By agreement and notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, Members shall be called in Private Members' time this evening as follows: from 7 p.m. to 7.20 p.m. an Opposition speaker, from 7.20 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. an Opposition speaker, from 7.30 p.m. to 7.40 p.m. an Opposition speaker, from 7.40 p.m. to 8.10 p.m. a Government speaker, from 8.10 p.m. to 8.20 p.m. an Opposition speaker, from 8.20 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. an Opposition speaker.
Private Members' Business. - Sellafield Nuclear Plant: Motion.
Are the times read out agreed? Agreed.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann, concerned about the repeated accidents at, and continuing discharges from, the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant and conscious of the dangerous threat it poses to the life and health of the Irish people and to the whole environment on this island, calls on the British Government to arrange for the immediate closure of this dangerous installation.
This motion underlines the fact that responsibility for Sellafield rests with the British Government. Accordingly, any call for the setting up of inspectorates or the involvement of outside agencies is secondary to the main call on the British Government for the closure of Sellafield. The greatest pressure we can bring to bear on the British Government is a united call from this Dáil for the closure of Sellafield. In the interests of the people we must act as a united Parliament as it is the only pressure which the British Government will recognise.
This is the third time this year Fianna Fáil have tabled a Private Members' Motion on Sellafield. On each of the previous occasions not only were our motions rejected by the Coalition but we were accused by them of being alarmist. Given the serious and very real threat which Sellafield poses to our country and the irresponsible way in which the Coalition have handled the issue in their dealings with Britain, Fianna Fáil make no apology for continuing our campaign to shut Sellafield down. In July 1983 when we raised the matter in an Adjournment debate, our protests were dismissed out of hand.
The facts of the intervening years have proved that not only have leaks continued but Sellafield has been seen to be, in the words of the Tánaiste last Thursday, 27 November 1986 "badly run and incompetently managed for virtually its entire period of operation and has posed and continues to pose a real threat to the people of this country". That is like the conversion of St. Paul on the road to Damascus. On 17 February 1984 as reported in The Irish Times on 18 February the Tánaiste and Minister for Energy met the British Environment Secretary, Mr. Patrick Jenkins, in London and the Tánaiste said he was particularly satisfied with the talks and that Mr. Jenkins had reassured him that an incident such as last year's could not happen again.
The Tánaiste said that scientific evidence available then did not indicate adverse effects for the Irish people but expressed concern at accidental discharges and long term consequences and pressed that releases from Sellafield must be as low as reasonably achievable. That is the same Tánaiste who now says Sellafield has been badly run and incompetently managed for virtually its entire period of operation. That is a big change from February 1984 and from the stance taken during the course of the two Private Members' Motions put down in 1986 by Fianna Fáil. This statement and the decison of the Government to support this resolution tonight is another U-turn for the Tánaiste and the Government.
In the Dáil on 11 March last the Tánaiste seemed quite reassured that British Nuclear Fuels had commenced a programme which included measures designed to effect significant reductions in radioactive discharges at Sellafield. Later on that night the Tánaiste said he was assured by the Nuclear Energy Board that the levels of artificially produced radioactivity in the atmosphere and in the environment were low and did not constitute a health hazard to the Irish people. Given the Tánaiste's remarks last Thursday night I can only congratulate him on his St. Paul like conversion even though it is the eleventh hour as far as the Irish people are concerned and it is way past the eleventh hour in the life of this administration. I do not want to be too harsh. All I can say is that I am glad that the Tánaiste and the Government have seen the light.
The only way the real threat from Sellafield can be removed is with all party support for this resolution to close Sellafield. The implications of the threat from Sellafield should have transcended party politics but they did not because this Coalition would not vote in this House to unite the people. Sellafield is a national worry and it demanded a national response. It is by such a resolution that the Danish Parliament, for example, called on Sweden to close their nuclear plant which threatened Denmark. Britain will find it difficult to resist a united call to close Sellafield.
I will mention other examples of the attitude of this Government and their Ministers in relation to Sellafield to highlight their irresponsibility in dividing this House twice this year on this issue. In reply to a parliamentary question the then Minister of State, Deputy E. Collins, accused Deputy Haughey, the Leader of Fianna Fáil, of indulging in alarmist questioning and said there was no danger to people living in Ireland from discharges in Sellafield. Let us look at that in relation to the Tánaiste's recent comment about its being badly run and incompetently managed for virtually its entire period of operation and that it posed and continues to pose a real threat to the people of this country. Who was right? Was it Deputy Haughey when he called for its closure or the former Minister of State, Deputy E. Collins, who is now being isolated by his Government who are now accepting the Fianna Fáil motion.
The Minister, Deputy Kavanagh, on 1 August 1984, when the British Government decided to prosecute BNFL for unauthorised discharges, said that a reduction in any contamination would have very beneficial effects on Irish waters but reiterated that radioactivity levels would not pose any health risk to Irish people and that at the moment the contamination in our waters was so slight that it was not dangerous. Arising from that prosecution, BNFL were fined £10,000. Again and again we had examples of Ministers coming into this House defending BNFL for what they were doing. Deputy E. Collins said last December in the Dáil that on the question of discharges into the sea from the Sellafield plant he had no reason to believe the United Kingdom were not carrying out their obligations under the relevant international agreement which is the Paris Convention of 1974 on the prevention of pollution from land based sources. Compare that with the Tánaiste's conversion of last Thursday night. We were the ones on this side of the House who were accused of being alarmist and misleading the Irish people. Now, in the eleventh hour of their life, the Government are accepting the call for the closure of Sellafield.
The motion before the House provides all parties with a unique opportunity to come together and, in the name of all Irish people, to demand the closure of Sellafield. This issue also crosses the Border; at the recent SDLP conference their spokesman on the Environment reiterated his call for the closure of Sellafield. I was more than a little surprised at the amendment in the names of Deputy O'Malley, Deputy Molloy, Deputy Keating, Deputy Harney and Deputy Wyse. When Deputy O'Malley was Minister I was his Minister of State and like many people, particularly those in the south-east, I remember he was a passionate defender of nuclear installations and proposals for Carnsore. However, the amendment will not have the effect that even the Government are now seeking. He wants an urgent meeting with the British Prime Minister to insist on the closure of Sellafield but we want a united call from the House demanding closure. At any rate, I welcome Deputy O'Malley's conversion on the issue and the acceptance of our policy for a united call for the closure of Sellafield.
Fianna Fáil repeatedly warned that leaks would continue at Sellafield. We are not reassured by declarations that such leaks will not continue. Neither are we confident that all these leaks are reported. For example, earlier this year there was a leak which British Nuclear Fuels first denied, they then admitted it but tried to downgrade the scale of the accident. After a series of investigative reports, the truth came out. The fine of £10,000 on British Nuclear Fuels earlier this year was imposed not only for exceeding the limits but for failure to keep proper safety records at the plant, confirming what I said regarding the non-reporting of leaks.
Again and again Coalition Ministers have been fobbed off by the British Government and by British Nuclear Fuels. In February 1984 the British Minister for the Environment told our Minister for Energy that leaks such as those which occurred in November 1983 would not happen again. Well they did — again and again and again. In their 30 years of operation there have been over 300 accidents at Sellafield, including a fire in 1957, when the prevailing winds were blowing towards the Irish coast. We are all familiar with the very strong body of evidence available that that incident resulted in a series of Down's Syndrome children being born in the Louth and Down areas because there was a particularly destructive wind blowing from Sellafield. Earlier this year such dangers were highlighted when the winds from Chernobyl reached our shores. The Minister recognises these facts, despite his statement last March that Sellafield had never exceeded the limit it is authorised to discharge. How could Fine Gael and Labour Deputies vote against a call for the closure of Sellafield in March and May and now join us? Thank God, they have seen the error of their ways but it is a pity the conversion did not happen sooner.
I hope the Minister and the Government will not adopt a head-in-the-sand approach to this issue. The Minister should be consistent in word and deed. If his recent statement means anything, he should take this opportunity of having an all party stand on the issue. I am glad he is accepting our motion.
Earlier this year, the Minister said that if satisfactory standards of safety were seen to be operating and if we could have confidence in the safe operation of the plant without endangering the Irish people, its continued operation would not be opposed. How could a Minister for Energy make such a statement and then vote against a call for the closure of Sellafield twice in one year? I am glad he has done a somersault by supporting our motion but it is a terrible shame that the threat to the health of our people is only now being recognised by the Government because we are approaching a general election and because of the difficult voting position in the House. Over the last few weeks, during Private Members' debates they have done U-turn after U-turn. Last week, for example, the Minister for Finance said there could be no changes in relation to social welfare payments and the Minister for Agriculture said that tough decisions had to be taken. By that evening we had the spectacle of the Minister for Social Welfare doing a complete about face on behalf of the Government.
It is terrible to think it has taken this precarious voting position of the Government to force them to join us when they should have made moves many months ago. The public look to parties in the House to express loss of confidence in the continued operation of Sellafield. This is all the more urgent in view of proposals to expand the plant, not just as a nuclear plant but to deal with nuclear processing. It is proposed to double its size which means the potential for further incidents and a Chernobyl-type disaster less than 100 miles from our shore. The issue demands a responsible response from Dáil Éireann, there must be a united resolution, on behalf of the Irish people, to the British Government to close this monstrosity.
The Government's U-turn on this issue in accepting our motion is a recognition and admission that the consistent approach taken by this party has been correct. It is a matter of national regret that time has been lost and that the united Irish call for the closure of Sellafield is only taking place now. However, better late than never. I call on the Government to use the full resources of their Departments, in particular Foreign Affairs, to highlight the fact that a united Irish Parliament has called for the immediate closure of Sellafield. I have no doubt that the moral pressure which will result from such a call will be something which the British Government will not be able to withstand. I have no doubt that when such a call is made and when an extensive campaign is initiated by all Government agencies worldwide that the moral pressure will eventually close Sellafield.
I wish to support Deputy Burke and the Fianna Fáil motion which states that Dáil Éireann, concerned about the repeated accidents at, and continuing discharges from, the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant and conscious of the dangerous threat it poses to the life and health of the Irish people and to the whole environment of this island, calls on the British Government to arrange for the immediate closure of this dangerous installation. This motion, as Deputy Burke said earlier, is a repeat of similar motions put down by us on 11 March and 6 May of this year which amazingly as it now seems were opposed by the Government and in particular by the Minister for Energy who put down rather innocuous amendments conveying our concern and calling on the British Prime Minister to ensure a thorough review of safety at the plant. That was his reaction and response on those two occasions.
I wonder, as Deputy Burke wondered earlier, if the Minister would now explain his sudden conversion over the past week on this issue? I must say that on this side of the House we are grateful he has managed to see the light in relation to some of the issues which Fianna Fáil have been concerned about over the past year. His claim of Fianna Fáil playing politics on the issue on the last occasion now rings rather hallow when we see his own conversion. Of course, Deputies Cluskey and Taylor became similarly enlightened last week following our Private Members' motion on the Christmas bonus issue but having said that I am pleased the Government and the Minister have finally agreed to support our motion on this issue tonight.
My own bona fides to speak on this motion are twofold. As a radiologist who is involved with radiation every day of my professional career, I am only too well aware of the hazards and the potential dangers of radiation. Many of the pioneers of radiology and my own predecessors died from leukaemia and various forms of cancer because they were not aware of the dangers of radiation. Secondly, I was appointed earlier this year to chair a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities to investigate and recommend the closure of Sellafield.
The Sellafield plant sited in Cumbria just across the Irish Sea from the east coast must present the greatest threat ever to the Irish people. Can one imagine the horror of a similar disaster to Chernobyl occurring at Sellafield? Can one imagine the consequences for Ireland should such an event occur? Are we to be totally dependent on the prevailing winds for our survival from such a threat? Surely, no country can be subjected to such a threat from a supposedly friendly nation and neighbour? Surely, we as a member of the EC are in a position to call on our European partners to assist in ensuring that we achieve our objective in having this dangerous monstrosity closed?
A major disaster or accident at Sellafield could have disastrous consequences for Ireland. We all know what happened at Chernobyl earlier this year. We read and saw the horrendous results of a nuclear disaster. We also read about the shoddy workmanship, the theft of building materials, and the substandard concrete which was used in the building of the fifth reactor at Chernobyl. Let us compare that with the picture at Sellafield or Windscale as it was previously called but where following a PR exercise the name was changed.
British Nuclear Fuels have been repeatedly caught out. They have concealed information and they have hid and denied the various accidents which have occurred there since the fifties. We condemned the Russians for concealing the recent disaster but are British Nuclear Fuels or the British Government for that matter any different?
We are all aware for some time now of the unsatisfactory position which prevails at Sellafield. The revelation by Derek Jackman, a nuclear scientist, earlier this year places the situation into its propoer perspective. He revealed that the discharges of radioactive material around the Windscale site in Cumbria following the accident in the fifties were 40 times higher than stated in an independent inquiry — the Black report — set up three years ago to investigate cancer levels around the plant. The nuclear authorities now admit that the figures they gave to the Black inquiry were wrong. Doses received by the population over a three year period were five times higher than those originally recorded. With that kind of record, how can this Government repeatedly accept any reassurances from Britain regarding Sellafield? How can the Taoiseach and the Minister for Energy accept so blandly from the British Prime Minister that there are no dangers? Surely, we owe to the Irish people and future generations to ensure that their safety is maintained?
A British House of Commons report said that the greatest concern was felt about liquid discharges from Sellafield which are by far the greatest source of discharge of radioactivity in the United Kingdom. The report stated that the United Kingdom discharges more radioactivity into the sea than any other nation in the world and that Sellafield is the largest recorded source of radioactive discharge in the world. As a result, the Irish Sea is the most radioactive sea in the world. This report also states that the discharges contained a higher level of the more harmful radio nucleates such as ruthenium 106, strontium 90 and, of special concern, plutonium 239. This committee also found that not all of the radio nucleates discharged into the sea are diluted or dispersed. Some find their way back to the land.
The Nuclear Energy Board have repeatedly assured us that the levels being monitored in the Irish Sea are minimal and way below the recognised safety levels but the question which must be asked is whether there is any such thing as a safe level of radiation? As a radiologist, I would have to say emphatically no. What was regarded as a safe level of radiation ten or 15 years ago is now totally unacceptable today. Who is to say that with more sophisticated measuring techniques that the safety levels of today will not be completely unacceptable in a year's time? There is also the cumulative factor. All radiation is cumulative. Therefore, in that context there can be no such thing as a safe level because following accumulation any level will eventually become hazardous.
I am sure in this debate tonight reference will be made to background radiation and to the fact that we cannot control that. I accept that, but Sellafield is something we can control and eliminate and surely, that is something we must ensure. There must be some provision under EC rules, either under the Euratom Treaty or the Paris Convention, whereby we can insist on the closure of Sellafield. 1987 is going to be European Environment Year. The fourth EC action programme on the environment for the period 1987 to 1991 will be formulated and adopted at the beginning of 1987. Among the priorities singled out by the Commission are atmospheric pollution and pollution of the seas.
The seas identified by the Commission for particular attention are the Mediterranean and the North Sea. The Irish Sea, as I pointed out earlier on, is heavily at risk from nuclear discharge. I wonder can the Commission be made to recognise this fact and include the Irish Sea in their forthcoming action programme? The Commission has always maintained that economic development depends on the preservation of natural resources and growth cannot be assumed if the environment is not protected.
In conclusion, let me say that the inaccurate information being provided by the authorities at Sellafield and the poor safety record of this plant suggests and confirms that the only safe solution is to insist that the Sellafield plant be closed forthwith.
A Cheann Comhairle, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak on this motion on Sellafield. I would like to take this opportunity of supporting my party colleagues, Deputy Burke and Deputy Ormonde, who have contributed to this debate.
The history of the Sellafield nuclear plant is a chronicle of one accident after another. People in my constituency and in the neighbouring counties Down, Meath, Dublin and further north in Antrim are very much exposed to the fall-out from Sellafield. They have had to live with the worry and stress of the proximity of Sellafield, just across the Irish Sea. Medical researchers and general practitioners, particularly in Counties Louth and Down, have discovered particularly high rates of miscarriages and stillbirths, especially in north Louth and Down. In 1979 the rate of stillbirths was 3.5 times the national average; in 1980 it was twice the national average. Those statistics must indicate that there is something seriously wrong in those areas. There are no other elements which could influence those statistics, apart from the proximity of the Sellafield plant.
This might be an appropriate time to ask whether the Department of Health and the Nuclear Energy Board have shown sufficient concern about the danger that lurks day and night for the people of Louth, Down and the east coast generally. Can this Government continue to expect the people of those areas to live with the fear of a major accident at Sellafield? Recently we had the horrific accident at Chernobyl. Perhaps that accident brought nuclear reprocessing plants into proper focus and heightened awareness worldwide of the great danger posed by nuclear plants in general.
Sellafield is just a few miles across the Irish Sea from the most heavily populated areas in this country. We are expected by the British Government and by British Nuclear Fuels to live with the worry, stress, fear and apprehension of a serious accident at Sellafield. It has a history of one accident after another. It is only in recent times that medical researchers and GPs have heightened public awareness of the great danger with which we have been living for so long.
Surveys carried out on birds in the region of the Chernobyl accident showed levels of radioactivity well above the accepted levels of safety. We must consider whether birds from the Sellafield area which migrate across the Irish Sea are a danger to people living on the east coast, in the midlands or throughout the country as a whole. Can we continue to adopt a cavalier attitude and pretend there is no real danger? Perhaps the assurance from the Nuclear Energy Board that we have nothing to fear will allay our worries in the short term but I do not think we can dismiss in the long term the danger that they pose.
Our population along the east coast are seriously at risk from Sellafield. Accidents and leaks through the years have gone unchecked. Much of the damage thus caused has been unnoticed until recent times. The particular interest of medical personnel in Louth and Down has served to bring the Sellafield plant into proper focus. If a major accident were to take place at Sellafield, what sort of plans have the Nuclear Energy Board or the Government to deal with it? Are we completely exposed to the dangers? Is our attitude dominated by a "fire brigade" mentality? These are the fears and difficulties we must live with.
It was indicated at a recent conference in Britain that the incidence of childhood leukaemia is about 20 per cent higher than normal in the vicinity of ten of the 14 nuclear plants in England and Wales. That clearly indicates that radioactivity poses great danger not only to us but to the people living in the general area of these plants. It was confirmed that childhood leukaemia can be caused by relatively small doses of radiation.
I call on the Government to take the decision which should have been taken long ago and demand that the British close Sellafield and leave people in this part of the world to live their lives in relative peace and tranquility without the fear of a major accident at Sellafield.
We depend very much on our agriculture industry. There is intensive horticultural production along the east coast. After the Chernobyl accident there was a major reaction to much of the produce and fish on sale in those areas. People have considerable investment in their agricultural enterprises, yet they must live with the knowledge that even a minor accident and scare at Sellafield could devastate their business. We cannot continue to live in circumstances like that. We have a monster on our doorstep which stalks the people of this land day and night. The one solution is the closure of Sellafield. It should have been closed years ago.
In the 1950s there was the Down's Syndrome cluster in Dundalk and the research work on those cases has never decided conclusively what the exact cause was. There is always the fear that an accident at Sellafield around that time was the primary contributory cause.
I am calling on the Minister to ensure that those sorts of accidents will never happen again. Let us call on the British Government and on British Nuclear Fuels to realise the dangers involved and close the plant immediately. Recently there was an indication that the British were looking at alternative sources of energy which would be much safer than nuclear power. I hope the British will see the error of their ways and accelerate the movement towards alternative sources of energy.
This is one of several debates we have had in this House on the subject of Sellafield and the nuclear industry in general. Deputies on both sides of the House have made wide-ranging, constructive and worthwhile contributions. Public representatives here appreciate the great danger involved, particularly for the people on the east coast. I hope this debate will be the final one and that the Government will accept our motion and demand that Sellafield be closed forthwith.
As this House is aware, the Government have been extremely concerned for some years about the Sellafield Nuclear Processing Plant, following an incident in November of 1983 which resulted in widespread radioactive contamination of adjacent beaches and which was later found by a UK court to have been totally unacceptable. I then, in my capacity as Minister for the Environment, requested a meeting with the then UK Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, M.P. At that meeting, the first meeting of its kind to take place between the two Ministers in relation to Sellafield, I expressed the opposition of the Irish Government to discharges of radioactivity from the plant and called for routine discharges to be reduced and eliminated as soon as possible. I also expressed Ireland's opposition to the practice of dumping of radioactive waste at sea.
Since then Ireland has taken every opportunity, in contacts with the UK authorities and at international meetings, to express our anger about radioactive discharges into the Irish Sea. At the meeting in June of the Paris Commission, the body responsible for the prevention of marine pollution from land-based sources, Ireland again called for the elimination of radioactive discharges from all nuclear installations, through the use of the best available technology, and for immediate reporting of unplanned discharges. We emphasised the major public concern about incidents, particularly in regard to reprocessing operations at Sellafield, and about radioactive discharges into the Irish Sea.
I have spoken previously, on a number of occasions, about the levels of such discharges to the sea. This House is, of course, fully aware of the monitoring programme being carried out by the Nuclear Energy Board and by the universities. The board's 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 at 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. However, the radiation dose to the Irish population resulting from Sellafield is very small and would be, on average, less than 5 per cent of the revised limits advised by the International Commission for Radiological Protection, and 2 per cent of background radiation.
A report published earlier this year 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 decreased rapidly with increasing distance from Sellafield. It also shows that the levels of contamination of the Irish Sea have decreased in recent years, probably reflecting reductions in the annual discharges from Sellafield since they were at their highest during the seventies.
However, in spite of the relatively low levels of radioactivity, we are all aware that the Irish Sea has been labelled as "The most radioactive in the world" by a British House of Commons Environment Committee.
This committee recommended, inter alia:
(I) That any disposal methods chosen should reduce the quantities of radioactive wastes discharged to the Environment "to be as small as technically possible";
(II) Consideration of the abandonment of plans for extending reprocessing facilities (the Thorp Plant at Sellafield which is currently under construction);
(III) That radically lower discharge limits should be set;
(IV) That limits should be introduced for radioactive gaseous discharges to the atmosphere;
(V) That the nuclear industry should be more open with the Public.
In general the conclusions and recommendations in the House of Commons report are to be welcomed, in particular those recommendations which I have just outlined. However, it does not address the likelihood of effects of such accidents. It also fails to acknowledge the international nature of this problem.
While I would stress again that the levels of radioactivity being discharged from Sellafield into the Irish Sea do not pose a significant hazard to the health of the Irish population, I would also emphasise that the objective of the Government has always been the complete elimination of such discharges. I have said this in the House on many previous occasions.
It must be said that British Nuclear Fuels Limited, the operators of the Sellafield plant, have commenced a programme which includes measures designed to effect significant reductions in radioactive discharges at Sellafield involving total expenditure of almost £900 million on additional safety measures. But it must also be said that the management of British Nuclear Fuels does not inspire any confidence whatsoever, as their recent record illustrates.
Incidents at Sellafield this year have given rise to more concern about the operation of that plant. At meetings of the Ireland/UK Contact Group in February and October last, officials of my Department conveyed our grave anxiety at the incidents at Sellafield and our annoyance at the inadequate notification procedures. The British authorities assured my officials in the course of those meetings that radiological emissions to the environment resulting from incidents at Sellafield were insignificant. Nevertheless, a prompt notification procedure was agreed at the meeting and notification of incidents at Sellafield since then has been practically immediate.
But however commendable a notification system may be, its worth is only in dealing with the after-effects of incidents. Our concern is more with prevention and, unfortunately, there has been a series of incidents at Sellafield this year. None of these has been of major radiological significance, but their cumulative effect has been to justify the lack of public trust in the competence of the people who run the plant.
The earliest of these incidents occurred this year on 24 January, 1986 when 458 kilograms of uranium were discharged into the Irish Sea. On 18 February this year, a leak was discovered in a drainpipe from the magnox storage and decanning plant at Sellafield. On 1 March monitors at Sellafield indicated a higher than normal aerial activity in a cubicle which handles mixed plutonium/uranium oxide, which resulted in the contamination of a number of workers.
During May it was reported that wrongly labelled plutonium had been sent from Sellafield to a nuclear station at Dounreay some time in 1984 where it lay "in a dissolver vat for 11 months without Dounreay management's knowledge". The Nuclear Energy Board here advised that a possibility existed that the material could have become critical and was capable of causing a serious incident.
At Sellafield on 21 May 1986 two workers were contaminated following maintenance work on a valve. On 29 May, at the Calder Hall Reactor at Sellafield, 2.6 tons of carbon dioxide and some radioactive dust escaped outside the building, but not off-site, during the annual overhaul.
On 19 August, during routine sampling of the contents of the sea-tank at Sellafield, higher radioactivity levels than normal were discovered. This would have breached the two day limit if the contents of the sea tank had been discharged. However, they were not discharged and were re-routed into the plant, which was closed until the cause of the incident was determined. The latest incident occurred at Sellafield as recently as 27 November when the wrong tank of liquid was discharged into the sea — the level of radioactivity in this liquid had not been tested prior to discharge.
The Nuclear Energy Board have assured us that none of these incidents has any significance for the Irish people, and the Government recognise that these incidents are, in themselves, of little radiological importance to Ireland. However, the frequency of these incidents establishes quite clearly how little trust we can have in the future operation of Sellafield. The safety record at that plant has been appalling and the frequency of incidents poses the possibility that there will be an accident in the future which could have serious consequences for this country.
I share very much the increasing public concern at the continued operation of the plant, a concern which is increasingly shared, I believe, by the British public. 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.
As I said on many occasions, we are being exposed to a potential hazard from an operation outside our jurisdiction, and this makes the problem an international one. The view of the Irish Government has been that this issue must be resolved by the European Commission under the provisions of the Euratom Treaty.
This view was made known to the Commission as far back as 11 April 1986 when our Ambassador in Brussels, on behalf of the Government, formally requested the Commissioner to establish a Community 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. Following Chernobyl we again wrote to the Commission repeating our call for closure.
The question of whether the Commission had legal powers under the Euratom Treaty to set up an inspection force was examined by the Attorney General's office. At a meeting on 6 June 1986 with the Attorney General's office, the legal service of the Commission agreed that they had competence under the Euratom Treaty to take the initiative to set up such a force. The Commission, in a document dated 13 June 1986, undertook to submit to the EC Council by end July 1986 a comprehensive communication on the problems of implementing Chapter III of Euratom, which deals with health and safety, and on possible solutions to these problems.
In a communication to the Council of Ministers dated 20 August 1986 the Commission stated, among other things, that if a system of Community checks were established it could operate selectively in order to ascertain the effects of national practices on safety standards and that by focusing on particular installations the Commission could be in a position to advise member states independently of the national inspectorates. The Commission indicated that this would be one of the ideas they would be exploring. Ireland, therefore, pressed to have the matter of a Community Inspection Force put on the agenda of the recent Environment and Energy Councils.
We are aware, of course — and I am sure most Members of this House are aware — that there are different positions within the Community on the use of nuclear power. Up to now, energy policy in the Community has accepted a significant contribution from the nuclear industry. However, Community involvement in nuclear safety has not kept pace with the expansion of nuclear capacity or with the growing concern of the public. The nuclear industry is a potential risk to human health and to the environment. It has transboundary effects, and public access to information on its operations has not always been available.
At the Environment Council in Brussels on 24 November 1986, Deputy Boland, our Minister for the Environment, drew attention to the need for Environment Ministers to be concerned with nuclear safety, and he also stated that the Community had a duty to go much further than the Conventions of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He requested that the Commission bring forward specific proposals quickly, including the very important question of a Community inspection force.
We repeated this call at the Energy Council on 26 November 1986, while expressing our anger that little real progress on a Community front had been achieved since Chernobyl. Our argument at that meeting was that Energy Ministers must echo the conclusions of the Environment Council demanding that the Commission bring forward specific proposals in the area of nuclear safety which would address the fear and hostility in the Community regarding nuclear safety. Central to the Community policy, in our view, is the need for national inspectorates to be reinforced by the establishment of a parallel but independent Community inspection force.
The Irish Government have stated, on many occasions, their 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 of any and all nuclear installations even if this transpires to mean suspension of operations or closure of the plants involved.
Following the Council discussions, we are still in a situation where there is not full agreement within the Community on the need for an inspection force. In spite of the number of incidents at Sellafield, in spite also of the increased fears about nuclear safety which followed in the wake of Chernobyl, we have tried at all times to take a reasonable approach regarding the rights of other countries where their own plants are concerned. We now find ourselves in the position where, although many countries in the Community support our position on an inspection force, the idea has still not received complete acceptance.
The latest incident at Sellafield does nothing to reassure us about the safety of the plant or the trustworthiness of its management. The incident occurred on 27 November, when the wrong tank of liquid was discharged into the Irish Sea. The liquid had not been tested for radioactivity levels. Subsequent investigation at BNFL established that the level of radioactivity in the liquid was well within the authorised limits, that it would have been discharged routinely anyway and that there were therefore no environmental or radiological consequences. However, it is a matter of concern that this was established following the discharge. This is the ninth incident at the Sellafield complex this year which has been reported to my Department. As most Members of this House will know, incidents have been occurring in Sellafield from the fifties.
It is increasingly obvious that the plant cannot be operated in a manner which gives us confidence about its safety. This is due both to the fact that much of the plant is old, would seem to have reached the end of its useful life and also to the continuing incidence of human error at the plant and grossly ineffective management.
There have been many calls for closure of the Sellafield plant. The Government have refrained up to now from calling for closure of a plant located in another sovereign state. Instead we wished to be assured that the plant could operate safely without posing any threat either to our population or to our environment. We in the Irish Government took every reasonable measure to encourage the establishment of an independent inspection force which could assure us that the plant was capable of operating safely and without any hazard to this country.
The Government know that there is growing support in Europe for the inspection force idea, even if it is not yet unanimous. It is an idea we will continue to support. It is an idea in which we firmly believe. We are determined to take all possible measures in the future to convince all the member states of the Community that this is the right course of action with regard to the nuclear industry as a whole.
The Government consider at this stage that we have made as much progress as possible through the reasonable negotiating stance we have adopted to date about Sellafield. We continue to live in uncertainty about the possible dangers posed by the plant. We have no assurance from the UK Government that there will be no further and perhaps more serious incidents at the plant. That is why I called last Thursday might for international support for the closure of the plant at Sellafield.
The Chernobyl accident gave rise to increased concern in this country and indeed in the whole world regarding the safety of nuclear installations. We in Ireland were fortunate in that we escaped the worst effects of the accident. However, although we were not exposed to significant levels of radiation, the cost in terms both of time and money was high. The Nuclear Energy Board were obliged to engage in a substantial monitoring programme to determine the extent of the fall-out in Ireland and to assess its impact on the Irish public. This included checking levels of radioactivity in foodstuffs, home-produced and imported, and in the environment.
Additional resources had to be provided to the board following Chernobyl to enable the board to cope with monitoring demands. In May, 1986, a sum of £383,000 was approved for office and laboratory facilities for the board. In addition £60,000 was provided for equipment and provision was made for five extra staff.
As monitoring demands continued to increase in the wake of Chernobyl, the Nuclear Energy Board sought and was granted an additional £167,000 for further monitoring equipment and four extra staff.
Chernobyl has taught us all a valuable lesson, which is that there can be appalling and long term consequences from any accident at a nuclear power station. Chernobyl dramatically demonstrated that such accidents know no boundaries.
Following Chernobyl a sub-committee of the interdepartmental committee which I set up has now completed its consideration of an emergency plan for dealing with nuclear accidents. A report describing the plan has been prepared and is being considered by the full interdepartmental committee. When this has been done the plan will be submitted to the Government for formal approval.
The purpose of the emergency plan is to establish a structure which will provide a co-ordinated response to a nuclear accident from all responsible Departments and authorities. The plan will identify the particular responsibilities of those involved. The relevant Departments and statutory authorities will then be responsible for implementing any control measures within their respective areas which might be required following a nuclear accident. There are trained personnel in the various organisations which would be called upon to participate in an emergency. For example, most staff at the Nuclear Energy Board are widely experienced and the recently recruited staff are undergoing appropriate training.
It must of course be borne in mind that it is unrealistic to contemplate the possibility of the board being equipped to deal with every conceivable nuclear accident which might occur, bearing in mind, in particular, the fact that the installations and materials which could give rise to such accidents do not reside within our jurisdiction. I submit that no country in the world is in a position to do this. We are preparing emergency plans which are deemed to be appropriate to our circumstances and the resource to be allocated to the NEB will be determined accordingly.
As a direct consequence of the Chernobyl accident, the International Atomic Energy Agency negotiated two conventions last summer, one on early notification in the event of a nuclear accident and the second on mutual assistance in the event of such an accident. Ireland participated in the meetings and is a signatory to both conventions. However, while the Government welcome these conventions as a step forward, we must bear in mind that these are measures which follow in the wake of an accident. They do nothing to prevent the accident from happening in the first place.
At the Special Session of the General Conference of the IAEA in September last, Ireland stated that nuclear countries have an obligation to act as good neighbours, that nuclear programmes should be implemented in conformity with the highest possible levels of safety and that fulfilment of this obligation will require the establishment of an international nuclear safety inspectorate among whose functions would be to confirm the effectiveness of their regulations and the inspection of individual nuclear installations to determine whether they are safe.
The London Dumping Convention provides for the restriction or prohibition of dumping of pollutants at sea. At the ninth meeting of the Convention, in 1985, it was agreed that the 1982 moratorium be extended pending the completion of studies into the wider political, legal, economic and social aspects of radioactive waste dumping at sea.
I shall conclude by saying — notwithstanding some remarks made in this House earlier in relation to changes of policy, changes of course — that I believe this issue is way above and beyond normal day to day politics. I take the issue very seriously on that basis. I make no apology to anybody either in this House or in the country for the course of action I have pursued in which I was ably assisted by my former Minister of State, Deputy E. Collins, over recent years in regard to the fact that I was the first Minister of an Irish Government to take up this issue with the British Government.
I reassure the House that the Government will continue at every possible opportunity to state their opposition to radioactive pollution of our seas. I referred on a number of occasions to the fact that in the past we adopted a reasonable position with regard to the rights of other countries where their installations are concerned. It must not be forgotten that we in this country have rights too. The task of securing the objectives called for in these resolutions will not be an easy one. We will have to mobilise every ounce of public opinion in this country and throughout Europe to achieve it. The consensus in this House tonight is a rare one but on this vital issue it is a good start.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. As a member of the Science and Technology Committee I have campaigned in the Council of Europe since last March in regard to this very important matter. I put down a motion calling for the support of 20 countries, including our own, for the closure of this plant. I have not made the progress I would like to have made. At every meeting I attended I highlighted the issue. I am glad to say that in January next year a meeting of all the countries involved in the Council of Europe will be held in Paris to discuss nuclear energy.
A very prestigious committee of the House of Commons issued a report last March which stated that the Irish Sea is the most radioactive in the world. A £1.4 billion plan to expand the plant at Sellafield should be abandoned unless an inquiry justifies the need for it. The policy on disposing of radioactive waste was ill-managed, confused and secretive. The report stated that the handling of the matter was haphazard. Through neglect the management at the plant were the cause of a number of leaks at the plant. No matter what British Nuclear Fuels say in regard to the plant they are not believed or trusted any more. The Guardian of Thursday, 22 May stated on the front page that a radioactive leak had taken place and had contaminated three of the workers at the plant. British Nuclear Fuels would not have reported that if The Guardian had not already reported it.
On 20 May at the request of the Council of Europe I prepared a memorandum on nuclear energy at that plant. It was well received by other members of the Council of Europe. We all know there is a vested interest in keeping this plant open. It must be brought home to the British Government that the reactors at that plant are over 30 years in operation. Their lifespan and safety should be called into question. I tried on a number of occasions to find out the position but I have been stonewalled on this issue. British Nuclear Fuels tried to cover up the position in regard to this matter.
We all know that days passed before the accident at Chernobyl was reported. It was the Swedish authorities who first realised something was wrong because of cloud and atmospheric conditions. The Russians then notified other countries of the very serious accident which killed many people. As we are aware, we are only 60 miles from Sellafield. Any leakages, explosions or fallouts would have very serious consequences for agriculture and for our whole economy. That should not be taken lightly.
I am glad the Government have come around to our way of thinking on this very important matter. They realise that what we have been saying all along is correct. I welcome the Government's response to the motion. Everybody is open to human error and errors of judgment and I respect that. I am glad this House is in agreement that this plant cannot remain open. I will press the case in the Council of Europe. I hope to get a debate on it in the Assembly and I am looking forward to that. This plant is a great danger to our people and to the economic life of the country. If a major accident occurs at that plant it will have serious consequences for us.
I welcome the agreement of the Government in regard to this matter. This issue transcends politics and it is accelerating at a pace that is not appreciated in the context of this debate this evening. What is most important is the fact that while we are considering the lack of safety at the plant there is a proposal to expand it, the thermal oxide reprocessing programme, at a cost of between £3 billion and £4 billion over the next decade. That programme has severe ramifications for Ireland. I invite Members to consider the deadly nightmare it will involve. That reprocessing plant in full operation will be carrying on a high risk industry that other countries are loath to get involved in. It will involve five 3,000 tonne ships ferrying 100 tonne steel flasks of deadly nuclear waste along the Irish Sea. At present the industry is a low key operation compared to what is envisaged by British Nuclear Fuels for the future. A country that has shown scant regard for its own inhabitants could not be expected to show much regard for us. In a nutshell, the policy of the industry is profits before people.
The nuclear reprocessing industry is a highly profitable one. It is almost a "name your price" industry and other countries as far away as Japan, India and so on who refuse to get involved in reprocessing their own nuclear waste have it reprocessed on our doorstep at the Sellafield nuclear dustbin. The public relations campaign extolling the virtues of Sellafield as an acceptable industry within the Lake District in England is an insult to the intelligence of those subjected to watching it. Those commercials are a complete fallacy about a deadly menace that can grow out of control so quickly. There is little doubt in mind that, if the Minister for Energy is to achieve anything in regard to that plant, he will have to move now and insist that the expansion plans earmarked for the plant are shelved. The Government should make that call now because the damage is continuing at a dreadful pace.
I was shocked to hear that the Department of Energy were informed of nine incidents at the plant this year. I accept that there has been a litany of incidents at the plant going back to 1947 but it is serious if nine incidents have occurred this year. I believe we are at one in calling for the closure of this plant. Employees working at that plant are at risk. Reports in our newspapers to the effect that there is not any cluster of cancer sufferers living along the eastern sea board are quite erroneous because the closer one is to a nuclear reprocessing plant, or a reactor of this type, the higher the risk of cancer. The nearest village to Sellafield is at great risk. It is difficult to monitor the extent of plutonium contamination without burning the corpse but it is accepted medically that there is no safe level of radiation. Radiation leaks damage our fish stocks but the real issue in regard to Sellafield is the health of future generations. We are not only concerned about ourselves but also about the unknown risks of the cumulative effects of low dosage radiation on future generations on this planet. We are obligated to maintain the planet in the condition we found it.
Activities at Sellafield are shameful and we have to listen to insulting remarks by the British Minister for the Environment, Mr. Baker. He described the fears expressed by people as being like those of medieval people who believed in witchcraft. Margaret Thatcher accepts this as a safe industry and has said she is proud of it. However, as soon as the holocaust of Chernobyl rivetted the minds of people into realising that there is no escape from this "profits before people" industry such as exists at Sellafield those people ran for cover.
It is interesting to note that a report about the errors and defects in the construction of the reprocessing plant at what was then called Windscale about 50 years ago was suppressed before the Daily Express could publish it. That report was suppressed under a “D” notice which restricted the press principally in relation to military matters but was extended to the nuclear energy industry. Sir Kelvin Spencer, former chief scientist to the British Ministry of Fuel Power, now known as the Department of Energy, said in an interview reported in The Cork Examiner on 3 June 1985 that in his opinion some spokesmen for the nuclear lobby misled the public to such an extent, particularly about the long term effects of plutonium radiation, that amounts to be lying. Erroneous information was given to those responsible for preparing the Black report and as a result the report lapsed into disrepute.
There is another side to this whole question of Sellafield which we, as an independent nation, must take cognisance of. I am referring to the fact that that site will be a war target. What future have we got if that plant is attacked? It may be under threat of annihilation in the event of a limited nuclear war. If it was attacked this country would be devastated.
The amount of nuclear cargo in the Irish Sea will eventually write off that stretch of water and destroy our fish stocks. I am not being alarmist because fishermen support that contention. I never thought the European inspectorate force would succeed because those nations participating in such an inspection have a vested interest in the nuclear industry. It was like the police examining themselves; there was nothing independent about that inspection whatever. The fact is that Sellafield, and the appalling amount of excessive radiation that escapes from it, would not be tolerated at other European installations. I am sure the Minister for Energy will agree with that statement. Cap La Hag is close to a sea that recycles itself a lot faster than the slow Irish Sea and the level of escape at Sellafield is far above the levels accepted in America.
We are dealing with a hazardously archaic system of nuclear reactors about which the chairman of the Nuclear Energy Board expressed concern and worry on medical grounds. He also expressed concern about the possibility of a major accident or calamity taking place. We should consider the litany of accidents that have taken place at Sellafield.
Debate adjourned.