It is now 5 o'clock and, in accordance with the Order of the House, statements on the proposed test at a nuclear power station in north Wales are to be taken. I would like to remind the House that each statement cannot be longer than ten minutes and that the statements must conclude at 6.30 p.m. when we will resume on item No. 3 on the Order Paper.
Trawsfynydd Nuclear Power Station: Statements.
I take it that the Minister will speak first. Is that the order of the debate?
No, he concludes.
May I ask at what time the Minister is expected to speak? Is it 6.15 p.m. or 6 o'clock?
No later than 6.15 p.m. It is with a degree of sadness that I rise to speak on this issue. I am delighted the Minister was able to take time off to come in on this debate which I consider to be a matter of grave urgency and interest to the Irish people as a whole. For many years now we have listened to people proclaim how safe the nuclear energy industry is, but equally we have listened to people who claim that it is one of the most unsafe industries in the world. Around this industry there are a lot of myths and a lot of truths involved. Unfortunately it is very hard to get at the truths of the nuclear industry because it is an industry which is not readily understood by the ordinary person in the street. It is an industry which has a lot of experts who control it and who claim they are the only people who can speak on behalf of the industry. Because it is an industry of experts it is essential that at all times those of us who have to live in this world today should learn as much as we can about what goes on in the industry and try to protect ourselves from the excesses of the so-called experts. Equally it is incumbent on us to ensure that anything that we do or that the experts do, or the so-called experts, does not effect the living standards or indeed life of the coming generations.
Too many times in the past have we read of near misses, of minor incidents and minor accidents in the nuclear industry, some of which have been well tabulated and which the world press has taken up. Unfortunately we do not know how many near misses there have been and how many accidents there have been in nuclear stations around the world. Indeed it is one of the most protected industries in the world. I have noticed over the past number of years — particularly in the past two years — that the Central Electricity Generating Board in England and the nuclear energy industry in England have mounted what must be the most prolonged, the most expensive and most professional public relations job on behalf of that industry.
The current problem we have in Ireland is that an out-of-date electricity generating station, built in the fifties in Wales will be going out of service within the next few years and it is intended at this stage to do the experiment of closing down the plant on a temporary basis to see if there be any repercussions from this. It is a horrific thought that they are closing it down to see if there be any repercussions. Unfortunately there are generations of people in Ireland who might be the sufferers. We cannot allow this to happen.
I am delighted that the Minister has taken as many steps as are possible at every level to ensure that these tests do not go ahead. I am delighted that he has been in touch with Clinton Davis, the EC Commissioner who is involved in the nuclear industry, and has appealed to him to ensure that the tests do not go ahead. He has also been in touch with the Minister for Energy, in England, Cecil Parkinson and has conveyed the message to him that the Government and people of Ireland are totally at one in their demands that these tests do not go ahead. It is interesting that the type of operation intended to take place on the 12th of next month is the same as the experiment that took place in Windscale — as it was then called, it is now called Sellafield — in 1957 which was the cause of a major fire and which arguably has caused many health problems for generations of Irish people. I have no doubt that if this particular experiment does take place the same type of problems could arise. We have had enough from the nuclear energy industry in Great Britain and it is time to cry stop.
Not alone are the Irish people interested in and objecting to the procedure which it is intended to take place but the county council in the area in which the nuclear station is based have told the Government in Britain that this test should not take place. There is not an environmental group throughout Europe that has not asked to have this experiment stopped. Indeed, were it not for the workers at the plant I do not think we would have been informed that this experiment was going to take place. We are informed that experiments of this nature have taken place in the past. Because of a leaked document from the staff of Trawsfynydd we know what is going to happen. The workers in the plant have stated quite categorically that, because of cutbacks in staffing levels, the safety levels at the plant are no longer what they should be. There have been cutbacks in overtime and reductions in the number of people working there. It has been stated that there have been cuts and reductions in asbestos supplies and that tanks are not being emptied as they should be. The Magnox reactor now operating in this plant is out-of-date and therefore, the plant is out-of-date. There was not anybody in this country, apart from Mr. Turvey himself, who was not disturbed yesterday morning when they read that Mr. Frank Turvey of the Nuclear Energy Board had suggested that this experiment was safe. I was horrified that he should go against the wishes of the Irish people and the indications on safety levels. I am delighted the staff of the Nuclear Energy Board have come out and stated that this view was not correct and, that as stated in today's Cork Examiner, its enunciation came close to a national sell-out.
The situation was highlighted again in The Irish Times by the Science Correspondent when he said that Britain makes both electricity and a lot of money from the nuclear energy industry and that at best they will disregard any protest we make because of the fact that they make both electricity and money, and money is at the root of this problem. In Britain they do care about what we say. They will go ahead unless we can get the backing not alone of the people of Ireland but of an increased number of people in Great Britain. I am delighted the Minister has taken it up where it really counts, and that is at EC level. I am glad that this is an all-party motion. I sincerely hope that what is said by the Members of the Seanad and by the Minister will be taken into account by the Thatcher Government and that Mr. Stanley Clinton Davis in the EC will be able to persuade the British Government that this is an unwarranted experiment from a safety point of view and that it should be banned.
I, too, welcome the Minister to the House this evening. Indeed, we are lucky to have Seanad Éireann in which to discuss this important subject. I am sure that everybody who will speak after me will agree that this experiment should not take place on 12 February as common sense dictates that the experiment is too dangerous.
The public are aware of the problem but they do not know enough about it. There is much talk in the media about the nuclear industry but many people in this country are not fully aware of what would happen if this experiment went wrong. For many years when people discussed the nuclear industry and preached what could happen if things went wrong, the standard reply was that things would not go wrong, that it was a false alarm to discuss some of the problems that could occur. Unfortunately we had the Chernobyl accident and overnight that showed us what would happen if things went wrong. Because of that, we can speak with a more knowledgeable voice now, and our concerns must be noted more seriously. Irish Governments during the past number of years have made strenuous efforts to ensure that the British nuclear industry tidy up their act but, unfortunately, we have not been listened to. There is an ongoing difficulty at Sellafield. Week in and week out difficulties at that plant are mentioned and we have statements from politicians calling on the British Government to close it or at least to raise the safety levels there, but nothing seems to be happening. However, Sellafield is a problem that we can at least discuss for the next few months, but in relation to the Trawsfynydd plant the emergency is almost upon us. Beginning on 12 February, there is proposed an eight hour experiment. Those eight hours could be a most dangerous time for our people and indeed for the people of Britain living in close proximity to that plant.
We are talking about a plant that is only 100 miles from Dublin. If it was a plant in Donegal or in west Cork there would be a huge outcry about this. Yet this plant is just as near as these places to our capital city and, accordingly, we must express concern about it. The plant is 23 years old. When it was built originally it had a life expectancy of 20 years. It is obviously now in a state of repair which is far from perfect. It is strange that none of these experiments took place during the ordinary life expectancy of that plant. It is unreasonable for any Government to talk about experimenting on that plant at this stage. There have been calls during the past few days, not only for these experiments to be stopped but for the plant to be closed down. These calls make common sense. Every nuclear plant has only a certain period during which it can be considered to work safely and as far as the Trawsfynydd plant is concerned that period has now expired. It is living on borrowed time and the people of this country have a right to expect that they should not be the victims of any experiment to see how this plant is now operating.
Senator Lanigan mentioned the disappointment felt by all of us at the statement of a senior member of the Nuclear Energy Board that the experiment should take place. That statement was quickly corrected by many people in the Nuclear Energy Board, and I am glad to see that the Minister took that man to task pretty quickly.
It must be made quite clear to the British Government that nobody in this country accepts what the Central Electricity Generating Board in Britain are about to do. Protest must be taken to the highest possible level. We must continue with our efforts. The cry from us here this evening, and indeed from the Government, must be to have this experiment halted immediately. We are not just experimenting with some minor power station, where if something goes wrong it can be cured overnight. We are talking about something which, if it went wrong, the disaster would be with us for years to come. We are talking about wiping out men, women and children overnight and about ruining a whole agricultural area for years to come. That might have sounded exaggerated last year but now after the Chernobyl disaster we know the effect when things go wrong and we must ensure that things do not go wrong. As far as the Trawsfynydd plant is concerned, we must insist that the experiment does not take place. I am sure the Minister will do his utmost in that respect, and I am sure he will have the support of every Member of this House and indeed every sensible person in this country.
I will confine my remarks to that. I know everybody else will talk along much the same lines. I would like to say to the Minister that he has the full support of our party in his present endeavours.
Ba mhaith liomsa tacaíocht a thabhairt don Aire maidir leis an stáisiún núicléach, nó an seasamh atá sé at tógáil maidir leis an stáisiúin núicléach sa Bhreatain Bhig. Cuireann sé animní ar mhuintir na tíre seo, go bhfuil stáisiún den chineál seo ar shléibhte Snowdonia agus gan idir é agus muid féin ach tuairim is 90 míle. Rud eile a chuireann imní orainn go léir ná an neamhshuim atá ag Rialtas Shasana sa mhéid a bhíonn le rá againn sa tír seo faoin tionscal núicléach atá acu sin thall. Go deimhin chuirfeadh sé duine as a dhócas go minic an neamhshuim seo atá acu. Tá súil agam go mbeidh sé ar chumas an Aire a chuid argóintí a chur i bhfeidhm ar Rialtas Shasana amach anseo.
It was reported fairly recently that there was a very serious mishap at Trawsfynydd on 21 February 1986, that was two months before Chernobyl. According to the report, a pressure valve on the cooling system on one of the atomic reactors shot open. It seems that about 12 tonnes of radioactive carbon dioxide was released into the atmosphere before a worker managed to shut the valve manually. That worker ended up in hospital suffering from radiation effects. If on that occasion the man in question had failed to close off the valve, the plant would have gone out of control, which is what happened at Chernobyl, and this was very close to being a major disaster.
Incidentally, the authorities did not raise the alarm until noon although the accident had happened at 8 o'clock in the morning, their way, no doubt, of preventing panic among the workers and their families. This is also what happened at Chernobyl. This example gives some indication of how unsafe this Welsh nuclear station is and the threat it poses for us here in Ireland. I have been informed that that station is not earth-quake-proof and earth tremors have not been unknown in Wales in the recent past.
I congratulate the Minister on the stand that he has taken and I can assure him that both he and the Government have the support of most, if not all, of the people of this country in the stand that has been taken in relation to Britain's nuclear energy policy. May I remind the Minister that some scientists have expressed a view that the nuclear submarines operating around our coasts pose an even greater threat to the safety of our country and I ask the Minister to try to do something to ensure that these vessels are prevented from hunting in our ocean waters.
It is probably fair to say that the reaction to this proposal of the CEGB in Wales is an underreaction, if anything. Clearly, I can see that people do not realise the difficulty that we are getting into on this issue and I would certainly like to compliment the Leader of the House on raising this matter and the Minister for taking such a clear, strong and committed stand on this issue. Indeed, we have often argued on various issues but it is great to see unanimity and a certain sense of purpose on this issue. Because of that, I raise immediately the only aspect of the Minister's involvement which worries me slightly and which I would ask him to clear up, that is the statement of yesterday morning which has been referred to twice already, by the deputy senior executive of the Nuclear Energy Board that "We cannot bend the truth for political purposes". Certainly, there is a clear implication there that the Minister was in some way trying to interfere with the work of the Nuclear Energy Board, which I am sure is incorrect. However, I want the Minister to take the opportunity of adverting to that matter and making it absolutely clear that these are an independent group — not very well guided it would appear but, nevertheless, independent.
Having said that, we are now looking at science gone mad, science gone out of control. We have a situation where a group 100 miles away from us, as has already been said, intend carrying out an experiment to find out what would happen if there were an accident. Just because an accident has not happened, they are going to create that accident. It is a total nonsense, totally illogical and the danger to which they are exposing us and their own people is totally and utterly unacceptable.
I do not doubt the Government's commitment on this issue, but they should be clearly seen, at whatever international cost, to speak out as a Government. We should make it clear, as a State, that this is unacceptable, that it is an unfriendly act, that it is something that will damage relations between our two countries and that endangers and threatens the atmosphere of the environment and the people of both countries.
In my election address during the Seanad elections, there was a major point that this country should declare itself a nuclear-free zone. The Government would not disagree with this at the moment, but there is not much point in our declaring ourselves a nuclear-free zone if people who are completely out of our area of control and influence jeopardise that state. What we are seeing is a clear effort to invite disaster. It is the old scientific effort to stumble on a solution, to try to create some form of serendipity. It is very clear that this sort of "It will be all right on the night" attitude is the only guideline that is being used in the decision to set up this experiment. It should be clearly stated and understood and tabulated once and for all that this reactor has a 20-year life span when it was set up. It is now 23 years old and it is proposed to extend that life further. We have been in danger from it for the last three years beyond its life expectancy and every year and every day that it goes beyond that brings further danger.
As Senator de Buitléar has outlined, the accident in February 1986 could have been much worse and only by chance did they stop a more major accident taking place. People should understand what exactly is the risk here. The scientists are saying that they are conducting this experiment to see what happens. They have not done it before, therefore they do not know what is going to happen. At the same time, another body of scientists, many of them in our own country, are telling us that nothing will happen. On the one hand, they are saying that they want to conduct this experiment to see what will happen and on the other hand, telling us that nothing will happen. They should be perfectly able to conduct this experiment under laboratory conditions using computerisation, without having to go to the actuality of the event. The scientific knowledge is there to do that right now. What they are doing is unacceptable and it is misguided.
It should also be made clear to our people here what exactly will happen if the experiment goes wrong. Where exactly will we be? There are really only two options: one option is that the thing goes right and we hear no more about it; the other option is that something goes wrong. If something goes wrong, it can go wrong in two ways. The equipment can either blow up or melt down and to us living 100 miles away it does not make much difference which of those two it is going to be. We are going to suffer, our people are going to suffer and our State is going to suffer. We have a duty to the people we represent and to people in the wider global sense not to allow this experiment to go ahead.
We are talking about risking a disaster similar to Chernobyl. That is what is on the cards. Therefore, our responsibilities are very definite and very clear. There have been many accidents and near accidents in this nuclear station up until now — August 1987 and February 1986, to mention but two. Last year one of the workers in the factory, a health physics monitor, actually quit his job in that station because he said that the work practices were slipshod and the monitoring was only superficial and he called for the plant to be closed. Coming from a worker who was monitoring the safety of the plant, that kind of warning cannot be ignored. I would also question why, if this experiment is so safe and is not going to cause us a difficulty, why our Government were not officially informed. I am aware that the Minister, Deputy Burke, did visit and talk to his counterpart within the last six months, and Mr. Parkinson at that stage, I am sure, gave him particular undertakings. There was a breach of trust on Mr. Parkinson's part at that time that he did not indicate what was going to be carried out.
It seems that we were not officially informed because they were afraid that they could not give a proper explanation and the reason — this is important — that this information has been made public is that it has been leaked by people working in the nuclear station who were afraid themselves of the reaction and wanted the world and the public at large to know the risk that was being taken on in this proposed experiment. We have been given a clear warning, a clear indication and we have a duty to respond to it. We must say without hesitation, with total unanimity, that this is unacceptable, that we will not put up with it.
There are two points that I want to make. First, I call for the closure of all old technology plants across the Irish sea, of which Trawsfynydd is one. Secondly, I make a plea for planning permission at international level when it is proposed that any nuclear installations be expanded. In relation to Trawsfynydd, the question is: why has this station not been closed down? It had a 20 year life. It has old technology. It is unreliable, unsafe and accident prone. It has outlived its usefulness and its expected life span. These old technology plants are no longer reliable. They are more accident prone and they should be shut down.
I now want to turn to Sellafield which is the cause of particular anxiety in this country. The Magnox reactors at Sellafield which are 20 to 25 years old should be shut down. These reactors at Sellafield are very near our shores and are outdated. They are more accident prone but they are kept in operation to extract the last pound of profit from them. Speaking of Sellafield, apart from the anxiety caused by the old technology reactors, I understand that there is in place the provocative proposal that a major expansion he undertaken there. Reports suggest that billions of pounds in reprocessing orders are already in place. These orders will be filled when the new plant comes on stream at Sellafield.
I have a further question in relation to our own position. Why should the onus be put on other countries, particularly Ireland, to justify the environmental effects of nuclear power stations in Britain? Surely the onus for that, justification should rest squarely on the shoulders of the British Government?
With regard to my point about planning permission I urge that the proposed expansion at Sellafield should be the subject of planning permission at international level. Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, with which the Minister is obviously familiar, goes some way towards meeting planning requirements but it just does not have enough teeth to ensure that proper controls are enforced. Clearly, the provisions of article 37 of the Euratom Treaty should be strengthened so that we, in common with other members of the Community, can be protected.
Again, in the context of the EC I am very glad to have this opportunity to compliment the Minister, Deputy Burke, for the excellent work he has been doing at that level in pressing for the implementation of Article 34 of the Euratom Treaty. This article is concerned with the control of various types of nuclear experiments. Like the Minister, the European Commission is now beginning to act and is pressing individual countries for the implementation of this Article concerned with nuclear experimentation. We can name the countries. France and Britain in particular are very slow to comply with the requirements. Hopefully, through the type of pressure that the Minister is exercising with other countries the Commission will push forward and bring offending countries into line with European policy.
With regard to technology — I am not an engineer — no technology is perfect. The consequences of accidents in nuclear technology can be horrific. That is an important distinction between one type of technology and another. Chernobyl or indeed Windscale, in the case of the fire in 1957, which is much nearer home illustrate the horrific consequences of accidents at nuclear technology stations. Senator Lanigan referred to the nuclear lobby. It is wealthy and they are particularly skilled in public relations. The British Government are obviously making money from Sellafield and other power stations. That is the bottom line. Electricity generation is clearly important but also money dominates as a consideration in relation to the power stations. I suggest that money is at the root of the responses and reaction which our Minister is getting from the British authorities.
In conclusion, I would like to encourage the Minister to press that much harder at European level. Collective action at European level offers the best propsect for control of the acquisitive interests of individual members of the Community.
On behalf of the Labour Party, I welcome the opportunity to make a statement about what has been proposed by the British authorities in regard to Trawsfynydd and indeed to compliment the Minister, the Government and the Taoiseach for identifying the protests and the hostility that have built up in this nation of ours following the decision of the technological experts at Trawsfynydd to carry out what they term an experiment. This type of experiment is not alone unacceptable but is, as our party leader Deputy Spring has said, a hostile act. He has been accused by the British media of overstating the situation, but what the British authorities intend to do at Trawsfynydd could not be termed otherwise than as a hostile act.
Throughout Europe but especially here in Ireland there has been a new awakening in relation to our environment and whatever complacency there may have been about the dangers of nuclear power and its long term threat to the health and safety of all the people we represent has been truly swept away in the aftermath of Chernobyl. That concern has been particularly evident here in Ireland due to our closeness to many of these power stations and those on the Welsh coast in particular. Anyone who feels that we should have no input into this matter because we are a different sovereign state is not living within the ideals of the European Community we all aspire to. Surely, the Single European Act puts a responsibility on Britain to ensure that where tests of this nature are carried out that they be carried out in accordance with European standards?
It was for that reason that Deputy Spring in the past was instrumental in seeking to set-up a forum within the European Community. He had discussions with the previous Minister in Britain dealing with this area on the setting up of a responsible authority that would co-operate with independent inspectorates and which would operate within European standards in the area of nuclear power. If that kind of fail-safe system was in operation we would all accept that at least somebody with an independent view on this whole matter would be involved. There is widespread concern and alarm in regard to nuclear power amongst those who live on this island mainly due to the bungling, the incompetence and the dishonesty of those who manage nuclear power. It is impossible to believe any of the information that one gets from the authorities involved in the operation of these plants and it was only by seeking and asking for further information that some of the facts and figures were disclosed. It took another country to discover that there was a problem at Chernobyl. It took other countries to discover that what they were doing at Sellafield was unacceptable. The proposals for Sellafield and Trawsfynydd and for the dumping of nuclear waste in the Irish Sea were never disclosed to us. It was as if we did not live in the same Community.
Britain should stop treating us as a neighbour on whom they can dump their refuse. The Minister will have the support of every Senator in this House and indeed all Members of the Oireachtas in whatever campaign he wishes to launch and continue at European level to ensure that the British authorities treat us as a friendly nation and not subject us to what Deputy Spring has referred to as a hostile act. The Minister will have the full support of the Labour Party.
If there is one thing that could unite the people of Ireland it is their abhorrence of what nuclearism stands for. Having said that I have first to ask, how is it that we have an Irish Nuclear Energy Board? Is there, in fact, some sort of contradiction here? Is this a hangover of the proposals there once were to have nuclear energy in Ireland? I make as my first proposal that the Minister should seriously consider whether the time has not come to create an alternative, the Irish alternative energy board. Obviously, we have got to take into account the ecology of Ireland in the context of global ecology and the principles that surround it. If we are going to do that, and if we have not in our present method of using our energy, or the energy availability of the country, a way that is not destructive, then we will be forced ultimately to do what other people have done, rely on nuclear energy. Long before the emergency faces us we should be directing our energies as a people into alternative energy. We should take away the resources being put into the Irish Nuclear Energy Board and place them firmly in an Irish alternative energy board.
I am sure Mr. Turvey expressed the truth as he saw it but is it not high time when we are dealing with so much power that Mr. Turvey, and people like him, be much more amenable to accountability? Science can be constructive, science can be destructive, but it is because it has now got such tremendous potential that scientists can no longer be allowed to be totally free in a society which has as part of it so many other people who may or may not be scientists, many of whom are not. The ordinary people want to say, "we want a right to determine or shape the direction in which science is going to take us".
If it is said that Mr. Turvey is correct then, I would say, what about English public relations? Is it not the height of arrogance for another country, knowing the fears that are being generated throughout the world, and Europe in particular, as a result of what happened at Chernobyl, to inflict with such short notice this experiment, the result of which will be felt most acutely in Wales and the spin-off of which is bound to be felt in Ireland? Let us say the experiment is successful, then surely again that emphasises that the fear generated by what has been suggested only proves the arrogance of the people responsible for the experiment in the first place. This comes back to Senator Hillery's point, there is now an interdependence of nations. Sovereignty can no longer be absolute in a nuclear age or in a high tech age. If there is an interdependence of nations and we have the power to blow mankind to oblivion, there is certainly a demand at the very least that there should be an international agency which gives out planning permission and provides the checks and balances that are required to have the necessary safeguards for plants such as the one at Trawsfynydd.
Mankind in general is going to be faced with this dilemma. If we pursue nuclearism, then almost certainly we are on the line of apocalypse. The alternative to that is some transformation in the human species, some new way of looking at life; if you like, a pro-life philosophy. It is because I feel so intensely that the people of Ireland should be trying to give to the world a pro-life positive neutral way of conducting our affairs, that I reject out of hand the direction that takes us down the nuclear way. Nuclearism should only be the last resource of mankind. If we are prepared to conserve and share the resources we have, I am quite convinced that with a new politic and a new awareness we should have sufficient energy in the world from the alternative sources that are available to us to equip mankind with all essential needs without resource to nuclearism.
I support the Minister in his dealings with Mr. Cecil Parkinson. Whether one lives in County Down or County Wexford it matters not because if there is a mistake made at any of these plants, if there is a Chernobyl effect, it will not matter. It is high time the English authorities were reminded of their international responsibilities in such a sensitive area as this. If they ever again want to go in for some such experiment they should spend months of time preparing the way, explaining the implications, so that at least we will be able to evaluate for ourselves in as objective a fashion as possible what is involved. Having said that I, for one, cannot see that nuclear energy as a source of global energy will ever be safe for mankind.
Senator Robb has outlined the civilisation we would have if we were free of nuclear power. We all would like to see that but, unfortunately, that is not the case. An experiment is scheduled to be carried out at Trawsfynydd on 12 February and no one is 100 per cent certain what effect it will have on the people of Wales or the people of our country. We also have the serious problem of Sellafield, as Senator Hillery mentioned. I visited that station on 10 October last to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the terrible fire there in 1957. In that small area I counted at least 14 cranes carrying out the extension programme for keeping nuclear waste on the site.
There was a very interesting article in The Irish Times last week by their Science Correspondent. I agree with the view expressed in that article that British Nuclear Fuels are making millions of pounds out of Sellafield, a reprocessing plant that deals with nuclear waste from all over the world. The Cumbrian people are being well paid as a result of this investment. It was very obvious from the attendance at the demonstration on 10 October last — for me it was very frightening because about 250 people turned up and I expected thousands would turn up — that the Cumbrian people, and the people of Great Britain, want to know nothing about the dangers of the nuclear industry.
The problem for us as a nation is that first we must get the European Commission to help us get independent inspectors on the site and have international planning regulations for nuclear power stations. That is one way. The only other way is to educate by some means or other the British people about the danger that exists to themselves from this nuclear problem on their shores. On the occasion of my visit there there was only one public representative, a local councillor, and he did not want to give his name.
There is a tremendous difficulty as far as we are concerned. All the talks the Minister will have with Mr. Cecil Parkinson and Mr. Spicer will have no effect whatsoever. They are not interested in stopping the processing of nuclear waste at Sellafield, but if the British people demand that it stop it would be a different story. We will have to use all the means necessary, we will have to involve key people in Britain, to bring the British people around to that way of thinking. We have succeeded in other issues, the Birmingham Six etc., and we can succeed again on this issue. Even if it means putting advertisements in the British papers, so be it, but we must find some means of educating the British people to the danger that they live with and which we have to live with as well.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I want to compliment the Members who have spoken so far on being so concise, which means that all who want to speak will have an opportunity of doing so. I call Senator Haughey.
I will be brief because a number of points have already been made and I know that other Senators feel very strongly about this issue and are anxious to get in on this debate. I congratulate the Minister on the strong, consistent stand he has taken in relation to British nuclear energy and I assure him that this House, all Members of the Oireachtas and, indeed, the entire nation north and south are united behind him in his efforts to protect this nation from the ill effects of nuclear energy.
Reference has been made to the Nuclear Energy Board. That board have not served us well in relation to nuclear energy. I appeal to the Minister in no uncertain terms to abolish that board in the very near future and to bring in new legislation to set up the new national radiological protection board. That fundamental step must be taken. The Nuclear Energy Board have been seen in the past to be pro-nuclear, to be promoting nuclear energy. That is simply not good enough and they certainly do not represent the Irish people.
Let me digress slightly and go on to the issue of Sellafield which, by its existence, is an outrage to the Irish people. Not alone is it involved in nuclear reprocessing but it has a military aspect and as neutral country we must be totally opposed to that. Plans to expand the nuclear reprocessing plants in England and throughout the United Kingdom are also an outrage to the Irish people. In particular I am thinking of plans to build new stations and expand stations in Scotland. The military aspect I have mentioned and the fact that they plan to expand and promote these plants even further is an outrage to the Irish people.
However, the main concern to Irish people is health. Nuclear plants in England represent the biggest threat to the health of this nation. That is a fair comment. Everything possible must be done to phase out nuclear energy in the United Kingdom and put pressure on the British Government to do that. That is the most important thing that we must do now.
As a Dubliner I am particularly anxious that these tests in February do not go ahead. The Minister must do everything in his power to stop them. Fact or fiction, there is a general belief by the citizens of Dublin that nuclear energy in England is causing cancer in Ireland. I know from talking to people that that is a commonly held belief and I am fairly convinced that cancers in Ireland are caused by British nuclear energy and nuclear energy plants further afield, and I am talking about Russia and other countries. I assure the Minister that we are fully behind him and in the immediate future I appeal that he do everything possible to ensure that these tests in Wales do not go ahead.
Recently I was in Maine in the United States and the public debate there which occupied people's minds some months ago was whether the Maine Yankee nuclear power station in Maine should be closed or replaced by conventional sources of electricity, and the related question was whether Maine, if it indicated continuing sanction for Maine Yankee, would then be seen by the United States Congress as an appropriate dumping ground for nuclear waste. In the event, the referendum showed a strong two to one majority in favour of retaining the nuclear plant and poor Nebraska, because it has no clout or relatively little clout in Washington DC, is to become the home of nuclear waste.
The whole debate served to illustrate to me how enormously powerful are the forces behind nuclear energy, how difficult it is to combat the resources they have in a referendum campaign and how people are convinced by arguments such as nuclear generated electricity is cheaper, that if you close down the plant it will throw people out of employment and so on. All these arguments, it seems to me, are very relevant to the British situation, if we look at it from the point of view of those who live in Britain and who have all these interests and considerations before their mind. It served to remind me that nuclear power is a Frankenstein, that it is there whether for military or civil purposes and it will haunt mankind until it devises some way to deal with it. I told the people of Maine that, though I certainly would have voted against the majority, nonetheless at least they were fortunate they could make a decision because our country, while having no direct vested interest, is at the receiving end of other people's vested interests.
I share the concern and indignation of my colleagues and there is no more to be said about that. I share also the satisfaction that the Minister is here to reply to this debate and enlighten us perhaps about some of the rather contradictory and puzzling things that have been going on in the past 24 hours. It appears that Mr. Turvey has complained, or someone has said about him, that the reason he is being abused is simply that he is in the position of a messenger who simply tells it as it is. Is that true? What about the position of The Irish Times Science Correspondent today who also would seem to share Mr. Turvey's views?
However the issue at Trawsfynydd is not the only part of the story because the Minister knows that this is an ongoing situation and the argument will be fraught with the kind of post-colonial tensions that exist between the United Kingdom and ourselves. I share the anger of many Senators who, in effect, bore out Parnell's observation to his brother John that the only way to deal with the English is to stand up to them, but perhaps the day for that is over and we cannot afford in so many senses to be confrontational with the British. Surely there must be several levels at which this general issue can be resolved, at the level of ordinary people, at the contact of Members of Parliament and Members of the Oireachtas, and at voluntary bodies such as the British-Irish Association to which I belong? I ask the Minister to indicate to us the channels in the Anglo-Irish context where we can begin to educate our English neighbours, as has been said here tonight, because instead of standing up to them, our process is the uphill and interminable task of educating them in the reality of Anglo-Irish relations.
Finally, does the Anglo-Irish Agreement provide some kind of scope for the long term discussion of our concerns in this matter with our English neighbours? As the Minister will remember, the phrase "totality of relationships" was invoked in 1980. Surely such a vital matter of life and death falls within the scope of our two Governments ongoing concerns.
I would like to congratulate the Minister on his speedy reaction to this move by the British nuclear board. One would think that this happened overnight and that the Minister for Energy, Deputy Burke, had not been monitoring this entire situation since he took office.
I would like to elaborate on a few of the points the Minister made as far back as March and April of last year when he commented on the old Magnox reactors. He said that all of them should be phased out. In particular, he outlined the operation of the reactors in the Sellafield region, such as Caulder Hall and Chapelcross. The reactor in Trawsfynydd was mentioned also in the Minister's deliberations. We will have to be wary about nuclear power and energy, especially when it is right on our doorstep and, in particular, since the incident at Chernobyl. The Minister, on behalf of the people of Ireland, should be concerned about these tests and he should get guarantees that the tests that are about to take place will not harm the people of Ireland. At his meeting with the EC Commissioner, Mr. Stanley Clinton Davis, the Minister outlined Ireland's position and he got an assurance from the Commissioner on that.
All the relevant points that should have been made in this House today have been made and I hope the Minister in his reply will elaborate once again on the stand he has taken since he became Minister on having nuclear power stations so close to our shores. I am sure he is acting on behalf of the people of Ireland and I congratulate him on the stand he has taken since he became Minister and, in particular, the stand he has taken over the past number of days.
I should like to join with other Senators in congratulating the Minister on his continuing and persevering stand on behalf of the people not only of this island but also throughout the globe in facing up to immense pressure levelled against individuals by the interests of the nuclear industry.
This is a very serious situation. There can be no doubt whatever that the people of this country have what legal persons would call locus standi. We have a clear interest in what happens 100 miles away from this capital city of Dublin. There is no doubt, as Senator Haughey said, that many people are convinced there is a serious impact on the health of the citizens of this city. There seems already to be demonstrable a clear correlation between the existence of some of these installations and an increased incidence of malignancies, leukaemia and particular kinds of tumours. Although this is not cast iron it seems to be clear that there may be a direct casual relationship and obviously this is something that would worry many people.
I am concerned also at the use of the word "experiment" because it is clearly what it is. It is not just a test; it is an experiment. The people being experimented upon are not just the people of Cumbria; they are the people of at least the eastern seaboard of this island. I do not wish to be one of the British nuclear industry's guinea-pigs. I would not wish to be even if I could trust them and it is perfectly clear that we cannot trust them. It is perfectly clear that they engage the services of paid liars. Recently, I recall hearing on a news broadcast a representative of the British nuclear energy authority claiming that one of my colleagues in the university, a distinguished nuclear scientist, had made certain statements supporting their attitude. Within ten minutes that colleague of mine was on the radio publicly contradicting the spokesperson for British Nuclear Fuels Limited. That causes me great concern because it suggests that we cannot trust a word out of their mouths.
I have to say that the statement clearly made by Mr. Turvey was ill advised. There should be some chain of command, some consultation and some consistency and it appears that Mr. Turvey has broken ranks. However, I am concerned at some of the things I have heard today such as the statement that the views of Mr. Turvey "go against the will of the Irish people". I believe that scientific truth should not be amenable to this kind of pressure. I would like to know and to be able to believe what our experts or indeed international experts have to say on this matter and if they are telling the truth then I want to hear it. However, I want it to be done in a considered way and not in a rushed telephone interview which can be then used, twisted and abused by interests who do not have the welfare of this country at heart.
There is a very heavy burden of responsibility on many countries and not just on England. We are all aware of the fact that, for example, the French Government have licensed and connived at the crime of murder against citizens of New Zealand who are campaigning in the Green Peace Movement. That worries me. They connived recently at the departure from agreed detention of persons convicted of murder. There is a very curious standard of morality surrounding the whole nuclear industry. I am glad, and I welcome the fact, that we appear to have quite a high standard of morality in this regard. Long may it last.
I remember, and I am sure Senator Brendan Ryan remembers also, when those of us who were against the proposal to install nuclear capacity at Carnsore Point were branded as Luddites. I am grateful there has been a conversion in the electricity generating industry. I hope also that this principle of taking a very high moral tone will continue into the debate which is promised on mercury soap because it is precisely the same thing. The people of Cumbria have an investment in jobs, manufacturing and so on with a heavy investment in plant, equipment and employment and these are precisely the arguments that are used when we manufacture noxious substances for export. We should bear that in mind when we are discussing the issue of mercury soap. We cannot make this clear distinction and then reserve all our ire for the Nuclear Energy Board.
The economic argument is fallacious. Anybody who considers that Sellafield or Trawsfynydd are an economic advantage to the areas in which they exist should ask the people of Chernobyl what economic advantage they had. We have a vested interest in that. I am sure the Minister will recollect that after the incident at Chernobyl we, as a principal meat exporting country, experienced great difficulty and great reticence in countries ranging from Latin America to the Arab states, with regard to the acceptability of our meat products.
I will conclude because there may be other persons wishing to come in — everybody has been very generous in confining their remarks — and simply say that it seems there is some degree of disagreement between specialists. I am not a specialist; I am an ordinary citizen who is concerned, worried and grateful to the Minister and to the Government for taking the very direct action they have. I hope they will pursue the question of Article 34 of the Euratom Treaty. We have a possibility there because there are teeth there that are not being fully exercised. Perhaps we can press on this issue. I am not an expert but I know the old adage and it is applicable in this instance: "When doctors differ, the patient dies," I certainly do not want to be one of the patients who die. If we have to die in a nuclear way I would prefer to be cleanly atomised. One of the most repulsive things about this experiment is that we will not even be cleanly atomised; we will just be microwaved slowly out of existence. I congratulate the Minister on his foresight and I encourage him to take the strongest possible stand with the British Government.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Before I call on Senator Ryan I just want to remind the House that two speakers are offering and by agreement they will share the remaining time. The time allocated to each speaker was ten minutes so in this case the two last speakers have agreed to share that time.
I will be precisely three minutes. Contrary to my reputation in this House I can be brief when I choose to be. The first thing that needs to be said — I do not like brandishing one's academic credentials but I say this as a professional engineer — is that the assertion by a senior member of the management of this power station that the experiment to be conducted was 100 per cent safe was untrue. No engineer could ever assert that there is such a thing as a 100 per cent safe process. There is no such thing as a 100 per cent safe chemical process, nuclear process, or any other kind of process. It is all about risk assessment and what is an acceptable degree of risk. We accept risk in our lives. We accept motor cars and so on. In each case what you are talking about is a risk which is regarded as acceptable because the risk is proportional to the benefit to be derived. In this case the risk from something like this experiment going wrong is infinitely greater than any benefit either to us or to the British people. The risk could involve in extreme cases large scale devastation of a large part of this country and of Wales.
The fact that we have been assured that nothing can go wrong is of no use to me because we were also assured that Seveso, Bhopal, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl could not happen. Let it be said that in terms of even the best run, safest of industries there are no absolute certainties. Therefore an overwhelming reason must be produced to justify what is being done in north Wales and there are no overwhelming reasons. As has been said earlier, the only one that one can imagine or envisage is the fact that the British are now reluctant or unwilling to undertake the possibly enormous cost of shutting down nuclear power stations that have outlived their useful lives.
The trouble is that if the cost of security of maintenance of dead nuclear generating stations for hundreds of years is added on to the hypothetical cost of nuclear power, nuclear power will become uneconomical. Therefore it is necessary in order to justify the nuclear industry that these stations be kept going and hence the experiments and endeavours. We are at risk. Perhaps the risk is not enormous but the scale of what we are exposed to is so enormous that I want to congratulate the Government on the firmness of their stand and invite them to consider recourse to the world court and to various international legal fora to prevent this experiment.
I am not going to take up the allocation of time that I understand has been allowed. I simply want to intervene in the debate to support what has been said. We could go on saying this for a very long time. The concerns expressed on all sides of the House are widely felt by the people of this country. They have been heightened by the recent revelation of the proposed experiment in Wales. They are deeply felt concerns which have existed for some length of time about the nuclear industry in England, about the spill over effect on this country and about helplessness in that regard.
I wish to ask the Minister what degree of attention is being paid by his Department and by the Government generally to taking this matter up effectively in the various legal fora, as Senator Ryan has mentioned. To what extent are we pursuing the possible legal remedies that are open to us either under the Euratom Treaty, under the European Community provisions generally, or under the other international arrangements and agreements? It would be very helpful if the Minister could summarise for the House precisely what legal actions or potential actions are being considered. I do not believe that any pleas or expressions of concern in this House or by the Irish Government speaking formally as a Government will be listened to for the reasons that have been outlined. There are far too many vested interests and far too much money and employment prospects in England. Britain gains much revenue on foot of reprocessing in the nuclear industry and so on. Unless we have legal leverage, unless we can actually be effective in a legal sense at European Community level, I do not think we are going to succeed.
Even if it is innovative and speculative I think it would be worth commencing legal action and we should place a heavy concentration on that. If we could bring a case before the Court of Justice in Luxembourg or before the world court which would highlight this matter it would be a much more effective way of operating than simple expressions of concern, however deeply felt, either by elected representatives or by the Government as a whole. I would welcome some indication from the Minister as to what steps have been taken in this regard and I would urge that there should be a focus on what we can do by way of legal action to supplement any political representations which may be made.
First, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate in the House. I would like to thank Senators on all sides of the House for their generous comments on my efforts to date in relation to the British nuclear industry. I can assure Members that I share their concerns about the CEGB proposal to carry out experiments at the Trawsfynydd Nuclear Power Station. I would like to re-echo the Government's complete opposition to the proposal as expressed both by the Taoiseach and myself over the past few days.
The Government's view is that the old Magnox reactors, including Trawsfynydd, in the UK should be closed. These plants, most of which are over 20 years old, do not meet modern safety standards. The UK authorities themselves have said that these plants "were not designed to and cannot be expected to meet the latest standards", and in a 1986 safety review of the reactors at Bradwell, which are similar to those at Trawsfynydd, the nuclear installations inspectorate identified 17 points of concern. These statements have served to confirm the complete opposition of the Government to the continued operation of the Magnox reactors. I have taken every opportunity to express the Government's view that they should be closed.
The proposal to carry out experiments to see if Trawsfynydd can be kept even longer in operation is repugnant to me. The price of any experiment going wrong is too high to allow for the risk being taken. The station has had a history of accidents and is now well past its original expected lifespan so that the dangers inherent in experimentation are increased.
On the general question of reports of accidents the British Cabinet papers relating to the 1957 fire at Windscale clearly demonstrates that the UK authorities were involved in a cover-up on that occasion and that their assurances of safety measures since then leave a lot to be desired to put it mildly.
The Government are opposed to the continuance of the activities of the UK nuclear industry because of the threat it poses to the health and safety of the people of Ireland. In April last I wrote to the then Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. Walker, expressing these views and in September I met with Mr. Parkinson, the present Secretary of State, to reiterate Ireland's attitude to the UK nuclear industry. I have in addition developed close ties with the authorities in the Isle of Man and the Nordic countries who share our concerns on the hazards of UK nuclear installations. I have also had discussions with EC Commissioner Stanley Clinton Davis in relation to the appointment of an inspection force at a Community level, which is a very important and high priority item.
Last week I visited the United States in support of the Government's policy to develop the business of the ESB. While in the US during the course of meetings it become obvious that no further nuclear capacity is to be added before the turn of the century at the earliest, and probably not even then. I am glad to have the opportunity of putting this on the record because I would not like to think that the example of Maine as given by Senator Murphy is the only example in America. On that occasion, the people of Maine made one decision, but the people of many other surrounding states have made a different decision. For example, the anti-nuclear feeling is so strong among responsible people that plants which have been built, for example, at Shoreham, Long Island and Seabrook in Massachusetts have not yet been allowed to operate or to come on stream. A major nuclear plant which was operating at Pilgrim, Massachusetts, has been shut down there by the regulatory authority. These plants are not small plants; they are larger than the plant we have at Moneypoint which has over 900 megawatts.
The United States is not the only country involved. To suggest that the operation of nuclear power plants is necessary to meet world energy requirements is essentially wrong. In fact, since the Chernobyl accident in the USSR, the trend is quite the opposite. For example, Sweden has decided to phase out its nuclear power stations. Austria had decided not to commission its nuclear stations. The Netherlands and Italy are reconsidering their nuclear programmes and recent legislation in Switzerland may also affect the future of nuclear power in that country. I have already described the situation in the United States. Furthermore, the Government are gravely disturbed at recent reports of the disappearance of nuclear materials in Belgium and in West Germany and it is the subject of a major scandal and probable legal action in the EC.
The point has been raised by a number of Members of the Seanad as to why the Government do not take legal action etc. I assure Senators that, uniquely, this Government have taken legal action. We have joined in a case which is already well advanced between Luxembourg and the state of Saarland in West Germany against the French Government — because they constructed a particular plant — to stop it coming on stream. We took this action of going that way and joining with the Luxembourg and Saarland case because the legal process is so far advanced. Rather than initiating at this stage a separate case we have joined on this particular case which is already going through the courts. In the history of this country in relation to nuclear matters this is unique and we are already involved in the legal process.
To those outside this House who would question our right to be involved in opposition to nuclear matters, we, the Government, have a right and a duty to oppose the construction and operation of nuclear plants which constitute, in our view, a menace and a threat to the health and safety of our people.
Senators
Hear, hear.
As regards the specific problem of the tests at Trawsfynydd, I wrote yesterday on my return from the United States to Mr. Parkinson expressing the Government's concern and requesting an immediate meeting with him. Today I spoke to Commissioner Stanley Clinton Davis, who told me that he has written directly to Mr. Parkinson to remind him of the provisions of Article 34 of the Euratom Treaty. Article 34 provides that where a member state proposes to carry out a particularly dangerous experiment it shall obtain the opinion of the Commission. For the benefit of Members I have been given a copy of the statement by Commissioner Clinton Davis released yesterday in the European Parliament.
A number of Members have commented on the intervention of the Assistant Chief Executive of the Nuclear Energy Board into this debate. I wish to inform the Seanad that I had discussions yesterday evening with the Chairman and the Chief Executive of the NEB on this matter. I am glad to assure the Seanad that the Board disassociated themselves from his comments. In fact, they had already done so prior to my discussions with them, which answers the point made by a number of Senators in relation to the independece of the organisation. However, when I mention the independence of that organisation, I want to say that I feel no compunction whatsoever in bringing to my Department any officials at any level who are running counter to Government policy to ask for an explanation on any matter.
In relation to the future of the Nuclear Energy Board referred to by Senators Robb and Haughey, the Government have taken a decision to dissolve the Nuclear Energy Board. That board was established at a time when the possibility of building a nuclear plant in Wexford was under consideration. I do not need to assure the Seanad that it is now national policy that no nuclear plant will ever be built in this country.
Senators
Hear, hear.
As Senators are aware, the Government have taken that decision. I want to assure the Seanad that the Government intend to proceed with legislation as a matter of urgency to establish the national radiological protection institute. I will be bringing the necessary legislation before the Oireachtas in the coming session. I also take the opportunity to assure the Seanad that whatever attitudes may have manifested themselves in the past in the Nuclear Energy Board, a pro-nuclear approach will in no way be reflected in the charter of the national radiological protection institute. I can further assure the Seanad that the duties and terms of reference of the new institute will be very much in accord with the present climate of opinion in Ireland surrounding the nuclear industry and the realities of the world in which we live. Finally, I want to assure Members that I will be publishing details of the national emergency plan shortly and I look forward to the contribution of all public representatives on that subject.
A number of Senators referred to Sellafield in the course of the debate. While my understanding was that this debate is restricted mainly to the question of Trawsfynydd and the experiments there, I welcome the support of the Members of the Seanad in our efforts to close Sellafield. Senator Doyle made the point that we would get nowhere merely by making representations and putting pressure on. I believe that in a democracy the only way you can succeed is by continuing to put on pressure. I will go to the United Kingdom to see my opposite number there and I will go to address any groups there. I will go to any part of Europe or the world to highlight not only the Government's view but the view of the people of Ireland. I take the point that Senator Robb made. It is one issue that unites all the people of Ireland. I will continue to lobby in a democratic way to secure the closure of Sellafield. It may not happen in the short term but in the medium to long term it will happen because the world is turning against the nuclear industry.
I also take the point made by Senator de Buitléar in relation to the submarines. Oh, that I could do something about them, Senator, but unfortunately, as long as they are in international waters I can do nothing about them.
The unanimous call of all those who contributed to the debate here this evening reflects the Government's view that the Trawsfynydd experiment should not go ahead will be of great help to me in my efforts to make sure the experiment does not go ahead. I will take the opportunity first thing in the morning to bring to the notice of the British Government the view of Seanad Éireann and also to bring to the notice of the EC Commissioner and Commission the view of Seanad Éireann in relation to the responsibilities under the Euratom treaties. I very much value the opportunity that has been provided to me here to state Government policy on it and I thank Members once again for their expressions of support.