Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 7 May 1986

Vol. 366 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Nuclear Power Installations: Motion (Resumed).

Minister for State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. F. O'Brien)

By agreement, and notwithstanding Standing Orders, speakers will be called in Private Members' Time as follows: 7 p.m. to 7.10 p.m. a Fianna Fáil speaker, 7.10 p.m. to 7.20 p.m. a Fianna Fáil speaker, 7.20 p.m. to 7.25 p.m. a Workers' Party speaker, 7.25 p.m. to 7.42 p.m. a Government speaker, 7.42 p.m. to 7.52 p.m. a Government speaker, 7.52 p.m. to 8.02 p.m. a Fianna Fáil speaker, 8.02 p.m. to 8.12 p.m. a Fianna Fáil speaker, 8.12 p.m. to 8.22 p.m. a Fianna Fáil speaker, 8.22 p.m. to 8.27 p.m. a Government speaker and 8.27 p.m. to 8.42 p.m. a Fianna Fáil speaker.

By agreement and notwithstanding the Order made in the House this morning, proceedings on the remaining Stages of No. 25 on today's Order Paper, National Archives Bill, 1985, Committee and Remaining Stages, shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 9.45 p.m. today by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall in relation to amendments, include only amendments set down by the Taoiseach.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

The following motion was moved by Deputy Haughey on Tuesday, 6 May 1986:

"That Dáil Éireann, in view of the serious menace represented by nuclear power installations which in the event of an accident could cause serious injury and longlasting contamination in Ireland, requests the Government:

(1) to demand the closure of the Sellafield complex in the light of its deplorable safety record;

(2) to undertake a complete review of plans and arrangements for the protection of the civilian population in the event of fall-out from a nucler accident, take whatever steps are shown to be necessary by this review, and report back to the Dáil within three months on the current state of these plans."

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

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

"Dáil Éireann having regard to the recent accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station and the incidents at the Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing Plant, supports the Government in the action it has already taken and continues to take concerning the safety of the Irish population by:—

(1) conveying to the UK Government the Irish Public's concern that the number of accidents at Sellafield has caused a loss of confidence in the safety of the operation of the plant;

(2) calling on the British Prime Minister to ensure a thorough review of safety at the Sellafield Plant;

(3) calling on the EC Commission to set up a community inspection process to determine independently whether Sellafield can operate safely or whether its operations should cease or be suspended until safe standards of operation are achieved;

(4) reviewing and making arrangements to ensure the maximum protection of the population in the event of a seriouis incident at a nuclear facility.".

—(Minister for Energy).

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Browne has until 8.10 p.m.

Mr. Browne

On 11 and 12 March 1986 we had an opportunity to discuss a Fianna Fáil motion in relation to the closure of Sellafield. Tonight we are again dealing with Sellafield with reference to the disastrous situation which has arisen in the wake of the Chernobyl catastrophe. The disaster at the Soviet nuclear power station has aroused serious concern around the world, especially in Ireland. However, the Coalition Government do not seem to share this concern. Once again they put down an amending motion refusing to recognise that the only safeguard this nation and our people have against a similar disaster is to demand the closure of Sellafield.

This motion is not about Fianna Fáil or about politics; it is above politics. It expresses the serious concern of the Irish people and the fears they have for their safety. The people are demanding the closure of Sellafield. Surely the safety and concern of our people are far more important than opposing for the sake of opposing? That, in my opinion, is what is happening on the Government side tonight. The nation's credibility is at stake and I appeal to the Government, in the interests of the people to support our motion and let us be united in our representations on behalf of the Irish people in the eyes of the world.

It is obvious to everyone that the nations which have nuclear power plants cannot be trusted honestly to make available information to other countries. When a major disaster occurs, unfortunately it seems to be surrounded in secrecy. It took three full days before the Russians finally admitted they had a major disaster on their hands and only for the vigilance of Scandinavia, who knows if they would ever have come into the open and announced this disaster.

It is interesting to note that the major accident which took place at Sellafield on 8 October 1957 was also surrounded in the same type of secrecy. It took 26 years for the full story to unfold. Now, 29 years later, we still have the basic principle of secrecy as was evidenced with the Russians, despite the fact that the lives and the health of thousands of people throughout the world were at risk and in danger.

This is a criminal act, yet the Irish Government refuse to take action. The people of Ireland continue to live in the shadow of Sellafield, a shadow which is fraught with danger and the threat of the destruction of our people. Despite continuous assurances by the British Government and their cohort experts that all is safe, the Chernobyl disaster revealed that even with the most vigilant supervision accidents can and do happen. Investigations recently carried out by independent consultants and by the News of the World special investigation team have shown that many nuclear power stations in Britain are suffering from serious defects and are as poorly protected as the Russian reactor which caused such devastation when it blew its top. The News of the World goes on to say:

...the biggest threats are posed by Calder Hall in the Sellafield complex, Chapel Cross in the Scottish Borders, Berkeley in the West Country and Bradwell in Essex. All were built without surrounding reactor containment walls. The missing safety factor which was evident at the Chernobyl plant brought worldwide criticism.

When contacted by the News of the World investigation team a spokesman for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority admitted, and I quote——

An Ceann Comhairle

Long quotations are not in order.

Mr. Browne

It is a short quotation.

It is true that the four reactors you name do not have secondary containment vessels.

Despite all those facts, the Irish Government continue to allow themselves to become submerged by the British Government and the British nuclear industry's own propaganda.

The Sellafield capers have gone on far too long. Bad and inept management have been the order of the day. How can we as an adjoining country have any confidence in the ability of the British nuclear industry to prevent a repeat of Chernobyl when the Sellafield reprocessing plant has had 300 accidents of one kind or another since it came into being?

An Ceann Comhairle

Long quotations are not——

Mr. Browne

That is not a quotation.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am glad to hear it.

Mr. Browne

In the past we have been fed lies and we have been deceived. Important information on such accidents have been concealed and kept from us. The British Government and the British nuclear industry are well aware of the deadly danger posed to the Irish people by Sellafield but, because nuclear industry is big business, and profitable business, they callously and criminally continue to ignore such dangers, and shamefully this Coalition Government support them by refusing to support our call to close Sellafield.

Ireland has no vested interest in nuclear power stations but the Chernobyl disaster has brought home to us all that we must be concerned about our neighbouring country's activities in such an industry. We must insist that a process at international level should make it obligatory on nations with nuclear power structures to notify the countries of the world immediately an accident has occurred. Coming from County Wexford, I have an interest in the nuclear industry because during the seventies we had a great debate concerning the siting of a nuclear power station at Carnsore Point, County Wexford.

Mr. E. Collins

Which Government proposed to do that?

Mr. Browne

Deputy O'Malley, then a Minister, tried to bulldoze through a decision that would have sited an active time bomb on our doorstep, but the people of Wexford objected and, fortunately, won the day, although the site is still in the ownership of the ESB, a monument to what might have been. During that period we had massive rallies at Carnsore Point. Thousands of people congregated there every year to voice their disapproval of the siting of such a project there. However, this site is still in the ownership of the ESB and the people of Wexford are concerned that they continue to hold it. I call on the ESB here tonight to get rid of that site, to sell it, and once and for all to kill the notion in Wexford and throughout the country that they still have in mind a proposal to site a nuclear station there, whether in the next decade or into the next century.

Mr. S. Brennan

The Chernobyl disaster has focused world attention on the danger inherent in nuclear industry. It shows clearly the extent of the threats posed to life and to our environment. The fact that these threats transcend national boundaries is cause for even greater worry. Most of Europe is now put at risk by the difficulty in even identifying the probability of further accidents which apparently cannot be assessed accurately.

Lest there be any misapprehension regarding the scale of the threats or any suggestion of exaggeration, I would like to read a short quotation from page 20 of the Financial Times of 30 April 1986, a newspaper which, I can assure the House, is not prone to exaggeration——

Mr. Haughey

Or to Fianna Fáil.

Mr. S. Brennan

Or Fianna Fáil — and probably is influenced by the industrial and financial interests which are bound up with the nuclear industry. I quote:

The disaster at Chernobyl has broken new and fearsome ground. People have been killed. An uncontrollable fire is raging at the power plant. Nuclear fuel has boiled into the atmosphere. Radioactivity has been wafted thousands of miles into neighbouring countries. The dreaded melt-down of the fuel-core, which fail-safe systems are meant to make impossible, has apparently occurred.

To contemplate those words strikes terror in all of us. Chernobyl is the latest of a long list of nuclear accidents which have occurred both in Communist countries and in the West and have stemmed from both human factors and design faults. There was a nuclear melt-down in Canada in 1952, one in the US in 1955 and the one in Windscale in 1957, which I will come back to. There was one in the US in 1961 and again in 1966, in Britain in 1966, in France in 1966, in Switzerland in 1969, in the US in 1979 and in Chernobyl in 1986. They were not minor accidents, they were melt-downs of the core of the reactor, which is the doomsday type of situation in any nuclear accident. That is the litany of disasters that have occurred, so let nobody come into this House and, as an expert or otherwise, pretend that this sort of thing happens only occasionally and that we should not worry about it. It is clear from the list that I put before the House tonight that it is all too frequent and we have every cause to worry.

Even before the accident at Chernobyl, to be fair to this party, we had been calling for the closure of Sellafield for a long time. The Chernobyl disaster reinforces our case and gives concrete expression to our worst fears. That Sellafield poses a threat no less serious than Chernobyl and more insidious to Ireland cannot be debated. It is insidious because the effect of radiation may not become apparent for ten, 15 or even 20 years because it causes genetic effects spanning a number of generations and it is passed on in all kinds of ways, including in particular through food and food chains. Evidence of radioactivity has been found in breast milk in England, at pretty low levels but nevertheless there. Radioactive emissions from Sellafield are silent killers because they can strike, are striking and will strike over many generations. The Chernobyl accident shows that there are no safe havens from a nuclear accident in any country whatsoever.

Therefore, the country which opts for a nuclear power programme bears a heavy responsibility to the rest of the world and we are calling on that responsibility here tonight, all the more in the case of Sellafield, which is right up against our shores. A member of the European Community of nations, that very nation is openly and callously polluting our environment with its toxic waters. The worst accident in the history of the nuclear industry occurred at Sellafield, then Windscale, in 1957 in a fire which destroyed the core of a plutonium producing reactor and sent radiation clouds into the atmosphere. What happened then the authorities denied and, having denied it, went on to minimise totally the dreadful effects on their own citizens let alone the citizens of this or any other country. Afterwards, when they were pushed, an official report linked the accident to dozens of cancer deaths and the increased incidence of leukaemia and genetic defects in children. That was after the harmful effects were totally denied. Therefore, one wonders about denial in the nuclear industry. The more denials one hears in that industry the more one worries about what really is going on, because the history is one of denial.

Not generally appreciated is that this accident introduced cancer producing ingredients into Ireland's environment and, in my view, still poses a health hazard. Again in 1983 tons of radioactive material were discharged into the Irish Sea from Sellafield by what they called an accident. There has been progressive pollution of the Irish Sea to the extent that the House of Commons report described it as the most radioactive in the world. The British Government announced recently that they were setting limits to the extent of the spillage of radioactive material into the Irish Sea. There should be no spillage into the Irish Sea, not to talk about setting limits to the extent of that spillage. That is and has been the position of this party for many years. There is no safe or acceptable level of radiation from Sellafield. Like "an acceptable level of violence" it is complete nonsense to talk in those terms. The only safe Sellafield is a closed Sellafield and that is what this party and this House should call for tonight and we have been calling for that. The time for expressions of concern as in the Government amendment has long passed. Every political, legal and moral resource at our disposal should be mobilised in seeking the closure of Sellafield.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has one minute and the next speaker has only five minutes.

Mr. S. Brennan

The time has passed for calling for investigations or for meetings of international communities. I suggest to Deputies on every bench that it is nothing short of national sabotage if they do not call tonight for the closure of this station. It is nothing short of letting down the Irish people, the Irish nation, if they do not join with us in this motion and call for the closure of this station. How are we to look to the outside world if the House is divided on a fundamental issue such as this? The Government are looking for international co-operation, but all other Governments will say that we could not get agreement in the national Parliament in regard to the closure of Sellafield and that other Governments should not be asked to do our work. If we are to make any progress internationally, the buck stops in Dáil Éireann tonight. I ask the Deputies of every party to leave politics aside and to support the nation tonight so that the country will have one voice with one message: close down Sellafield because it is a menace.

Proinsias De Rossa

On a previous occasion I fully supported the call for the closure of Sellafield as the only safe way of dealing with it. That is still the position today and the reality of that need is heightened by the disaster at Chernobyl. Arising from that disaster, apart from demanding that Sellafield should be closed, the Irish Government should take urgent initiatives in regard to international monitoring of all stations, not just those in Britain or Europe but also in the United States, the USSR and any other countries which have nuclear power stations.

Recent events, including the Chernobyl disaster, a long list of incidents at Sellafield reprocessing plant and the unreported running aground of a US nuclear submarine in the Irish Sea in March emphasise how vulnerable we are to the potentially devastating effects of nuclear accidents. As a result of the Chernobyl disaster it is clearer than ever that the absence of non-military installations in any country does not protect it from radiation, which recognises no national frontiers. In the event of an accident, as we have seen in the last week, the health and safety of whole populations can be at the mercy of the direction of the wind.

None of the nuclear powers has a good record in recognising the rights and interests of non-nuclear nations. The failure of the Soviet Union to promptly release full information about the Chernobyl accident has caused unnecessary anxiety and worry to many people in countries throughout Europe, including Ireland. If the information which they have since made available had been released to neighbouring countries in the early stages of the accident, much of the risks and distress could have been avoided as Governments would have been in a better position to advise on the precautions which needed to be taken.

While the Soviet Union has correctly been criticised for its tardiness in the matter, the West have cynically tried to exploit that accident, for economic benefit in some cases. For instance, the commodity markets in the United States literally went through the roof as a result of speculation regarding wheat, a basic food item. That kind of speculation indicates that some people are prepared to use any accident or opportunity to make hugh profits, even at the cost of heightening the distress and fears of ordinary citizens. It is important, therefore, to balance the record and to make the point, while the Soviet Union was wrong not to announce details of the accident and have been rightly criticised, we have had first hand experience ourselves of the fraud and deceit practised by British Nuclear Fuels in their operation of the Sellafield plant. Our Government should demand to know why we were not informed of the potentially disastrous running aground of the US nuclear submarine in the Irish Sea in March. It is time that Ireland and other non-aligned nuclear countries asserted their rights. We should take the initiative and convene a meeting of other interested countries, especially non-nuclear states, to actively campaign for a UNbacked treaty which would provide effective monitoring procedures for nuclear power stations all over the world. Their aim would be to ensure that every possible safety procedure is in place and observed. It would also provide for an effective early warning system to ensure that all states with nuclear installations are obliged to report to the United Nations without delay.

While campaigning for such procedures to eliminate the possibility of accidents in nuclear power stations, we should not lose sight of the fact that the greatest threat to the future of the globe is the existence of nuclear weapons by the superpowers and the elimination of such weapons would bring about a total reassessment of nuclear power stations which are used to supply fuel and nuclear rods for nuclear weapons.

Minister of State at the Department of Energy (Mr. E. Collins)

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. It give me a chance to clarify a number of issues and to make it clear to the House that the Government are acting in a determined and sensible manner on the issues we are discussing.

On the question of the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant, the Government have again and again stated their policies and the reasons for them. On 12 March last this House approved a motion of confidence in the Government's policies on the issue, but it is worth while to repeat those policies and to put them in their proper context. The Government's position is that radioactive discharges from Sellafield should be minimised and eliminated as soon as possible through the use of the best available technology. This position has been stated at every opportunity in contact with the British authorities and at all appropriate international fora.

The Government recognise that the spate of incidents at Sellafield are, in themselves, of little radiological significance to Ireland. Clearly, a balanced view of the situation must be maintained. However, the frequency of these incidents has caused the Government and the Irish people to lose confidence in the safety of the plant. The safety record at Sellafield has been less than satisfactory and the frequency of incidents poses the possibility of the occurrence of an accident in the future which could have serious consequences for this country. The Government are not blind to this possibility and are well aware of the widespread public concern that exists.

It is in recognition of these concerns that the Government have pursued a series of actions at international level. The Taoiseach met the British Prime Minister on 19 February 1986 and urged that there be a review of safety procedures at the plant. The further incidents at Sellafield which followed that meeting underlined the necessity, as we see it, for such a review. But, as I said on many occasions, we are exposed to a potential hazard from an operation outside our jurisdiction. This makes the problem an international one. The view of the Irish Government is that this issue must be resolved by the European Commission under the provisions of the Euratom Treaty. The Government consider that a European inspection force is necessary to determine independently whether Sellafield can operate safely or whether operations should be suspended or cease until it is rendered safe.

The Minister for Energy, the Minister for the Environment and I have had separate formal discussions with Commissioner Clinton-Davis about this matter. In various discussions we have had with the Commissioner it was stated that we were satisfied that the Commission has a central and vital role to play in the implementation of the Community's basic radiation safety standards under the Euratom Treaty. The Irish Government's call for a European inspection force was stressed. The Commissioner confirmed that the question of a Community inspection force is one which is being examined under the terms of the Euratom Treaty. I was glad to note his comment on television on RTE news on Tuesday, 29 April, that the Chernobyl accident has strengthened our case for an independent inspection force.

On 11 April 1986 our ambassador in Brussels, on behalf of the Government, formally requested the Commissioner to establish a Community Health and Safety (Nuclear Installation) Inspection Force to report to the Commission, and in turn to the member states, on existing or potential health or safety problems at individual nuclear installations in the Community. We are awaiting a response from the Commission.

The Government have been called upon from time to time to demand the closure of the Sellafield plant, but that question of closure 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.

Let me assure the House that I will continue to give this matter my fullest attention and I will decide on what further steps are appropriate in the light of the response from the European Commission.

We need this assurance that the plant is being safely operated, and we consider that the basis for any such assurance must be 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 interest 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 at Sellafield, even if this transpires to mean suspension of operations or the closure of the plant.

Deputy Haughey has asked why we do not press for closure. The answer is that we are trying to achieve the possible and not pursue in vain the impossible.

Dr. O'Hanlon

It is not impossible.

Mr. E. Collins

The Deputy knows well, and I have said this before, that the UK Government are not prepared to close Sellafield. The plant is within the jurisdiction of another sovereign state and we cannot force that state to close it down. But because of the international implications, to which I have already referred, we feel, and the Government have been so advised by the Attorney General, that the Commission under the Euratom Treaty have powers to inspect the safety of nuclear installations. As I have said, we have formally asked the Commission to exercise those powers. The Government are of the firm opinion that this is the correct and proper way to proceed.

But Chernobyl has taught us another valuable lesson. There can be appalling and long term consequences from an accident at any nuclear power station. Such accidents recognise no boundaries, as was so dramatically demonstrated by Chernobyl. The reality we are faced with is that there are many nuclear installations at our doorstep and we would be taking a very shortsighted view by looking at Sellafield to the exclusion of other nuclear installations throughout Europe. Those installations contribute significantly to the economies of the countries where they are situated. We must recognise that there is little likelihood of these being closed even in the present circumstances. That may not be to our liking but these are the facts of life. The nuclear industry is there and will not go away. For this reason we must devote our efforts to ensuring that the industry is safe beyond doubt. The only way this can be tackled in a proper and objective way is through the establishment of an independent inspection force.

Deputy Haughey has frequently said in the House, and elsewhere, that the Nuclear Energy Board is redundant and should be scrapped. That is a rather peculiar statement coming from a Fianna Fáil Deputy, because it was Fianna Fáil in Government who initiated the establishment of the Nuclear Energy Board. I suggest to the Deputy that he seriously misunderstands the crucial role the board has and the valuable service it is providing and will provide for this country. I must refute quite emphatically any suggestion that the board no longer fulfils any useful function. It is true to say that the board was initially set up at a time when the building of a nuclear power station in this country was under consideration, and under consideration by a Fianna Fáil administration.

Mr. Haughey

It was done by the first Coalition.

Mr. E. Collins

It was the Deputy's party.

Mr. Haughey

We stopped it.

Mr. E. Collins

The Deputy's party accelerated it.

Mr. R. Burke

A former Tánaiste, Brendan Corish, in the Coalition of 1973——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister should be allowed to make his contribution.

Mr. Haughey

If the Minister wants party politics he will get them. This matter is above party politics.

Mr. E. Collins

The Nuclear Energy Board was established under the Nuclear Energy Act, 1971.

Mr. Haughey

Fianna Fáil stopped Carnsore that was started by the Coalition.

Mrs. Barnes

The people stopped Carnsore.

Mr. E. Collins

It was the Fianna Fáil administration that initiated Carnsore, were committed to Carnsore and the Deputies opposite will not get off that hook. I do not wish to get too involved in this.

Mr. Haughey

One would think that this was a woman's issue and it is a wonder that the Deputy opposite is keeping very quiet about it. The Deputy has been very vocal about women's issues and this is an issue about women.

Mr. E. Collins

Deputy Haughey should be more informed about the Nuclear Energy Act, 1971. Under that Act the Nuclear Energy Board was allocated a number of functions.

Mr. Haughey

I was not in Government in 1971.

Mr. E. Collins

I wonder why. The Nuclear Energy Board was allocated the following functions:

(a) To advise the Government on nuclear energy matters;

(b) To ensure that safety codes and regulations on the use, etc., of radioactive material and equipment are complied with in industry, medicine and research. The board operates a licensing system for this purpose under the Nuclear Energy Order, 1977 and

(c) To provide a radiation measurements service, including a programme of environmental monitoring of radioactivity with reference in particular to the Irish Sea.

There is no nuclear power station in this country, thank God, but the board's functions are sufficiently wide to enable it to act as a radiological protection board. Because of the shift in circumstances this, in fact, is what it has been doing from its inception and will continue to do under the Government.

This House is, of course, fully aware of the monitoring programme being carried out by the Nuclear Energy Board and by the universities. The ongoing programme includes monitoring of radioactivity levels in fish, seawater, seaweed and sediment taken from the Irish Sea. 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 the discharges from Sellafield.

A report published recently by the Nuclear Energy Board on their monitoring of radioactivity levels in the Irish Sea between 1982 and 1984 confirms that the radioactive contamination of the Irish Sea decreases rapidly with increasing distance from Sellafield. It also shows that the fish is safe to eat. Fianna Fáil did a lot of damage to the fishing industry on the east coast by their irresponsible comments on this matter. In particular, Deputy Burke has been most unhelpful in this regard.

Mr. R. Burke

The Minister is an irresponsible man.

Mr. D. Gallagher

The Minister could make that speech in the House of Commons.

Mr. E. Collins

We do not owe anything to England. We stand on our own feet.

Mr. R. Burke

The Minister has not got off his feet for the last four years.

An Ceann Comhairle

Every Member should get a hearing. That is elementary justice.

Mr. E. Collins

Most recently the Nuclear Energy Board played a major part following the Chernobyl disaster. It is fulfilling a function of the highest importance in the service of the radiological protection of the people of Ireland. If there were no Nuclear Energy Board there would be a pressing need for one and the Opposition would be demanding one.

Mr. Lyons

The Minister should be demanding one.

Mr. R. Burke

There is not one in existence at the moment.

Mr. E. Collins

In the course of an Adjournment debate on 1 May 1986 the Minister for Energy outlined the arrangements which would come into play to identify if we were affected by fall-out from any nuclear incident. Contamination would be detected in the first instance by the continous monitoring of the atmosphere which is routinely carried out by the Nuclear Energy Board. If significant levels of contamination were detected in the air from fall-out, the foods which are most at risk would be monitored to determine levels of contamination.

In relation to the Chernobyl disaster, I must say that the Russian Government were quite irresponsible in not informing their neighbours of the disaster. We took action as soon as we heard of it and foresaw the possibility of radioactive damage to our environment. On Thursday, 1 May the inter-departmental committee, in conjunction with the Nuclear Energy Board, was established. On Sunday, 4 May, at about 6 p.m., the Minister for Energy was informed that air monitoring samples from the Dublin area showed indications for the first time of radioactivity from the Chernobyl plant and, of course, samples of milk were taken in the Leinster area immediately

On Monday, 5 May the inter-departmental committee met and, with the cooperation of the Civil Defence Force, immediately arranged for the collection of milk samples on a countrywide basis.

Members will be aware from what the Minister said last night of the major steps taken by this Government to ensure that everything possible is done to monitor the situation, indeed that the public would be told of the situation. This we have done at the appropriate time.

In conclusion, I am in a position to inform the House that various samples of milk tested today show that the level of iodine 131 has shown a consistent decline in all samples. The most recent results from the Leinster area have shown an iodine 131 concentration in milk to be at 30 becquerels per litre, considerably lower than the peak value found early in the week, at about 440 becquerels per litre. Therefore, we have seen a rapid and welcome decline. These levels are well below the international Atomic Energy Agency action level of 1,000 becquerels per litre.

Mr. Haughey

It is still too high.

Mr. E. Collins

I am trying to be responsible because I feel the information I am giving the House is of importance not only to the House but to the public.

Mr. Haughey

It is a pathetic performance. The Minister should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. E. Collins

Let me complete my contribution. They are all within safe levels from the point of view of consumption of milk. Of course, monitoring will continue and the public will be kept informed. Furthermore, samples of tap water were tested in Dublin today, at two locations, and no iodine or caesium contamination was detected.

I hope this will reassure the public that the Government and the Nuclear Energy Board are taking every step possible to monitor the situation. I hope the results of the most recent test will be reassuring to the Irish public, if not to Mr. Haughey and other cranks like him.

Mr. Haughey

A Cheann Comhairle, I want to direct your attention to the phrase used by the Minister. He said: "Mr. Haughey and other cranks like him". Are you accepting that to be parliamentary language?

An Ceann Comhairle

I deprecate a lowering of the tone in the House. I did not hear it because I was calling Deputy Monica Barnes. If the Minister made that remark he should withdraw it.

Mr. E. Collins

I will be happy to withdraw it. But I will say that it is important that people like the Leader of the Opposition, people in responsible positions like him, should not be making irresponsible statements.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies are taking up the time of Deputy Monica Barnes. Perhaps to square it off, Deputy R. Burke would withdraw the word "clown".

Mr. Haughey

A Cheann Comhairle, I do not regard that as a withdrawal. I happen to feel, personally, very deeply about this matter.

Mr. E. Collins

And so do I, Sir.

Mr. Haughey

I feel very deeply about this matter, as a person and as a politician.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is unreasonable to be taking up the next speaker's time. The Minister should withdraw——

Mr. E. Collins

I have withdrawn the word "crank" Sir.

Mr. Haughey

I want to say that I think the Minister's behaviour just now is disgraceful and unworthy of any Minister of this Government or this country——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Monica Barnes——

Mr. E. Collins

A bit of home truth——

Mr. Haughey

The Minister is a dishonest disgrace.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. E. Collins

Deputy Haughey and his colleagues have been most irresponsible and unhelpful to the Irish people.

Mr. L'Estrange

What about the bugging that took place, one Minister bugging another? Was that not a disgrace?

Mr. E. Collins

Deputy Haughey should withdraw that unparliamentary remark.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should withdraw the remark.

Mr. Haughey

"Dishonest" is a perfect parliamentary word.

An Ceann Comhairle

The word is withdrawn.

Mr. E. Collins

It is not.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes. It is most unreasonable to be invading the time of the next speaker.

Mr. Haughey

A Cheann Comhairle, I would like you to tell me what is the distinction between the word "dishonest" and the word "trickery".

An Ceann Comhairle

The word "trickery" was drawn right across the House.

Mr. Haughey

The Minister is a disgrace. He is an irresponsible disgrace.

Mr. E. Collins

The Deputy does not like home truths.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am calling Deputy Monica Barnes——

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

I think there are Deputies in this House determined to see that it will not work. It is not reasonable that the House should be obstructed in the way it is being obstructed. I am calling Deputy Monica Barnes.

Mrs. Barnes

If my fellow male colleagues have finished bickering perhaps I will have a chance to say something on what Deputy Haughey rightly said was essentially and fundamentally a woman's issue. I should also like to tell Deputy Haughey that he need not doubt that, as long as I am a Member of this House, as long as I am allowed to speak and given time to do so, I shall speak on women's issues.

Mr. Haughey

And vote. We are fed up with Fine Gael backbenchers preaching and not voting.

Mrs. Barnes

I wish the whole subject was as simplistic as is this motion here this evening. It is not. You rightly said, on that side of the House——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should address her remarks through the Chair.

Mrs. Barnes

Deputies on the other side of the House who said there are no boundaries to this debate are quite right. What is an even more harsh reality is that the boundaries of the impending disaster we all face—that some countries experienced last week—have no limits. That is why it must be tackled in the most constructive, positive way possible.

I am sure other Members of the House share my consternation at how helpless and powerless one small nation can be with regard to the proliferation of nuclear energy, both by way of power stations and weaponry. I am glad this subject has been brought up again and again. I want all sides of the House to fight this matter to the bitter end, to use the terrible experience of the past couple of weeks to consolidate what many of us feared and what, unfortunately, too few people have taken seriously to date. I deplore the fact that always there has to be a crisis or an accident of huge, human proportions before we take the right emergency measures.

Unfortunately the Minister has spelled out the reality that, even if we pass this motion in the House this evening, the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant will not be closed down. It should be remembered that huge, powerful interests are involved not just at the economic and industrial level but also at the military level and, dear God, we all know just how powerful they are. I want this debate to continue in the most positive and constructive way. Out of the disaster we have witnessed must come sanity, solid lobbying and working to get the people with us.

Members on the other side of the House will agree with me that one of the most inspiring things with regard to public opinion in the recent past in our attempts at the establishment of a nuclear plant has been the across-the-board awareness, concern and action on the part of the people generally. I did not mean it as a cheap political jibe when I said it was the people who stopped it. All of us tonight, from whatever side of the House, should be appealing to the people of Ireland and Britain — because, remember they also have an investment and their Government do not seem to be listening to them — encouraging a worldwide movement, all of us standing up using every means available to us to ensure that this insanity does not continue.

I am sure all of my colleagues share my concern and terrible sadness that a country like Sweden—a country that has had a great sense of social and security planning, even of neutrality — could find itself not being informed of a disaster that could affect them. It was only when Sweden, with all its attempts at security, neutrality and good statemanship, found its people invaded internally — perhaps to a degree as they have said themselves, causing disease and death — did any information with regard to what had happened at Chernobyl emerge.

It is no longer a safe world. I absolutely agree with every Deputy who has said that we must use the international committee which must be set up and that that committee be urgent in their tasks. The first area to which they should look is Sellafield. I am tried of people telling me that there is a natural background of radiation, that because we are living on a planet which has natural radiation somehow we will develop a continuous resistance to it. That is balderdash. That is like saying that because there is natural electricity in the atmosphere we can take high doses of electricity and will build up a resistance to it. It is as stupid and as short term as that.

Mr. R. Burke

Would the Deputy tell us if she is going to vote with us?

Mrs. Barnes

In all sincerity, in response to the Deputy if I honestly believed that that was the solution, I would do it.

Mr. R. Burke

The Deputy should try it.

Mrs. Barnes

Nobody need challenge my voting in this House on the right issues. It is not simple. It is not a matter of voting. It is a matter of working with an international committee with international standards, a world movement, of everybody saying to the nuclear industry, concerning weapons and power — and as Deputy de Rossa has said, they are tied in — that the world must be made safe. We must not try to score political points and must recognise that there are no boundaries. We must all move towards a solution which will work. It will not work without an international committee.

Mr. R. Burke

Let the Deputy make the first step in this House tonight and vote with us.

Mr. Allen

That is all the Opposition are concerned about — votes. They are not interested in anything else.

(Interruptions.)

Mrs. Barnes

Much of my time, limited as it was, has already been taken up by interruptions. I should like to have the last few seconds left to me and to women. We all as human beings may worry about this danger but, as Doctor Helen Caldicott showed years ago, when very few people listened to her or to other women, we and our unborn babies are directly in line. Already, pregnant women are the people who are most fearful, and rightly so. The least we can promise to pregnant women is that they should have some security, that not alone will their babies be born safely without genetic mutation, but that they will be born in some kind of a safe world.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. G. Brady

It is a pity that the Minister has left the House. I have spoken on this issue on four or five separate occasions and it is disappointing to have it made a political issue. This is a non-political issue. Pollution of this kind knows no boundaries. The singular issue facing this House tonight is to show with a united voice that we can stand up to Britain on this matter. Why should we defend the stand which Britain is taking? From this country's point of view, we have no vested interest whatsoever in a nuclear industry or in the activities that are taking place in Britain. That is the kernel issue. That is what the Government should face up to.

Much debate has taken place, and rightly so, around Sellafield. Not much reference, however, has been made to the perhaps most important fact that Sellafield is being expanded. I am sure that Deputy Barnes will be interested to hear that a £3 billion expansion is taking place there, through the Thorpe expansion programme. Surely it stands to reason that if one expands that plant and that industry to the pitch to which they are being allowed to expand, the risk of serious accident becomes far greater. Many have asked what stand can Ireland take. Ireland can take the stand that united, this Parliament is calling for the closure of Sellafield. Let nobody ask what we can do. We can do an enormous amount as a small nation. Our voice is strong in Europe; it is not muted. We do have a point of view. Rather than reading in British newspapers tomorrow morning "Irish Government Vote down Bid to close Sellafield"— that is the type of headline which appeared in those newspapers after this issue was debated in the Dáil — we should stand united on this issue.

Mrs. Barnes

We should call for the closure of all nuclear plants.

Mr. G. Brady

I do not want to introduce any political rancour into this debate. It is a very serious subject in which I have had an interest over the last four years. Whether we like it or not, the Government are a party to a huge potential risk to this nation. Contamination has come from 1,500 miles away. I would go so far as to say in this House tonight that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility, given the long term effect of low dosages of radiation, that people might die as a result of that accident so far away. I could be accused of being alarmist in saying that, but it is a fact of life. Information has come from England today that perhaps ten people will die there as a result of what happened 1,500 miles away from them. Why should we defend that appalling situation?

We were insulted quite recently when a Minister in Britain referred to the fears expressed by people about Sellafield as being akin to a mediaeval witchhunt. Imagine a man saying that. It is an insult to the intelligence. They will eat their words now that a serious accident has taken place. It is right and proper that this Parliament sound a warning to protect its nation.

The chairman of our Nuclear Energy Board, Dr. George Duffy, only recently stated that he was more worried about the safety of the 30 year old reactors at Sellafield than he was about the pollution caused by radioactive discharge into the Irish Sea. How can we defend that system? We just cannot. It is criminally negligent to the nation to engage in divisive side-tracking amendments such as the motion put down by the Government. The kernel of the issue is that Britain could be taken to the European Court for being in breach of EC regulations causing a threat to a sovereign state bordering it. There are very serious grounds for believing that that could be done because of the risk which it is putting before this nation. The expansion of Sellafield is a horrendous proposition for this country. There is activity in the Irish Sea, bringing nuclear waste from far off countries such as Japan who will not get rid of their own waste, and dumping such waste into our sea. Then they talk about cutting back radiation to acceptable dosages. The fact that it is present is most regrettable. The reality is that there is no acceptable level.

The point has been made: what can we do about Sellafield? Much of the material cannot be disposed of. I have read reports on the research which has been carried out on dry land storage at the plant. Much of the storage could take place there in a safer manner. I seem to be repeating this ad nauseam but until there is a unified commitment — from Ireland even which stands to lose so much — from this House we will have lost our opportunity and we will let England away with this and their proposition to develop a nuclear industry. That is the proposition. They are going to expand and develop. It is not just one particular plant within 70 or 80 miles from where we are debating tonight, let alone 1,500 miles away in southern Russia, the fact of the matter is that there are dozens of nuclear plants in England. We are making a singular protest here tonight which should be backed unanimously by every Member of this House.

We have had a report contradicting the statement made by the Tánaiste about twice the level of radioactivity. Nobody really knows about this and what damage is being caused by radiation of this kind. I appeal strongly to the Government on this. There would be no face lost. It is not even being looked at from that point of view and it angers me to hear people say it is not sensible to call for the closure of Sellafield. Of course, it is sensible. We all know it, which is worse. We all realise that it is the sensible course to take. So do the public. They know it is the way to go. A gesture now by the Government to make this a united call from this House tonight would be the answer and give us a pointer so that we could refer the matter to the European Court. If we are arguing amongst ourselves and have not got a united voice on the issue, then the Government are negligent in the absolute extreme on this matter.

I would like to refer briefly to the second part of our motion. Not enough attention has been given to it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy's time is up.

Mr. G. Brady

You did allow an over run of two minutes. Could I have 30 seconds? We have called for civil protection in our motion. Why cannot the Government support it? It defies logic. Unless the Government totally support this motion this evening, that will not be forgotten by the public in years to come. In conclusion, if we are not concerned about ourselves and the protection of our environment, surley we have a duty to protect the environment for future generations.

Dr. O'Hanlon

This is a very timely motion following the Chernobyl incident. We have had massively increased levels of radioactivity from an incident which occurred 1,500 miles away. It is an indication of the seriousness with which we view the Sellafield plant that we have had a second motion in the space of about six to eight weeks.

Sellafield is almost 40 years old. There have been numerous serious errors, in particular the fire in 1957 and the serious discharge into the Irish sea in 1983. They have been fined £10,000 for failure to obey the regulations. The total lack of information coming from Sellafield is very serious. Management and workers are bound by the Official Secrets Act not to give information. The military control 15 per cent of the plant. Are the military obliged to adhere to the same stringent regulations that the normal public company are obliged to obey?

Wrong information has been given. Indeed a committee set up under Sir Donald Black was given wrong information. Later, one of the officials who left Sellafield was able to disclose that Sir Donald Black was given a figure which was one fortieth of the real figure of uranium discharged. He was given a figure of 40 grammes when it should have been 20 kilogrammes. I listened to the Environment Secretary on the BBC radio programme last Friday night "Any Questions" on which he stated that he was very proud to live in a society where there was openness and frankness and condemned the Russians for the fact that they did not disclose information.

Of serious concern to us are the lack of information and the failure to disclose important information. The 1983 discharge into the Irish Sea was not disclosed until a Greenpeace boat happened to be in the vicinity. Following on their finding of this discharge it was admitted that such a discharge did occur. Having listened to the Minister last night and the Minister of State tonight I would like to know when the Department were informed of the incident in Kent three or four days ago. That was not disclosed until questioning by a reporter from The Observer elicited this information.

Professor Hillery and Dr. Sheehan did an intensive study in the Dundalk area and linked a number of cases of Down's Syndrome to the 1957 incident at Sellafield. It was suggested that they were being alarmist and that that could not have happened in view of statements at the time that the wind was blowing in the opposite direction. In the last few days Paddy Ashdown, a Liberal MP, stated in The Guardian that there was a large amount of radioactivity at that time but it was blown out to sea, presumably the Irish Sea. Naturally this came towards the east coast.

There has been an increased incidence of disease in the area around Sellafield. There has been an increased incidence of leukaemia. In fact, the third highest level of leukaemia in children in the UK is in Seascale. Doctors right along the east coast, North and South, are very concerned about the increased incidence of leukaemia. It is inexplicable. Many of them link it to Sellafield and consider it worthy of further study. The Department of Health set up a committee in 1984 to look at the problems of Down's Syndrome and leukaemia. They promised to report in April of this year but there is no sign of the report to date which is an indication of the casual approach of the Government.

There has been absolutely no preparation by the Government even though they must be aware that these incidents would happen at some stage. We heard the Minister last night and the Minister of State tonight saying they would continue to monitor the situation. I would have liked to have heard from either of them what plans they have and what plans Civil Defence have in the event of a major incident? What plans have the Department of Health? Are there any iodine tablets available if a major radioactive iodine fallout reaches this country? While we on this side of the House believe that prevention is the answer, the least we would have expected from the Minister was some indication of what plans he has made in the event of a serious incident.

I am seriously concerned about the recent incidents at Sellafield and their frequency. My main concern about Sellafield is that it has potential for destruction. We are not facing up to that. If there was a serious disaster or fire at Sellafield, the radioactive particles would be carried up into the atmosphere. The main problem would be created 60 miles away, which would involve our east coast. We are talking about radioactive elements which are very serious and hazardous to man in large quantities. It will cause cancers, leukaemia, genetic defects and any amount of serious illnesses.

The Minister of State tonight stated there was little likelihood of closure of Sellafield and that we should ensure safety. In my view there is no such thing as safety. People depend upon measuring instruments. As they have become more sophisticated the safety measures have been reduced. The people do not want measuring instruments or monitoring of what is happening. They want a safe environment in which to live. Health care and the promotion of a healthy lifestyle will be emphasised more in the future. It is essential that we should have a healthy atmosphere. People do not want to turn on their radios at 8 o'clock in the morning to find out whether or not it is safe to put milk in their tea. All parties to this country, North and South, except the Coalition parties, want Sellafield closed. I appeal to the Government and to the Deputies opposite to support our motion. We are regularly calling on nations around the world to reduce the number of nuclear armaments that are available. It would not be wrong for the Government and their backbenchers to support our motion and to show that, as a nation which does not have a vested interest in nuclear power, we are standing up in defence of the rights of the people.

Mr. R. Burke

In this motion Fianna Fáil are proposing that this Government engage in a specific course of action to protect the health and the interests of the Irish people. Specifically we are proposing that the Government, in a united way with the backing of all Irish people, immediately confront the British Government and demand the closure of Sellafield because of its deplorable safety record. Secondly, we are urging the Government to abolish the Nuclear Energy Board and to replace it with a radiological protection institute. Thirdly, we are recommending and urging them to put in place a comprehensive system involving all the appropriate agencies and Departments designed to protect our population to the greatest possible extent from the effects of nuclear fallout. Fourthly, at an international level we are urging that they take a series of initiatives directed at dealing with the growing menace of nuclear power and opposing any further expansion and imposition of international safety controls and inspections.

This debate, like the debate in March and on other occasions, has been marked with ill-tempered outbursts by Government Ministers and accusations of irresponsibility by the Fianna Fáil Party. As we have said before, and as our record has proven, we are acting as a responsible Opposition reflecting the fears and genuine worries of the Irish people in regard to this menace on our doorsteps, the nuclear power stations in Britain but particularly Sellafield. We had another example of an ill-tempered outburst here tonight by Minister Collins. He accused us of being irresponsible. The same Minister on 22 January 1985 in this House accused the leader of our party of indulging in alarmist questioning. He said "There is no danger of people living in Ireland from discharges at Sellafield. Since then a British House of Commons report proved that the Irish Sea is the most nuclear radioactive in the world. We have had the tragedy at Chernobyl, which is 1,500 miles away but which has had radioactive effects in this country. The same Minister of State told us in this House in December 1985 that on the question of discharges into the sea from the Sellafield plant he had no reason to believe that the United Kingdom were not carrying out their obligation under the relevant international agreement, the paris Convention of 1974 on the prevention of pollution from land-based sources. Time and time again this Government and their Ministers have been totally misled by the British Government. They continue to accept the word of the British Government and British Nuclear Fuels.

Today in Switzerland, Mr. Norman Fowler, Minister for Social Security in the UK, told the Irish people, lectured us, that we are foolish we might be, but we are as a nation united in concern about Sellafield. If he has any doubts about it let him ask any man or woman in the streets of Ireland how they feel about Sellafield. They want it closed now. This Government will not ask for its closure. Their only argument for not pursuing it was that it would be impossible for the British Government, that we cannot force the British Government to close it because it is on their territory and, therefore, we have no power over it. I say to you, do not underestimate the united voice of the Irish people, which would be reflected in a vote in this House tonight. If there was a unanimous decision made by the Irish Parliament on behalf of the Irish people calling for the closure of Sellafield it would have great moral sway on the British Government and it would hold them out before the eyes of the world on this issue. Our Government are afraid to get off their knees in case they offend the British Government. I say to them: Your responsibility is to the Irish people. You are the Government of the Irish people, and it is your responsibility to act in the best interests of the Irish people. I implore those Deputies who have spoken on the opposite side, Deputy Barnes and others who genuinely share our concern, to join with us in asking for the closure of Sellafield. It might be a long road, but the first step on any long road can be taken. Think of the headlines in British newspapers tomorrow — that the Irish Parliament as a united Parliament calls for the closure of Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant. The effect that that would have on British public opinion and on world opinion is incalculable.

The Minister spoke about making the nuclear industry safe. The nuclear industry cannot be made safe. If anybody has any doubt about that let them look at Chernobyl and the explosion that took place there. Let us look at the track record and the accident record of Sellafield. In 1986 alone there were three major incidents at Sellafield which were reported to the Nuclear Energy Board and to the Government. They are the incidents that we know about. What about all the other ones that we do not know about? It is fair to say that, because they have so often hidden incidents in the past until the truth was dragged out of them. Close Sellafield. The Irish people feel very strongly about this. Our views are not being properly reflected when the chief executive of our Nuclear Energy Board is reported in last Thursday's paper as saying that Ireland's east coast was at least 60 miles from the nearest British nuclear power station and that, consequently, we would not expect severly damaging radioactive fall-out to affect us here in the event of a major accident. There was a major accident in Chernobyl, which is 1,500 miles away. According to Dr. Peter Mitchell of University College, Dublin, radioactivity found in one milk sample yesterday could give cause for concern if repeated. Yet our Nuclear Energy Board tell us that we have nothing to fear because we are 60 miles away. We already have reason to fear from 1,500 miles away.

On the far side of the House they speak regularly about free votes on issues of this kind. I ask the Taoiseach to release his backbenchers from the moral pressure he has put them under. I have no doubt that many of them would join in calling for the closure of Sellafield. I ask them to join us tonight on this non-political issue to put moral pressure on the British Government on behalf of the Irish people.

Mr. Manning

I wish to make three brief points on this issue. It should not be a source of party division because it is a matter of human safety. Never before in the history of the House has public safety been a party issue. The end result, the safety and well-being of people not only here but in Europe and the world, is our prime concern.

We are very lucky that we do not have a nuclear power station in Carnsore. That is not because of the wisdom of Government but because the oil crisis of the late seventies forced a change of mind. It is only eight years ago since the then Government, based on a decision of the previous Government, agreed that we should go ahead with the building of a nuclear power station at Carnsore. The then Minister for Energy, Deputy O'Malley, was very clear and explicit when he told us that was the future, the way in which we should look after our energy sources from then on. When Deputies Barry Desmond and Kelly then raised the points being made here tonight, questions about safety and the discharge of waste, they were dismissed in a very abrupt way by the then Minister for Energy, without demur from his colleagues.

We cannot afford to feel smug. We are lucky because the oil crisis of the late seventies allowed for a drop in demand and as a consequence the need for the nuclear power station did not arise. We should keep that in mind and neither side should claim exclusivity of concern on this issue.

There are two ways to approach this problem, both reflecting great concern about Sellafield. British Nuclear Fuels have lied through their teeth consistently over a long period about the real position in Sellafield. Like us, the British public have cause to be concerned about this and the British Government must have great difficulty in standing over the credibility of stories coming to them from Sellafield. We accept all that, but how do we bring about a change? We can shout or even roar and call for the closure of Sellafield. We can do it night after night in this House, but we will be told it is not our business, that the safeguards are there, that the British are satisfied about their safety standards.

Mr. G. Brady

Why not try it?

Mr. Manning

I do not think it would be the most effective way. The other way to go about it is through methods that exist already. We can work through the EC. There we can lobby and bring pressure on Britain to allow access to the best independent monitoring experts so that we can get a full picture of what the situation is.

Mr. G. Brady

The European Parliament have already voted for closure.

Mr. Haughey

We have the full picture — we do not want anybody else to tell us.

Mr. Manning

We can shout and roar to bring pressure on Britain but it will not be effective. A more effective way would be to work through processes that exist at present. We can win the support of our colleagues in the EC. We can put diplomatic pressure on. But, if we persist in calling for the closure of Sellafield, the natural reaction of a combative and perhaps arrogant British Prime Minister is to dig her heels in even more, to give us even more cause for concern. If we want to be effective so that we can bring about a change of mind, the way open to us is to go along the lines suggested by the Minister for Energy last night. It may not be the most popular way. It might be easier and more popular to shout and call continuously for the closure of Sellafield. Perhaps that, too, would change public opinion, but it would be fatal for us to divide on this issue this evening.

Mr. G. Brady

Thirty per cent of the British people want Sellafield closed.

Mr. Manning

It is our job to help them to mobilise opinion. Politically, though, if we want to be effective rather than scoring points, rather than whipping up alarm and fears which might not otherwise exist, if we work through the way outlined by the Minister for Energy, through the proper diplomatic channels, through the European Atomic Commission, putting every diplomatic pressure on the British, we are more likely to be effective in the long run.

As Deputy O'Hanlon said, the debate here is particularly timely, because never before has there been such concern about the dangers from nuclear fuels. This has been caused by the disaster at Chernobyl. It would be wrong if the concern of the House was not expressed to the Soviets. We should first express our sympathy to those who have suffered and for the devastation caused, but we should let the Soviets know that their irresponsible behaviour in the wake of Chernobyl is simply not acceptable to the other countries of Europe. There was no access until very recently for independent experts. If we talk about matters of which we are ignorant in regard to Sellafield, how much greater is our ignorance about what happened at Chernobyl, about the irresponsibility of the Soviets in their pressure to develop nuclear fuels at an alarming rate, to build in the interests of their economy without any regard for safety?

This evening, while expressing the great concern of everybody in the House about the situation in Sellafield and in pursuing the proper diplomatic political means of bringing about the sort of changes we want in Sellafield, let us express to the Soviets our concern at their unneighbourly behaviour in waiting for a day or two after the event before making it public, in refusing to allow access or to give verification of the true circumstances.

Mr. Reynolds

I was interested in Deputy Manning's contribution. There are some matters I do not understand. He said this should not be a political issue, that we should not divide on it. That is precisely the point we are trying to make. The House should not divide on this national issue, affecting the health of our people, affecting our environment. It affects North and South, all Irish people. All Irish people are agreed on this. The only forum in Ireland today in which you will find disagreement and division is this House. For the life of me I cannot understand it.

I cannot understand the suggestion that we should allow the European Parliament to deal with this. That Parliament have decided, have voted for the closure of Sellafield. Surely that represents a much wider range of opinion. Why can we not come together here tonight and send out a united voice to the British Government? We should say that enough is enough. As far as Ireland is concerned, let the British close Sellafield now, once and for all. That is not making hysterical political speeches. That is not alarmist, as Deputy Haughey was labelled by the Minister of State, Deputy E. Collins, who thankfully has left the debate in the despicable and deplorable manner in which he walked out the door.

This party, under the present Leader, for some years have been pointing out time after time — I was called hysterical and he was called alarmist and Deputy G. Brady was probably called by every word in the English dictionary from time to time for annoying the Government of the day by bringing in a motion which was not reasonable. They told us time after time that there was no risk, no danger to health.

If they have had doubts on the other side — perhaps they thought they could overcome the problems arising from Sellafield — they should put them aside now. It is foolish to tell us, as Government Deputies have been doing, that the British Government will not close Sellafield. This has been the kind of defeatist attitude adopted here tonight by the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, and by Deputy Barnes, who nearly shed crocodile tears in relation to what might happen to the people. It is no argument to say the British Government will not close Sellafield or that they will not listen to the British people. What is happening here is that our Government are refusing to listen to the voices from every part of the country to get behind the call for the closure of Sellafield. How can our Government credibly say the British Government will not listen when they themselves are not prepared to listen to the Irish people? This matter is non-political and it should not be a cause of division among us.

I cannot understand the cosy and apparently comfortable attitude of the Government in relation to this matter. In his speech this evening the Minister of State did not tell us anything we had not known already. In fact, that speech could easily have been made in the House of Commons. In essence it was in line with what two Ministers in the British Government said this afternoon in an effort to assuage the fears of the British people. I refer to Minister Peter Walker and Minister Norman Fowler. We heard the same expressions from them when they tried to persuade the British people that there were no risks.

On British television last night, in a late news bulletin, figures confirmed that there would be a minimum of 8,000 deaths caused by cancer as a result of the unfortunate accident that took place 1,500 miles away. Yet, here we are in the Irish Parliament prepared to divide on an issue like this when we know — it has been shown quite clearly by the experts — that many thousands of people will die from cancer. We must ask how many Irish people will die from cancer as a result of that accident.

I ask every Member on the opposite side to think again before they vote. Many of them will have attended the funerals of friends and relations who died of cancer and related diseases. How many Members opposite have asked the question: why so many young people are dying because of cancer? There was a serious accident in 1957. There is no doubt that accidents were covered up and that lies were told about them time and again. There is no doubt that the Irish Government were not informed about the true facts. The nuclear industry worldwide pours hundreds of millions of pounds into protecting that industry. They have created the most effective propaganda and public relations exercise in an effort to maintain that industry for themselves.

From what we see in our own country we know there has been a serious increase in the incidence of cancer, leukaemia and related diseases. Despite all the differing statements in the past few days since this unfortunate accident, we know there will be more cancer deaths, both North and South. Perhaps we may be lucky enough and not suffer from those horrible diseases, but certainly young people and pregnant mothers may be affected. Is it any wonder that the women in the country are phoning various offices throughout the day in an effort to get up-to-date information. They do not believe, and cannot be expected to believe, the information emanating from various Government sources.

Last night in this House the Minister for Energy said that the radioactivity increase during the weekend was only twice as much as normal, but today we find out from an eminent scientist in UCD that it was 23 times more than normal. I will not waste my time quoting the various statements that have been made. The statement from the Nuclear Energy Board was different from that of the Minister for Energy. We had a definitive statement from medical authorities here saying the NEB do not have the medical expertise that would entitle them to tell the people of the country that there is no health hazard.

Phrases such as "the normal risk" have been used and we have been told that the radiation level is "a bit above the normal risk". What is the normal risk? Who created it? Why should there be any normal risk? Are we talking about protecting the health of our people and our environment? We are not. All the Government have mentioned, in the speech tonight and last night, was monitoring — the usual response from this Government. What will they monitor? They may monitor the levels of radiation but will that do anything to remove the risks. Up to now have they carried out any monitoring or inspection of fresh vegetables? Tonight in Dublin Bay there is a ship from Poland. Are the Government even aware of that fact? Are they doing anything about it? It is not today or yesterday that the ad hoc interdepartmental committee should have been established and brought together. The Government got plenty of notice. They were told on many occasions of the accidents that happened in Sellafield and of the build-up of radioactivity. Yet, it took this major disaster to get them to set up the interdepartmental committee. We must ask the question: to do what? The answer we have been given is to monitor.

We are quite clear in what we call for tonight. The Government cannot be happy with their amendment to our motion. I shall quote from it. It speaks of:

conveying to the UK Government the Irish public's concern that the number of accidents at Sellafield has caused a loss of confidence in the safety of the operation of the plant.

What is wrong with an Irish Government that they will not stand up for the rights of our people and honour their responsibilities to those who elected them? They should demand the closure of Sellafield. Do they expect to get anything if they do not ask for it? If they sit at home during a general election campaign, do they expect people to come out and vote for them without even asking? They will not even honour their responsibilities to the Irish people by making the demand. Let it be refused, but at least they should carry out their responsibilities and respond to the wishes of our people.

We must ask the question why they are not making that demand. Why have they continued for so long to pour out speeches that have more in common with speeches delivered in the House of Commons in their attempts to tell us we are not at risk? Is it any wonder our people are asking why are our Government so reluctant to make that demand? They wonder why the Government are so afraid and subservient. Is there a strategic and defence reason? We know that Sellafield is there for strategic and military reasons. Is that why the Irish Government are not prepared to demand its closure? Are they afraid they might dislodge the excellent relationship we are told exists between the two Governments, although one must wonder how deep that runs? Is that the price they are expecting the Irish people to pay? If so, I believe they are making a serious misjudgment and miscalculation. There is no price our people are not prepared to pay to assuage the grave concern that exists throughout our island. They will stand behind an Irish Government who make that demand. It may ruffle feathers along the way, but when have an Irish Government so thrown away their independence and spirit of nationalism that they are not prepared to do what our people wish? Has it gone so far that once again they are prepared to bend the knee and to endanger the health of our people and the environment? That is not a price we are prepared to pay. We believe that every Irish person would be prepared to stand fully behind the Government on this matter. Indeed it might lift some of the air of despair and disillusionment that exists today if we saw a spark of leadership from this Government in relation to this issue.

Mr. Kelly

What action does the Deputy recommend?

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Reynolds

I know it annoys Deputy Kelly and that deep down he would not take the line he is taking.

Mr. Kelly

Deputy Reynolds would have done better to sit down at 8.30 p.m.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please. Deputies must cease interrupting.

Mr. Reynolds

We do not accept that it is good enough to call on the British Prime Minister to set up a review. That is not good enough for the Irish people. I believe that Deputy Kelly genuinely agrees with the call for closure and that he would take a different view if he were on the Front Bench, where he aspires to sit, and many of his colleagues would stand behind him. I hope he is man enough to stand up for his beliefs and vote for the closure of Sellafield.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. Reynolds

The Taoiseach is silent on this issue but if he were in Opposition he would be running around the world trying to organise international public opinion behind his call on behalf of the Irish people. He is so silent it is incredible; he has gone to ground. Three weeks ago I heard the Minister for Foreign Affairs say on radio that the British Government will not close Sellafield. He is not prepared even to ask — what is not worth asking for is not worth receiving. There has been silence from the benches opposite but there are people there who have at heart a genuine concern for the people and we will wait to see whether they go right or left through the division lobby tonight.

It is not a political issue or an issue which should divide this House. This will be the only House in the 32 counties where there will be a division of opinion in relation to making a demand once and for all for the closure of Sellafield. We should be proud to be an Irish Parliament and put it up to the House of Commons from the 32 counties of Ireland. If we cannot agree on anything else, we can agree on that alone. Let us demand that Sellafield be closed and get back to the business of running this country, representing its people and making it a better place, if not for us to live in, then for our children to inhabit in the future.

Question put: "That amendment No. 1 be made."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 67.

Tá

• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Myra.
• Barry, Peter.
• Begley, Micheal.
• Carey, Donal.
• Conlon, John F.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick Mark.
• Cosgrave, Liam T.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Coveney, Hugh.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Martin Austin.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dowling, Dick.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Glenn, Alice.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hegarty, Paddy.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Bell, Michael.
• Bermingham, Joe.
• Boland, John.
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Liam.
• Kelly, John.
• Kenny, Enda.
• L'Estrange, Gerry.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McLoughlin, Frank.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Molony, David.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Nealon, Ted.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Brien, Willie.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Prendergast, Frank.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Ryan, John.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
• Skelly, Liam.
• Spring, Dick.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Níl

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Byrne, Seán.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
• 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.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Gregory-Independent, Tony.
• Harney, Mary.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Tom.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• Morley, P.J.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael J.(Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Edmond.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• Ormonde, Donal.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• Power, Paddy.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Barrett(Dublin North-West).

Amendment No. 1 declared carried.

Motion, as amended, declared carried.