure of Sellafield. There are international precedents for this. The Austrians voted not to commission a brand new nuclear power station at Zwentendorf and the Swedes voted to phase out nuclear power by the early nineties.
The European Parliament in a resolution put forward by the Fianna Fáil members and passed called on the British Government to stop all further discharges of radioactive waste into the Irish Sea and that the plant be closed until certain standards are met.
In asking the Dáil to accept our motion, I think it is important that I remind Deputies of exactly what Sellafield is, lest there be any lingering belief that we are dealing with a simple civilian plant which does no more than produce useful electricity. Sellafield is a nuclear, military installation as well as a civilian plant.
And was so when Deputy Haughey was Taoiseach and Minister for Health.
The Deputy should take his medicine. Sellafield is used to store nuclear material for military as well as civil purposes. Nuclear material is reprocessed there for military use in the form of plutonium. Approximately 0.5 million gallons of toxic nuclear waste, caesium, uranium and plutonium containing radioactive elements are pumped into the Irish Sea every year. Sellafield is the dirtiest nuclear plant in the world and has been described by the British House of Commons committee that I mentioned as "the largest dispenser of nuclear waste into the environment in the world".
A whole catalogue of incidents, particularly in the last two and a half years, shows that the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant is not safe, while medical studies are showing unusual concentrations of cancer deaths and natal abnormalities, not only in the vicinity of Sellafield but on this side of the Irish Sea.
That is the type of installation we are talking about.
Because of the nature of Sellafield, I do not think the Government are being fair to the Irish people in asking the Dáil to substitute their vague amendment for our positive motion. If Dáil Éireann were to accept the Government amendment it would simply acquiesce in a continuance of the fudging of this issue, a fudging which has already gone on for far too long. It would condone the ongoing concealment of this very real danger at Sellafield. That is what the Government amendment will amount to. Let there be no mistake or illusion about it.
All the Government amendment does is ask for support for discussions with a view to establishing a process to determine whether Sellafield can operate safely. My friend, Deputy John Kelly, would have no hesitation in describing that as fatuous guff, if he were here. That is totally inadequate. We already know that Sellafield cannot operate safely. The overwhelming evidence is there. We do not need any more discussion, inspection or monitoring. What we need is a clear-cut decision to close down this proven menace to the health and safety, not just of Irish people but of British people as well.
Would it not be absurd, if the European Parliament were to "recognise the extreme concern felt by the Irish authorities and the people who live on the eastern seaboard of Ireland who are under constant serious threat of contamination", while the Irish Government and Dáil Eireann merely pass a motion which refers only to the Irish public's concern at a number of incidents, which they say are of limited radiological impact? Is it the case that the majority of MEPs in Strasbourg care more about the risks to the Irish people from Sellafield than the majority of Deputies in this House? Let us see when the time comes to vote if that is the position.
This matter transcends party affiliations and allegiances, this is a matter of the health and possibly even the lives of Irish citizens. We need a clear-cut demand from Dáil Éireann in the interests of the people. Such a demand will have an effect. It cannot be ignored. It will give the Irish Government the lever they require to deal with this menace.
Deputies should not look upon this as a parochial or insular matter. The dangers of nuclear radiation and the possibility of a nuclear explosion are world issues. People everywhere understand what is involved. Dáil Éireann can establish its reputation internationally in this field in the eyes of concerned millions of citizens and groups everywhere around the world as an enlightened legislature if it takes this clear and positive decision. It will give a headline for others to follow. I can guarantee every Deputy that if we take this clear decision it will be hailed around the world as something of great importance and significance.
I appeal to Deputies on all sides to take a broad and responsible view of this motion and to vote for it. I also even at this eleventh hour appeal to the Government in the interests of the safety and security of the Irish people not to press their amendment. It does not meet the situation. The people are demanding that this dangerous plant be closed and that this threat to their well-being be removed. The realistic truth is that our health and safety cannot be guaranteed except by closure. The leaks, discharges and emissions are serious in themselves and a major worry, but they are much more significant as proof of the incompetence and dishonesty of the management of Sellafield, the dangerous, faulty nature of the plant and the real risk of an explosion.
I do not know if many Deputies experience, as I do, a very real feeling of anger when I consider the enormity of this situation and what we Irish people are being asked to tolerate. It is already late in the day, but not too late if this motion is passed. If it is not passed, I would be deeply concerned about the future. Deputies have a very real and definite personal responsibility to exercise here tonight, on behalf of the people who elected us, to look after their welfare in precisely this sort of situation. I appeal to every responsible Deputy in this House to vote for our motion and to the Government to withdraw the amendment.
Question put: "That amendment No. 1 be made."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 56.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Collins, Edward.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- Owen, Nora.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West)
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed."
The Daíl divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 51.
Tá
|
Allen, Bernard.Barnes, Monica.Barry, Peter.Begley, Michael.Bell, Michael.Bermingham, Joe.Birmingham, George Martin.Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Liam.Carey, Donal.Cluskey, Frank.Collins, Edward.Connaughton, Paul.Cooney, Patrick Mark.Cosgrave, Liam T. Glenn, Alice.Griffin, Brendan.Harte, Patrick D.Hegarty, Paddy.Hussey, Gemma.Kenny, Enda.L'Estrange, Gerry.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McLoughlin, Frank.Manning, Maurice.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Molony, David. |
Cosgrave, Michael Joe.Coveney, Hugh.Crotty, Kieran.Crowley, Frank.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Martin Austin.Desmond, Barry.Donnellan, John.Dowling, Dick.Doyle, Avril.Doyle, Joe.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard J.Enright, Thomas W.Farrelly, John V.Fennell, Nuala. Moynihan, Michael.Naughten, Liam.Nealon, Ted.O'Brien, Fergus.O'Brien, Willie.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Leary, Michael.Owen, Nora.Prendergast, Frank.Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.Skelly, Liam.Taylor, Mervyn.Timmins, Godfrey.Yates, Ivan. |
Níl
|
Ahern, Michael.Andrews, David.Aylward, Liam.Barrett, Michael.Brady, Gerard.Brady, Vincent.Brennan, Paudge.Browne, John.Burke, Raphael P.Byrne, Seán.Connolly, Ger.Cowen, Brian.Daly, Brendan.De Rossa, Proinsias.Doherty, Seán.Fahey, Francis.Fahey, Jackie.Faulkner, Pádraig.Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.Flynn, Pádraig.Foley, Denis.Gallagher, Denis.Gallagher, Pat Cope.Geoghegan-Quinn Máire.Haughey, Charles J.Hilliard, Colm. |
Hyland, Liam.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Lenihan, Brian.Leonard, Jimmy.Leonard, Tom.Leyden, Terry.Lyons, Denis.McCarthy, Seán.McEllistrim, Tom.Mac Giolla, Tomás.Moynihan, Donal.Noonan, Michael J.(Limerick West).O'Dea, William.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Edmond.O'Leary, John.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Paddy.Reynolds, Albert.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Dan.Walsh, Joe.Wilson, John P.Woods, Michael. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor: Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.