A number of Deputies tabled Private Notice Questions to the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications in regard to the decision to permit the THORP to go into operation. I understand that the Minister proposes to reply to the questions together I will call on the Members in the following order: Deputies Doyle, Broughan, Dermot Ahern, O'Malley and De Rossa.
Private Notice Questions. - Commissioning of THORP at Sellafield.
asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications if, in view of yesterday's announcement on the commissioning of THORP, he will ensure that the right of self-determination extended by the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, to the Irish people in the Joint Peace Declaration extends also to the areas of human health and environmental protection.
asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications to indicate the urgent action, including legal action in the British and European Courts against the British Minister for the Environment, John Gummer, he will be taking following the decision yesterday to permit the THORP to go ahead.
asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, the action, if any, he proposes to take in view of yesterday's decision by the British Government to authorise nuclear reprocessing at the THORP.
asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications if, in view of the British Government's decision to give the go ahead to the thermaloxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield which will increase the level of aerial and marine radioactive discharges in Ireland's environment and the fact that the British Government did not order a comprehensive environmental impact assessment on THORP, the action, if any, the Government proposes to take to reinforce Irish opposition to this plant going ahead and whether the Government will seek to initiate legal action to prevent it being commissioned.
asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications to make a statement on the decision by the British Government to sanction the go-ahead for the controversial THORP plant in Cumbria; if, in view of the widespread concerns about the dangers that this may pose to health and environmental safety in this country, he will outline the steps he now intends to take arising from the British decision; and if the Government will now consider taking legal action in an effort to block the plant going ahead.
I propose to take the five Private Notice Questions together.
The House will be aware that yesterday afternoon, on an otherwise historic and significant day, the UK Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. John Gummer, MP, announced in the House of Commons his decision to allow commissioning of the THORP at Sellafield in West Cumbria. The UK authorities have come to a judgment that there is a sufficient balance of advantage in favour of the operation of THORP and that the activities giving rise to radioactive discharges permitted by authorisations are justified.
On hearing this news, I immediately expressed the Government's deep regret at the British authorities decision. I asked the Department of Foreign Affairs to convey, through the Ambassador in London, the Government's very strong views on the matter. The Government's views on the decision were delivered today by the Ambassador to the Secretary of State for the Environment. I have made it clear that the Government was particularly concerned that the British authorities had not acceded to the many requests made to them by this Government, and numerous other interested parties, for a full public inquiry into the wider issues related to the plant before a decision was taken authorising its commissioning. It is still the Government's view that a full, open inquiry in which all contentious issues could be subjected to vigorous and independent debate and close scrutiny is the only process which would command widespread public confidence. I know that Deputies from all parties would wish to be associated with the Government's feelings.
I particularly regret that the British authorities did not recognise at this stage the fundamental changes which have occurred in the nuclear industry since the 1970s decision to build the THORP. Reprocessing is no longer seen as an essential and future strategic activity to safeguard further energy supplies. Indeed, the role of the nuclear industry is now much diminished compared with what was envisaged at the time. The economics of reprocessing have fundamentally changed. Uranium is now in plentiful supply and prices are lower. More important, the extraction of plutonium then envisaged as the "fuel of the future" in a new chain of fast breeder reactors does not now have any meaningful role in the energy supply chain because of the technical and economic failure to develop the required technology. Instead, an increasing stockpile of plutonium is a cause of increasing concern about its possible risks of causing nuclear weapon proliferation and possible terrorists uses. In addition, the intervening years have seen no progress in arriving at an acceptable solution to the safe long term storage and disposal of the growing volume of nuclear waste to which reprocessing gives rise.
One can only come to the conclusion that commissioning THORP is now based on the narrow and unconvincing grounds of financial expediency and the viability of BNFL and retaining employment in the Cumbria area. While I have not had the opportunity yet to study the rationale which led to the decision of the UK authorities it is very regrettable that they did not see fit to conduct their review in open forum instead of behind closed doors and take a broad view of the present state and future prospects of the industry as it is now. I would also say to the Governments of those countries whose utilities have contracted to reprocess fuel at Sellafield, that they are using the plant as a means of resolving their own waste handling problems rather than securing real economic benefits for energy security and supply.
The Government, and its predecessors, consistently opposed the planned reprocessing plant at Sellafield since it was first proposed in 1978. In the past year, two comprehensive submissions were forwarded by me in the public consultation process undertaken by the UK authorities — one in January and the other in October 1993. These submissions detailed Ireland's absolute opposition to the plant and called for a public inquiry. The Government has also used every opportunity in every appropriate international fora to highlight its concerns and to object to THORP's commissioning.
It is a grave disappointment, therefore, that, despite the Government's objections to the THORP set out in the two submissions, the concerns expressed by other European Environment Ministers, for example Norway, Iceland, Sweden, the Netherlands and the large number of objections received at the second public consultation process, the British Government is determined to press ahead with the operation of THORP primarily for its straightforward financial benefits to BNFL and the UK's balance of payments, as well as for job retention purposes in the depressed local west Cumbria region.
Deputies may wish to know that, when the second consultation period ended on 4 October 1993, of the 42,500 responses received in London 63 per cent were opposed to the operation of THORP. More than 29 per cent of these respondents called for a hearing or public inquiry. This demand included 85 local authorities in the UK as well as the Isle of Man Government, although the two local authorities with direct responsibility for the Sellafield area — Cumbria County Council and Copeland District Council — did not consider a hearing to be necessary. It is notable that in their announcement the UK Ministers acknowledge that substantial concerns were expressed by respondents not only on the narrow issue of the effects of the discharges from the site, but also on the broader policy issues which focused on the need for reprocessing at THORP. In view of these representations it is hard to readily accept the decision reached.
I wish to reiterate to the House that the Government's opposition to the Sellafield plant will continue unabated. The Government continues to believe, and is supported in its view by numerous international authorities, that there are no demonstrable economic or security benefits arising from the new plant which would justify it or balance out possible, and even likely risks, to public health and environmental damage. The Government firmly believes that an inquiry should have been undertaken to deal with the basic justification for operating the THORP plant in the changed circumstances prevailing today from those at the time the plant was approved in 1978, as well as other important issues such as the economics of reprocessing and the need for an environmental impact assessment for the plant to be undertaken.
On that particular EIA question the Government is aware that during the second consultation procedure letters concerning the need for an environmental impact assessment of THORP were also received from Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, the Isle of Man and many local authorities in Britain. The UK authorities consider, however, that the directive does not impose legally binding requirements in relation to THORP since the project was approved and commenced well before the directive came into effect.
I also consider that the British Government's decision contravenes the wishes of a very large majority of European countries expressed at a meeting this year in Berlin of the Paris Commission on the Prevention of Marine Pollution. That meeting called for a full environmental impact assessment before any permission was given for THORP's go-ahead. That meeting also called for more information on the justification for spent fuel reprocessing as well as information on other waste management options before a new or revised authorisation was granted. It was also agreed that there should be prior consultations with the Paris Commission beforehand. The advice of the UK Government's own waste management advisory committee, which believed that there were no compelling waste management reasons for THORP, was not followed either. The Comare Committee, which advises the UK Government on the health implications of environmental radiation issues, also had serious concerns about the levels of discharges being proposed by BNFL.
Deputies will be aware that the most recent submission made by me on behalf of the Government in October this year concluded that as THORP would serve no overall useful purpose, there was no justification for the increased risk of radiation exposure that the public would receive from the THORP plant. The issues of an environmental impact assessment, proliferation risks or demonstrable overall economic benefits were not addressed in the statement yesterday made by the Secretary of State in the House of Commons. The focus was primarily on the risks related to discharges. My officials and the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland will therefore study with great interest the full decision, its rationale and supporting documentation and also the reasons for the UK authorities not holding an inquiry.
The Government's October submission also referred to the revised limits for gaseous and liquid discharges being grossly excessive in relation to the margins between likely discharges from the Sellafield site and the proposed limits. I understand that a number of amendments have now been made in order to provide greater reassurance that discharges from the site will be minimised and there is a procedure to require BNFL to further reduce discharges. I welcome this decision. However, the actual details of the amendments will have to be examined by the Radiological Protection Institute to see whether a significant gap still exists between what is now authorised and what is possible using today's available technology and best operating practices. It is necessary to ensure that any radioactive discharges are kept as low as reasonably achievable and this will be closely monitored by the Irish Government in relevant international fora.
In response to Deputy Avril Doyle's question on areas of health and environmental protection, I have asked the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland to evaluate the actual and potential risk to Ireland of additional discharges from Sellafield rising from THORP's operation and to communicate their significance to the public in realistic terms. A separate detailed press release was issued yesterday by the institute. The RPII estimated that in full operation, and assuming that discharges will be at the maximum authorised levels, the radiation dose to the most exposed member of the Irish public will be about 20 per cent greater from operations at Sellafield than at present. It will still represent no more than 0.2 per cent of a persons' present total radiation dose from all sources of radiation, the great bulk of which are natural. Because the THORP decision will inevitably increase the anxiety already felt by the public about Sellafield, I have also asked the institute to expand its programme for testing of levels of radioactive contamination of the marine and aerial environment and to monitor the levels of exposure to the Irish population to radiation arising from its start-up. Special equipment has recently been installed at the institute's laboratories to monitor atmospheric levels of Krypton-85 gas which is the main contribution to the increase in atmospheric discharges resulting from THORP.
As I have already said, it is a grave disappointment that despite widespread concerns and reservations about THORP, it is now to be allowed to open by the UK authorities. Our opposition to Sellafield, and indeed to the nuclear option in general, will continue. I would empathise with the various environmental interests in Ireland who have today also expressed grave disappointment at the British decision. I can understand their feelings. The question as to what legal action the Government could now take regarding the THORP plant is being kept under constant consideration and review in consultation with the Attorney General.
I will allow one round of supplementary questions from the five Deputies who have tabled the Private Notice Questions.
I would ask you, A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to be as lenient as time will allow. I thank you for permitting us to put down these questions, given the time constraints on us at the end of session. Could I ask the Minister to detail precisely what course of action the Government will take from today? What steps will the Minister take to get the British Government to reverse this decision? The Programme for Government refers to the possibility of using Community and international law. Can that be done? Is there a role for Community and international law? Will the Minister pursue Denmark, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands in their request for an environmental impact assessment of the proposed development? Will he pursue the resolution of the Paris Commission in relation to the EIA also? What can the Minister do to get this development reversed? I thank him for his long and considered reply, which contained much worthy information, but we need to know precisely where we go from today on this issue.
I acknowledge the Minister's reply to my specific question regarding the RPI and his request to them. It is not simply the normal operation of Sellafield that I ask the Minister to consider. The plant is a major cause of anxiety to the Irish people, particularly those living on the east coast. The British authorities exported their risk to their west coast, so that we now have the major risk in the event of a major accident. It is that fear of a major accident, given Sellafield's accident history, which is not good, which is a major cause for concern, apart altogether from normal operations and a normal increase in the dose of radiation.
I would ask the Minister to address those two points and to accept that any increase in risk is not warranted. We obtain no benefit whatsoever from the operation of Sellafield. We have all the risk without any benefit, control or consent. In other words, there is no self determination in this area and it is an infringement on our sovereignty.
The Deputy referred to the Programme for Government. In that programme we reiterate our commitment to investigate the possibility of using Community and international law to hasten the winding down and closure of Sellafield, and particularly THORP.
As I have already stated, there is not sufficient evidence to date, based on the advice of the Attorney General, to suggest that operations at Sellafield, including THORP, are in breach of EU law and international conventions which would sustain a successful case. The question of legal action is a matter which is open to Government at any time. The point to be made about access to legal action is that one must be advised by one's legal advisers that there is the achievable probability of sustaining a successful case. Unfortunately, there have been test cases recently in relation to parents of children who suffered from leukaemia when cause and effect were not established to the extent that liability could be attributed to the BNFL operation. That was in respect of people who lived in close proximity to the plant. There were 40 cases held back, on a group liability basis, to ascertain whether that case would succeed, but unfortunately it did not. Legal options have been available at all times to successive Governments who have maintained a consistent line on this issue. The prospect of sustaining a successful case must be a major consideration in whatever decisions the Government might take in relation to the issue.
On the question of environmental impact assessment, it is not simply the position of Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway and others in relation to this matter that must be considered. Everybody who has seen the submissions we made when the British Government was considering what should be the authorised level of discharges will realise that we have always argued that an environmental impact assessment should be undertaken.
Because the plant was built prior to the relevant EU directive coming into legal effect, there is no legal requirement on the United Kingdom authorities. The point being made by us and others is that, given the level of public concern, one should take these decisions with the benefit of an open public inquiry rather than the unfortunate route that has been taken. We share the grave disappointment of all Members of this House and of the entire electorate that the position taken by the United Kingdom Government on this issue has been the one announced yesterday.
We will continue, at every possible opportunity, to maintain that, in principle, we disagree with the existence of this plant, that there should have been wider considerations in this case, not confined within the narrow limit of authorised levels of discharges. Perhaps there should have been regional considerations in the United Kingdom. There are 15,000 people employed in this plant. We should remember that there was a public inquiry into the THORP site as far back as 1977. Developments in a whole range of areas have advanced so much it would have been prudent, proper and necessary to instigate a public inquiry before commissioning the plant. That has not been the case.
Within their level of competence the United Kingdom Government have taken that decision. We will continue to voice our views on this matter at every available opportunity, in conjunction with other states who are equally concerned. Through the Radiological Protection Institute, we are expanding our monitoring to satisfy ourselves that, given the commissioning of this latest plant announced yesterday, full and detailed information will be made available, not merely to me, but to the public so that the context is understood.
It has to be said that yesterday, when we had an historic rapprochement between our two islands within the political arena, many Members on all sides of the House felt that simultaneously there was an exercise in cynicism and grotesque real politik on the part of the United Kingdom Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. John Gummer, in issuing approval for the commissioning of this latest plant.
All Members of the House would agree that there is an absolute sense of urgency about this matter, in that we have, in effect, a mere 28 days in which to act. Speaking for all Members of the House, we want the Minister to put on his boots, tog out on this one, go into court, and do whatever is necessary to proceed against Mr. John Gummer and the British Government.
Deputy O'Malley's colleague said, about a year and a half ago, that there was not a legal case. Nonetheless, if one examines the record, one finds that in 1986 this House unanimously called for the closure of THORP.
A question, please, Deputy.
I am attempting to frame a question, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. There is a whole range of issues involved. For example, the United Kingdom Radioactive Substances Act dates back to 1960 but, for the very reasons the Minister has mentioned, their domestic law is defective. In fact their second consultation——
I must ask the Deputy for brevity, please.
They prejudged their second consultation, their two ministries issuing approval to THORP before the relevant report had been received. I have 16 points listed before me. Obviously, I cannot go through them all; I am willing to furnish the Minister the relevant list. It is my view that we could proceed legally against THORP, that we should take action. That is the overwhelming wish of this House.
Because of the broader political scenario obtaining, if the Minister does not want to take action, then certainly the local authorities in Dublin, Kildare, Wicklow, Louth and Wexford would be willing to go ahead if the Minister were prepared to indemnify us, since we have already received consultants' reports which are absolutely damning. In the course of his reply the Minister had this to say:
Special equipment has recently been installed at the Institute's laboratories to monitor atmospheric levels of Krypton-85 gas which is the main contributor to the increase in atmospheric discharges resulting from THORP.
The Deputy must make his last point.
I would make the point that Mr. John Gummer is handing us another Chernobyl over the next five years. We must stop it. The Minister is the man to do so. Let us begin now.
May I say to Deputy Broughan, when he asked me to tog out on this one, that I have really been togging out on a 24 hour day basis.
To revert to the substance of the many relevant points he made, the basis of any decision to take legal action would not be founded on wider political considerations but rather on the merits of the case as we saw them. The Irish Government will seek, in protecting its citizens in every possible way, to base its case on its merits and the likelihood of a successful outcome.
I have already outlined that the attempt to establish cause and effect in a whole range of areas, when even a disinterested observer might have expected a successful outcome, has not been successful. While understanding the sincerity and emotion that matters of this kind enkindle, I stress that these matters must be examined analytically in the cold light of day. That option is available to us at all times but we must consider it on the basis of the facts and on what can be established in law. The point to be made is that this in no way changes our commitment, our determination to do what is available to us——
What is there?
What we must not succumb to is tokenism under the guise of seeking to do something if the legal and professional advice available to us is such that it would not be a sustainable case. That would not be in the interests of the Irish people nor in the interests of the Government in pursuing its policy objectives in this overall area.
The Irish Ambassador, Mr. Small, in the usual formal diplomatic manner, has informed the British Government of our grave disappointment at the action taken yesterday.
That is tokenism.
That is not tokenism. Deputy Sargent has no monopoly on this issue. This is an issue causing equal concern to everybody. If Deputy Sargent regards diplomatic initiatives, the work of diplomats, the outcome of which we saw yesterday, as tokenism, then his ability to understand the great job they do, indeed its very purpose, is grossly inadequate and displays the type of naivety he has shown already on a number of occasions. However, I do not wish to get into that area. I am replying to Deputy Broughan, saying that everything possible that can be done, based on the advice available to the Government, has been done and will continue to be done on this issue.
We have spent considerable time on this matter and there are serious time constraints. I ask for brevity from the three remaining Deputies who have tabled questions.
I will try to be as brief as possible. Just over a month ago two other Deputies and I visited Sellafield and the THORP plant. I should like to point out to the Minister that all three of us were astounded at the fact £3 billion had already been spent on the buildings. Literally, it was a matter of lifting two sluice gates and letting water flow in, letting all the various flasks go in from one building to another. There were 300 people employed there practising what they hoped ultimately they would be doing. I said to the officials in BNFL at the time——
The Deputy must proceed by way of question.
I am coming to the question. When we were finished I said that what I had seen there that day convinced me more than ever that the consultation process that had been put in place by the British Government was little more than an absolute farce. I ask the Minister to comment and give some indication as to whether he would share the same opinion as I had on that day? Would the Minister not accept that on this particular day, when we are recognised as a sovereign, neighbouring and friendly state, the British Government have in effect treated us in an extremely cavalier fashion? What is going to happen? I think we have lost this round, and I said that when I came away from Sellafield. I said they would get their authorisation and that the people who were practising what they felt they would ultimately be doing would get their jobs.
I ask the Minister to ensure that his Department and the Government do all they can to ensure that the ultimate storage of whatever remains from the processing of nuclear fuel at THORP will be catered for properly? The Minister said earlier there was no legal requirement on the British Government to carry out an environmental impact assessment. Would he not agree there is a moral obligation on the British Government and has been for the past number of years, not only to their own citizens but to the citizens of this State, to have such an assessment carried out? As a fellow lawyer, I do not have to tell the Minister his business. Many cases have been brought into court where the prosecutor called the bluff of the defendant. I would ask the Minister and the Government to call the bluff of the British Government in this case.
I agree with Deputy Dermot Ahern, who discussed his visit to Sellafield with me on his return. Based on that conversation alone, I share the view that this plant should not have gone ahead. I also take the point that, even if there is not a strict legal obligation to hold a public inquiry, sufficient concern has been expressed by a number of member states in the European Union to have an environmental impact assessment carried out and that perhaps that may have swayed opinion sufficiently in favour of that happening. I reiterate our grave disappointment that that was not the decision taken by the British Government. Regardless of the timing of the decision, it was a wrong decision. We have formally expressed our grave disappointment, saying we will continue to look at this situation.
I take the Deputy's point in regard to calling the bluff of the British Government. This is a question of such magnitude and importance that the taking of legal action must be based on the evidence available and the likelihood of a successful outcome. In the meantime it is important that we use the agencies at our disposal and the excellent service provided by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland to ensure that people are properly informed of the situation and that there is not undue alarm. That is not in any way to diminish the extent of public concern as a result of this decision. However, people should be confident that the agencies are working to provide the maximum possible information based on scientific monitoring of the position.
I put it to the Minister that yesterday, as he adverted to himself, very major steps were taken with a view to trying to bring to an end the long history of killing and terrorism in Northern Ireland which has resulted in the deaths of 3,500 people. Is he aware that the other decision which was announced in London yesterday could well result in the deaths of many times 3,500 people? One or more noughts could be added to the figure. In particular, that could arise in the event of an accident at THORP, an entirely new plant of a type not previously built in Britain, of which there are very few in the world — only one or two others — and of which there is little or no experience. Is he aware that the real danger is not from the ordinary day to day discharges, which, if all goes well, are not that great, as he mentioned, but the dangers there are from an accident where the consequences could be catastrophic?
I put it to the Minister also that the cases he mentioned, which were lost recently by the plaintiffs, in respect of children who contracted leukaemia about ten or 12 years ago in the Sellafield area are not relevant to this matter because they relate to alleged discharges from the then existing ordinary small conventional nuclear generating station, of which there are dozens in Britain and hundreds throughout the world. The THORP operation is totally different. Therefore, the cases in relation to the existing station, which is completely different, are not relevant. Is he aware that the only market available today for the plutonium which will be produced in substantial quantities by this reprocessing plant is from weapon manufacturers, because there are few, if any, fast breeder reactors who would wish to purchase or would need to purchase plutonium? In these circumstances——
Again, I must ask for brevity.
——is it not criminally negligent to go ahead with a plant, the main output of which can only be used for the destruction of literally millions of people? We must also bear in mind that it now appears that the nuclear powers in the world are not confined to three or four very large countries as in the past, but that this plutonium may be of use to a much wider range of countries, including some which, to put it mildly, are politically unstable?
The plant which is the subject matter of these questions is the largest single expansion of Sellafield to date. It will reprocess spent fuel rods from light water nuclear reactors converting them into uranium for reuse and also plutonium. As I am sure the Deputy is aware, it is not a reactor in the plant but rather a process to deal with spent fuel rods where the waste material is taken out and converted. I take the general point that this will involve the storage and transport of plutonium in large amounts. The reason we object in principle is precisely because of the possibility, however remote, that something may happen in the overall plant that would cause a nuclear catastrophe. That is the reason we object to THORP in principle.
The THORP plant is not a nuclear reactor plant, it serves a different purpose. However, we object to it in principle for the reasons outlined by the Deputy in addition to the fact that it involves the storage and transport of plutonium. Things have moved on the nuclear industry since this idea was first floated. It has to be said, however, that it provides foreign revenue for the UK, and there are regional implications as well. Those considerations are valid from their point of view but given the international dimensions to the problem we believe that a full public inquiry is necessary to ensure that everybody has a full say and is informed of what is involved.
On the question of the legal arguments, I am simply pointing out for the information of the House the difficulties in bringing forward a successful case. It is more difficult than the layman would think. The case taken was unsuccessful, although it seemed it would succeed and that a casual link would be established sufficient to satisfy the courts of the liability of the defendants.
The legal option remains available to the Government at all times but we are seeking to ensure a successful outcome before taking such a case.
Is the Minister aware that the recent report from the British Radiological Protection Authority states that the THORP plant will increase cancer deaths from radiation by 200 for each year of its operation? Has his Department studied that report? Will the increase in the number of deaths have an effect also on this island? If so, could that be the basis of a legal case with regard to the operation of the plant? Has the Minister examined the question of transportation of the waste fuel, mainly uranium and plutonium, which will be transported across the Irish Sea to Sellafield and again transported across the sea after reprocessing. What steps can be taken, legally or otherwise, to have that traffic stopped?
My Department officials have studied the report to which he refers. My officials are very up-to-date on this whole matter. The Department's position, which reflects successive Government positions, is very strong and they have all the available information. The officials who advise me on this matter are expert in this field.
The British Radiological Protection Authority report refers to deaths within the jurisdiction of the British authorities. Unfortunately a legal case could not be brought to try to impose a civil liability on BNFL in respect of notional damage as one would need a person who could show that because of negligence or otherwise he or she suffered permanent damage. One cannot bring a case on a notional basis but only on the basis of establishing actual bodily harm in each individual case.
The transport of nuclear products falls within the remit of the Department of the Marine. However, we will continue at every available opportunity in international fora to point out our serious objections to this plant going ahead and to the transport of these materials to and from the plant.
They have taken the decision within their competence but we will continue to fight the case with the same vehemence and vigour as we have done in the past.