Deputy Flaherty was in possession and she has 12 minutes left.
Private Members' Business. - Sellafield Nuclear Plant: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Howlin on Tuesday 30 June 1992:
"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."
Debate resumed on 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 the 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."
—(Minister for Energy.)
Deputy Flaherty asked the agreement of the House to share time when she commenced her speech last night. I take it that the agreement still stands.
That is satisfactory.
I wish to thank Deputy Flaherty for sharing her time with me. Sadly, this very important issue has to be raised in this House time and again. At regular intervals the state of the Irish Sea becomes the issue when alarming findings are brought to our notice. On 20 May 1992 we raised on the Adjournment the issue of radioactive substances in the Irish Sea and the reported incidence of radioactive vegetation off the Sellafield coast. We also raised the serious implications of the suppression of those findings until the information was leaked to the media.
I commend the Labour Party for tabling this motion as it gives us the opportunity to address the serious question of reliable information backed up by scientific knowledge. Again and again our experience has been punctuated by the suppression and distortion of information relating to the Sellafield plant. There is a general belief outside this House that there is a great need for an independent highly skilled scientific agency, if not at Irish level at European level, that would act as an honest broker on our behalf and would seek to protect not only human life but our flora and fauna.
We have two major problems, first the actual discovery of radioactive vegetation; second, the added worry caused by the realisation that we are not getting the whole story or learning all the truth and that matters are being covered up in every sense of the word. The recent reported incidence of radioactive vegetation off the Cumbrian coast showed how the information was suppressed and highlighted the fact that skilled scientific staff attached to Sellafield had discovered this two months prior to the information being leaked to the press. It was established that new plant life resulted from the effluent of a nuclear installation such as Sellafield.
We are seriously concerned that Sellafield not only affects the land and coastland around it but also people across the Irish Sea. Irish people reject not only nuclear waste but the generation of energy by nuclear plants and did so even when we were told it was the solution to our energy problem. Irish people have a deep-seated fear of nuclear installations and the people rejected the idea of building a nuclear plant on our own shores even if it was to our short term advantage, Therefore, it is all the more unacceptable that we have to live with the effects of the waste from the Sellafield plant.
I hope that by raising this matter again in the House we will strengthen our structures as we become aware of the dangers. I hope we will become more skilled at evaluating the damage that Sellafield has done and will continue to do. We have a tremendous opportunity at present to harness the EC conventions and our legislation to ensure that if we take on Sellafield, we can win. We always knew it was going to be difficult to prove things because of the need for objective scientific conclusions that could be used legally. We also realised that as a small nation we were taking on our larger neighbour which had pledged itself during the previous Conservative Government to nuclear energy. It was like David taking on Goliath. However, the European Community must exercise a collective role and give us access to independent scientific information and must ensure that Sellafield is effectively monitored so that we can take appropriate action. Above everything else, the EC must support us in seeking to change the rules.
As a result of the recent global summit and the resultant oceans treaties we now realise the inter-dependence of all systems on our planet and how one is responsible for polluting or preserving the other. This gives us a powerful case to make. We also know that the eco-system is responsible for all marine life and this also affects the planet which will be under threat if waste from Sellafield is allowed to be discharged into the Irish Sea. The launching of the EUREKA programme on marine science and technology, with accompanying law at European level, has to be a priority. Europe has to see it in that light and should have the moral as well as environmental responsibility to bring this about.
I know that our real weakness — and other speakers will refer to this — in this specialised area, where there is a great suppression or distortion of the facts, is that we have to shift the burden of proof, as has been done in other areas where this problem arises. It is no longer acceptable that we should have to prove that emissions from Sellafield are environmentally damaging. We should not have to prove that those emissions have had the effects that historically they have done. The burden of proof will have to be shifted so that Sellafield will have to prove to us openly and beyond doubt that what they are doing and what they plan to do will not damage the environment and will not cause a deterioration of the waters of the Irish Sea and the vegetation of the surrounding eco-system. If that were written into law and conventions we would have the answer to legally advance our cause for closing down Sellafield. That burden of proof would have to demonstrate that no other alternative exists for dealing with nuclear waste and that such dumping has no harmful or adverse effects. I believe that Sellafield would fail on both points if and when — and hopefully it will be "when"— they are asked to prove that.
I ask that this motion not be one of a regular interest that we take up in the House but that collectively all sides of the House, with our shared experience and with our roles and responsibilities at world level and at European level, can put together a case that would hold and would prove beyond doubt that it is no longer acceptable or environmentally or legally tenable for Sellafield to continue what it is doing now, much less get away with what it is promising in the way of increased operations.
I think most Deputies are at one in relation to a view on nuclear power. I have been concerned recently to hear several Opposition Deputies say that they favour a carbon tax. Their statements disturb me somewhat because although we have to conserve our use of energy and ensure that the production of carbon dioxide — the main greenhouse gas causing global warming — is curtailed, if we were to have a carbon tax in isolation from other energy taxes a huge advantage would be given to nuclear-based countries. That is one of the main concerns expressed time and time again by the Irish Government at international fora. As Members know, the Commission have proposals in relation to a 50-50 tax on carbon and energy. Although those proposals are at a very initial stage, it is important when Deputies talk about the conservation of energy and the use of fiscal measures to do so that the advantage is not given to nuclear states. I am very keen to make that point. I do not wish to make a party political point out of that, but I did notice recently that some Opposition Deputies did not seem to take that view.
We are all concerned about the operation of the Sellafield plant. While the 1991 report of the Irish Nuclear Energy Board — now the Radiological protection Institute of Ireland — stated that the radioactivity levels in the Irish Sea were "safe" they also stated that the levels were "undesirable".
In October 1990 an advertisement from British Nuclear Fuels appeared in The Sunday Times. That advertisement is worthy of note in this debate. It read:
Where do you stand on nuclear power? Well, wherever it is, one thing is for sure. Nuclear waste cannot be ignored. And just like the issue, it's unlikely to go away. For the fact is, even if nuclear energy production ceased tomorrow, we would still have to deal with waste that has been produced in the past.
The advertisement was apparently intended to convince anyone who had reservations about Sellafield that those doubts were unfounded. Arguably, statements such as that fuelled people's fears rather than allaying them.
According to British Nuclear Fuels, the vitrification process has been brought into operation, whereby high level waste can be reduced to one-third of its original volume. A quotation from the company reads:
Or, to look at it another way, all the high level waste produced at Sellafield in the last 30 years could be contained in just 4 double-decker buses.
With respect to British Nuclear Fuels, I would suggest that that is not very consoling because there would not be too many queues to get on those buses.
The United Kingdom Government have ignored two sets of advice from their own experts, each of which independently showed that there are no compelling waste management reasons in favour of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel from advanced gas-cooled reactors. A team of eight consultants from the nuclear industry submitted a commissioned report to the UK Government in 1989, which report concluded that it would be preferable on environmental grounds to store spent fuel from nuclear reactors rather than to send it for reprocessing to the Sellafield plant in Cumbria. In the annual report of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee published in November 1990 it was stated that the rationale for reprocessing had become more questionable in recent years. I certainly share that view.
Recently British Nuclear Fuels were reported in British newspapers as being "mystified", "baffled" and "puzzled" when radioactive weed was found on beaches near Sellafield in May of this year. At the time British Nuclear Fuels assured the public that the seaweed posed no danger and that someone would have to press the weed to his or her skin fo 30 hours before reaching the danger limit. Irish concern would very much focus on the reason for the weed being there in the first place rather than on its scientific properties.
As Deputies know — and I think this matter was referred to last night — two test cases will open in the UK in October to determine whether radiation from Sellafield is likely to have caused childhood leukaemias. About 40 other cases involving Cumbrian families await the outcome of those two cases. Adult leukaemia rates along the north Lancashire coastline and the incidence of certain cancers along the west coast of Scotland in young people are reported to be three times the national average.
It is important to make some suggestions in the context of this debate. I have one suggestion that I hope will contribute to the debate in a meaningful way. It might be a small step that the British authorities could take on board but could be a major step forward in terms of the developments that are to take place later this year. In the light of the latest scientific and technical knowledge it would be prudent for the British Government to reassess the consent they gave in 1978 for the building and the operation of THORP, the nuclear thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield. I say that because it is now almost 15 years since the Windscale inquiry, which was a very wideranging and comprehensive inquiry. Many things have changed in the time that has elapsed and I shall detail some of them. On 27 June 1985 the EC adopted Directive 85/337, which was designed to deal with the environmental effects of certain public and private projects. Section 3 of that directive requires a description of the effects on fauna and flora of plutonium accumulation and post-flooding deposition in intertidal zones and estuaries around the Irish Sea. The directive requires a description of climatic factors affected by the emission of Krypton-85 and other radioactive gases. It requires a description of the likely significant effects of the proposed project on the environment resulting from the emission of pollutants and the creation of nuisances. I might add that it is anticipated — and not disputed, I understand — that the aerial emissions from Sellafield will increase by 1,000 per cent after the THORP plant comes into operation.
Research published recently in the UK by authorities such as the Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and the Department of the Environment shows an increased accumulation of radioactivity in the intertidal zones on the mid-west coast of Britain.
Plutonium and americium were found to contaminate the air, rain and land following a severe gale in North Wales in February 1990. During the Windscale inquiry that possibility was predicted but was dismissed as being possible only under severe earthquake conditions.
While evidence on the release of Krypton-85 was presented to the Windscale inquiry, virtually no reference was made to its potential climatic effect. Studies conducted within the past decade are beginning to identify implications for the atmospheric electrical field from releases of artificially created ionising radiation and have raised serious questions on alternations in the relationship between the various aggregate states of water and the atmosphere. British Nuclear Fuels do not intend to instal Krypton-85 retention technology on the grounds of unnecessary cost. As I said, the emissions are going to increase by 1,000 per cent.
The directive I referred to states that the environmental impact assessment should cover the direct effects of any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the project. This certainly was not done in the context of the Windscale inquiry. A recent study on the radioactive contamination in North Wales commissioned by the UK Inspectorate of Pollution discovered levels of 17,300 becquerels per square metre of plutonium and 15,300 becquerels of americium in the Dee estuary. It has been calculated that there is to be a 554 billion increase of plutonium and 430 billion increase of americium in the intertidal region of North Wales already, mostly originating from Sellafield.
Using the USA Department of Energy safety limits, the total amount of americium-241 released so far represents the maximum permissible body burden for 11 million people and the amount of plutonium represents the maximum permissible body burden for four billion people. If that is what has been caused already I suggest we need to do an environmental impact assessment in the light of the recent European Directive if we are even to begin to deal adequately with the kind of controls that have to be put into place at the power plant. For example, birds are known to have abandoned the Ravenglass estuary as the plutonium levels increased, but no broadly based assessment has been carried out to establish if there is a connection between the two events or if additional radioactivity would have a deterimental effect.
At the Windscale inquiry spokespersons for British Nuclear Fuels stated that no krypton control would be installed, for two reasons. Firstly, they said that the technology of trapping the krypton from the dissolved gases is still in the development stage and they had not got the unit upon which they could base a design and construction programme. Secondly, they argued the cost. In his inquiry Mr. Justice Parker, referring to the emissions, said:
With regard to krypton it is accepted by BFNL that the krypton removal plant will be incorporated if the technology for its removal and safe retention is available. I am satisfied that it should. I also consider that BNFL should not merely stand by and instal such a plant if and when others develop it. They should themselves devote effort to its development.
I will not go on at any great length because I know other Deputies want to share my time, but I think some of the things I have referred to are serious enough to require me and many of us to call on the British authorities to reconsider the basis on which consent is given and the kind of controls that might be put in place in the light of recent technical developments and the higher levels of environmental awareness and concern. Particularly given the sensitivity of transporting spent fuel, the shipping is to be carried out without prior notification of routes and times. I believe that in accordance with international rules of the Atomic Energy Agency flasks were submitted to some tests at 800ºC for half an hour, but I understand that if a ship goes on fire it can burn for about 20 hours at temperatures far in excess of 800ºC. Obviously, the shipping of the spent fuel must be an intrinsic part of the operation at Sellafield. British Nuclear Fuels argued at the Windscale inquiry that two thirds of the fuel would come from domestic sources and a third would be imported. I understand now that up to the year 2000 two thirds of the fuel is to be imported, and therefore shipped, and after that all of it is to be imported.
These matters are serious and therefore require a reassessment, particularly of the kind of technical controls and environmental standards that will apply to this plant when it is in operation later this year. I do not think it an unreasonable request for Members of this House to require the British authorities who gave the consent almost 15 years ago, to review the basis on which that consent was given. If an EIA were to be carried out it would require a base line study to establish the situation at the moment. That would be very helpful indeed, not just in ensuring that proper controls were in place but in reassuring the public that the British authorities are serious in ensuring that the plant is to operate to the highest possible environmental standards.
I understand Deputy Liam Lawlor wishes to share time with me and, with the permission of the House, I propose to give him the remaining 15 minutes of my allocation.
Does the House agree that Deputy Liam Lawlor will share time with the Minister?
Deputies
Agreed.
As chairman of ERDO, who ten years ago commissioned a study on this matter and had representations from Deputy Kavanagh's county and from along the east coast, I am concerned that we seem to be making little progress. Not alone are we not making progress but we are going in the wrong direction as regards the activities of Windscale, now Sellafield. Despite EC Directives and Government commitments, we see unacceptable discharges into the sea which should now be the focus of our attention with hoped for substantial support from Europe. Discharges from Sellafield into the atmosphere and the British coastal waters causes us great concern. We are aware of the mishaps and difficulties which followed the Chernobyl tragedy. Free access to the former Soviet Union allows the media to report the effects of radioactive fallout and the damage it can do the population in the surrounding area, as well as to the soil and the waters and its many downstream effects.
I do not propose to take up the time of the House going back over the very detailed content of the Minister's speech here last night and again this evening. There is a welter of technical detail highlighting the doubts, worries and unacceptability of what is proposed at Sellafield. The generation of electricity by nuclear energy has been in situ at Sellafield for many years, but we must remember that taking that out of the UK grid has financial complications for that member state. However, the reprocessing of spent nuclear rods and so on, hawking them thousands of miles around the world from Japan etc., highlights the fact that nowhere between Sellafield and Japan is there a similar facility, otherwise they would not be paying the shipping costs.
What then are we collectively attempting to achieve? At Community level, even when there was agreement that the inspectorate should resume activity, their lethargic performance so far in monitoring member states is particularly disappointing. Two or three inspections have been carried out and there seems to be a reluctance at Brussels level to tackle the question of co-operation among member states to deal with this matter. Some of the bigger member states have very substantial investments in nuclear energy and electricity generation by nuclear energy and there will not be a major fundamental shift in their policy. We understand that the UK at present are producing from that source at Sellafield. First, however, at Community level we must continue to attempt to establish that member states be responsible for their own activities in the area of toxic waste disposal. Surely it is undesirable that materials for reprocessing at Sellafield are coming into the EC from as far away as Japan. What about the International Law of the Sea? Surely it is most undesirable to ship that material half way around the world.
We appear to have all the right intentions, we are unanimous in our objections and yet we seem to be making very slow progress. I presume the Attorney General will take an in-depth view of the court cases which will proceed in the autumn. Are we supporting those cases? We need hard evidence in this regard; we all assume that water and air are polluted, the Minister referred to an estuary close to Sellafield which wildlife have abandoned because of their sensitivity to the atmosphere. That factual information seems to be to hand yet it does not seem to be sufficiently coherent to bring it before the European or British court systems so that someone will be asked to call a halt.
It was agreed that the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister will meet twice yearly and this matter will have to be elevated to a high political level to get it to the stage where there will be agreement on environmental impact assessment so that at least the various interested parties would have to present the necessary information. It has been said time and again that the lack of evidence has been a problem in bringing a legal case. The evidence needed is probably in the documentation of Sellafield and while we may not have the necessary substantive evidence to proceed with a court case, the potential for discovery might unearth much of the information one is attempting to firmly establish. We need to discover technical literature and information on discharges at Sellafield and all its other unacceptable aspects.
There have been in-depth programmes in the United States on the Three Mile Island project which have shown the disastrous effects when things go wrong, including pollution of water and soil and the effects on people who live a substantial distance from the project. It is a question of producing a foolproof list of measures to be taken. I appreciate that this debate in Private Members' time gives us an opportunity to show our solidarity to the principle involved. However, when the debate is over will we have achieved anything by way of decisive action? Will we have made progress towards achieving the principle we are trying to establish, to curtail further investment and activities at Sellafield? We must decide how we will handle a reactor built in 1956 and how it will be wound down safely and denuclearised— or whatever the technical terminology is.
This matter should be on the agenda of meetings between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister as it is a major, fundamental environmental issue. We are aware of the problems which can arise from Sellafield, the information has been available for a long time. However, we do not seem to be able to twist the arms of the responsible bodies in the United Kingdom. An initiative is needed to make the appropriate Ministers in the other capitals of Europe aware of our attitude to Sellafield. At ministerial level there should be a small Cabinet sub-committee to co-ordinate foreign affairs, energy, environment and health from which a national action plan vis-à-vis Sellafield would emerge. There should be a timeframe during which we hope to achieve what is desirable.
There is no point in having further generalised discussions about what should be done. There must be cohesive action at Cabinet and European Parliament level. Greenpeace held a protest and various entertainers got in on the act, which is effective in media terms, but we know that the real decisions regarding such an important infrastructural investment in the energy network of the United Kingdom will not be overturned or terminated, as it is proposed to expand it according to the British Government and their various Departments. It is undesirable, we do not want it but can we stop it? It is only at European and Government level that such a reversal of policy will be forced on the authorities of the United Kingdom. That is the sort of decisive action which should emerge from the debate. The Government have tabled an amendment to the motion, which will be supported by this side of the House. However, it is not enough. Everybody is committed to the same aim. Can we achieve it? I sincerely hope so and I also hope that Government time will be made available in the autumn to allow us to reassess whether this debate has led to any real progress. That is the sort of action which is necessary and I hope it will be taken sooner rather than later.
Acting Chairman
I am calling Deputy Gilmore.
I must correct you. A proposal was agreed that I would share my time with Deputy Allen, who would be followed by Deputy Gilmore.
Acting Chairman
My list says that Democratic Left will speak from 7.40 p.m. to 8.10 p.m.
It was agreed that I would get ten minutes, that Deputy Allen would get ten minutes and that he would be followed by Deputy Gilmore.
It is Fine Gael time.
Acting Chairman
Very well, if that has been agreed, I will call Deputy Owen. I was not aware of the arrangement in regard to time.
We are facilitating Democratic Left in this regard. The debate so far has been schizophrenic because it has been like someone saying: "Do not do what I do, do as I say". The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Harney, has obviously expressed deep concern and unhappiness in regard to the whole operation at Sellafield. Last night the Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, said we were doing everything that we can and that we had raised the matter at every possible opportunity. However, one must wonder about the real thrust of the Government's actions because only last week increased emission levels were agreed by the Commission with regard to the THORP plant. Perhaps the Minister agreed because he was advised that the emissions were insignificant but, if we want to be consistent in regard to what we have been saying over the last number of years — in this House, in the Seanad and by the public — then at every opportunity we must make our unhappiness known about what is going on at Sellafield and the existence of that time bomb on our doorstep. I do not think the Government are doing this. Neither do I want to be unrealistic because the chances are that, as a country, we will not be able to force the closure of the Sellafield plant.
As a member of the environment committee of the British-Irish parliamentary body I visited the plant last year. I recognise, having regard to the economic activity generated in Cumbria and to the fact that 15,000 people are directly employed in addition to the many thousands of people who live off the incomes earned at that plant, that it will not be easy to convince any British Government that they should shut the plant down and find alternative employment. I share my constituency with a former Minister for Energy, Deputy Burke, who availed of every opportunity to declare, including statements in local papers, that it was his desire to have Sellafield shut down.
While it comes down to a question of "do as I say but not do as I do" it seems we are not getting the message across. In 1986, this House passed a motion which has not been overturned. That motion called for the closure of the plant at Sellafield. No other party or Government have attempted to overturn that motion which reflects the wish of the Irish people. If we are realistic we will admit that it is probable that we will not achieve this aim but we are obliged by that motion which reflects the heartfelt wishes of the public to take every opportunity to state that we are very unhappy and worried about the plant at Sellafield which is on our doorstep.
We were given plenty of warnings that we were up against a body and an industry who were not going to take heed of what we had to say except, of course, in the event of a major accident when the whole world would turn on them. At the meeting of the Paris Commission in Cardiff held between 1 to 3 June 1987, motions and recommendations were put forward. The French delegation entered a reservation on the following recommendation:
The Contracting Parties agree not to construct new nuclear reprocessing plants or substantially increase the reprocessing capacity at existing installations unless following an assessment of the environmental impact, it can be ascertained, that such facilities do not pose a danger of pollution (as defined by Article 1 of the Convention) of the Paris Convention area by radioactive substances either because of their location or by virtue of the technology utilised. The Commission should be informed of the results of such assessment.
The French, in other words, did not want to be bound by that recommendation which would bind them to carrying out an environmental impact assessment and leave it up to other juries to decide whether they could continue.
The French and United Kingdom delegations entered reservations on a further recommendation which reads as follows:
The Contracting Parties to the Paris Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-Based Sources declare their firm intention to apply the best available technology in order to minimise and eliminate as soon as possible any pollution caused by radioactive discharges from all nuclear industries, including reprocessing plants, into the marine environment.
One must wonder why the United Kingdom entered a reservation on this recommendation. Did they not want to utilise the best available technology in order to minimise and eliminate any pollution caused by radioactive discharges?
At present one million gallons of water a day are discharged from the existing plant at Sellafield into the Irish Sea. I am not saying that this water is polluted but rather that that is the quantity of water we are talking about. There is always a danger that some of this water is polluted. We have to accept that since the mid-eighties, due to pressure which was brought to bear by Ireland and others, the plant at Sellafield have apparently cleaned up their act to a degree. However, I still have my reservations and wonder whether I should believe that that has been done. Let me give my reasons.
As I said, in March 1991 the environment committee of the British-Irish parliamentary body visited Sellafield because it is one of our functions to examine environmental issues as they affect both Britain and Ireland. The Irish delegation decided that they had to examine the operation at Sellafield where we had many high-powered meetings and I have to say that we were well looked after and impressed in relation to the improvements that have been made with regard to the treatement of waste water and so on, but during the visit there was no mention of the fact that within two months they were going to announce that Sellafield would be the site for a major nuclear dump. Do you think, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that they forgot to mention this and that it slipped their mind? In the presence of our British counterparts we expressed the concerns of the Irish people in relation to the existing plant and the new THORP plant but there was not one word about the huge dump that was going to be located there. I was inclined to believe what we had heard that day but all my confidence was shattered two months later when this announcement was made.
I would like to deal with two or three other issues before I conclude. As the Minister is aware, since 1987 strict rules have been in place in relation to the obligation to report incidents, no matter how minor. While I am aware that last night the Minister gave an assurance that he was going to follow the latest incident how can one believe what the management at Sellafield are saying, given that they crash at every hurdle and do not obey the rules?
Let me quote from an article by Michael Cross which appeared in the Independent on Monday, 22 June and which sounds like the start of a spy thriller or film:
Alongside a wharf in Yokohama, Japan, lies a ship with no name and no flag. The 7,000-ton freighter, formerly the British-registered Pacific Crane, is awaiting a new identity as the latest act of Japan's determination to bring home about 30 tons of its own property from Britain and France. On a secret date later this year, the freighter will load at Cherbourg and Normandy, then, in company with a specially-built armed escort ship, take a previously undisclosed non-stop route to Japan. American warships, aircrafts and satellites will watch if every mile of the way.
That ship will not be carrying peanut butter or cucumbers, rather it will be carrying treated material from the new THORP plant at Sellafield.
The question which is a source of concern for me and many other people is what dangers will be posed by these ships, as they pass through the Irish Sea. Their routes will not be known for security reasons and because they will be carrying plutonium, which can be used to make bombs, there will be an element of secrecy, but what will happen if there is an accident? Perhaps the answer is secret, too, and we will not even know that an accident occurred until material is washed up on our shores.
Concern has been expressed by campaigners who are trying to stop these shipments on the grounds that they will pose a threat in maritime waters. These ships will have to make non-stop voyages of up to 17,000 miles through some of the roughest seas in the world and because of this they will have to carry extra fuel, thereby creating an extra fire hazard. They also claim that an explosion could release 15 times the radioactivity of the Chernobyl disaster.
I met some of the young children from Chernobyl who visited this country recently following an invitation from some of the scouting organisations and they were not in the best of health. They had survived and even though it was declared that they had not been badly affected they were pale and listless. I am glad to say, however, that they had a very good time but they were not like your normal 11, 12 or 13 year old child who is full of energy and development. They were suffering from the effects of the disaster at Chernobyl.
If the campaigners win and stop the shipments of plutonium from the THORP plant what will happen? The answer is that the waste will have to stay at Sellafield. I believe, despite the best efforts of and the assurances given by the management at Sellafield, that the countries who send waste for reprocessing will have to take it back, that the Sellafield area will become the dumping ground for everybody in the world because of the costs involved. It should be said that Japan has met half the cost of the THORP plant.
There are many things that need to be said but the Minister should not just tell us that he is making every effort, he should highlight the problem at every fora and say we do not like what is happening there or want to see an intensification of development at the Sellafield site.
I have listened to both Ministers' comments in this debate and I feel there has been a major climbdown by the Government in their attitude towards the British authorities, and British Nuclear Fuels in particular, in relation to Sellafield. I support any moves by the Government to put further pressure on Britain to close Sellafield but there is now a major contrast between the attitude in the Ministers and their attitude when they were in Opposition. They were demanding the closure of Sellafield but now we are being told that we are powerless, that we have very little say and that legal action against the British Government in the European court would be unsuccessful. We are being told we must tolerate the rhetoric of the British authorities. I would support any move the Government take against Britain on his issue but, unfortunately, when one separates the political hype from the political reality, one is left in the position where this country has been badly compromised. That has happened specifically in relation to Sellafield, because we are depenedent on that plant for the storage and disposal of much of our nuclear waste, admittedly low level waste. How can we put real pressure on the British authorities when we are dependent on the same authorities to accept the radioactive waste from many of our health and research institutions?
When I visited Sellafield in the early eighties, and again in the mid-eighties, we were taken, very diplomatically, to the dumping site adjacent to Sellafield and shown where the Irish nuclear waste is stored. That was the most telling message of all and it was a great put down for people like myself who were questioning the operation there. While there we were wined and dined and treated very well because British Nuclear Fuels are operating a multi-billion pound industry reprocessing nuclear waste from all over the world.
When we talk about taking action, we should get our own act together first. We do not have a national waste management policy. As we do not have a policy on how to dispose of our chemical, toxic or nuclear waste how can we, with any credibility, expect other countries to toe the line? We have no idea of how to deal with the problems of waste disposal. Rather than indulging in the rhetoric of recent years in relation to Sellafield, we should first put our own house in order. We will then be in a position to put pressure on Britain to deal effectively with the problem of waste disposal on the British mainland, especially the problems arising from Sellafield.
The other political hypocrisy is that at a time when Government Ministers were jumping up an down protesting about Sellafield, the then Minister for Finance was putting his name to a multimillion pound loan package to further develop it. How inconsistent and two-faced can we get? At one time we were protesting and demanding the closure of Sellafield while, as President of the Council of Finance Ministers, the then Minister for Finance now Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, was putting his name to a mulimillion pound package to further develop the plant at Sellafield. Until such time as we prepare a comprehensive policy to deal with nuclear, toxic and chemical waste we are just indulging in national hysteria about an issue we cannot effectively deal with. There was little concern about Sellafield or Windscale in the early eighties when a number of Deputies tried to raise the issue. That plant in Cumbria was allowed to develop, which increased the threat to this country, without any action being taken.
Not only have I visited Sellafield on a number of occasions but I have seen the effects of the fallout in the areas around Kiev and the Ukraine following the Chernobyl disaster. I have seen tragedy in the hospitals in Kiev among the young and not so young victims of the Chernobyl tragedy. I hope that before anything major happens at Sellafield our Government will get their act together and devise a plan to deal with issues that not only affect the environment but also industrial development and job creation. We need a national waste policy and general policies to deal with the environment. Industries setting up here are raising serious questions about our determination in this area. Instead of participating in the hype the Minister should get down to the real work of developing a policy for our country. We will then be in a position to face the British authorities down in relation to Sellafield.
I thank Deputies Owen and Allen for sharing their time with me. Democratic Left support the motion. The demand to close Sellafield has in recent times become something like the "third national aim" of Irish Governments, especially of Fianna Fáil led Governments. Like the other two national aims, it lends itself simultaneously to political rhetoric and political inactivity. It is a demand which is safe to make. As it plays on the well-founded worries of Irish citizens it is politically safe. It is diplomatically safe because the British authorities believe that the demand is unachievable and that when Irish Ministers demand the closure of Sellafield, they are simply pandering to their national constituency and are not really serious. As Sellafield is outside the Irish jurisdiction Irish Ministers know they can demand away and never have to do anything.
There is a national consensus that Sellafield should be closed. All shades of political opinion, North and South, share a common concern about Sellafield. Indeed, it is probably the only issue that unifies political opinion on this island. It is one on which we can all agree. Up to now there has been little internal debate here about this, the third national aim. The release by Greenpeace a few weeks ago of a copy of an EC Council Directive signed by our Taoiseach has changed all that. The third national aim has been betrayed by the Government and it is time for ministerial rhetoric to be confronted by treacherous reality.
In a similar debate in this House on 6 May 1986, the then Leader of Fianna Fáil, Deputy Haughey proclaimed, at column 2862 of the Official Report:
We must take a stand out against the proliferation of nuclear power in whatever form it may take.
More recently, on 7 March 1990, the then Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, told a meeting in The Hague:
The Irish Government believe that the only real solution to the threat presented by Sellafield is the closure of the plant.
A month later, at the Fianna Fail Ard-Fheis the same Ministers was more typically colourful when he said:
...Ireland will not take "no" for an answer on the matter of Sellafield. ...we want Sellafield closed and we will not stop until we see it closed... for good.
Just two weeks after that Ard-Fheis speech the Irish Government had an opportunity to do something about Sellafield. Not only did they miss the opportunity but the present Taoiseach presided over a decision of the EC Council of Ministers which extended EC loans to the reprocessing industry, including the Sellafield plant, which apparently we want closed. That Council decision of 23 April 1990 said:
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,
Having regard to Council Decision 77/270/Euratom of 29 March 1977 empowering the Commission to issue Euratom loans for the purpose of contributing to the financing of nuclear power stations and in particular Article 1 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas the total value of transactions effected has reached the figure of ECU 2,800 million, provided for in Decision 77/271 Euratom, as last amended by Decision 85/537/Euratom;
Whereas nuclear energy accounts for a major part of the Community's total energy supplies and 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 the reprocessing and storage of waste.
That Council decision of 23 April 1990 goes on to extend the amount of EC loans being made available to the nuclear industry by 1,000 million ECUs. The significance of that decision was that effectively it enabled the Sellafield 2 plant to be built with the aid of EC loans. Meanwhile, many of us in this House had been pressing the Government to take legal action over Sellafield, as has been mentioned in this debate.
The Minister for Energy has claimed — it is reflected in the text of the Government amendment before us this evening —that we do not have sufficient evidence to sustain a case. Of course, the real reason is that it has nothing whatever to do with evidence. How could one Minister of Government take legal action to close Sellafield while another Minister, now the Taoiseach, was effectively signing his name to the cheque which gave EC money to BNFL to extend the plant? The Taoiseach's action at the Council of Ministers has betrayed this country over Sellafield, has undermined and compromised our ability to take effective, legal, diplomatic or political action to close, or even control the expansion of the Sellafield reprocessing plant.
Like other Members of this House I tabled questions to the Taoiseach about this matter. Courageously he transferred those questions to the Minister for Energy who, not unexpectedly, declined the offer to suffer for the sins of the Fianna Fáil Leader. However, this House and the electorate are owed an explanation as to why, at public fora, the Government demand the closure of Sellafield and while, within the privacy of the EC Council of Ministers, they agree to prolong its life by funding its expansion. It is not credible for the Government, as they have attempted to do, to claim that these moneys are for nuclear safety. It is clear from the text of the relevant Council decision that the moneys are intended to support the nuclear industry.
However, more worrying for Ireland is the decision to extend these loan facilities to the reprocessing industry because Sellafield is now the world's, and Europe's, leading reprocessor. The Taoiseach's signature to that Council decision of 23 April 1990 gives this Government's effective approval to a nuclear reprocessing regime at Sellafield which will increase the radioactivity released into the environment ten times and massively increase discharges. It will lead to circumstances in which half the world's plutonium stocks will be sited just across the water from us. The Taoiseach has sold out this country in the matter of Sellafield.
Deputy Owen referred to the motion passed in 1986 as representing the position of this House in relation to Sellafield. Were that motion to be augmented by the Labour Party motion before us this evening, that would be a good development. But we have before us a Government amendment which in the nature of things, given the numerical positions in this House, may end up being adopted here in 25 minutes time. If that happens, as inevitably it will I believe our last state will be worse than our first. In that case this House will have weakened its position in relation to Sellafield.
In the Government amendment we are being asked to approve the actions taken by the Government in relation to Sellafield. I ask, what actions? Are these the public declarations made periodically, the protestations made at international fora when Government Ministers know very well they will be ignored, or the actions taken in the apparent privacy of the EC Council of Ministers when, with the usual nod and wink approach, the Government subscribe to a policy that actually supports the nuclear industry?
We are being asked to note the commitment of the Government to continue their efforts to secure the closure of the Sellafield plant. I do not believe the Government are committed to securing the closure of the Sellafield plant. I believe the Government believe that the closure of the Sellafield plant is unattainable. We all talk about the closure of Sellafield but have never actually defined what we mean by the closure of Sellafield. Can we talk honestly about its closure, when there is sited there a nuclear power plant, half the world's stock of plutonium, huge volumes of nuclear waste, already stockpiled? One cannot simply turn the key on it and walk away from it.
I believe that British Nuclear Fuels Limited and the United Kingdom authorities are quite happy to continue to hear Irish Ministers and politicians talk glibly about the closure of Sellafield. What would worry them much more — and this is something on which I contend we should now begin to concentrate our attentions — would be if we began to talk about halting the expansion of Sellafield, if we began to talk in terms of stopping the THORP plant becoming active. Those are matters about which they would be worried. Also, they would be far more likely to be effective because there are serious doubts already about the economic viability of the THORP plant. For example, if the Japanese proceed with the building of a reprocessing plant of their own, the basis on which large volumes of Japanese nuclear waste will be transferred — which BNFL have actively sought to support Sellafield — will undermine the economic viability of Sellafield.
It is time we stopped using the Sellafield issue as the subject of political rhetoric. It is time that realistic demands were made and in a manner that is realistic. It is also time that what the Government do within the privacy of European meetings, of diplomatic activity, should conform to their public statements. On the one hand, the public are being told that the Government have a policy of closing Sellafield and, on the other, circumstances prevail in which our EC partners, in particular the United Kingdom authorities, are being tipped the wink that it is quite all right to proceed with the expansion of Sellafield. The Government attitude appears to be: we will carry on; tell the people we are all for its closure but we understand that they can proceed with its expansion. That is not the way to do business. Government public statements should now be made to conform to private, active political activity.
This is not the first time I have participated in a debate in relation to Sellafield. One recent parliamentary question I tabled to the Minister for Energy asked how much of his time had been taken up answering parliamentary questions on Sellafield and related matters.
The Sellafield issue has occupied much of the time and attention of successive Ministers for Energy. What I find frustrating and confusing, as a relatively new, young Member of this House, is that we as parliamentarians are somewhat hamstrung by the procedures that are available to us as individuals. More importantly, the Minister must feel somewhat frustrated because his hands are tied in the context of any action he might take in relation to the genuine, widespread concern of the Irish people about the plant at Sellafield and the proposed development.
I know this is not the first time it has been suggested that we should go to the European Court or try avenues that we have not yet tried. The Minister has indicated clearly on numerous occasions that legal opinion is that we would not have a satisfactory case to bring against the British authorities or British Nuclear Fuels Limited in relation to the existing plant.
Some progress has been made in the European Community by the setting up of the inspectorate and one would like to see the Minister taking a very strong clear message from this House to our colleagues in the European Community. We have proven in the recent past that we want to play a full role in Europe. We made a positive contribution by way of referendum. The Minister should indicate our positive attitude on European Union and ask that union to be positive about Ireland's concern in relation to the Sellafield plant and get that inspectorate set up as quickly as possible and also put a procedure in place that we could be somewhat satisfied with to guarantee the safety of the Irish individual vis-à-vis the activity of British Nuclear Fuels Limited and that of the Sellafield development.
I am led to believe that the fuels coming to and from the THORP plant will travel through the Irish Sea. I believe contracts have been signed by Germany and Japan. Germany itself was to develop a reprocessing plant similar to that of THORP but decided, in the national interest, that it would not go ahead with that development and signed a contract with British Nuclear Fuels Limited, as has Japan.
Some concern has been expressed by the British and Japanese authorities in relation to the transport modes and possible interference with ships travelling to Sellafield with spent fuels. I am concerned to learn that Japan has indicated that it would be prepared to give the transport carriers the necessary protection by way of warships. This is quite alarming. I am not too sure whether or not the Minister can respond to clarify matters of this nature, to say if contracts have been signed by Germany and Japan, to tell us the mode of transport and whether or not it would be necessary to have the type of protection I mentioned.
One thing we must recognise is that there can be no national boundaries in the context of the nuclear industry and the fallout from such industry. We see that in relation to the Chernobyl incident, in the widespread effects not just in the Chernobyl area itself but thousands of miles away. We are sitting here, with a time bomb only a few miles away, and we are so hamstrung that we can do nothing about it. Do we have to wait for doomsday before the Minister will be told by his legal advisers that there is a satisfactory case to take aginst the British authorities or against British Nuclear Fuels Limited? I say that, recognising the good work the Government and the Minister have done.
Finally I would ask the Minister to go back to his European colleagues and use a lever if necessary. We have been positive; let them be positive and let them support the Minister in the steps he has indicated to them in the past.
With the agreement of the House I wish to share my time with Deputy Liam Kavanagh who will sum up on behalf of the Labour Party.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Minister and every Deputy in the House would seem to be in complete agreement on the question of the dangers of the Sellafield plant and the whole nuclear industry to the safety and health of all of the people of Ireland and, indeed, of Europe and the world itself. As well as being a Member of the Dáil, I am a member of two local authorities, Drogheda Corporation and Louth County Council. These two local authorities and the Dundalk Urban District Authority are, effectively, within walking distance of Sellafield, and this matter has been the subject of many debates, resolutions and motions at all three local authorities in County Louth, for many good reasons apart from the fact that we are the nearest neighbours of Sellafield. A number of things have happened in County Louth and in the Border area which have given rise to substantial fear there. That fear still exists and will continue to exist. The fear is caused by the close proximity of the plant itself but also by the many surveys and tests that have been carried out in the County Louth area.
I do not need to remind the House that a number of years ago a very detailed survey was carried out by an eminent doctor in the area which showed a very high level of Down's Syndrome among the children in a class in a particular school who had been born during a period when the level of radioactivity was clearly shown to be abnormally high. This has never been refuted or proven to be wrong by the British or by any spokesperson on behalf of this or any other Government. All the indications are that the results of that survey stand to this day as being substantially correct. If that is correct, what would be the situation if there was a major disaster at Sellafield right on our very doorstep. For example, when the Russian disaster took place at Cherynobyl, tests were carried out on both sides of the Border in County Down which showed a very substantial increase in the level of radioactivity in the soil in that area. That has never been contradicted or refuted. There are many eminent medical people who will also claim that the level of cancer-related illnesses could be caused by the level of radioactivity in the general area of the Border between County Louth and County Down. Nobody has been able to deny this. This has given rise to a fear in people's minds, a fear which has never been alleviated. We have brought over experts from British Nuclear Fuels who have been armed with satchels full of data and expert reports, which they are well capable of paying for — they spent millions of pounds trying to suppress the facts. There is a high level of radioactivity on the east coast. This has been proven by experts who have carried out tests.
Like other speakers, I should like to ask what can be done about this problem. Nobody from the Government side has told us what can be done. We talk about the need to close the Sellafield plant, but the real problem is who will close it. The British authorities are not going to close this plant for a number of reasons and there is no way the European Community, which subsidises the continued development of that plant, is going to close it. I again ask: who will close Sellafield and how can we go about achieving this?
The Labour Party will be opposing the amendment in the name of the Government and seeking the support of the House for their motion. The Irish people have demonstrated their total opposition to nuclear plants for many years. In 1978-79 the Fianna Fáil Government and the then Minister for Energy, Deputy Desmond O'Malley, proposed building a nuclear power station at Carnsore Point in County Wexford. Approximately 40,000 people protested peacefully against this proposal at one meeting. Fianna Fáil soon took note of the feelings of the Irish people and abandoned any further ideas of producing energy in nuclear power stations. Only last year local authorities from County Louth to County Wexford joined local authorities from Wales in protesting against the siting of a nuclear power station at Trawsfynydd. So far that protest seems to have carried a great deal of weight.
This is an environmental motion. I wish to ask why the Minister for Energy defended the Government last night and proposed the amendment. The Minister for the Environment, or preferably his Minister of State, should have given the lead in this area. The speech made by the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Harney, here tonight was in marked contrast to the speech given by the Minister for Energy, a member of her party, and was far more sympathetic to the views expressed by Members on this side of the House than to the views expressed by Members on the Government side. This does not surprise me, because when I was Minister for the Environment some years ago she put forward strong objections to the siting of a waste disposal facility near Baldonnel; indeed, her spirited objections helped to put paid to that proposal.
The Irish people are unanimous in their opposition to Sellafield. They are angry at the large extension being built there which will result in the processsing of greater quantities of nuclear waste, thereby hugely increasing the risk to the citizens of this country and of north-west England. Two recent accidents, in November 1983 and May 1982, caused great concern to people on both sides of the Irish Sea. We should bear in mind that there is the continuous possibility of an accident occurring in the transportation of nuclear waste to this reprocessing facility, either by land or sea, which will result in atmospheric discharges. People are concerned about the continuous discharge of radioactive waste into the Irish Sea which will have an accumulated effect on fish and plant life.
In the very limited time available to me, I have to say that the Minister for Energy refused to answer the questions put by my colleague, Deputy Howlin, when he introduced the motion last night. While agreeing with the concerns expressed in the motion, the Minister for Energy threw up his hands in horror and frustration and declared:
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 they 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.
When commenting on the Greenpeace legal opinion he said:
It is important for me 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 health and safety of the Irish people are the responsibility of the Irish Government. They are not the responsibility of Greenpeace and individuals who are told to come forward with the facts and action will be taken. I ask the Minister for Energy to look at the Hanrahan v. Merck, Sharp and Dohme case. The Supreme Court found in favour of Mr. Hanrahan after the High Court had found against him. They came to the conclusion that the damage caused to Mr. Hanrahan's livestock could only have been caused by a plant which was discharging a dangerous substance into the environment.
Last night the Minister neither defended nor condemned that action taken by the Taoiseach when he was Minister for Finance in 1990. As president of the ECOFIN Council, the then Minister for Finance was presented with an opportunity to stop the extension at Sellafield: he could have used his veto to stop the loans being made available by the EC to finance the extension at Sellafield. Could it be that the Minister for Energy is negotiating to buy energy from the British nuclear plants or that the ESB are involved in discussions with British nuclear plants to secure future supplies of energy when our natural energy resources run out? Perhaps this is the reason the Minister for Energy is reluctant to do more about this problem.
I wish to ask the Minister some obvious questions which he failed to answer last night. Surely the Minister, the Taoiseach and the Government agree that plutonium is a dangerous and toxic substance? The answer to that question has to be yes. How can the Radiological Protection Institute claim that plutonium in the food chain and in seaweed off the east coast is safe? Why does Ireland accept the claims made by BNFL, based on their environmental impact studies, that existing and additional discharges into the Irish Sea are safe? What reasons do we have to trust these claims? Why is there no incontrovertible proof that radioactivity in the Irish environment causes cancer, leukaemia and defects in babies? It is probable that further research, such as the Gardner and Comare reports, will show a link between certain types of cancer, especially leukaemia, and discharges from Sellafield.
The Minister, in presenting his case to this House last night failed totally to convince the Irish people of his attempts to close Sellafield. He is making no great effort to put forward a case for its closure. With the opportunities they have had in the past, this Government have not used their strong position in the European Council to take action against the extension of Sellafield. Our motion requests urgent action in this case, but that is not evident in the Government's presentation of last night or tonight. We have heard words of sympathy from backbenchers and words of concern on behalf of their constituents, but no action has been taken by the Government.
Ordinarily I would put the question at this time but the Deputy might be surprised by what he is going to hear.
I hope I will be surprised. I request the full support of the House for the Labour Party motion and rejection of the Government amendment.
I have intimidation from the Minister that he wishes to make a comment.
In the interests of maintaining a united voice in Dáil Éireann in opposition to the operations and plans of the British Nuclear Fuels plant at Sellafield I propose to accept the motion before the House and to withdraw the amendment.
Formality requires of me to ask for the agreement of the House to the Minister's request that his amendment be withdrawn. Is that agree? Agreed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Because of the quite unique event of a ministerial amendment to a Private Members' motion being withdrawn, I would express our gratitude to the Government and the Minister for Energy for at last seeing the light. This is in stark contrast to the presentation made by the Minister last night.
It is not a question of seeing the light.
However, I am glad the Minister has accepted the motion.
The Deputy is completely out of order.
Motion agreed to.
- Estimates 1992. - Vote 34: Industry and Commerce (Revised Estimate) (Resumed). Vote 25: Environment (Revised Estimate) (Resumed). Vote 19: Office of the Minister for Justice (Revised Estimate) (Resumed). Vote 20: Garda Síochána (Revised Estimate) (Resumed). Vote 21: Prisons (Revised Estimate) (Resumed). Vote 22: Courts (Revised Estimate) (Resumed). Vote 23: Land Registry and Registry of Deeds (Revised Estimate) (Resumed). Vote 24: Charitable Donations and Bequests (Resumed).
- Ar ais chuig clár ábhair
- Dublin Institute of Technology Bill, 1991: Report and Final Stages.