I welcome the Minister of State to the House.
Sellafield Nuclear Plant: Statements.
I thank you, Sir, and the Members of this House for the opportunity to speak on the Government's policy on Sellafield. The Sellafield facility has quite rightly been a source of grave concern to successive Governments and the public for many years. This Government remains firmly committed in its opposition to the continued operation and expansion of this objectionable facility. The Govern ment is determined to remove any threat posed to the Irish people by Sellafield.
Since assuming responsibility for the nuclear safety portfolio, I have had a number of meetings with the relevant UK Ministers during which I highlighted the continuing concerns of the Government about the Sellafield operations. My most recent meeting was yesterday when I met Energy Minister, Mrs. Helen Liddell. At that meeting I called again for the closure of Sellafield. UK Ministers are in no doubt as to the depth of feeling in Ireland about Sellafield, particularly as a result of recent events.
This Government's concerns about Sellafield centre on the management of safety at the site, the storage on site in liquid form of high level radioactive waste, the continued expansion of activities at the site, including the proposed MOX plant, the continued reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at the site, the discharge of radioactive waste into the Irish Sea, the aging Calder Hall magnox reactors at the site and the risk, however remote, of a catastrophic accident.
Ireland has serious objections to nuclear reprocessing. Reprocessing generates gaseous and liquid radioactive discharges which contaminate the terrestrial and marine environment. The resulting production of plutonium creates an unnecessary risk that plutonium would be diverted for nuclear weapons production or terrorist activity.
More and more countries around the world are gradually coming to reject reprocessing, as evidenced by political developments in recent years, notably in Germany. As a result, the reprocessing industry is separating more plutonium than the nuclear power industry is able to absorb. Sellafield has now a stockpile of plutonium which presents a potential risk to existing and future generations. The existence of such a large stock-pile demonstrates how ill-advised it is to persist with reprocessing.
A dominant theme of the Government's campaign against Sellafield has been the genuine fear of the consequences of an accident at the site. The memory of the accident at Windscale in 1958, as it was then known, still arouses concerns that a similar accident could recur, with potential serious effects on agriculture and food production, particularly along our east coast. In my view, the multiplicity of hazardous operations at Sellafield increases the risk, however remote, of such an event happening.
Concerns about Sellafield have intensified recently because of three reports published by the nuclear installations inspectorate relating to an inspection of the control and supervision of operations at the Sellafield site, the falsification of safety related data for mixed oxide fuel pellets and the storage in liquid form of high level radioactive waste.
The inspection of the control and supervision of operations at Sellafield was concentrated on those Sellafield facilities involving reprocessing of irradiated fuel and waste treatment and storage. The inspection was requested by the NII following a series of incidents in 1999, the cause of which was considered to be a weakness in control and supervision at the Sellafield site.
The subsequent inspection, which took place over a two week period in September 1999, focused on incidents, control and supervision of operations, staffing and resources. The report of the inspection makes 28 recommendations for improvement of safety management, which the NII require BNFL to undertake to ensure that the Sellafield site remains safe. The NII has given BNFL two months to put together a programme for responding to the report's recommendations. The NII has warned BNFL that it will use its enforcement powers should BNFL's response be inadequate.
The second report published by the NII on 18 February deals with the falsification of safety related data for MOX fuel pellets. This issue first came to light on 10 September 1999 when BNFL notified the NII that they suspected that quality check data for MOX fuel pellets manufactured at their MOX demonstration facility at Sellafield had been falsified by BNFL employees.
Among the report's findings is that seven MOX fuel assemblies delivered to BNFL's Japanese customer contained fuel pellets from lots known to contain falsified data. In total, 31 lots are known to have been affected by falsification. The NII report quite clearly puts the blame on BNFL management for this practice, saying that the level of control and supervision of fuel pellet diameter inspection had been virtually non-existent. The report also states that the events revealed by the NII's investigation could not have occurred had there been a proper safety culture within the plant.
The NII report makes 15 recommendations. Among these are that BNFL should urgently consider the implications of the falsifications for the Sellafield site and provide to the NII a report on its proposed remedial actions. The MDF plant has been closed since September 1999 and the NII will not allow it to reopen until BNFL has addressed all the recommendations in the report to the NII's satisfaction.
These two reports when taken together paint a picture of a company undergoing a safety management crisis. When I received these reports I immediately wrote to UK Ministers at the Departments of Trade and Industry and Environment, Transport and the Regions, and requested them to examine the closure of Sellafield operations. I also requested the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland to meet with the NII to explore with the NII's chief inspector the NII's underlying thinking in allowing the reprocessing, and associated facilities, to remain in operation for two months while the deficiencies identified are being addressed.
The RPII met with the NII on 22 February. At this meeting, the RPII pressed the NII chief inspector as to why he did not consider it necessary to halt any of the operations at Sellafield pending the implementation of chances to correct the serious deficiencies in safety management which had been identified by his inspectors. In response, the chief inspector insisted that current operations were safe. The chief inspector emphasised to the RPII that, if BNFL do not take the steps demanded of it, the NII will use whatever enforcement measures are necessary.
These reports from the NII are of course very damaging to BNFL's reputation internationally. In recent times, BNFL has mounted a sophisticated public relations campaign to try to convince the public that they now enjoy an excellent safety record and that the public should have no fears about a serious accident. As a heavily regulated nuclear operator, it depicted itself as a modern safety conscious company which had built up large contracts for plant decommissioning and global clean up of nuclear sites. It maintained its solid defence of its reprocessing operations but presented itself as laying strong emphasis on the safety of its workforce and the public. This portrayal of a safety conscious operation rings hollow in the light of the NII reports. The release of the three reports by the NII has dealt a severe blow to this carefully nutured reputation which even the most skillful public relations offensive would find difficult to dispel.
Despite the assurances given by the NII to the RPII, I do not believe the Irish public can be persuaded that the continued operation of the Sellafield site should be tolerated in current circumstances. For this reason, I met the UK Minister, Mrs. Liddell, yesterday and told her that all reprocessing operations should be stopped. I said I consider that any lingering morsel of trust in BNFL had been eliminated as a result of these reports. She expressed considerable sympathy and understanding of public perception in Ireland in the aftermath of the three reports. She assured me that a root and branch shake-up was taking place within BNFL to deal with the company's problems. While pointing out that I respected the seriousness with which the UK Government is handling the shortcomings at Sellafield, I emphasised to her that the only satisfactory outcome for the Irish public was closure.
The MOX demonstration facility is a pilot MOX production plant, designed to demonstrate to BNFL's customers that it can produce MOX fuel to its customers' specification. The coming into operation of a larger MOX plant at Sellafield, which was built some years ago by BNFL at a cost of £300 million sterling, has yet to be approved by the UK Government. This proposed plant has already been the subject of a number of public consultations by the UK Environment Agency and by UK Ministers, the most recent of which concerned the economic justification of the MOX plant, in particular the market for MOX fuel. The Irish Government made detailed submissions under each of these public consultations rejecting any justification for this plant and expressing its total opposition to its proposed establishment.
The Japanese and German markets represent a very significant share of BNFL's projected market for the proposed MOX plant. The possible loss of these two markets has serious consequences for the economic justification for MOX production. I recently took up this particular issue with the UK Secretary of State, Mr. Prescott, and I will continue to exert maximum pressure on the UK to ensure that this plant does not go ahead.
The third of the reports published by the NII on 18 February relates to the storage, in liquid form, of high level radioactive waste known as HLW. The NII report is an update of an earlier NII report in 1995.
HLW arises from the reprocessing of irradiated nuclear fuel. The HLW is stored in tanks at the Sellafield site, pending a process known as vitrification, whereby the high level waste is encased in solid glass blocks. The high level waste, while it is stored in liquid form, is considered to be highly volatile and requires constant cooling to maintain its safety.
The NII report provides an update of the various issues raised in the NII's 1995 report and summarises the latest NII assessment of the BNFL safety case. The report also details progress made by BNFL in regard to the key safety requirements in the 1995 report for BNFL to reduce the stocks of liquid high level waste, through vitrification, to a minimum buffer volume by 2015.
The NII intends to monitor BNFL's required progress towards high level waste reduction towards a buffer stock level at about 24 month intervals and, if this falls short of what was agreed, will use its regulatory powers to require BNFL to take action to correct the situation. However, when I met the Minister, Mrs. Liddell, yesterday I repeated the Irish Government's view that the vitrification should be accelerated and that 2015 was not a satisfactory target date. A much earlier target date was necessary.
I take particular pride in my efforts relating to the control of radioactive discharges from Sellafield into the Irish Sea. There have been understandable anxieties about the effect of radioactive discharges on marine livelihoods and on the enjoyment of the amenities of the Irish Sea. The perception of serious health risks from these discharges has also given rise to serious public concerns.
I consider the OSPAR strategy with regard to radioactive substances adopted by the OSPAR Ministers in 1998 to be my most important achievement to date. This strategy commits the contracting parties to the OSPAR Convention, which include the UK, to the virtual elimination by the year 2020 of discharges of radioactive substances to the marine environment. It will help to eliminate one of the strongest elements of contention relating to Sellafield – the impact of radioactive discharges on the Irish Sea and on the livelihoods of those living on the east coast of Ireland. The adoption of the strategy was a vindication of the genuine and legitimate concerns felt by Ireland about the impact of such discharges on the marine environment.
The OSPAR Commission, on which all OSPAR contracting parties are represented, at its meeting in June this year will consider a draft report as to how the objectives of the strategy and the timetable for its implementation will be met. The Irish Government is determined to ensure that OSPAR participating states do not shirk in any way from their responsibilities in regard to this strategy. I will be doing everything possible to ensure that the contracting states, especially the UK and France, can demonstrate at the June meeting that they are working positively towards achieving further substantial reductions of radioactive discharges as required under the OSPAR strategy, so that the objectives of the strategy can be achieved fully between now and 2020.
It is important to recognise that the UK is preparing a national strategy for discharges of radioactive substances covering the period 2001 to 2020 to meet the objectives of the OSPAR strategy. It expects its national strategy to be published before the end of this year after a full public consultation process. Allied to this, the UK is also undertaking a full-scale review of all radioactive discharges from Sellafield. The UK's domestic processes and their outcome will be a measure of its commitment to the OSPAR strategy.
As the House will be aware, the Sellafield site is also home to the first nuclear power station to be built in the UK, the Calder Hall magnox station. The magnox power stations are the oldest of the commercial nuclear installations in the UK, some were built as far back as 1956. Magnox reactors were not designed to meet modern standards and cannot be easily adapted. I expressed to UK Ministers on a number of occasions the concerns of the Irish Government about the continued safe operation of magnox reactors beyond their original design life. In particular, I raised the question of the safety and integrity of the reactor pressure vessels and the potential of the failure of those vessels to cause a large coolant leak.
My Department and I have never lost an opportunity in recent years to put Ireland's views across in bilateral contacts with UK Ministers and officials and at EU and international meetings. We have been successful in raising the profile of nuclear safety issues internationally and the result is that we now have two very important international conventions, the Nuclear Safety Conven tion and the Joint Convention on Spent Fuel and Waste Management which will allow a concerted effort worldwide to improve nuclear safety. We will continue to make strenuous efforts in the area of development of international standards and controls and the promotion of an enhanced nuclear safety culture. Most notably we have also achieved a new OSPAR strategy which will enable us between now and 2020 to achieve the virtual elimination of discharges into the Irish Sea. Recent events at Sellafield are most disturbing and we need to take the appropriate actions to protect our citizens within the scope of international law.
I will not hesitate to undertake appropriate litigation against BNFL if I believe the operations are not complying with the provisions of international law. I have asked the Attorney General to reopen the examination of evidence for legal action concerning Sellafield with particular attention being given to the three reports which I have already mentioned.
I also intend to strengthen contacts with the Nordic countries who have recently voiced their concerns over Sellafield. We have built up a close relationship with the Nordic countries within OSPAR and I intend to bring about greater co-ordination of efforts against Sellafield between Ireland and these countries. Irish Governments have never been silent on matters relating to nuclear safety, particularly as regards the UK facilities. This Government is no different. We are fully committed to a campaign against Sellafield and the cessation of all activities there remains a priority for the Government.
I agree with practically everything the Minister said. Successive Irish Governments have taken the same approach on this issue. The critical point at which we converge, whether in Government or in Opposition, is in seeking a systematic examination of all the activities of British Nuclear Fuels Limited in Cumbria. No effort must be spared in our attempt to ensure that the safety of our people is protected at all costs. Having read the reports the Minister referred to I would agree that there is serious cause for concern. The issue was summed up by the Minister when he said that the falsification of records in a nuclear facility is totally unacceptable. It is not a potato crisp or cardboard box plant, it deals with some of the most dangerous toxic substances in the world. Therefore, the activities in Sellafield must be totally above board in terms of management ensuring that no effort is spared to ensure that everything is safe.
Who was involved in falsifying the records at Sellafield? Following the first BNFL report it looked as if just two or three people were involved, but the British Nuclear Installations Inspectorate found it was possible to identify from staffing records when samples had been falsified. The analysis shows that four out of five shifts were involved to varying extents in falsifying data. That is a damning indictment of the management and safety controls of BNFL. It is utterly unacceptable.
If BNFL thinks it will satisfy public opinion by firing its chief executive, it will not. A root and branch resignation of the people involved in safety in BNFL must take place immediately. We cannot accept that a company with such an awful safety record can continue with the present management structure.
While some people may say that BNFL's quality control standards were safe, it now transpires that they also were falsified and were not properly checked. The people who approved the false records are part of the falsification process. Neither the Government nor the people can accept that BNFL has any bona fides in this regard.
I welcome the Minister of State's recent meeting with his British counterpart and his commitment to pursue the matter legally in a thorough manner. The reality is that Ireland is not alone in being concerned at the latest developments; the Nordic countries are also concerned. We have relied on the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of the British Health and Safety Authority to provide an independent examination of what is going on in Sellafield. We need to go one step further now, however. The Government, in tandem with the Nordic countries that are seriously concerned by this, must be part of an overall inspection team looking at Sellafield. I do not know enough about the nuts and bolts to say how one would do that, but we must insist on having an active and direct role in an independent authority, including the Nordic states, to examine Sellafield. That would provide a further level of scrutiny which people are demanding.
I reject criticism of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland that I have heard in my own county. I have the greatest respect for the RPII which does a wonderful job. Its job is not to be political, but to tell us what the facts are and to pursue them. People who criticise the RPII for not taking a quasi-political role are wrong. Our job is the political one, while the RPII's job represents the scientific role.
Hear, hear.
I am glad the Minister agrees with me. I am very concerned by the way in which the RPII was targeted in County Louth as being biased or not doing its job. The RPII is doing a wonderful job and I am 100% behind it. Through the RPII we need to tease out further the idea of a new inspection regime featuring Ireland in the Nordic countries. As the Minister of State acknowledged, Britain recognises the issues. In fairness to the British Government's Minister, when he commented on the resignation of the chief executive of BNFL he more or less said that it was not before time. It is not before time either that we should have further action in this area.
Another issue that arises is the long-term storage of nuclear waste which has been proposed in the past by Nirex on a site near Sellafield. The Minister of State fought that battle, as did others, at oral hearings. I understand that matter is to come before the British Government early this year and that a further report is due out. It is timely to have this debate so that we can create as much fuss as possible about any proposals for the long-term storage of nuclear waste anywhere near the Irish Sea. There are clear indications that over time there will be leakage of radioactive material from Sellafield, given the rock structure of the Cumbrian coast. If action is not taken now, the entire Irish Sea could be contaminated for future generations. It is our job to leave a clean environment for them to inherit. Our action on the new Nirex proposal must reflect that aspiration.
Some months ago BNFL wrote to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport indicating its willingness to appear before the committee. While it is not a matter for the House today, the committee, of which I am a member, must take BNFL up on its offer. We must pursue the company here and ask it to explain the seemingly inexplicable. The way forward is to continue to put extra pressure on BNFL.
The summary of one of the reports by the British Nuclear Installations Inspectorate states:
Having inspected all the activities in Sellafield, there are three key conclusions from this inspection. The first is that there is a lack of a high quality safety management system across the site which is compounded by an overtly complex management structure. The second is that there are insufficient resources to implement even the existing safety management system. The third is a lack of an effective independent inspection, auditing and review system within British Nuclear Fuels. Without a vigorous independent inspection, auditing and review system, the Health and Safety Executive do not see how British Nuclear Fuels can make acceptable and timely progress in delivering a high quality safety management system across the site.
That is it in a nutshell. This company is incapable of managing its affairs properly. There are serious safety concerns but BNFL is not addressing them properly. The falsification of safety records has been going on since 1996. What other falsification of records may be going on? What other management structures are inefficient? We cannot afford to allow this company to continue to operate as it does. We must insist, as the Minister of State has done, that we will pursue BNFL and the British Government night and day at every possible venue. Members of the Oireachtas must have the opportunity to put BNFL to the pin of its collar here in the near future. Obviously that is the route we must take.
I congratulate the STAD group from County Louth which has taken a legal action against BNFL. I wish them well. I heard a radio report this morning on the matter and, having no more information than that, I am sure the Minister of State can assure us that every step is being taken to fully fund that group's action. The point was made on the radio that funding is available for scientific research but none is available for the legal case. I do not know if that is true, but if so, it must be changed. I call on the Minister of State to provide full and adequate funding for that case.
I hope we revisit this issue in two or three months when the Minister of State may have further progress to report. We are all behind him on this; the whole country wants Sellafield shut down. Obviously there are thousands of people working in Sellafield, but decommissioning a nuclear station will keep those people in employment for many years to come. If it is decided to close Sellafield there will not be a massive loss of jobs, because the product will continue to provide ongoing employment. The Dounreay plant in Scotland is being decommissioned and that is what we want for Sellafield.
I wish to share my time with Senator Quill.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the Minister of State and I am heartened to find the national consensus being articulated so clearly on both sides of the House. That is in the national interest. Sellafield has been threatening the people of Ireland with environmental terrorism for decades and I mean environmental terrorism in its fullest sense. Its operation is unsafe at any and all times. It is abhorrent and an indictment of those who run BNFL that they – and the British Government, which has ultimate responsibility – have known that from the start. Yet they have continued to develop and expand the operation, rather than contracting it, which successive Irish Governments have called for.
Well before the discovery last autumn of the falsification of data and the subsequent inspection and three reports from the Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations two weeks ago, the record of Sellafield was well known to us. We all knew of and accepted the risk of a major nuclear accident. The consequences for us of such an accident do not bear thinking about. The report of the chief inspector has proved that our worst fears are totally justified. The Minister of State and successive Governments have called for the complete shutdown of the plant and I am very encouraged that the Minister of State did so again yesterday when he visited his counterpart in Britain and has reiterated that reasonable and justifiable call today.
The chief inspector's conclusions and recommendations reflect very negatively on the standards of management, safety and supervision at the plant. These relate not just to the MOX unit where data were falsified but to the plant in its entirety. Some of the critical conclusions refer to the lack of high quality safety management systems, over-complex management structures, the lack of adequate resources for safety management and the lack of adequate independent inspection and audit systems. It seems from the report that safety was an optional extra at Sellafield; one does not need to do an in-depth analysis to see that. That is totally irresponsible and we can logically interpret the chief inspector's conclusions as referring to criminal negligence of frightening proportions. It is now established that data were being deliberately falsified over a three to five year period. Whether it was with or without management's knowledge is totally irrelevant. Management should manage, but it has not done so in this case.
This further strengthens the case for complete closure. The chief inspector's recommendations might offer some slight reassurance if all were fully implemented, but they will never reassure the Irish people. The ultimate objective is complete closure and I am glad of the Minister of State's reassurance that it is the only outcome the Government will accept.
The Windscale incident shows up the unenviable BNFL record, especially in light of the Chernobyl disaster. The recent damning revelations make it imperative that we step up our campaign. I fully back the calls by the Minister of State and Senator O'Dowd to close Sellafield and to support a nuclear cleanup programme, to promote and enhance international safety, public health and the environment. I am heartened by the Minister of State's commitment since taking office. He has met his British counterpart and John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, and he has taken a very strong stand in international fora. He has taken initiatives to steer strategies with OSPAR which are to be highly commended. I cannot overstate his level of commitment and I deeply resent the lampooning and attempted satirisation of his efforts to take on a world organisation. There is a world network of nuclear organisations and the Minister of State has gone out of his way at every level available to him to make the world at large aware of our Government's deep-seated objections to what Britain is doing. The Minister of State is calling for complete closure and for greater co-ordination of efforts against Sellafield between Ireland and the Nordic countries. That is the way to build a world consensus against nuclear power.
I understand BNFL has the new MOX plant ready for operation. However, as the Minister of State said, this is subject to the approval of the British Government. I fully support the Minister of State's calls on the British Government to stop BNFL from operating that MOX plant. Given the record of the small unit, the operation of a full-scale MOX plant has horrendous implications. If the fuel manufactured there is faulty it could cause an explosion. The MOX is a way of getting rid of plutonium that builds up in reprocessing and will give BNFL an excuse for continuing with reprocessing because it provides a use for the plutonium. We know that there are very few uses for plutonium but that if it fell into the hands of terrorists it would lead to mayhem. If the MOX is stopped from operating that cuts the ground from under the justification for reprocessing and would bring the running down of the whole operation much nearer. I call on the Government, with the approval of all sides of the House, to call on the British Government not to allow the MOX plant to come into operation.
There is a whole range of activities going on in Sellafield, such as the vitrification process. That process must be accelerated. The inspectorate has given them until 2015 and there are two lines in operation, with a third coming in next year. I would support the Minister of State in calling for at least a fourth line to ensure acceleration. We will not settle for 2015 as a completion date for vitrification of highly dangerous liquid which requires a cooling process in operation at all times.
I am glad world organisations are destroying the arrogance, secrecy and misleading public relations spins that have kept us at bay in the past despite our deep-seated opposition to what is going on in Sellafield. I also resent the discharges into the Irish Sea, which are an infringement of our national rights. I have serious concerns also about the nuclear industry imposing such a huge risk to people's health and to the environment. It will have to be compelled by way of global consensus to face up to its duties, given that the whole nuclear industry is a virtual time bomb. Evidence from Japan of chemicals being mixed in buckets and evidence from Sellafield and other areas indicate an industry in crisis. We must never be satisfied until this entire industry is terminated. While the attainment of this objective is unrealistic in the short term, it must firmly remain our ultimate objective. We must press at all levels, as the Minister of State has cogently stated, for the process towards total elimination of nuclear hazards worldwide to begin now. However, Sellafield is our immediate concern.
I thank Senator Fitzgerald for allowing me to share his time. We are lending our support to the Minister of State's efforts which are commendable. I congratulate him on the action he is proposing to take. I am particularly impressed with the way in which he and the Attorney General are proceeding to investigate and find ways and means to bring a European-based case against Sellafield. That is long overdue. Sometimes in ordinary life matters must get worse before they get better. Perhaps at the end of the day the falsified reports were the ammunition we needed to enable us to move more purposefully against British Nuclear Fuels than we have been able to do in the past. This is not the first Government to have tried hard to do something about Sellafield in the certain knowledge that what is happening in the Irish Sea is no longer acceptable.
I commend the Minister of State for what he is doing and I hope his efforts will proceed with great speed and vigour because this is not the type of issue we can allow anyone the luxury of delaying. It is far too serious and potentially far too dangerous. I am also impressed by the fact that he is actively seeking to enlist the support of the Nordic countries, because on our own, and against Britain and British Nuclear Fuels, we have proved to be very vulnerable and weak in the past. We can only hope to succeed in the future if we have a very strong Euro-based initiative at a legal level and very strong support from other countries at a moral and legal level. I commend the Minister of State for the action he is taking on those two fronts.
The issue of falsified reports on a matter as potentially dangerous as Sellafield needs to be examined very carefully at international level. Pollution knows no bounds. It is not a respector of national territories or borders. The policing and monitoring of pollution must happen at least at a Euro-based level. Britain can never again be trusted, no matter what promises are made, on foot of the findings of these three reports. It can never again be trusted to police itself on this issue. A European-based or other international body must be put in place to oversee, monitor and police this industry. It must be absolutely independent and immune to any economic argument or any other argument.
I recall ten years ago talking about Sellafield and being told it provided so many jobs that there was no point in seeking its closure. The economic argument must not be an element in this very serious and contentious issue. A strong independent body, which will have the capacity and legal force to oversee what happens at Sellafield from now on, must be put in place. It is the wish and will of every Member of this House, and of every citizen of this country, that Sellafield and all its ancillary activities are brought to full closure and total elimination and that the residue of the operation that has been taking place there since 1956 be dealt with in accordance with the best technologies available. Sellafield has given us the strongest weapon to date by way of the scandalous and disgraceful manner in which it deliberately falsified the most serious reports on life-threatening materials. It has put itself past the point where it will be tolerated by right-minded and right thinking people.
I commend the Minister of State and ask him to keep up the pace and urgency in seeking a complete closure of Sellafield. This great work will have been accelerated by what he has done to date.
I welcome the Minister of State and particularly the opportunity to debate this topic. I know his heart is in the right place and I watched him on British television last night. As he comes from County Wicklow and lives near the Irish Sea he is, therefore, affected by this issue. My grandfather and father came from the coast of County Down, just across the sea from Sellafield. My first business was in Dundalk and I live in Howth, on the sea, just across the road from Sellafield. The concerns of ordinary people in all these areas put this issue very high on the agenda. I believe we have not done nearly enough. The time for ritual-hand wringing about Sellafield is now surely past. The time is past for being fobbed off by lies by one government and ineffectual rhetorical gestures from another. I sense the patience of the Irish people has been finally exhausted. I gather this from the Minister of State and the speakers here today. It is up to both Governments to realise this and act accordingly.
The recent report from the UK Health and Safety Executive proves conclusively what many of us thought all along, and what some people have said consistently for many years. The truth that is now incontrovertible is that the public facade so cleverly erected around Sellafield has been from start to finish a complete tissue of lies. The British Government has been lying through its teeth. What is really significant about this report is not the specific lies and falsifications, but what it tells us about the underlying persistent, deliberate nature and culture of that deception. This culture of deception was not the creation of lazy or incompetent inspectors. Nor was it something that a self-serving management put in place to defend its empire. It was a culture of deception sanctioned by, nodded at and ultimately approved of by the British Government. This report is the final piece that brings the whole house of cards crashing down.
That is not the worst of the story, nor is it the end of the guilty list, because I am going to come closer to home. The most shocking co-conspirator in this affair has not been anyone on the other side of the Irish Sea, it is the Irish Government – not this Government in particular but successive Irish Government that have fiddled with the problem dating back to the days when Sellafield was called Windscale. Let us be frank and honest about this. Despite the consistently mounting concern of ordinary Irish people – I have talked about the areas with which I have been associated – successive Governments of all colours have pulled their punches on this issue. As a country, Ireland has never taken the Sellafield problem seriously enough. It has gone through all the ritual motions of protest, but its body language has sent a totally different message to the British. The consistent message from Irish Governments of all political complexions has been, "Don't worry, we won't rock the boat on this". This is the truth of the matter and this is the reason it must stop. As far as the Irish people are concerned, the game is up. If the Government fails to recognise that fundamental sea-change, that failure will be at its peril.
Why have successive Governments conspired – I use that word purposely – with successive British Governments to sweep this life and death issue under the carpet? The answer is depressingly simple, that is, Northern Ireland. The thinking is simplistic and wrong that we dare not offend the British over Sellafield because it will undermine the relationship we need to have with them over the North. A large cabal of officials in the Irish Government service, mainly in the Department of Foreign Affairs, are simply terrified of upsetting the British and offending them over Sellafield. They believe, totally wrongly, that we cannot be beastly to the British over Sellafield while being lovey-dovey to them over the North. Nothing could be further from the truth. The British themselves specialise in carrying a love-hate relationship with a whole range of international partners. Look around the world at how they handle them. They simply follow their national interests which we should learn to do. They do not trade one off against the other, they fight for their corner in every case, as do the French and the Americans.
We are too nice, or else we have not learned how to do that. As a result, the timid but powerful people who are terrified of offending the British leave a dead hand over the formulation and execution of our policy on Sellafield. No matter what anybody across the Government proposes to do about it, if it is likely to offend the British it gets shot down before it crosses the Irish Sea. The person most to be sympathised with in this sorry saga – which would be farcical if it were not so serious – is the unfortunate person in each Government who becomes the Minister for Sellafield and I watched the Minister last night.
Without exception, these Ministers have been sincere, intelligent, well meaning and very capable. The present Minister is one of the best of a very distinguished band over the years and is very competent. They enter the job with great resolutions and then have the frustration of meeting a brick wall, put in place by people in Ireland, not somebody on the other side of the Irish Sea. Even more frustrating, this is a brick wall that they must not admit even exists, so the pantomime they have to play becomes almost a shadow play.
No matter how great their embarrassment, they have to stand up and read their lines – the lines they know are hollow and which an increasing number of their audience realise are hollow. They stand up and read those lines as though they were part of a play. Every time the show goes out, a vast amount of energy is expended behind the scenes on creating new lines, new bits of stage business, in a vain attempt to convince an increasingly sceptical audience that this time they mean business. Now that time has changed. We have unfortunately seen over the past week or two that the lines have not changed, at least not yet, but the audience has changed. Perhaps they are changing now and I am impressed by the Minister's contribution today. Even the critics will get the message that the game is up. No matter what it says or promises, the British Government is simply no longer credible over Sellafield. The words of Senator O'Dowd, Senator Fitzgerald and the Minister confirm that.
No matter what it says or promises, the Irish Government is simply no longer credible over Sellafield. We have no say over what the British Government may do, so let us concentrate on what the Irish Government can do. The time for words is over and the time for actions has come. This is what the people want and this time they will not be put off. If the Government denies them, the people will find some way of doing the job themselves. The Minister's heart is in the right place but this is the time for action.
I welcome the Minister. This is the nearest thing to a matter of constituency interest for me because for a number of years, for 90 days of the year, I lived 90 miles downwind from Sellafield. It has been a sorry story of mismanagement, deceit and duplicity all that time. I commend the efforts being made by the Minister and the Government and I urge them to redouble them.
There are numerous vested interests in Sellafield. It is an enormous provider of employment in a very depressed part of the north west of England. One of the Ministers dealing with the matter over the years in Whitehall was the nominee of the trade unions and sponsored by the trade unions in Sellafield, which did not unmuddy the waters.
I remember an unhappy and very strange incidence of leukaemia among young adults along the County Down coast in the mid-70s, which was much higher than one would have expected in comparable practices. Sadly the data were not collected in a way which made it easy to analyse and the numbers, while appalling for the families concerned, were overall quite small so it was quite difficult to draw conclusions. There was no doubt that the people along the coast of County Down felt exposed to enormous and unfair risk as a result of emanations from Sellafield over the years. The fishing industry areas of Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie, some of the richest fishing grounds, particularly for prawns, are right in the outfall or the area which can be contaminated by the outfall.
Sellafield has shown abominably bad management over the years; in recent years, it has shown criminally bad management. It is criminal that a public body in particular should falsify the records to show that safety procedures which should have been carried out were not carried out, for which heads should roll. Bad management is endemic in Sellafield which has a culture of carelessness which has been shown up over the years by organisations such as Greenpeace and others. The time for tolerating that has long passed. It is more than an Irish or a UK matter, it is matter of European and wider significance in the protection of the environment.
Before we go into battle too far on that, we should clean up our own act. I am not sure we can put our hand on our heart and say that all the emissions from Irish power stations are not creating acid rain in Scotland, Norway and elsewhere. As well as committing ourselves to this programme, we should initiate an audit and a review of practices, performance and standards in this country as well. I commend the Minister on his concern and his efforts. I hope we do not have to wait until 2020 to have the plant cleaned up because one has to consider the people whose health has already suffered from contamination. There is quite a clear linkage between this form of discharge and higher incidences of quite nasty forms of cancer. The longer it goes on, the more likely it is that more people will contract that or some other disease. I commend the Government on this matter and wish it well.
I welcome the Minister and compliment him on some of the actions he has taken and the remarks made by him in recent times on Sellafield. This issue is one of ongoing public concern countrywide, particularly in the eastern region, from Dublin up to Strangford. It has been raised in the House on numerous occasions by Senators on all sides, particularly by Senators directly affected due to the location of Sellafield.
The most recent events are scandalous. People are shocked that there could be such mismanagement and the deliberate falsification of data in any plant. However, the fact that it took place in a plant which deals with hazardous materials and waste is, as Senator Maurice Hayes said, criminal. There is no other way to describe it. It was only by chance that the Japanese discovered the position when the MOX fuel pellets were about to be loaded into a reactor. Nobody knows what the effects might have been if they had been loaded given the falsified documentation about the mix in the pellets. It is a scandal and, undoubtedly, firm and fast action of a permanent nature must be taken this time.
The sacking of five workers or the resignation of the chief executive officer is not sufficient. This time Sellafield must be closed. Its days are numbered and the Government should be to the forefront of ensuring it is closed. The levels of concern about the plant to date in terms of accidents that have occurred, the release of radioactive waste into the environment and the sea, which affected our fish stocks, and the worries about the incidence of leukaemia and cancer among the population living on the Irish coastline were sufficiently high to justify the closure of Sellafield in the first instance.
However, we have now discovered that Sellafield has not been run in a safe fashion. The Minister of State has grounds for taking legal action against Sellafield, which successive Governments refused to take on the basis that there was insufficient scientific information. The Minister of State should first seek allies in Europe in relation to this matter. A number of other countries fish in the seas around these islands and they must be equally concerned about the mismanagement of the Sellafield facility and the dangers posed by it. In addition, Japan is refusing to accept the fuel pellets and I am sure it would be prepared to come on board. However, Ireland must take the initiative and take a legal test case. I commend the Minister of State's decision to refer the matter to the Attorney General.
The response of the British press has been that Sellafield must clean up its act or face closure. However, this response is not good enough because it is incapable of cleaning up its act. It has shown this over the decades, in the past when it was known as Windscale and since it became Sellafield. Any such facility and management structure which has shown itself incapable of keeping a clean slate should not be given another chance. Sellafield has been given numerous chances and it is not a question of it cleaning up its act or facing closure. It must be closed. This view has been expressed on this side of the Irish Sea in newspaper editorials but the British media has suggested that Sellafield should be given another chance.
It was outrageous of Brian Watson, the head of the Sellafield site, to suggest that nobody is saying that Sellafield is unsafe. We are saying that the plant is unsafe and that we do not believe those in charge have the credibility to make it safe in the future. Ireland has too much at stake in terms of health and the potential for another accident, given the contents of the NII reports regarding the current mismanagement. We must draw the line and say that enough is enough. All sides would support the Minister of State if he decided that he was in a position to take a case to ensure that Sellafield is closed once and for all.
I dtosach báire cuirim fáilte roimh an tAire Stáit chuig an Teach, agus molaim é as ucht an iarracht atá á dhéanamh aige chun an ábhar seo a chuir i bhfeabhas.
There have been a number of debates on Sellafield over the past 12 months, some of which related to possible problems at the start of the millennium. I compliment the Minister of State on the initiatives he took to ensure cognisance was taken of the concerns expressed regarding Y2K difficulties that may have arisen. I also compliment the Minister of State on the promptness with which he dealt with the most recent issue at Sellafield. The views of Members generally with regard to Sellafield and the risk it poses, particularly to the north eastern part of the island, are well documented. The Minister of State moved swiftly and called for the closure of the plant.
It is a pity that the response of the British authorities was not commensurate with the seriousness of the situation or the Minister of State's concerns. I compliment him on arranging for representatives of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland to meet their counterparts in Britain to highlight the serious threat we felt we face and to discuss how the matter was to be addressed. There have been many alarming instances in the past which, as the Minister of State pointed out, were dealt with in a good public relations manner as far as the company was concerned. However, when one considers the consequences of a serious mishap at Sellafield, the inadequacy of the response to date beggars belief.
It is a little over a decade since the Chernobyl disaster which had serious consequences for people living in the vicinity. Undoubtedly, many of the cases of cancer in Ireland and other parts of Europe have their genesis in that accident. It took a week or more for the managing director of BNFL to take the only course open to him and resign because of the falsification of records, which are important to any business operation but fundamental in a nuclear power plant where an accident could have catastrophic effects. However, I am mystified as to why it is only the managing director who fell on his sword. It is obvious others in the organisation are as culpable. The director of any company carries overall responsibility. Therefore, if something goes wrong with people to whom he has delegated areas of activity or responsibility he must accept the consequences. There is no doubt there are others in BNFL who should follow his lead in resigning.
I fail to understand why the British authorities are not pursuing people legally. Surely negligence is always a matter of legal liability. Not only negligence, but the falsification of records over a three to five year period in a plant such as this raises the most serious issues regarding the integrity of its operation. It would be totally unacceptable if the British authorities did not pursue management. Perhaps there are state agencies there, whose responsibility was to ensure that regulations and legislation were complied with and to ascertain the methodology of falsifying the records over a prolonged period. They must also take responsibility and be dealt with accordingly.
It is necessary to enlist the support of member states in the European Union to act on the nuclear industry. I have grave reservations about the operations in many of the plants but where there is proven falsification, such as this, it should be met with the stiffest legal remedies. If an accident had occurred as a result of such operation I have no doubt those involved would be called to account. Is the law implemented only when dire consequences result from illegal activity in the mismanagement of the plants, or should it be triggered when it is known to the public and the authorities, who are charged with responsibility for the operation, that it has happened?
This House should support the Minister of State in his unstinting efforts. Each time he has come before the House all sides have recognised his interest and commitment in dealing with this issue which is of major concern, and rightly so, to a large section of the population here and across Europe. We must ensure where there is not application of the highest possible standards that the only alternative is closure. This should not fall short of people being held to account through the legal system for any activities they undertake which puts the health of a large section of the population at serious risk.
This is a serious issue which we have discussed it in the House before. I remember the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, and his predecessors telling the Seanad it was not possible to mount a case against the British Government because of the lack of a legal basis and firm scientific evidence, but it seems to me that we have advanced considerably because of the recent disclosures. I am of the view that the House will support him in taking the firmest and most vigorous action because nuclear radiation is one of the most insidious forms of the penetration of national barriers. We do not see it, smell it or taste it but it is there operating against the health of the people. We are right to be concerned.
We have taken a public posture but now we must put teeth into that posture. I remind the House that the Nordic countries, the Icelanders for example, who are considerably removed from the source of the dangers, except through the currents of air and water that come up against their landmass, have been much more aggressive than us. I note the Minister of State shaking his head but that is the perception. Perhaps it is incorrect and, if so, I am glad. I seem to see a much more vigorous position taken by them.
I note my colleague, Senator Quinn, suggested there might be a political dimension to this and that there is a relationship to Northern Ireland. I hope that is not true because I think the matters are unconnected and should remain so as a matter of policy.
I wish to refer to a couple of matters in the Minister of State's speech. The most significant matter is the reprocessing because that is where much of the danger lies. I am not sure that it will survive economically because many of the customer countries have expressed concern and appear to be on the point of withdrawing their business. It is highly dangerous because, as the Minister of State has pointed out, the reprocessing industry separates more plutonium than the nuclear power industry is able to absorb and there is a continuing accretion of this dangerous material as a result of the industrial processes there.
The question of falsification is very worrying and we always knew that. We have seen spokespersons of British Nuclear Fuels put out time and again barefacedly to lie to the British and Irish public and the international community. It is no less than a thundering disgrace that these people in positions of responsibility and authority should so calmly and glibly have reassured people on the basis of material they knew to be wrong. That is a betrayal of the trust of the public.
The Minister said the report of the inspection makes 28 recommendations for improvement in safety management which the NII require BNFL to undertake to ensure the Sellafield site "remains safe". I am sure that was a slip of the pen. "Remains safe"– does anybody imagine that the bloody thing has ever been safe? I certainly never thought it was, not since the days it was called Windscale and it blew up. Nobody has ever regarded it as safe and this makes it perfectly clear that it is not only not safe, it is positively dangerous. The people in control, those at the top, were covering up and the workers were so bored – that was the word used – they did not carry out the requisite checks and exposed the surrounding community and this island to very considerable danger, through human boredom. Their boredom would end pretty quickly if they continue this practice because there will certainly be a disaster of the scale of Chernobyl. Now we have a warning of it and warning of human error.
I remember when the Chernobyl accident occurred we were told about out-of-date reactors that were inadequately and amateurishly supervised. We assumed in our innocence and were led to believe that this cavalier quality of dealing with nuclear radiation was something attributable to the Russians, a kind of corruption of the Soviet regime, not the kind of thing that could happen in a nice tidy, neat, well-regulated scientific western community. Yet here it is. People are so bored that they neglect the most basic elements of the safety procedures. I do not accept that anything they do will make it remain safe because nobody believes it is safe. On 27 February, the chief inspector insisted it was safe. Nobody believes that. The international customers, who are a pretty hard-headed bunch, know it is not safe.
The Minister of State, who has had meetings with Mrs. Liddell, the British Minister, is a diplomatic and charming man as the House is well aware. I hope he will be able to overcome these disabilities when dealing with British Ministers because they do not understand politeness, they think it is servility. What they need is a good kick in their MOX pellets, for want of a better word. The Minister says he respects the seriousness with which the UK Government is treating this matter. The UK Government is not treating this matter seriously or, if it is, it is a very recent development.
We know that the Irish Sea is the most radioactive sea in the world. What a lovely present from our big neighbour. The stories of three headed fish are probably urban myths but people are seriously concerned about the danger of eating fish from the Irish Sea. Good middle aged Dubliners like myself used to relish the prospect of a Dublin Bay prawn. Now people are afraid of them because they fear they may be dangerous to health.
Some time ago this House urged the Government to support a group of women from the Dundalk area whose children had mental impairments. There was a considerable increase in the incidence of Down's syndrome in that area and this House urged the Government to give the women financial help to take a case against the British Government. That did not happen although the Minister, I believe, met the women. It is extremely difficult, scientifically, to prove causation. However, people know in their bones that the increase in certain types of cancer and in certain rates of mental retardation among children, because they follow the same geographic pattern as the spread of discharges from Sellafield, are related to the poisons emitted by the Sellafield plant.
It is disgraceful for the British Government to introduce the argument of employment. Of course the people who get employment in the plant or in related industries might feel the pinch if the place were closed down but that would be a small price to pay for the well being of people on both islands. It would be an outrageous example of disproportion if the British Government were to suggest that, in order to keep the employment of a couple of thousand people, it would prejudice the health of a large population on these islands and throughout Europe.
This is a very serious debate. No one welcomes the continuing discharge of radioactive effluent, the continuing reprocessing and the creation of materials which are dangerous and cannot be properly disposed of. I hope the Minister will, as actively as possible, do battle with those who are fiddling with safety precautions and belatedly implementing ineffective safety procedures. Every Member of this House and the overwhelming majority of people in the country want the whole blasted thing closed down before it does enormously widespread and irrevocable damage.
I thank the Senators who contributed to the debate. Some were more than a little irate and I share that mood. The terms outrageous and disgraceful were heard from several speakers from Senator O'Dowd to Senator Norris. I thank Senators for their promised support in the continuing and escalating campaign against Sellafield. I assure Deputy Norris and Deputy Quinn—
I think the Minister means the Senators.
Forgive me Senators. I forget I am in the Upper House.
We are prepared to accept the demotion if it is accompanied by the appropriate increase in salary.
Senator Quinn's Northern Ireland theory is very attractive and I can see how he might have arrived at it. However, there are no trade-offs between the Northern Ireland situation and the campaign against Sellafield. There is no timidity in my approach. I promise Senator Norris and others an increasingly robust approach henceforth. The only constraint arises from the difficulty in finding an international legal avenue through which we can pursue this matter. I am endeavouring to find such an avenue with the help of the Attorney General's office.
Acting Chairman
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday next.