Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 30 Jun 1992

Vol. 421 No. 8

Private Members' Business. - Sellafield Nuclear Plant: Motion.

Mr. Howlin

I move:

That Dáil Éireann reiterates its previous condemnation of the operations of the British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. plant at Sellafield in the UK and, in particular, condemns the proposal to extend and develop that plant further; and calls on the Government

— to outline in full all actions taken to secure the closure of the Sellafield plant and, in particular, all actions taken to prevent further development of the plant

— to prepare and initiate a campaign of representation through every possible forum, including the European Parliament, the European Commission, the European Council, the Anglo-Irish Conference, and contacts between relevant Departments here and in the United Kingdom with the object of securing the closure of Sellafield and

— to outline any and all legal advice it has obtained in this matter, and to indicate what legal action, if any, it proposes to take.

At the outset I request permission to share my time with Deputies Seán Ryan and Michael D. Higgins.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. Howlin

For many people there is a feeling when one sees a motion on Sellafield that it is almost a hardy annual which has been debated many times in the House. What I hope will be achieved both tonight and tomorrow is for once a clear enunciation of a strategy by the Government, with the collective support of each Member and party in this House, to tackle one of the most significant health hazards and environmental pollutants faced by the Irish people. The sum total of the Government's efforts in relation to their stated opposition to the Sellafield plant has been confined to merely making representations to the British Government and other international bodies. All these efforts have been inadequate and have failed not only to stop the operations that they themselves, both in Opposition and in Government, have decried and condemned but have also failed to halt growth and expansion and the construction of what is now called Sellafield 2 on the Cumbrian site.

The Government's excuse for their failure to take any effective action in relation to the existing facilities at Sellafield and the proposed Sellafield 2 is that there are no legal remedies available to them; and it is apparent on reading the amendment which has been tabled in the name of the Minister for Energy tonight that the same arguments are going to be trotted out again. The Government have failed consistently to explain the reason they do not utilise the powers given to them under the Treaties establishing the European Community in order to bring their concerns and those of the Irish people regarding the environmental effects of Sellafield before the European Court of Justice.

Article 170 of the EC Treaty provides that a member state which considers that another member state has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaty may bring the matter before the Court of Justice. That is written in black and white under the terms of the Treaties. The complaining state must first report the matter to the Commission and, if the Commission fails to act, the case can be brought directly to the Court of Justice.

There is a similar procedure for complaints against a member state under Article 142 of the EURATOM Treaty. Legal advice made available to us suggests that an action under these provisions would be open to the Government in regard to concerns that the activities of BNFL at Sellafield are being conducted in breach of a number of key European environmental directives. It is surprising therefore, to say the least, that there has never been an explanation for the inactivity and reticence of the Government to utilise these Treaties to fulfil the desire of this House, as expressed by way of motion previously, and of the Irish people, which they have expressed again and again when asked about this issue. The concerns to which I have referred relate to directives from 1980 to 1984 which lay down basic standards for the protection of the health and safety of workers and the general public regarding radioactive contamination.

Another breach of European standards which directly concerns the Government arises in relation to the 1985 directive on environmental impact assessments. There has been a number of complaints concerning the environmental impact assessment process for the Sellafield 2 plant. It is a matter of grave concern that no independent environmental impact study has been carried out for that project; but, more serious still, the role of the Government in the environmental impact assessment process has to be clarified. I hope they will do so tonight.

Article 7 of the 1985 directive requires the United Kingdom to consult with the Government regarding the construction of the plant because of the fact that the project will have significant transboundary implications. Tonight the Labour Party call on the Minister to clarify the Government's conduct in relation to the handling of the environmental impact assessment for Sellafield 2. In particular, I ask if the Government received a formal notification under the directive and if they were furnished with all the scientific and technical information required by the directive. I further ask if the Government communicated formally with the planning authority concerned regarding the environmental effects of the project and, if so, what was the content of the Government's communique. Third, I ask the Minister, if the Government failed to lodge a formal submission with the planning authority, to explain the reason for not doing so.

As everybody is now aware, a new processing plant, Sellafield 2, is due to "go active" at Sellafield before the end of this year. All the dangers and risks associated with Sellafield 1 will now be magnified and dramatically increased. It is estimated that the level of radiation released into the environment may well rise by over 1,000 per cent.

Sellafield 2 is a thermal oxide reprocessing plant known as THORP. It is bigger and will deal with more deadly waste and discharge far more radiation than the current Sellafield plant. Nuclear waste for the plant from the United Kingdom, continental Europe and Japan has already been stockpiled at Sellafield over many years waiting for the new larger facility to come into operation. This fuel is ten times more radioactive than the fuel currently being reprocessed at Sellafield. Indeed, because of the dangers and costs involved in dealing with this fuel both Germany and the United States have decided to stop reprocessing it in their own countries. Germany spent up to £1 billion in partially building a reprocessing plant before it was stopped by public opposition and concern not only about the environmental implications in relation to a reprocessing plant of this nature but also about the economics of the operation. They are very happy indeed to offload their spent fuel to be reprocessed in a foreign jurisdiction on our doorstep. The last time BNFL tried to reprocess this type of fuel in 1973 it led to a major radiation leak. The building involved in that particular experiment remains closed to this day. During the planned 30-year operating life of the new Sellafield 2 around 21,000 tonnes of waste nuclear fuel are expected to be reprocessed there. This will mean importing over 600 tonnes of foreign fuel every year from the mid-nineties onwards.

At this stage the history of Sellafield is known fairly well to anybody concerned with environmental matters in this country and is certainly known to the Irish public. Sellafield began its life as a reprocessing plant in the fifties to make plutonium for the British nuclear bomb. In the reprocessing operation extremely radioactive nuclear waste fuel from nuclear reactors is dissolved in acid. Plutonium and uranium are separated, leaving highly radioactive waste as a residue. Dissolving the rods releases radioactive gases into the atmosphere. The liquids used during the process are contaminated and discharged into the Irish Sea. Discharges from Sellafield since the fifties, according to the 1986 British House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment, have rendered the Irish Sea the most radioactive sea in the world, a legacy with which we will all have to deal.

Reprocessing is a dirty business. It multiplies the volume of waste received at least 160 times. All the materials, tools, equipment, even the buildings, used in the process are prone to become contaminated. As a result Sellafield creates 76 per cent of Britain's low level waste and 62 per cent of its intermediate level waste. While most of its high level waste is returned to the countries of origin, all of the rest of the waste, middle and low level, is retained in the United Kingdom on the Sellafield site, or close to it at Drig, poisoning the land and sea not only for our lifetimes but for generations to come. Since 1965 4,000 tonnes of waste nuclear fuel have been imported into the United Kingdom, fuels which come from Germany, Holland, Italy and Switzerland by land and sea. They come to Dover on the ordinary roll-on/roll-off ferries. What a way to carry such hazardous cargoes? Much of the waste fuel comes through the Irish Sea, through the narrow St. George's Channel, to Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria to be offloaded. It is a great irony that one can actually see those vessels if one stands in a corner of my constituency at Carnsore Point.

The effects of Sellafield have been devastating for this country. The effects of a new, expanded Sellafield 2 are unthinkable. Radioactive discharges into the air of highly poisonous substances could rise by up to 1,000 per cent. We are warned that radioactive sea discharges such as caesium will rise significantly also. It is not merely accidents of which we are fearful. The deadly pollution that pours from Sellafield daily is one that threatens our health and wellbeing even when the reprocessing plant runs normally. There have been many finds over the years of contaminated shellfish, seaweed and sands in the proximity of Sellafield. Reprocessing at Sellafield 2 will produce far more waste than comes into the plant. BNFL intend to send most of the waste back to the countries of origin. That begs the question: how will it be transported? In regard to the residual waste, that is the waste that is not offered back, where and how is that to be disposed of?

UK NIREX is the nuclear industry's waste disposal arm in the United Kingdom. Among their plans is one to build the world's largest underground nuclear dump in west Cumbria to take, it is estimated, three million tonnes of low and intermediate level waste. What a prospect. NIREX hope to have the dump ready for filling in the year 2005. I understand it will take some 50 years to fill the dump they propose, which will take up 500 acres of land below ground. The waste will contain up to nine tonnes of plutonium over that period of time. Most of it will remain dangerous for many thousands of years into the future. Who can undertake that it will not leak or pose a threat geologically over those periods of time?

There is simply no safe way of storing nuclear waste. This country has taken its decision in relation to the nuclear industry. Yet, uniquely, we are expected to suffer the consequences of a nuclear industry expanding and growing on our doorstep, from which we derive no benefit and that daily threatens the lives and wellbeing of our people. It is intended that Sellafield 2 will be operational by the end of the year. What will the Minister do to ensure that that threat does not become, in the jargon of the industry, operational or live? It is said that plutonium was to be created there. Plutonium is one of the most dangerous substances known to man. Already significant quantities are believed to have been dumped in the Irish Sea. Instead of devising plans and stragegies to clear the hazards already put in place by the operations of BNFL at the Sellafield site in Cumbria we are now going to stand idly by, shake our hands and arms in pretended impotence while the threat is expanded, supposedly, for economic reasons. The real cost of Sellafield 2 to Ireland and the Irish Sea can never be counted, or its health and pollution effects estimated.

Sellafield's accident record is abysmal. Nearly 1,000 accidents or incidents have occurred in its 40-year history. For example, between 1976 and 1980 Sellafield alone accounted for 40 per cent of all accidents and incidents in the entire British nuclear industry. We have witnessed accidents and incidents being the subject of cover-ups. The plant has been threatened with closure by the Health and Safety Executive because of its inefficient running over the years. The worst include the well documented incident in 1957 when a fire broke out in one of the plutonium-producing reactors leading to the release of radioactivity which is estimated to have caused over 1,000 cancer deaths. In 1973, 35 workers were contaminated and a building permanently shut down after a radioactive leak. In 1983 a radioactive slick was discovered by Greenpeace and other local people resulting in the closure of 25 miles of beach for six months. Members of the public were contaminated. BNFL were found guilty of criminal offences and were fined £10,000 and costs of £60,000 on that occasion.

These are the facts surrounding the operations of the Sellafield plant. Our Government are more than aware of all the information I have provided this evening. Indeed, they have used such information in previous debates.

I want to raise one other issue. Earlier this month Greenpeace produced an EC document showing that while the present Taoiseach was President of the Council of Finance Ministers in 1990, during Ireland's so called "Green Presidency", he signed an EC agreement to increase loans to the nuclear industry from 2,800 million ECUs to 4,000 million ECUs, or about £3 billion. Last week I tabled a parliamentary question to the Taoiseach asking whether he had signed that document. That question was transferred to the Minister for Energy and ruled out of order today in anticipation of this debate. I hope the Minister will answer that question in the course of his reply to this debate. Significantly, this is the first time the EC has specifically mentioned loans for nuclear reprocessing purposes. The decision had to be unanimous. The signature of our then Minister for Finance, now the Taoiseach, ensured it was unanimous.

European funding for the nuclear industry, including Sellafield, has existed since the mid-seventies. The initial sum put aside was some 500 million ECUs but periodically this sum has been increased, in 1979, 1982 and 1985. By 1985 the ceiling was raised to 3,000 million ECUs. I want a simple answer from the Minister for Energy tonight. Did the Taoiseach agree with the new recital added to that Treaty in 1990? It was as follows: Whereas nuclear energy accounts for a major part of the Community's total energy supplies considerable investment ought to be made in this sector both at the production stage, in view of the safety and security requirements, and downstream of production, particularly with regard to reprocessing and storage of waste. Did the then Minister for Finance, now the Taoiseach, agree to the increased funding of the dangerous nuclear industry across Europe and the possible funding of the Sellafield plant? Indeed, it could be European taxpayers' money underscoring the development that threatens the health of the Irish people. That is a simple question which should be addressed by the Minister for Energy.

Few issues have united the Irish people as clearly and as forcefully as opposition to Sellafield. In December 1986 this House unanimously passed a rare motion calling for "the immediate closure of this dangerous installation". That motion was moved by Fianna Fáil and supported by all Deputies in this House. In the intervening years the plant has grown rather than contracted. British Nuclear Fuels Limited and the United Kingdom authorities have shown contempt for the wishes of this House and of the Irish people. The people of Ireland mapped out the way at Carnsore. I now call on the Government and the Minister for Energy to grasp the Carnsore spirit and for once deal with this festering, menacing issue.

Mr. Ryan

This motion represents the unanimous view of the people along the east coast to Sellafield. As one who represents a coastline constituency this is an issue of great concern to me. There is a clear overlap here between national and international concerns. The Irish Sea has become one of the most radioactively polluted seas in the world and this has come about substantially as a result of the discharges from Sellafield over the years.

Since 1950 up to 1,000 accidents have been recorded. Between 1976 and 1990 alone, Sellafield has accounted for 40 per cent of all accidents and incidents in the entire British nuclear industry. In addition, there has been a number of cover-ups and, indeed, if it were not for the vigilance of a number of environmental groups in Ireland and Great Britain, particularly Greenpeace, many of the improved safety features might not have been installed.

The growing traffic from all over the world in nuclear waste products to the Sellafield reprocessing plant poses an ever-increasing risk to the Irish Sea. This traffic is set to increase with the threatened expansion of Sellafield to include a nuclear waste dump.

The deadly pollution that pours out of Sellafield is a major threat to our health and environment. Each day millions of gallons of radioactive effluent is pumped into the Irish Sea. Up to half a tonne of plutonium — one of the most deadly substances known to mankind — has been deposited in the Irish Sea in the past 40 years.

The proposal to construct and operate a nuclear waste depository is of deep concern. This will comprise a deep shaft reaching down some 300 metres or more to a series of underground caverns and will extend out under the Irish Sea. In effect, it is nothing more than a hole in the bed of the Irish Sea into which unwanted radioactive waste will be dumped and abandoned at the cheapest cost to the nuclear industry. NIREX will tell us that this is a Rolls Royce solution. Who will believe them, given the record and the deception of the nuclear industry over the years? In my opinion the Sellafield depository proposal is a once-and-for-all solution and if flawed it will not be practicable to correct it. As far as this country and its people are concerned, there are no economic or other benefits emanating from this proposal.

I hope that when this comes up for planning permission all the local authorities and the people in this area will go through the due process because this will have a devastating effect on the health and lifestyle of the people of this country for generations to come.

I want to refer briefly to the threat to health. On the north Lancashire coastline cases of adult leukaemia are three times the national average. Along the west coast of Scotland levels of certain types of leukaemia in young people have reached up to twice the Scottish average. We must also look at the possible effects in the Irish situation. I know that doctors will disagree on this but I think cancer levels along the Irish coastline have been up to twice the Irish national average and that is a factor that must be taken into consideration. Many people would say that there is a proven link between the Sellafield plant and the occurrence of cancer along the east coast.

I suggest that the diplomatic solution to this problem has failed. I have heard Minister after Minister say in my constituency that they will resolve this problem, that they will adopt a "Rambo" approach in relation to it. The Irish Government were going to bring the United Kingdom to the European Court of Justice. We have heard this before but we are still awaiting a solution to this problem.

I hope that on the basis of the opportunity afforded to him by this motion tonight the Minister can tell this House and our people what he intends to do about this problem because it must be resolved.

I now call on the Government to reject all proposals both in relation to the expansion of the Sellafield reprocessing plant and Sellafield II. We hope to hear the outcome of the Minister's deliberations on that. We have been waiting for a long time now.

Mr. M. Higgins

It is very difficult to accept that there was the basis for an all-party agreement on the closure of Sellafield in 1986 and that now, six years on, we cannot find agreement in this House not only to implement the 1986 agreement but also to respond in a unified way against the dangers which an expanded facility at Sellafield will represent. This calls not only the Parliament here but also the Parliaments in Britain, Europe and around the world into disrepute. There is a great public concern about this issue. This concern has been informed by the brave actions of groups and organisations, some of which have been referred to already.

When the Taoiseach represented Ireland and met the British Prime Minister, John Major, on the periphery of the UNCED in Rio de Janeiro it would have been a minor but magnificent achievement if he had been able to return to Ireland and say he had extracted from Prime Minister Major a commitment to stop what was taking place in Sellafield. This calls to mind the difference between rhetoric and reality. It is in breach of all the known codes of friendly relations between countries that one country, an immediate neighbour of another, would continue, as one writer put it, to seek refuge in the thickets of the law to avoid closing down a toxic facility. It is extraordinary that we who have been invited to be communitaire again and again must look on while pollution of the Irish Sea continues in breach of the expressed opinions of our partners in Europe. It is interesting to think that we will be called on very soon when we have integrated ourselves even further into Europe to take a moral position on where we stand on the testing of armaments and the sale of armaments in, for example, the Pacific. It is also interesting to note that President Mitterrand has announced a year's moratorium on French testing in parts of the Pacific.

One has to ask if we are stuck with Sellafield. This seems to be the attitude of the Government. If one says, as the amendment does, that there are no legal remedies open to us one must ask whether Parliament and public will mean anything at all. Everyone who has taken an interest in this matter has called for action.

Reference has been made to Greenpeace. Sometimes I notice a certain cynicism among those who advise Government on the activities of Greenpeace. I believe that when the history of this century is being written it will recall the bravery of those on the Greenpeace ship who went to Muroroa Atoll and who were harassed repeatedly in their work of drawing attention to what was taking place. Of course, it is a matter of whether we can live on this planet with, as the Rio de Janeiro Conference kept inviting us, any sense of interdependency or coresponsibility, when an individual nation says that economic interests dictate and that the law will be used to defend economic interests irrespective of their human impact.

Dr. Seán McDonagh in his book, To Care for the Earth, published originally in 1986 by Geoffrey Chapman, wrote about nuclear waste. It is interesting to note that this book preceded the 1986 debate in this House. He wrote about letters which began to appear in the papers in 1982 and 1983 on the long term effects of dumping large quantities of radioactive waste 400 miles south of the Irish coast. He refers to a report made to President Reagan and to Congress by the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and the Atmosphere in July 1984. A section of that report, which was quoted in The Irish Times on 23 July 1984, went as follows:

The track record of the experts in managing the radioactive waste problem in the past — and in keeping the public properly informed — does not instil confidence in their present management scheme.

At that time Willie Kealy and Tom Shell wrote about the earthquake in the Irish Sea, normally an earthquake free zone, and how it had sent a chill down the spine of many environmentalists. Their article entitled "Quake Raises Nuclear Waste Fear" was published in The Sunday Independent on 22 July 1984. There is a very interesting pattern in regard to these years, that is, one scientist after another produced what was then tentative research generating hypothesis which was met by a flat political denial. The people making the statements were people of authority. Dr. Peter Mitchell of the Department of Physics in UCD said that the Irish Sea held the unenviable record of being the most radioactive sea in the world.

On 24 July 1984The Irish Times reported that Dr. Nicholas Napier, whose practice covered 2,500 patients in the Strangford-Ardglass area, registered two deaths from acute leukaemia within a six month period in 1980. Dr. Napier was reported as saying he was very concerned about the effects of the dumping of radioactive materials in the Irish Sea. That same day Mr. Patten, then a minister at the Northern Ireland Office, rushed out a denial and said that the plant posed no dangers for the people of County Down. While the scientists were being careful in developing hypothesis, the political response was that there was no danger.

The same edition of The Irish Times carried a report by two Irish scientists, Dr. Patricia Sheehan and Dr. Irene Hillery, on the possible links between an accidental discharge of radioactivity at Windscale in 1957 and the unusually high incidence of Downs Syndrome babies born to women who were schoolgirls in Dundalk at the time. Preliminary studies showed that six girls out of a class of 11 had since given birth to babies affected by Downs Syndrome. At first it was thought that the virus associated with an outbreak of Asian 'flu in the area, or, at least the interaction between the virus and the raised radioactive levels, might have been responsible. The book reports the researchers as saying “the thrust of the hypothesis has swung towards a purely radioactivity-induced effect”.

It is sad to think that when scientist after scientist has produced reports, when organisations have gone to the trouble of taking great personal and combined risks acting on behalf of the people, as Greenpeace and others have done, when the public have expressed their concern, when in 1986 this Parliament in unison expressed its concern and having heard a plethora of excuses, promises and commitments that this strategy or the other strategy was going to be used, that six years later this is what it has come to. The United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development was barely over when we were told nothing could be done to stop what is a very significant and grave danger that affects not only those people who are alive and represented by Members of the Dáil at present but which will affect generations to come.

When John Major spoke at a press conference in Rio de Janeiro he said that someone had remarked on the British position as being very ungracious. Words like "ungracious" wither on the lips of the people who insist on having death producing emissions being poured into the piece of water which separates one sovereign country from another. The issue which arises and which must be resolved and justified to this House this evening is why the consensus of 1986 is being broken. It has to be explained to this House what amendments to the legal remedies are being sought, if there is a deficiency in the law and the legal remedies. It is very interesting that when issues like these arose at the last meeting of the Law of the Seas Conference there was no significant advance towards the development of new legal remedies. No great reference was made to these in any of the talks which have taken place on a bilateral basis between Ireland and Britain. We have to realise that economic interests prevail over any and the most elementary moral values in relation to the British political position.

The British political insistence on expanding a dangerous facility that impacts on the lives of a friendly nation is little less than an act of international terrorism. The Irish Government have been promised support by the Labour Party and by other parties and Members of this House for taking any action necessary to at least have it recognised in Britain that we cannot continue to be cosignatories with them to treaties that have specific indications, as Deputy Howlin has shown in the case of Article 7, that they can be flouted for gain. What was discussed at the conference on the environment and development was the inappropriateness of the North sending its toxic waste to the South, an abuse of the dependency relationship. It is an act of arrogance and irresponsibility, an anti-European thought, and the crassest way of putting interests before moral values, to allow the Sellafield plant to be expanded.

Minister for Energy (Mr. Molloy)

I move amendment No. 1:

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

Dáil Éireann approves the actions taken to date by the Government with a view to the eventual closure of the Sellafield plant and in the meantime to ensure the safe operation and the safe storage of nuclear waste now in the plant. In particular, Dáil Éireann notes that the Government has fully and carefully investigated the possibility of legal action to secure closure of the plant and that the Government has been advised that a firm legal case based on sufficient evidence as to injurious effects on Ireland of operations at the Sellafield plant, does not exist at present. Dáil Éireann notes the commitment of the Government to continue its efforts to secure closure of the Sellafield plant.

The Sellafield complex, on the west coast of Cumbria, is the site of British Nuclear Fuels reprocessing plant, where spent nuclear fuel is chemically reprocessed to extract uranium and plutonium. The complex also includes Calder Hall power station as well as the new Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) and a vitrification plant for high level radioactive waste which was commissioned in 1991. UK NIREX is concentrating investigations there for a waste repository for low and intermediate level radioactive waste.

Calder Hall was the world's first industrial-scale nuclear power station, commissioned in 1956 and consists of four major Magnox reactors. These reactors are considered to be unsafe because of a number of problems such as a lack of ability to resist earthquakes, problems with the integrity of pressure circuits, reliability of their shut down system, cooling ability during and after a fire and the lack of secondary containment.

As the House is aware, the Government have been extremely concerned for some years about the Sellafield nuclear processing plant, particularly following an incident in November 1983 which resulted in widespread radioactive contamination of the adjacent beaches, the levels of which were later found by a UK court to have been totally unacceptable at that time.

On 3 December 1986 when the now leader of the Labour Party was Tánaiste and Minister for Energy Dáil Éireann unanimously agreed the following motion:

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, and urges the European Communities to decide as a matter of priority the establishment of a nuclear inspection force.

Since I became Minister for Energy in 1989 I have continuously and at every opportunity open to me expressed the Government's concern about the Sellafield plant which continues to discharge radioactive wastes in the Irish Sea, although the quantities of such wastes have reduced considerably in recent years. The Government are also concerned about the very large accumulation of highly radioactive waste at Sellafield, together with the transport of radioactive material to and from the plant because this exposes this country to significant risks. The Government's view remains that the only way to resolve the concerns about Sellafield is to close the plant. We have repeatedly conveyed this view to the UK Government.

I have also personally conveyed our serious concerns about Sellafield to the former UK Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. John Wakeham, MP, and to the former Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Michael Heseltine MP, who is now responsible for Industry and Trade in the UK including energy matters.

I will first deal with the new reprocessing plant which is undoubtedly of great concern to Deputies and various environmental interests. Currently only Magnox fuel is reprocessed at Sellafield. However, BNFL have now completed a massive new reprocessing complex called the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) which will reprocess light water reactor fuel from spent fuel rods from the UK and abroad and recover uranium and plutonium in the process. This plant is due to come into operation this year and is the largest single expansion at Sellafield.

Under Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, the EC Commission received notification and data from the UK Government concerning their plan to release radioactive effluents resulting from THORP's operation and set up a group of Commission experts to examine this general data. The Commission's opinion, issued recently, was to the effect that radioactive discharges from the THORP plant is not liable, either in normal operation or in the case of an accident, to result in radioactive contamination significant from the point of view of health, of the water, soil or airspace of another member state.

The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII) have examined the consequences for this country of the operation of THORP. The assessment has been done on the basis of data supplied by British Nuclear Fuels regarding the quantities of liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents to be discharged from this plant. The liquid effluent normally discharged to the Irish Sea from THORP will contain predominantly tritium, but also several other radionuclides including caesium, ruthenium and plutonium. The institute estimate that these discharges will give rise to an annual radiation dose of about one microsievert to a heavy consumer of seafood caught off the east coast of Ireland. This will add to the dose of 4.6 microsieverts received by the same consumer in 1990 due to the accumulated effect of discharges up to that time, as determined from the institute's analysis of fish caught in the Irish Sea in that year.

The principal radionuclide in the gaseous discharges from THORP will be Krypton-85. It is estimated that this discharge will, at the maximum output of the plant, give rise to an annual dose to a member of the public here of about 0.1 microsievert. The dose arising from the gaseous discharges from all activities at Sellafield is estimated to be a few times this amount.

The average annual dose received by a member of the Irish public from all sources of radiation is about 4,000 microsieverts. When THORP is in full operation therefore the total radiation dose which will be received by the most exposed member of the Irish public due to all routine discharges from Sellafield will still amount to no more than a fraction of 1 per cent of that received by a person in Ireland from all natural and artificial sources of radioactivity.

An additional major concern to Ireland is of course the risk of an unplanned release of radioactivity due to a serious accident at Sellafield. The institute have considered the possible consequences of the types of accident which one could reasonably visualise as happening to THORP, and which would result in discharges into the Irish Sea, or to the atmosphere, depending on the nature of the accident.

From an accident giving rise to atmospheric discharges, the estimated highest dose to an adult living at the nearest point in Ireland to Sellafield, and eating only locally produced food, would be approximately 70 microsieverts. The dose to a heavy consumer of seafood from an accident resulting in liquid discharges to the Irish Sea would be approximately 120 microsieverts. These doses could be reduced if short term restrictions were placed on the consumption of certain foodstuffs. For comparison, the dose received by an Irish adult due to the Chernobyl accident was estimated as being in the range 120-150 microsieverts.

The institute's net conclusion is that, while all discharges of radioactivity from Sellafield are undesirable and therefore any increase in them is even more so, the additional radiation doses to a member of the Irish public from the THORP plant, either in normal operation or in certain foreseeable accident scenarios, will not be such as to cause a significantly increased risk to health.

Nonetheless I and the Government would wish to see all discharges of radioactivity into the marine and aerial environment progressively reduced and ultimately eliminated. I would also emphasise that the occurrence of an accident in THORP, or elsewhere at Sellafield, with consequences more serious than those considered above, cannot be ruled out, and remains a serious and legitimate concern for this country.

The institute will be continuing the intensive programme of monitoring of the contamination levels in the Irish Sea which it has been conducting for a considerable number of years to determine the effects of radioactive discharges on the Irish marine environment. The effects are quantified in some detail through their analyses of fish and shellfish collected at the principal fishing ports and of seaweeds, sediments and seawater from selected locations around the Irish coastline. The present situation is that significant reductions in radioactive effluents from Sellafield occurred during the early eighties and since then there has been a further slow decline in contamination levels. Radiation doses to typical consumers of fish are now as low as 0.1 per cent of the International Commission for Radiological Protection annual dose limits for members of the public from controllable sources of radiation.

While the principal objective of our monitoring programme is to obtain an estimate of the radiation exposure of the Irish public, it also enables us to detect unrecorded discharges, examine trends and generally relate the quantities reported as having been discharged with the institute's monitoring results.

I am confident that the institute's monitoring programme will enable the institute to detect and quantify the effects of liquid discharges from THORP following the commissioning of the plant. Any large increase in atmospheric radioactivity will be detected by the national network of continuous monitoring stations which the institute operates as part of the national radiological emergency plan.

It remains, apart from the liquid and aerial discharges from THORP, a matter of major concern to the Government that the risks and dangers associated with Sellafield will be increased also because of the spent fuel stockpile accumulated from abroad mainly from Germany and Japan awaiting reprocessing, the resultant by-production of greater quantities of wastes and the attendant problems of hazardous cargoes to and from the Irish Sea.

On 12 June this year, following the British general election, I again wrote to Mr. Heseltine, now the UK Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, including Energy, and to the Minister for Energy, Mr. Tim Eggar, expressing my concerns on these matters. Indeed, I had previously expressed my concern to Mr. Eggar when I met him at an Energy Council meeting and informed him that I would be formally lodging the Government's view in regard to these matters with the new Minister, as I have done. My Department will be pursuing this matter in the context of our regular meetings with the UK authorities through the Irish/UK Contact Group.

I will now turn to the proposed waste repository at Sellafield. The UK Government say they are satisfied that safe disposal in a deep facility can be developed in the UK for low and intermediate-level wastes. They believe that on-site storage is an unacceptable long term option because in general it carries a higher risk to workers in the nuclear industry and the public and because decisions should not be left to future generations. The UK's Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive, called NIREX, was set up with the responsibility to provide and manage a new facility for the disposal of such waste. Investigations were undertaken by NIREX into various disposal options and sites. In March 1989, the UK Government announced that they had accepted NIREX's recommendation that a site should be built in the form of a mine underground. Detailed geological studies, including the sinking of boreholes, were carried out in the vicinity of Sellafield and in Dounreay in Scotland. Both sites of course cause a problem to us.

In July 1991 when UK NIREX announced that it planned to concentrate its future investigations at Sellafield, I immediately arranged for officials of my Department to meet on that day to discuss the matter with their British counterparts in London. On 14 August 1991, I wrote to the then Secretary of State for Energy reiterating the strong opposition of the Irish Government to the continued operation of Sellafield and expressed our deep dissatisfaction in relation to the repository.

I am aware of recent articles in the press regarding reports that Sellafield may not be a suitable location for an underground repository. The basis for such claims apparently arises from three reports entitled: UK NIREX Ltd's "The Geology and Hydrogeology of Sellafield March 1992 Interpretation", (Volumes 1 and 2); UK Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's "Response to UK NIREX Ltd's revised design for Sellafield Repository" and "A Review of the Geology and Hydrogeology of Sellafield" by Environmental Resources Ltd. for Cumbria County Council.

On hearing these claims, I sought and received copies of the different documents from the UK authorities and I have asked the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and the Geological Survey Office to examine them as a matter of urgency. It would be premature to make any definitive statement on the recent media claims until the reports which are voluminous and very technical have been thoroughly examined by the experts in both institutions.

In any case, I understand that a decision by NIREX regarding a possible planning application in relation to the proposal has now been deferred pending the safety aspects analyses. Any proposals for a repository will be the subject of an independent public inquiry and NIREX will have to comply with the strict safety standards laid down and enforced by the authorising and regulatory bodies. My Department will continue to monitor all further developments in relation to the site investigation, planning and design of any such proposed repository.

Within the international fora Irish uneasiness about nuclear safety and our insistence on new control measures, notably at EC level, have been raised at every opportunity. I raised the matter at the EC Energy Council in 1990 and 1991, when I said that my concerns were exacerbated by the absence of any move in the direction of independent verification and inspection of nuclear installations which I, and of course the present leader of the Labour Party when he was Minister for Energy, have been advocating under Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty. The Government believe that the European Community in particular has a vital role to play in the problems of safety and trans-boundary effects of UK nuclear installations.

In addition, I have put our view on two separate occasions to the European Parliament. Other Government Ministers and officials of my Department have pressed home the message on every possible occasion. In response to Irish and other pressures so far, the Commission re-introduced in 1990, after a 20 year gap, inspection of radiation monitoring facilities under Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty. While this does not go as far as we would wish or had been asking for, it is nevertheless a step in the right direction so far as Ireland's policy in this area is concerned.

There have been recent calls for legal action on the question of Sellafield. The Government have always been and continue to be committed to legal action against Sellafield if a sufficient case for it can be shown to exist, but it cannot initiate such action without a firm legal case based on sufficient evidence. Any such legal action would have to be based on scientific evidence as to the injurious effects of operations at the Sellafield plant on Ireland. To find convincing evidence to establish a direct cause and effect link between the operation of the Sellafield plant and damage or injuries to people in Ireland may be very difficult. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that activities at the Sellafield plant are in breach of the relevant Euratom directives and regulations. If there was, legal action could and would be considered by this Government. In addition to the Euratom Treaty, options for legal action which have been considered include possible action pursuant to the EC Treaty, Directive 76/464/EC, on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged from land based sources into the aquatic environment of the Community, the Law of the Sea, the Paris Convention, the London Dumping Convention and action in the UK courts and in the International Court of Justice. These have all, however, been confronted by the same obstacle — the lack of sufficient evidence.

Although Greenpeace provided copies of two separate legal options to my Department, neither of them on examination by the Attorney General's Office provided any hope that immediate legal action can be taken. It is important to point out that the Greenpeace presentation related solely to legal procedural possibilities and they failed to put forward any possible case which could be supported by concrete facts or evidence. The Greenpeace presentation was examined in detail by the Attorney General and the legal advice made available to me is that recourse to the International Court of Justice would be unlikely because the court would lack jurisdiction without the consent of both parties and because of difficulties in determining issues arising prior to such consent. Even if consent and jurisdiction obstacles were overcome there would have to be non-compliance by the UK with some international law or convention if it was to have any hope of succeeding in the court.

I had previously informed the House that I had arranged with Greenpeace for their legal adviser to meet with the Attorney General and officials of my Department to go over the whole question of the legal case that they said Ireland could take. That meeting took place on 17 April 1991 and I have already informed the House about that. The outcome of that discussion was that their case was not supported by facts or evidence.

As I said, the Greenpeace presentation has been examined in detail and the legal advice available to me is that recourse to the international courts would be unlikely to succeed. The UK Government would not be obliged to consent to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and that court would have no jurisdiction without the consent of both parties. Secondly, the UK would be most unlikely to accord jurisdiction to the International Court over Sellafield by giving such consent. It is clear from discussions I had with them that they would not do so. Even if the International Court had such jurisdiction there would have to be non-compliance by the UK with some international law or some legal norm if the Government of Ireland were to succeed in the court and there is no available legal or evidential basis for establishing this at present. There is no legal or factual basis on which it can be established at present that the UK are not complying with any relevant international convention.

I am aware that Greenpeace held a press conference on 9 October 1991 even though they had the opportunity of this full discussion in April. At the October press conference they again presented legal procedural options and these were identical to those presented to my Department in April. The Government are determined to pursue all means available against Sellafield, including legal means, but it is vital that the legal case is sufficiently strong to succeed. The Government are open to information and evidence from any source for a sustainable case regarding closure of Sellafield. They are not however prepared to proceed to legal action without such a sustainable case or purely for the embarrassment factor involved. One could not ask one sovereign state to take a case against another sovereign state purely to cause the other some embarrassment. Ireland would lose its integrity if it were to take such actions in the international arena.

I am not the only person who has occupied this responsible post as Minister for Energy. Members of the other parties in this House have been in this position in recent years since the Sellafield threat and concern arose. A lot of what was said in the 1986 debate could be said here. The Members of the other parties in Government could not succeed in establishing any grounds upon which they would have advised the Government at that time to take a case.

Mr. Howlin

What about the expansion of Sellafield 2 and also the Minister for Finance then signing for the expansion of the Euro funding?

Mr. Molloy

I can only answer for myself.

Mr. Howlin

Your colleague is good at answering for others.

Mr. Molloy

I am here to answer with regard to the Government's view in regard to these matters. I am being as careful and as helpful as I can be. I was just pointing out that others have held this position and have been faced with the same difficulties with which I have been faced in trying to make some real progress in this matter. One must bear in mind that quite a number of our colleagues in the European Community, under which Euratom operates, are pro nuclear and use nuclear energy for their power stations and, unfortunately, they are not at all amenable to support the case Ireland has been making with regard to European wide action.

Ireland has taken a very active part in the work of the Paris Commission in relation to discharges from nuclear installations into the Irish Sea. In 1991 Ireland succeeded in having a recommendation adopted which requires parties to the Paris Convention, under which the commission operates, to report periodically on their use of best available technology to minimise and, as appropriate, eliminate pollution caused by radioactive discharges. I am satisfied that this reporting discipline will make a useful contribution to ensuring that discharges from Sellafield will be as low as possible as long as the plant is in operation.

The House will be aware that on 13 May 1992 there was a reported discovery on the sea shore at Sellafield in Cumbria of vegetation with increased levels of radioactive contamination. At the time, it was confirmed to the RPII that British Nuclear Fuels had not any satisfactory explanation as to how the levels of contamination found in the vegetation had come about. On 21 May 1992, the RPII told me that the levels of radioactivity found in the marine organisms at Sellafield had not been found in Ireland. A beach scan undertaken in Dublin Bay showed that the levels of radioactivity measured were in line with levels previously found in the Irish marine environment over the past few years. The RPII assured me that no abnormal levels of contamination were discovered. However, the occurrence of yet another incident of unexpected contamination of the Cumbrian coastline of the Irish Sea from operations in Sellafield has to be a cause for concern. It was a cause of additional unease to me that, in spite of claims by British Nuclear Fuels of increased openness regarding incidents at Sellafield, this occurrence only became publicly known through an apparent leak to the media two months after it was first discovered. The matter of non-notification of this incident to my Department and the circumstances of the incident have been raised with the British authorities and I am awaiting a definitive reply to my request.

In the circumstances that the Sellafield plant and nuclear facilities in the UK and elsewhere continue in existence it is vital that all possible measures are taken to protect the Irish public. The unsatisfactory situation in relation to many nuclear installations in central and eastern Europe gives rise to continuing concern apart from the facilities in the UK.

Last year the Radiological Protection Institute was established following enactment of the Radiological Protection Act, 1991. This Act gave the institute new and expanded functions in relation to radiological protection of the public. Over the past few years the level of staffing and equipment and instrumentation in the institute has been substantially increased. The institute is now in a position to have in place a radioactive monitoring programme which will pick up any significant increases in radioactivity.

Three international Conventions which are relevant to the field of nuclear safety and radiological protection were ratified following enactment of the Radiological Protection Act. First of all there was the Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. This Convention establishes standard protection measures, including notification procedures, escorts and surveillance to be applied to nuclear materials used for peaceful purposes in relation to their import, export and transit.

Secondly, there was the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident. That Convention puts in place a formal regime for notification of accidents at civil nuclear facilities. A state in which a nuclear accident occurs is obliged to notify other states likely to be affected by releases of radioactive material and provide them with other relevant information.

The third of these Conventions is the Convention on Assistance in the case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency. Under the Convention a state party may seek assistance in the event of a nuclear accident or radiological emergency in the form of personnel, equipment or materials from any other state party or from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

These Conventions and their ratification by Ireland are positive developments in relation to our emergency preparedness and response to any radiological emergency.

The Government have approved an emergency plan for the protection of the population in the event of an accident involving release of radioactivity to the environment. The plan involves rapid and co-ordinated response measures from national authorities and procedures for the dissemination of information to the general public. It has been designed with sufficient flexibility to respond to the range of nuclear accidents which might occur. A booklet on the emergency plan is at the moment with the printers and it will be published in the coming weeks. I hope it will be widely disseminated. The plan and all its components are subject to periodic tests of their effectiveness.

How much time do I have left?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has one minute left. If he has not fully completed his speech, we could arrange to deduct from subsequent Government time the extra minute or two of the time it would take him.

Mr. Molloy

Before I conclude I will reply to some specific questions which were raised. I was asked what took place at the ECOFIN Council meeting, but as I attend Energy Council meetings and another Minister attends these meetings any questions relating to matters dealt with at the ECOFIN meetings should be referred to the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Howlin

I tabled the questions to the then Minister for Finance but they were then transferred to you.

Miss Flaherty

A second source of stress.

Mr. Molloy

With regard to the questions on the planning process for THORP, all planning approvals, including the public inquiry, had been obtained by British Nuclear Fuels before the 1985 environmental impact directive was adopted as Community law.

A number of Deputies have referred to the dangers to health from nuclear emissions. Obviously, I have not enough time to cover this topic but one of my colleagues who will speak after me will deal with this matter in greater detail because it is important that the public should have accurate information rather than statements based on assumptions, inadequate research or incomplete investigation. It is important that the situation as it affects the health of people in County Louth be properly understood. Studies have found that the annual incidence rate of acute lymphoid leukaemia in children in this country was within the range of rates found in children in other western populations. The same applies in a number of other areas examined, but my colleague will go into that in greater detail.

In conclusion, I am aware that the nuclear industry in Britain has an immense annual advertising and PR budget of several millions which has been spent in putting an acceptable face on the nuclear production and waste business. I can assure the House that this Government, on the other hand, will continue to press the other side of the picture: the radioactive discharges and emissions into the environment, the continuing risk of accidents at the plant, the increasing waste management problem and the dangerous international traffic in nuclear waste. Chernobyl demonstrated the transboundary nature of nuclear accidents and the need for countries with nuclear power programmes to take account of the legitimate concerns of their neighbours.

I will repeat that the only way to resolve concerns about Sellafield is to close the plant. The Government have so far done all that they can do at this stage, but I can assure the House that future efforts will be intensified.

Miss Flaherty

First, may I clarify if I have a full 30 minutes?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes, we will deduct three minutes from speakers from the Government side.

Miss Flaherty

With your permission, Sir, I propose to share my time with Deputy Barnes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Miss Flaherty

It was an interesting development that the Minister refused to answer for the Taoiseach. While we are all very anxious for a detailed reply, it is quite appropriate that he should refuse to answer for the actions of the Taoiseach. I would be very pleased if our questions were accepted by the Taoiseach and that he should answer the very serious questions raised by Greenpeace to which we have had no adequate response to date. I am not surprised at the Minister's action because I notice the Taoiseach taking the Minister to task indirectly in the national newspapers about his success in the energy conservation area and how he was going to be monitoring this area very carefully. I think we are seeing another interesting strain or stress in the Coalition Government — not that we would want to make too much of that, although we note it.

I welcome the opportunity to support the Labour Party motion on Sellafield. I cannot accept the amendment tabled by the Minister. Approximately one year to 18 months ago Fine Gael identified and specifically stated that the Government had thrown in the towel on the question of hazardous emissions from the British nuclear fuel industry, and from Sellafield in particular, at a time when Ireland's persuasive case was gaining ground internationally. By contrast, Fine Gael seek to make Ireland an international pioneer for protection of the public and the environment from nuclear hazards. We believe we are well placed to do this and this role should be actively pursued.

The most significant fact to emerge from the Greenpeace intervention this month is that the rhetoric of the Irish Government is so much at odds with their actions. Even tonight there is a difficulty in coming to terms with whether the plant should be closed or whether it is perfectly safe and is doing no damage to us. We cannot take an incoherent approach forever. We will have to come down on one side or the other, as we cannot continue to have a foot on either side of the fence. Greenpeace recently highlighted these glaring inconsistencies. They highlighted — Deputy Howlin dealt with this — the signing of a major loan for the nuclear reprocessing industry, which included Sellafield, at a time when the Government were claiming at home they were doing all they could to close down Sellafield. A unanimous decision was required in order that Sellafield, one of only two such reprocessing plants worldwide, would get a loan. The Minister should respond to the questions this raises.

There were also other allegations that the Government and Ministers failed to object at EC level when increased emission levels were agreed resulting from the commissioning of THORP, the new expansion phase of reprocessing at Sellafield. The Minister outlined the evidence from the international experts and from the Radiological Protection Institute here which supports the fact that the levels of emission are not significant. However, he went on to admit that any increase in emission levels is significant. More importantly, he failed to deal with the proposed increase in Krypton emissions — it is acknowledged that they have direct consequences on the incidence of cancer — although the original proposal to eliminate Krypton emissions by the installation of extra measures in the plant was subsequently dropped. We made no protest when this was dropped and we did not ensure that this improvement in the design was not at least retained.

Let us be clear that Greenpeace and the other organisations involved give great credit to the Department of Energy and to the officials who are travelling on a regular basis to the various European institutions concerned with the nuclear industry. They have been to the fore in achieving improvements in international conventions, some of which have been mentioned already by the Minister. Significant improvements have been made and public credit is given for them. However, continuing questions are raised on how we are effectively monitoring and supervising the operations of nuclear plants. It must be asked whether we are availing of all the avenues currently open to us in EC and international law to monitor the enormous conglomerate of nuclear activity in Sellafield, which is expanding at an extraordinary rate.

It is of deep concern to the Fine Gael Party that the existing arrangements between the British and Irish authorities on monitoring and information are not being honoured. Indeed, the Minister acknowledged, when corresponding with me, his own concern in this area, which was similar to what he read into the Official Report today. I raised the matter of the contamination of vegetation on the Cumbrian coast on the Adjournment and he stated in reply that the Sellafield authorities had failed to notify the Irish Department of Energy of the contamination on the coast, although they had known of this for months. The Minister confirms that this continues to be the case up to the night, that no adequate explanation of this failure has been given. How can we feel more secure in the context of the Minister's reference tonight to a new convention on the notification of incidents?

Would an incident of any such scale be appropriate or qualify under the obligations that exist, either formally or informally, and would it be covered clearly under the new convention? What comeback would we have in the event of a failure of reporting? That aspect is most disturbing. To an extent the British nuclear industry have been attempting to clean up their act a little, at least on the surface, and have been talking about an open-door policy. However, I wonder whether such an incident could occur again. As the Minister has admitted, there is a question of whether the incident would ever have been made known had it not come to the knowledge of the news media. That development undermines any confidence one might have of a change in approach and a recognition of the seriousness of the issue.

I should like to come back to an area that I consider has not been made completely clear. Environmental groups have questioned whether all existing EC and international machinery is being adequately exhausted to ensure maximum accountability, monitoring and standards of the British nuclear industry, and Sellafield in particular. We in Fine Gael believe that a Green Paper covering the legal case and the available options should be prepared. The Minister has talked about the lack of a legal case. On the basis of the existing damage and the historical damage done to the Irish Sea, the increased risk of danger from accidents, which even the EC has acknowledged will arise as a result of the operation of THORP, and the passage of an alarming increase in emission levels recently, the Commission specifically advised the Irish Government and the British authorities to prepare a joint emergency plan to cover the greater possibility of accidents arising from the increased transportation of materials to be reprocessed through the Irish Sea and over land — more particularly for us, through the Irish Sea. The Minister made no reference to that in his contribution tonight. I should like him to fill in that gap and to refer to the publication of our own emergency plan and the publication of information to the public. I should like him to advise us what initial steps have been taken in relation to this specific activity apart from the meeting with his counterpart that he referred to. What are the current routes for materials to be reprocessed at Sellafield that come from power stations in the UK, Europe and Japan? For those who might not have thought this issue out — and quite often people do not think it out unless they come to examine it clearly — it is important to write into the record that since 1965, 4,000 tonnes of waste fuel has been imported into the UK. My figures come from details put together by Greenpeace in their latest pack for public representatives and the news media. It is interesting that the fuels from Germany, Holland, Italy and Switzerland come to Dover on an ordinary roll-on/roll-off ferry with other hazardous cargo. Most other waste fuel shipments cross the Irish Sea to go into Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria. The opening of the THORP plant will lead to a huge increase in the number of such shipments transported across the sea, most of them, it is expected, coming from Japan. Along with the only other reprocessing plant, which is situated on the northern French coast, Sellafield will take the bulk of the increase. There will be a huge increase in movement and, as a result, an increased danger of accidents. Certainly, preparation should be taken to provide for the possibility of an accident.

Deputy Howlin dealt with the legal avenues open to the Minister. I have been in the Chamber at Question Time and heard the Minister go through this aspect. To be fair to him, he has acknowledged that those channels are available but he has said that what has been missing is a substantial case to take through one of those channels. I believe that there is a case. The Minister is right in saying that a suggestion that Sellafield should be closed on the basis of current emission levels — given that the international experts are saying what they are saying — would be laughed out of court. However, I consider that there is a case in relation to the existing damage and the historical damage done to the Irish Sea. In the Irish Sea there are substances that will have thousands of years' life which are directly related to reprocessing and could not come from any other activity — they could not have come from the fall-out from Chernobyl or from the fallout from testing. Substances such as caesium are directly confined to the activity of reprocessing.

Other countries have taken successful actions through international courts and under the European Commission rules. The adjoining provinces of France and Germany were successful in having an operation taken out of the hands of the relevant local government and put into the hands of the European Commission after proving sufficient cause for concern. There is also the possibility of perhaps indirectly bringing about the closure of Sellafield by way of an international fine for the damage done to the Irish Sea. Those moneys could be used to further our own case against the expansion of a nuclear industry; to pay for the significant cost of monitoring and so on; and perhaps to pay for one of the things that would help us make our case — a national cancer register. Because we do not have a national cancer register it is extremely difficult for us to analyse the effect of emissions on the health of our people. We are seriously remiss in not having established such a register a long time ago and having it up and running. It is my contention that we could take a case along those lines — the case might not be all that we wanted and it might not achieve all that we wanted but it would certainly put a stopper in the way and would be an indication of our seriousness and our determination to have acknowledged the serious damage done to a non-nuclear country, Ireland, by the historic and current effects of emissions from Sellafield.

For some time we in Fine Gael have been concerned about the change in the Government's tune and the change in the Minister's tune. The Government's attitude is a history of defeat and a history of faltering which contrasts enormously with the rhetoric of the 1986 debate — and again that word keeps returning, there is a marked contrast between rhetoric and reality. In the 1986 debate the former Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, was unbelievable. His comments on that occasion were comparable with those of Deputy Higgins, who is hard to beat when he is in full flight. The Minister himself, who was going to be the "devil and all" before taking his portfolio, was giving up within a very short time and was saying that that was not possible. He had stopped raising the issue in all of the fora.

Mr. Molloy

I am sorry, Deputy, but that is not correct. I have never stopped raising it in the various fora. I have just read out a list. The Deputy cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Allen

So much wind.

Miss Flaherty

The Minister raised the issue of the European inspectorate. As early as April 1990 Deputy Richard Bruton pointed out that the Minister, having received notice of major new contracts, had not raised those contracts at any of the regular EC Energy Ministers' meetings in the intervening ten months. The Paris Commission of July 1990 was the first occasion on which we failed to press our case for the closure of Sellafield. The Minister said that he would press the case for the inspectorate. All along there was evidence of a watering down and a softening of position.

Some of the rhetoric of Deputy Higgins in the debate was not helpful. I do accept that the Minister is operating at European level within a club of atomic powered nations whose objectives are very different from our own. That is a very difficult environment in which to succeed in making our case. However, that is not an excuse for a complete failure in pressing our case to the kind of conclusion sought by this motion and that Fine Gael continue to believe is possible within the limits I have outlined.

Debate adjourned.