Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Oct 2001

Vol. 168 No. 4

MOX Plant at Sellafield: Statements.

I have been to the House on a number of occasions to debate this subject with Senators. I welcomed it then and welcome this occasion even more so in the light of recent happenings. Senators will recall that the last time I addressed a debate in the House concerning Sellafield was in March 2000. That debate took place in the immediate aftermath of the publication of three reports on Sellafield by the United Kingdom Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, including a report on the falsification of safety related data relating to MOX fuel manufactured at Sellafield's MOX demonstration facility and a report on the control and supervision of operations at Sellafield.

Those reports by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate were severely critical of safety standards at Sellafield. They, effectively, reinforced the already long held concerns of this and pre vious Irish Governments about the safety of the Sellafield operations and the steadfast view of the Irish Government that the Sellafield plant should be shut down.

The Government is totally opposed to the continued operation and any expansion of the Sellafield plant. Since taking office I have spared no effort in making known to the relevant UK Ministers, both in face to face meetings and in correspondence, the concerns of the Irish Government about Sellafield. The Government's concerns about existing operations at Sellafield relate mainly to: the management of safety at the site; the storage in liquid form of high level radioactive waste; the continued reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at the site; the continued operation of the old Magnox reactors; the discharge of radioactive waste to the sea; and the risk of a catastrophic accident.

A dominant theme of the Government's campaign against Sellafield has been the genuine fear of an accident at the site. The multiplicity of existing operations at Sellafield increases the risk of a major accident. This risk has now become much more acute in the light of the horrific events of 11 September.

I need hardly remind the House of the Government's dismay and anger at the announcement last week by the UK Government that it has given the go ahead to the Sellafield mixed oxide or MOX fuel fabrication plant. At a time of heightened tensions around the world arising from terrorist threats and when one would have expected countries with nuclear installations to consider the very real threat to safety and security, I find the UK Government's decision, which will effectively result in an expansion of operations at Sellafield, difficult to comprehend.

British Nuclear Fuel's proposals to establish a MOX fuel production plant at Sellafield date back to the early 1990s when it first applied for planning permission to construct the facility. Ireland objected strongly to the project at that time but planning permission for the plant was granted in 1994. Construction of the MOX plant was actually completed in 1998 at a cost of over £300 million and I understand that capital expenditure of some £450 million has already been injected into the project.

In 1996, BNFL applied to the UK Environment Agency for approval to operate the plant. It is amazing that this approval was sought so late in the life of the project. Since then, the BNFL application has been the subject of no less than five public consultations held by the UK authorities and Ministers – the most recent of which was completed in August 2001. The Irish Government has strongly and consistently opposed the commissioning of the MOX plant and its concerns about this plant have been conveyed to the UK authorities in every possible manner and in our responses to each of the five separate rounds of public consultation over the period 1997 to 2001.

The MOX fuel to be produced at Sellafield would be made from uranium and plutonium material separated from spent fuel which is reprocessed mainly in BNFL's thermal oxide reprocessing plant or THORP as it is better known. Therefore, the production of MOX fuel is part of the spent nuclear fuel reprocessing industry at Sellafield. Ireland is strongly opposed to nuclear reprocessing activities which generate gaseous and liquid radioactive discharges which contaminate the terrestrial and marine environment. Furthermore, the resulting production of plutonium creates an unnecessary risk that plutonium could be diverted for nuclear weapons production or terrorist activity.

Even countries with nuclear programmes are questioning the merits of reprocessing on economic and safety grounds. The nuclear spent fuel reprocessing industry is now separating more plutonium than the nuclear industry is able to absorb. Sellafield now has a stockpile of plutonium which presents a potential risk to existing and future generations. The existence of such a large stockpile demonstrates how ill-advised it is to persist with reprocessing. The commissioning of the MOX plant will add even further to the multiplicity of operations already at Sellafield, thereby increasing the risk of an accident. It will increase the volume of world-wide transport of MOX fuel with obvious additional volume of traffic in the Irish Sea, thus posing an unacceptable safety and security risk as well as the potential for a major accident or terrorist attack.

It will also perpetuate nuclear reprocessing activities at Sellafield and add to radioactive discharges into the Irish Sea. While I am advised that the increase in discharges associated with the MOX plant is likely to be small, any contamination whatsoever of our marine environment is objectionable and unacceptable. The Government sees no justification whatsoever for the MOX plant and will do everything possible to bring about a reversal of the UK Government's decision of last week. The Irish Government has already initiated legal action against the UK under the OSPAR Convention in regard to the MOX plant. The Government's legal action began in June this year and relates to the fact that the UK, on grounds of commercial confidentiality, withheld pertinent information essential to assessing the economic justification of the MOX plant. This action is proceeding on schedule and an arbitration tribunal is in the process of being established under the OSPAR Convention to consider the case.

I had specifically requested the UK not to take any decision on the MOX plant while the arbitration process was in train. However, the UK did not accede to my request and instead have taken the decision to give the go-ahead to the plant, a decision which is totally unacceptable to Ireland and difficult to fathom, particularly in the current climate of heightened terrorist threats. In my responses to the public consultations held by the UK, I had made it clear that the information being made available to the public in the consultation papers was inadequate and insufficient to assess or support the economic justification of the MOX plant. I had repeatedly demanded, without success, full release of the information withheld by the UK which purports to support the economic justification of the plant.

At this stage, the Government has exhausted all efforts at a bilateral level with the UK in trying to stop this plant being commissioned. The next step as far as the Government is concerned is to pursue the legal route. I understand that it will be some time before the MOX plant is fully commissioned. In the meantime, the Government will, in tandem with the legal action already proceeding under OSPAR, now press ahead with a view to finalising consideration of all legal options under both EU and UN law. Consideration of these legal options is already well advanced and, based on our best legal advice, the optimum path for proceeding from here will be determined and pursued.

The Government does not accept the UK Government's decision that the MOX plant is justified. Indeed, in announcing its decision to give the go-ahead to the plant, the UK Government said that some 2,000 of the 9,000 respondents to the consultation process were against the proposed commissioning of the plant. Apart from the depth of economic data and information deleted from the UK's public consultation documents relating to the plant, the Irish Government cannot accept an economic analysis which writes off capital costs of some £450 million already injected into the project. Furthermore, there must be serious question marks about the projected markets for MOX fuel, notably in respect of the Japanese and German markets which are identified by BNFL as the primary markets for MOX. Germany has already announced that it is phasing out nuclear power. Japan has its own plans to produce MOX fuel which would further reduce the demand for MOX fuel from Sellafield.

Last year I met the German ambassador to Ireland and informed him of the Government's concerns about the MOX project. In addition, our ambassador to Japan also met an official in the Japanese foreign ministry and expressed similar concerns. Our aim was to address the main markets in Japan and Germany and point out the concerns that pertained in Ireland. It is difficult to see, based on any reasonable commercial principles, how a project for which firm contracts amount to only 11% of output can be said to be economically justified.

It is unthinkable that the UK Government should, at this point, allow BNFL to expand its present operations, when the company, only some 18 months ago, was the subject of what can only be described as a damning report by the UK nuclear installations inspectorate into its safety standards and safety management. As I understand it, very few of the 28 recommendations for safety improvement contained in the inspectorate's report of February 2000 on the control and supervision of operations at Sellafield have been implemented to date. Such a situation does not inspire confidence for the safety of an expanded Sellafield operation.

The future of nuclear power worldwide remains highly uncertain. Some countries have decided to reject nuclear power. On the other hand, arising from concerns about global warming, climate change and the need for sustainable development in energy, Ireland is acutely aware that some Governments, international organisations and other stakeholders see these concerns as an appropriate basis on which to re-launch and re-invigorate the nuclear solution as a response measure. Ireland is firmly of the view that nuclear energy is incompatible with the objectives of sustainable development, principally because of the real risks which nuclear energy continues to present in terms of security and safety, such as the transport of nuclear materials, radioactive waste and spent fuel management, environmental contamination and increased proliferation risks.

The Irish Government believes that the suggestion that nuclear technology might be a solution to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions does not hold merit because of the dangers which I have outlined above. The awful effects of nuclear accidents are well known. Such accidents do not respect international boundaries and countries which have rejected nuclear energy should not be exposed to such risks. It is our firm view that the risks posed by nuclear energy should always mean that it has no role to play in any sustainable development policy. At a time when some developed countries, including some of the world's most advanced countries, are phasing out their nuclear installations, Ireland would be concerned if developing countries were encouraged to develop nuclear industries as part of their energy mix and their efforts to strengthen their economies. It would be a mistake to encourage this approach. I made Ireland's views in this regard very clear at meetings of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development and the International Energy Agency earlier this year.

The terrible events of 11 September have highlighted new security risks which were previously unimagined. These events show that the onus is on those countries with nuclear installations to protect them from attack. They have a duty to do everything possible to protect their dangerous installations, irrespective of the cost of doing so. It is unthinkable that they should authorise new installations until they have successfully addressed these issues.

Concern about terrorist attacks on Sellafield or other nuclear plants has raised public concern about our preparedness to deal with the consequences of a nuclear incident. The Department of Public Enterprise, in conjunction with the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII) has primary responsibility for emergency planning for nuclear accidents. A national emergency plan for nuclear accidents is in place to ensure a rapid and effective response to accidents involving the release, or potential release, of radioactive substances into the environment, which could result in exposure of the public to radiation. The plan is designed to cater for a major disaster at a nuclear installation in another country, which would result in radioactive contamination reaching Ireland.

I should point out that the plan is not designed to deal with a direct nuclear attack on Ireland, but obviously a number of the arrangements and measures in the plan would be relevant in such a scenario. The plan provides a structure for the management of the effects of such an accident, under the overall direction of a committee of Government Ministers. It outlines the measures which are in place to assess and mitigate the effects of nuclear accidents. It also describes the early warning systems operated by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the European Union for alerting states to any radiological accident, and shows how accident management will operate, how technical information and radioactivity monitoring data will be collected, how public information will be provided, and what measures may be taken for the protection of the public in the short and long-term.

Once the plan is triggered, the emergency response co-ordination committee goes into immediate session in a central control room. Armed with information from the RPII and other agencies, notably Met Éireann, because prevailing weather conditions will play a vital role, this committee, comprising representatives of key Government Departments and State agencies, will decide on, and co-ordinate, the implementation of counter-measures and public safety advice.

Providing accurate information and advice to the public is of major importance. Information will be released throughout the course of the emergency by the RPII using national radio and television and the Internet. We are concerned with a nuclear accident, not an attack, so normal methods of communication will remain operational. The public should stay tuned to bulletins which will provide information and best advice on a frequent basis.

If there was a nuclear accident, at Sellafield for example, even if the wind was blowing in our direction the contamination would take some period of time to arrive here. That period can be estimated and taken advantage of. The areas most likely to be affected may be identified. It would be unusual if the entire country was affected in the same way. There would be time, for example, to put animals indoors and perhaps to take limited steps to protect their fields, in order to protect the food chain.

The Department of Public Enterprise has overall responsibility for the nuclear emergency plan, and for ensuring the co-ordination of the responsibilities and functions of the relevant Government Departments and statutory organisations. These have responsibilities under the plan to establish procedures for implementing measures within their own particular fields of competence, including integration, where appropriate, with emergency services already provided for other civil emergencies.

The national emergency plan which is currently in the public domain dates back to 1992. Since then the plan has been reviewed, and a number of refinements and improvements to the plan have been introduced. I hasten to add that the updating of the plan has nothing to do with the appalling events in the USA. Emergency plans, by their nature, are subject to continuous review and updating as appropriate. Our nuclear emergency plan is a product of years of learning and review. It is not the plan of any particular Minister, and not my plan. It represents the accumulated input of energy Ministers through the years. For example, it was improved dramatically using the lessons learned from the Chernobyl accident. The monitoring stations around the coast are a direct legacy from that time. The current plan, published in 1992, has been undergoing review and testing for the last two years, and an updated plan will be ready for publication towards the end of the year.

The changes for the plan are largely institutional in nature, and are designed to streamline administrative arrangements, and to reflect advances in science, technology and meteorology. They are designed to ensure prompt and effective analysis of any emergency and prompt communications to the public and to key players concerning risk analysis and recommended counter-measures. The plan has been the subject of independent evaluation and a full-scale exercise of the plan will take place early next month. The exercise, based on a simulated accident abroad, has been planned within the Department, in conjunction with other Departments, for two years. It has been worked on intensively for the last twelve months, and independent consultants were brought in to advise on the most appropriate and user-friendly plan. I intend to publish the updated plan in the near future and to deliver a fact sheet drawn from the plan to every household in the country.

This House should be assured of the Government's strong resolve to remove the threat to Ireland posed by the Sellafield plant. To encourage the cessation of all activities at Sellafield remains a priority for the Government and we will pursue every diplomatic and legal means of achieving this. More immediately, our action to prevent operation of the MOX plant is proceeding.

I wish to share my time with Senator Caffrey. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise, Deputy Jacob. This is a very serious issue and he has addressed in his speech the major points of concern. The State is very well served by Dr. Tom O'Flaherty and his team in the RPII, and also by the very committed and dedicated staff in the Department of Public Enterprise. A joint approach is required on this issue – there is, and should be, no political division in this debate. If we have differences, they are differences in terms of the scale of the response, not on the fundamental issues, about which there is deep concern.

I live in County Louth. If there were a nuclear accident in Sellafield, and if the wind were blowing in the right direction, County Louth would be one of the first places affected. I am not satisfied that we are sufficiently alert to deal with this issue. A further debate is needed at local level to get the Garda, Civil Defence and other bodies together in order that they can follow through on the national plan, which is being refined by the Minister of State and his Department. I am calling for that and ask that the Minister of State insist with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government that it be done, particularly on the east coast, County Louth in particular, where there is deep concern.

I spoke to a mother yesterday morning in a coffee shop and told her we would be talking about Sellafield. She said her 13 year old daughter cannot sleep at night because she is worried about Sellafield, as are her friends. She explained that her daughter was afraid to go to sleep or to school; that is the reality for this girl and her family. We have a responsibility as a State to tell all the facts about Sellafield clearly. I am concerned about the tabloidisation, if that is the correct word to use, of this issue and the scaremongering in the national media, which is unwelcome.

What we want are the facts, not scaremongering. The reality is that if there is an accident at Sellafield and the reaction is bad enough, it will destroy not just this country, but the whole western world. The accident in Chernobyl was a serious explosion in a reactor, which had and continues to have an effect on our society. We must deal with the reality. How safe is Sellafield and how do we determine how safe it is? That is the real debate. The history of British Nuclear Fuels and the management of the plant from the days of the explosion at Windscale, renamed as Sellafield, right down to the falsification of data in the plant at a fundamental level, bring the integrity of all operations there into question. The only way we can have an overview of those operations is by insisting, as a State, that we have our people present there in an inspectorate while the plant continues to operate. We should have our own inspectorate present in the plant to identify what the reality is from its perspective and what the information deficit is, if any. We need total transparency and openness about what is happening at the plant which we do not have.

Clearly, those working at a high level in Sellafield discovered fabrication and falsification of information and, in fairness, it was through the nuclear inspectorate that this was brought to the attention of the company. However, I remain deeply unhappy about and suspicious of operations there. We should do what we should have done last week: call the British ambassador into the Taoiseach's office and tell him how we feel. I accept the Minister of State has done his best and that the Taoiseach has spoken by telephone with Tony Blair, but that is not good enough. The most forceful way we can bring our fears to the attention of the British Government is directly through the British ambassador and via a face to face meeting between the Taoiseach and Tony Blair.

A clip of Tony Blair's election campaign was broadcast on television last week in which he said it was not the intention of his Government to expand the nuclear industry in Britain. That was clear, concise and factual, but clearly, in view of what has happened since, it was a pack of lies. The reality is that what the British Prime Minister said is totally and absolutely false and that they intend to expand operations there. We must nail this lie, but we must also nail the facts. The facts are that they have and are expanding operations. That is and will continue to be a matter of the deepest and most serious concern for our society.

What is the benefit of Sellafield for our country? We get absolutely zero. There is no benefit to this country from the plant. What we get is worry, not just among the children of whom I spoke. Cancer is on the increase all over the western world and that is particularly true in County Louth. People are concerned that pollution of the Irish Sea from Sellafield during the years has caused contamination in the food chain. There is no clear empirical medical evidence to prove that is so, but that is what people believe.

There is a big job here for the Government, Opposition and society as a whole. We must ensure this plant is closed. We stand behind the Government, but we want it's response to be firmer and much more aggressive on the issue. Our environment is the most important thing to us and I fault the Government's policy of placing toxic incinerators in my county, where dioxins will poison people if the incinerators are built. Our environment is number one and we must protect it at all costs. Our agricultural exports and food production will be affected if there is an operational accident at Sellafield. The key worry for the girl who may not sleep tonight is the possibility of terrorists taking over the plant or crashing God knows what into it. If it can be done, these people will do it. Sellafield has the potential to kill millions of people, not just on our east coast. We must be alert to this. We must make sure British Nuclear Fuels and the British Government are kept on their toes day and night on this issue. That is what we must do.

We must have balance in reporting this issue. Dick Ahlstrom wrote a very useful and pertinent article in The Irish Times about the realities of a terrorist attack on Sellafield and how he perceived the scale of danger. We need views like that expressed, but I am worried about the unnecessary fears being created, particularly among children. We must do everything we can to reassure them. I accept what the Minister of State and Tom O'Flaherty said, that there is a plan in place which is being refined, but it is not being refined enough. The distillation of views is not percolating to the grass roots, though the Minister of State's leaflet may do the job. That will not be enough, as we need a more proactive, public campaign. The reality is that in the world in which we live, after the twin towers disaster, we cannot afford to be laid back. We must be aggressive and at the cutting edge. Above all else we must ensure this plant is closed; the Government must take any steps it can to do so and we will support it.

I welcome the Minister of State and his reassuring, comprehensive address. Nevertheless, when we look at the events of 11 September, we can only see how helpless the vast resources of New York were in the face of the enormity of those events. The resources available were incredible, as was the human effort put in by firemen and others. However, people just sat down helplessly and watched the drama unfold before them. While the Minister of State's speech was reassuring in many ways, we, in this country, would be in a similar position with the type of plan envisaged by the Government. Everyone would be doing their best, but would be looking on helplessly at the enormity of what was unfolding before them.

Planning permission was granted in 1994 for the MOX facility, an extension to the Sellafield nuclear power station. It is ironic that although Irish farmers cannot obtain planning permission to cut turf on their bogs, this monstrosity was granted planning permission only 80 miles away from Ireland. That is what springs to mind when one considers what recourse is available to us through EU law. The Government has opted for the legal route at this juncture as there is no other option open to it. If I could draw an analogy, the Sellafield plant is like a neighbour's vicious dog. We have warned its owner and now must finally resort to court.

Nuclear power stations are sleeping monsters which are fine as long as they are not disturbed. The twin towers of the World Trade Centre were peaceful monuments to civilisation but were destroyed even though they did not pose a threat. Without wishing to scaremonger, the capacity for an accident at Sellafield is very real in light of the existence of the bin Laden DIY school of destruction. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that these demented people will consider other means of pursuing their twisted agendas.

Sellafield has posed problems for Ireland over the years. There is evidence that the incidence of cancer has increased along the east coast and that pollution levels in the Irish Sea have also increased. The finger points to Sellafield. Marine life and other aspects of our environment are endangered. It is important that we are vociferous in our opposition to this facility at Sellafield. Sellafield does not have a good record. Figures on reprocessing were distorted some years ago and the chief executive had to resign, after which a new management team was put in place. Nevertheless, doubts remain about this monster on our doorstep which we must ensure is removed.

In tandem with the Government's approach, the Green Party and other environmental activists are attempting to bring a case against Sellafield. We must continue to exert pressure in this area and support all those involved in the effort to prevent the commissioning of this facility. Following the events of 11 September, we must view everything in a new light. Prior to that date, we viewed Sellafield as posing a threat to our environment and were concerned at the possibility of a serious accident such as that which occurred in Chernobyl. We must now consider the possibility of a terrorist attack on Sellafield. This prospect has stirred people's imaginations and has frightened many ordinary people throughout the country.

It is incredible that planning permission for this facility was granted in 1994 and that the British Government has now granted it a licence to go into production, particularly given that all the indications from technical experts and analysts are that the market for nuclear energy will not exist in the near future. Germany intends to phase out its nuclear capacity altogether. New technology has created myriad energy production possibilities such as wave and solar energy. These energy sources could be successfully harnessed without great risk to our environment or to human life. In its efforts to get the MOX facility up and running, the British Government seems oblivious to the potential hazards to people in this country and on the British mainland.

Irish farmers are aghast that they cannot work their own land without being subject to all manner of EU directives. Legislation must be tightened up to ensure there is no repetition of what happened at Sellafield. There are several nuclear power stations in Britain and the British Government has not given an indication that it will phase out its nuclear capacity. We must maintain the momentum on this issue. The Government is correct to pursue all legal and other avenues to ensure this facility does not go into production.

I welcome the Minister to the House for this debate following the decision of the British Government to sanction the commissioning of the proposed MOX facility at Sellafield. I commend the Minister on his hard-hitting, uncompromising contribution and the up-front manner in which he outlined the Government's determination and that of the RPII to pursue this matter vigorously and prevent the MOX development proceeding. I compliment Senators O'Dowd and Caffrey on their approach to the debate on this issue about which there is unanimity in these Houses and throughout the country.

The Taoiseach categorically assured us in recent weeks, as did the Minister of State, that all options, including the OSPAR Convention and a challenge through the European Court of Justice, will be vigorously pursued to ensure the facility does not proceed. Previous speakers referred to the ongoing intensive lobbying of our EU partners, Nordic countries and others to turn up the heat internationally on Britain. We must increase the vigour of our efforts in this regard. All Irish parliamentarians and citizens unequivocally support the Government on this issue. Sellafield represents a clear and unacceptable danger to the Irish people, to marine life and to the environment. In light of a disastrous history of repeated leaks, accidents and safety failures at the plant, a sinister and pervasive culture of secrecy on the part of BNFL, constant deception and a slick presentation of propaganda relating to the nuclear industry in general, we must call for the complete shut-down of Sellafield as the only action to meet our legitimate concerns. The decision to sanction a new phase of nuclear processing at Sellafield at any time, given the plant's notorious and abominable record, represents at the very least the most cynical contempt for our legitimate concerns about activity occurring a few short miles from our coastline.

Not only is Ireland Britain's nearest neighbour, it is its friendly neighbour. Taken against the background of the horrific events of 11 September in the United States, the decision to proceed with MOX shows what amounts to criminal and reckless disregard for the lives of people, not only in Ireland and Britain but internationally as well. The decision totally ignores the warning from Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, who spoke recently about exposure to increased risk of terrorism involving nuclear weapons. A leading scientist, Dr. Frank Barnaby of the Oxford Research Group, felt duty bound to state publicly that the proposed new nuclear reprocessing plant could be a prime target for a terrorist attack. Some people will state that we did not need him to point that out but nonetheless, as a leading academic in the area of science, Dr. Barnaby has unequivocally and unambiguously stated that Sellafield poses a major threat to this country because it is a prime target for a terrorist attack.

Dr. Barnaby, in very strong language for a scientist, accused the British Government of gross stupidity and irresponsibility in granting BNFL permission to open a mixed oxide fuel plant on the site. He pointed out that plutonium from a MOX plant can be used to produce nuclear explosives and stated that if terrorists obtained MOX materials they could easily chemically separate the plutonium and uranium oxides and use the former to make a crude nuclear explosive. He made it clear that very little expertise is required to produce such an explosive and indicated that MOX is particularly vulnerable to terrorist acquisition, particularly during transportation. When asked about the possibility of a terrorist flying a plane into Sellafield, an event to which Senators O'Dowd and Caffrey and the Minister of State referred, Dr. Barnaby stated that he saw this as a major and real threat. He said that such an attack would have devastating contamination consequences for a very wide area. Some of the self-appointed experts in the media, who have absolutely no background in science, had the presumption and the gall to try to play down Dr. Barnaby's comments.

While I agree entirely with Senators O'Dowd and Caffrey that we should not hype this issue out of all proportion and generate unnecessary fear throughout the country, we must accept that the scientific facts bear out Dr. Barnaby's words. He indicated that there would be devastating contamination over a wide region and, in particular, the east coast of Ireland which is the area most adjacent to Sellafield. Dr. Barnaby regards the potential consequences as a legitimate fear and, from his scientific perspective, this decision simply beggars belief.

There is another curious dimension to this matter – it would be curious if it was not so serious. The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in a world-view statement on Tuesday, 25 September, emphasised that the lesson of the financial markets, climate change, international terrorism, nuclear proliferation and worldwide trade was that "Our self interests, and our mutual self-interests, are today inextricably woven together." What a laudable and commendable observation from a highly enthusiastic, self-promoting world statesman – there is nothing wrong with that – pondering the significance of rapidly evolving globalisation. A simple interpretation on my part, very humbly put, of his words can raise a warm feeling of acknowledgement, friendship and connectivity among states from the perspective of a statesman representing a superpower casting his fond gaze and his fatherly eye over his less powerful neighbouring states.

What a shame these same mutual self-interests were not accorded an appropriate place in his Government's decision on Sellafield, which followed within days of the now famous statement on mutual self-interests. For the past three years, five Nordic countries – Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden – have been seeking the closure of Sellafield under the OSPAR Convention, which requires all 15 member states, including Britain, to take all possible steps to prevent and eliminate marine pollution. The Nordic states took this aggressive stance because studies had shown that currents brought radioactivity from the Irish Sea into their most important fishing grounds. They received some response last week from the self-appointed world statesman on mutual self-interests.

Let us turn to our more immediate and pressing concerns in Ireland. When an abominably treacherous decision – I cannot describe it in milder terms – of this nature is taken by Britain against Ireland, its nearest friendly neighbour, the Irish public and politicians might quite legitimately question the actions and decision of successive Governments and Ministers and the effectiveness or otherwise thereof. As part of that legitimate process, some accusations and allegations have been unfairly levelled at the Minister of State and the Government, mainly in the Lower House and the media, about actions taken to prevent a decision such as that recently taken by the British Government. To conveniently blame the Minister of State or the Government in this instance for what has happened is to totally miss the point of what is at issue.

In the first instance, the justification put forward by the British for the decision to commission the MOX plant – this would be funny if it was not so serious – after a five year delay and five public consultation processes, which, as we know, were not entered into voluntarily, is a simple, economic one. No genuine attempt whatsoever was made to put forward a strong economic justification or otherwise for the decision. The British Government stated that it was based on an assessment which found that it would cost more to mothball the project than to operate it. Such a response to our major and legitimate concerns on this side of the Irish Sea – we live literally a few short miles from the site in question – is pathetically inept. In more sinister terms, it is also cynically and despicably arrogant. How could any fair-minded state, even half conscious of the implications of mutual self-interests let alone internationally binding obligations freely entered into by signatory states, perpetrate such a bullying and treacherous action on its immediate neighbour? Not only does it "beggar belief", in the words of the eminent scientist, Dr. Barnaby, it seriously challenges the notion that the British are genuinely serious about continuing to foster good Anglo-Irish relations.

I am satisfied the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, and the Government can stand proudly over their record since entering office in their ongoing, determined and all-out efforts to eliminate the threat posed and damage caused by Sellafield. Equally, the Minister of State's outright opposition to nuclear proliferation in general is unequivocal and is a matter of public record. From the outset, he has at all times opposed the commissioning of the MOX plant. With the full support of the Taoiseach and the Government, he has forcefully articulated Ireland's major concerns about and opposition to this plant to the British authorities at the highest level.

A pox on MOX.

He has done so at every forum and every opportunity. We are all aware that, between 1997 and 2001, there have been five separate rounds of public consultations on the proposed commissioning of the MOX plant. The Minister of State and his officials, fully supported by RPII officials, have responded in a detailed manner to each round. Through correspondence and meetings Ireland's concerns about health, security and environmental risks arising out of activities at Sellafield have been forcefully and consistently put by the Minister of State to his British and international counterparts. The British have no doubt where Ireland and the Government stand in regard to this plant.

Suggestions, one or two of which I have read over the past week, that we are too quiet or compliant regarding Britain's nuclear activities are naive or mischievous. Contrary to inaccurate statements in the media, the Government has initiated action against Britain on MOX under the OSPAR convention. The case was made by Britain that it was withholding information on the ground of confidentiality. This information is essential to assessing the economic justification for the MOX plant. The Minister of State had asked the British authorities not to take any action on MOX while the arbitration tribunal was sitting, pending the outcome to its deliberations. Their decision to disregard such a reasonable request is contemptible. They are not only turning their noses up at the Minister of State and Ireland, they are displaying equal contempt for the Nordic countries and the arbitration process itself, which was agreed between north Atlantic countries concerned with marine pollution and discharges.

It is important to reiterate that nuclear safety is a legitimate concern for countries, particularly those which are neighbours to countries that have chosen the nuclear power option. Any country in close proximity to such installations is fully justified in having major concerns about plant oper ations, storage of waste, discharges into the marine and terrestrial environments, transportation of nuclear fuels or reprocessed materials and the ever present threat of a major accident.

The Minister of State clearly rejected the nuclear option for developing countries in April at a conference on sustainable development. The following month at a Council of Energy Ministers meeting in Brussels he again rejected the nuclear option as a solution to the problem of security of supply. At an OSPAR commission meeting he secured the adoption of a proposal by Ireland that the current review of radioactive discharge authorisation limits from spent fuel reprocessing activities should be completed as a matter of urgency. The reviews seeks to achieve the objective of the virtual elimination of radioactive discharges into the marine environment by 2020 through substantial, progressive reductions in discharges. Members, the Minister of State and the Government are not happy with that date and that is one of the reasons the Minister of State continues to have an input in trying to accelerate the process and using every forum and legal means available to him to do so.

At the same meeting, the Minister of State, expressing concern about a Greenpeace International report, pointed out that Ireland is totally opposed to any increase in discharges and wants them halted. The Taoiseach and the Government are fully supportive of the Minister of State's position that the only satisfactory outcome in regard to Sellafield, with its unenviable history, is complete closure. His British counterpart, Minister Liddell, has been informed of this and she has been asked to halt all reprocessing operations immediately.

I urge the Minister of State to continue and step up, if possible, ongoing contacts with other countries, whether at the EU or UN or at fora such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, to promote the dismantling of the nuclear industry. I welcome the decision to take legal action under the OSPAR Convention. It is encouraging to learn that proper legal evidence appropriate to the taking of such a case is now available. There was little point in pursing legal action when Ireland did not have the wherewithal to make it stick. Ireland would have been the laughing stock of its partners who were willing to lend support. Credible sustainable evidence is needed and I am heartened that it is available. Every other legal avenue under EU and UN law as well as the international laws of the sea needs to be pursued equally vigorously to overturn this crazy decision on MOX. Nothing short of a complete end to all activities at the Sellafield plant must be the Government's intention.

I pay tribute to the work of the teams of officials from the Minister of State's Department and the RPII, whose significant ongoing input should not be underestimated. As recently as Monday, these officials held a top level meeting with their British counterparts and such meetings need to increase in frequency and intensity. If the British, through mindless arrogance and stubbornness, continue to flout international laws, trample on the legitimate concerns of neighbouring states such as Ireland and display cynical disregard for the major risk to people's lives and the environment, a much tighter coalition of concerned states will have to be galvanised to halt their reckless and irresponsible behaviour.

Successive Governments have always been opposed to Sellafield and its operations and this will continue to be the position. I am confident the Minister of State will avail of all the legal powers at his disposal in the international arena and will copperfasten international action to reverse this recent outrageous decision on MOX and put paid to Sellafield's activities for good.

I wish to share my time with Senator Ross.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I listened to his speech with great interest and I am particularly glad that he referred to his concern about the continued operation of the old magnox reactors. I was telephoned by a former neighbour and constituent who was very worried about the Wylfa magnox reactor on the island of Anglesey. The reactor is very much out of date and has not been effectively decommissioned and there was a seismic tremor under it 13 or 14 years ago.

It is antiquated.

The reactor on Anglesey is only 50 miles across the Irish Sea as the crow flies, while the magnox reactor at Trawsfynnydd is slightly younger and is only 70 miles across the Irish sea as the crow flies.

The Minister of State provided a broad sweep on the issue and I am in agreement with virtually everything he said. I greatly regret, however, I missed his recent appearance on the electric wireless, which, I understand, was of vintage proportions but then I have an unfortunate record in this regard as I also missed the performance of his former colleague, Padraig Flynn, which I also bitterly regret.

However, some elements of his appearance have survived. For example, the Minister of State said the concern about terrorist attacks on Sellafield or other nuclear plants has raised public concern about our preparedness and that lends some force to my slogan, "A pox on the MOX". Irish people want to reject it and we feel we are right so to do. If we can do so by ridiculing MOX and laughing at it, then so much the better.

What I love about the Minister of State's contribution is that we have the serious stuff at the beginning but then we have the emergence of the PLAN. When one examines it, it is vague. We are back to the business of listening to the weather forecast to find out which way the wind will blow and so on. I recall in the 1960s that a predecessor of the Minister of State issued a wonderful little book about what to do in the event of a nuclear explosion. One was to unscrew the outside lavatory door, lean it against an internal dividing wall, pile blankets on top of it, get under it with tinned food, wait until after the flash and then open the window and shout "help" in Irish. There was also information about how to milk a radioactive cow. Rubber gloves are quite essential, I am told.

However, one could not take seriously the notion that we will be protected if one analyses the Minister of State's contribution, particularly in light of an interesting article by Edward Horgan, a former member of the Defence Forces, in The Irish Times. He indicates that our command centres are woefully out of date, probably insanitary, and that we do not have Army vehicles capable of bringing members of the Cabinet from one location to another and, therefore, command control. I am not convinced we have protective measures of any substance in place. For a country like ours, it is difficult to do this. Although I enjoy the amusement, I sympathise with the Minister of State's predicament. It is difficult to protect against these things. The best protection is to try to intercept the possibility before this type of accident occurs.

The British have been extremely bad neighbours. There has been a record of accidents, cover-ups and the falsification of information and scientific reports which has vitiated the situation. This plant, with its dreadful sordid history, will lead to a further proliferation of nuclear materials and exposure to a possible terrorist threat. There is no point producing this magnox fuel. The Japanese were horrified by the fact that in August 1999 it was revealed that BNFL had falsified documents going to Japan. They will not have anything to do with it now. There is no market there. It suggests that some of the Scandinavian countries are interested. This is the result of what it calls finessing. It is massage. There is no concrete market for the MOX fuel.

In addition, it will be a loss. It has cost it £470 million to build the plant and, at its best figures, it estimates a £200 million profit. It will undoubtedly make a huge loss, while it creates further dangers down the road from nuclear contamination. As a result of its operation, the plant will become contaminated. It must deal with the decontamination process of the plant.

There was also a suggestion that it would use up stocks of plutonium created by the previously existing procedures at Sellafield. It will not use them up. They are of no use in this process. Most of the plutonium it wants to turn into MOX has not yet been separated in the central THORP plant. It will not reprocess dangerous materials in that situation.

As regards the idea of Japanese orders, the executive director of BNFL, Norman Askew, said in an interview with The Guardian on 15 September 2000:

Without Japanese orders we cannot justify opening the MOX plant. We have no time to finesse this: we have until about next January or February to convince the Japanese, otherwise we shall have to abandon the project.

Where are the orders? It should have abandoned the project. What is the British Government doing about it?

It is interesting to note that Professor William Walker, Dr. Frans Berkhout and Mr. Gordon MacKerron said in their response to the Environment Agency consultation in March 1998 that "there are grounds for concern that all of the health and environmental detriments arising from the SMP's operation will fall on the UK." That is grounds for concern for the citizens of the United Kingdom, but, unfortunately, it is not true. Many of the detrimental effects will be felt on this island. We have already felt the effects of Chernobyl. Several areas of this country were contaminated by radioactivity in the aftermath of Chernobyl. There is no reason to suppose that an accident at Sellafield, which could be up to at least ten times the scale of Chernobyl, would not have a significant impact on us. It is a dangerous dirty process which can only make a loss and create significant security and health problems.

It is interesting to note that Tony Blair said, on 14 September in the aftermath of the events in New York on 11 September, "We have been warned by the events of 11 September, and we should act on the warning." He acted on the warning almost immediately afterwards by licensing the MOX plant at Sellafield. It is astonishing. The British Government gave massaged finesse and inaccurate scientific information. For example, the Environment Agency in a paper entitled, Proposed decision on the Justification for the Plutonium Commissioning and Full Operation of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Plant, in October 1998 stated:

It would be a relatively straightforward matter to undertake chemical separation of plutonium from MOX fuel. It is debatable how easy it would be then to assemble the plutonium into a crude nuclear device actually capable of exploding [but] a terrorist group would arguably be able to exercise considerable power by merely threatening to explode such a weapon.

It is easy to separate. There might be some technical difficulties in putting the thing together, but it is a significant political problem, although it may be militarily vulnerable. The Minister of State in the British Government, John Battle, said in June 1999 that "anyone trying to [separate plutonium from MOX fuel] would require highly specialised plant, equipment and skills, and a considerable degree of nuclear sophistication in order to ensure radiological and criticality safety." That is not accurate. Frank Barnaby, to whom Senator Liam Fitzgerald referred, said that a good second year undergraduate could complete it in his or her own kitchen. Much of the equipment is readily available and information about criticality is available on the Internet. The United States Department of Energy and the Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation states that MOX fuel remains a material in the most sensitive category because plutonium suitable for use in weapons could be separated from it relatively easily.

As regards ships, Ben Gilman, who is known to many of us in this House from his visits to Ireland and our visits to Capitol Hill, expressed concern about the capacity of ships to outmanoeuvre or have deterrent ability in the event of an attack. There is no suggestion they would be accompanied by other ships. There is also the question of the impact on the oceans. This is dangerous for those travelling through areas of ocean with islands, coastlines and people who depend on fishing. The effects of a nuclear accident would be enormous.

There is a huge pressure pushing against this reactor, such as the failure of MOX fuel to make it economically, the German decision to rule out nuclear power, the Belgian decision to rule out MOX fuel, the fact that BNFL has zero value on plutonium stores and the fact that Electricité de France, the world's largest MOX customer, also values its plutonium holdings at zero. That is the negative aspect. However, we must be positive.

There is a use for this plant as outlined in a briefing document by Earthwatch and other groups. It could be converted in the sense of turning sordid plough shares to undertake the task of ceramic immobilisation of separated plutonium. The industrial equipment and processes which exist at Sellafield would be perfect for decommissioning – to use a popular political term – this type of fuel. We should look at the benefit of this. It would provide a way to put the plutonium store into a non-weapons usable form. It would be safe and preserve jobs in the plant because the British are keen about their employment. If they were put into canisters and made part of the vitrified glass logs that BNFL is already producing, it would eliminate the problem of disposing of separated plutonium as a distinct entity. It would make Britain the world leader in immobilisation technology which should satisfy its national pride. It would also free up British Nuclear Fuels Limited from being seen merely as a failing element in the plutonium business.

I thank you, a Chathaoirligh, and my friend, Senator Ross, for his indulgence. We must not just be negative. We should laugh and scorn the attitude of the British Government and expose it for the cynicism it is. We should ruthlessly go through the economic, medical and scientific arguments and then in an act of Irish generosity present the British with a way out which would preserve jobs, clean up the environment and make everything better for people.

It is rare we have such total unanimity in the House and it is welcome. Some of us are affected in a direct way, including the Mini ster of State. In the past I had ambitions to take a seat in his constituency. I remember well that in County Wicklow, particularly in Arklow, there were real concerns about the effect of Sellafield, especially on children. There were coincidences whereby deformities appeared in human beings and animals in various parts. While these were unproven, the statistics were beginning to look alarming as they do in other areas of the country, particularly on the east coast. Many people point with conviction to Sellafield as the reason.

It is unforgivable that a so-called friendly neighbour could take the sort of attitude as the British do on this issue. This is the opposite of friendship. It is something that many of us, who are after all Anglophiles, deeply regret and utterly condemn. Senator Ryan will correct me if I am wrong but the history of this matter goes back to when we were first elected to this House. I remember this having been an issue for 20 years and that is a disgrace. It is a history of total impotence on the part of the Government. We are not here to apportion blame but to try to achieve something and make constructive suggestions. The efforts made by successive Governments of whatever hue have been abysmal failures. We have protested and have taken various legal cases. Some people have physically protested in more dramatic ways, not at governmental level but at Sellafield itself. Not only has nothing happened but we are going backwards, as we have seen following the recent announcement about MOX fuel. The British are saying: "We don't care, we're going ahead with this and are actually increasing it, and you can't do anything about it." I am afraid that is the truth. It may be that the British are within their supposed legal rights, even if what they are doing is totally immoral. It may be that successive Governments have taken legal action which they knew would fail but which have given the semblance of action to a fairly gullible electorate.

The action the Minister is proposing to take has, in legal terms, little hope of success. It will probably be as successful as any action he has taken in the past, which has been zero. What should we do? We should test the Government's sincerity on this matter to see whether it has a commitment and, if so, how serious is that commitment.

On the Order of Business last week, I suggested that we invite the British ambassador to the House to answer questions about Sellafield. That simple suggestion was not taken up, however, and I wonder why. As happens on occasions like this, the suggestion met with a deafening silence. Why are the Government benches so keen that this matter should be discussed in secret behind closed doors in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges? That raises another issue because I do not know why that committee's meetings are held behind closed doors. Why can we not all sit in on it? Why can the world not see what happens at those meetings?

My suggestion was very sensible – we should put the British in the dock here to answer questions from the electorate. We have the ability, procedures, Standing Orders, passion and sincerity to do so, yet it will not happen. The ambassador will not even be invited, wait and see. Every single excuse known to man will be offered as to why the ambassador should be invited, but he will not be because we do not want to embarrass the British. Embarrassing them, however, is exactly what we ought to be doing but for some reason it will not happen. I may be wrong and I would be delighted to eat my words here if that is the case. If the ambassador is invited he may not attend, but let us issue the invitation anyhow. Let us begin to expose this matter and show the world what is going on.

One can be sure that the British would not locate Sellafield in the south of England because the French would not put up with it for a moment. They have more clout internationally and would scream from the rooftops. British ambassadors in every capital in Europe would be called in to hear protests, but the Government prefers to take the innocuous route which will not have any effect. Why is this? Have we still got some sort of inferiority complex about the British or are we frightened of something they will do to us somewhere else? We seem to have absolutely no moral fibre and no political courage to expose them in public.

We prefer to do it behind closed doors. When it was announced last week that this was happening why did the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, not call in the man from Glencairn and say, "We don't like you." He could have made a very public, international incident of it. This is not a matter of petty politics, it is a matter of life and death. People can skip around the issue as much as they like by politely discussing Chernobyl and talking in technical terms about radioactivity and nuclear power, which none of us really understands. We know what is really going on, however. What is happening across the water threatens our lives and our children's lives, yet we are doing nothing about it and neither is Britain.

I know the Minister is sincere but I found his speech disappointing because it reflected the efforts of successive Governments. I have often heard such speeches in the House from Ministers who have to get through a difficult situation. They are, in effect, saying: "Look lads, we haven't been able to do anything for 20 years and we're not going to be able to do anything in the next ten years either; if we can do anything we're not going to embarrass our neighbours, even though they're threatening us." We are talking about people being paralysed or killed by an appalling accident. We are now talking about the nightmare scenario of a terrorist attack – that was mentioned in somebody else's speech, although it is almost taboo to say it – that will cause radioactive fallout here.

What would a madman like bin Laden, sitting in a desert cave in Afghanistan, with the power to hit back at those who are now hitting him, do? He has done a pretty nasty job of destruction in New York. Who is America's greatest ally in all this? Who is a possible future target, and where better to hit than Sellafield? The consequences of that are unthinkable. It would be a tragedy for us and for the British people, yet we are sailing along as though it could never happen. We hope it will never happen.

I am not convinced by the Minister's plan. The situation is much worse than any Government will admit. In his radio broadcast, the Minister tried to reassure the public but he did not offer protection. We know it will not do much good to go home, close the windows and hope for the best. It may do some good if we are lucky but there is no real protection against this threat, except the dismantling of the Sellafield plant. I question the Government's determination to take concrete steps on this issue. I do not question the Government's concern about this matter, but its record. The Minister says he spoke to the Japanese ambassador last year.

The Senator is well over his time.

I know, I am just borrowing back the time Senator Norris took.

The Minister spoke to the Japanese and German ambassadors last year, but that is not good enough and it will have no effect. I appreciate that it concerned a commercial matter, but it will have no effect. We need dramatic diplomatic and political action to shame the British in international fora.

I welcome the Minister of State and congratulate the Government on its actions in trying to prevent this development which will not be easy to stop. Senator Ross spoke about turning this into an international issue. During the troubles in the North 30 years ago some suggested that we make it an international issue and cause uproar. However, that would not have solved anything and I do not think Senator Ross seriously thinks such a course of action would solve this problem either.

It was suggested that we invite the British ambassador to the House, but that will not happen as it is not within the remit of any ambassador to come into the House. There might be some hope if we invited the British environment Secretary. Is it possible for the Government or the Minister of State to obtain an injunction in the European Court to stop the commissioning of this plant until after the legal case is heard? The Minister of State made a strong case and the legal route is the only route to take.

In his statement the Minister of State summarised the situation when he referred to the management of safety at the site, the storage of material in liquid form, the continued reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, the continued operation of the old magnox reactors, the discharge of radioactive waste into the Irish Sea and the risk of a catastrophe.

We know that the past management of the site has been appalling and that there have been leaks about which we were not told. If we were told immediately there is a leak we could implement our emergency plan and take precautionary measures. However, the danger is that it may be two or three days after a leak has commenced that we get to know about it as the nuclear authorities have not told the truth about previous leaks until well after they occurred. People heard about those leaks through other means rather than directly from British Nuclear Fuels Limited.

We are aware of the damage caused by the explosion at Chernobyl and that some of the fallout affected parts of Ireland. If Sellafield was attacked, what happened to the World Trade Center in New York on 11 September would pale into insignificance as the entire country would be wiped out. I am aware of a prophecy which suggests that when the world ends it will be due to a terrible disease which will disfigure and injure people so badly that they will not wish to live, even if they succeeded in surviving the initial catastrophe. Such a disaster will be a man-made, nuclear catastrophe.

Given that we live at a time when suicide bombers are prepared to give their own lives, it is well within the realms of possibility that a plane, helicopter or some other method would be used to blow up the plant at Sellafield. We can stay indoors and preserve food and cattle, but for how long? Years after the Chernobyl disaster people are still experiencing fallout from that accident and it is not safe to go into parts of Russia. We are only 80 or 90 miles from Sellafield and the furthest part of Ireland is only another 80 or 90 miles away so the entire country could be wiped out before we have time to act.

This development must be stopped as it is a Frankenstein which will destroy Ireland and much of England if the authorities do not realise the dangers involved. It is the most dangerous time bomb that could be set. The events in Chernobyl showed us what can happen. In the past the authorities at Sellafield did not tell us about leaks. They decommissioned parts of the plant, but did not decommission other parts. We do not know what is there. A reactor is supposed to have a working life of ten to 15 years, but some of those at Sellafield are almost 30 years old.

When there were proposals to build a nuclear reactor in Enniscrone, Sligo, the late Eugene Henry was the first to speak out against it as it was unsafe and he suggested we should think about such a move. We did not agree with the development and proposed a resolution against the plant which suggested that Sligo would be a nuclear-free zone. We saw the dangers of such developments 25 years ago and I cannot understand the thinking behind scientists and the British Government who continue to propose them.

Senator Caffrey suggested that this situation is similar to a farmer with a mad dog. At least a mad dog will not bite its owner, but the mad dog at Sellafield will bite and destroy England as well as Ireland. It would only require a small leak to destroy our fishing and tourism industries and our way of life. This is a serious issue and we must take every action possible. It is good that all parties in the House oppose this development. We must oppose it everywhere possible and make people aware of the dangers. Many people are not aware of the seriousness of the issue or the damage which can be done, even by a small explosion.

Whether the material involved is transported by sea or air it is a sitting duck for suicide bombers. Such people could crash a yacht into a ship and blow it up. People do not realise how serious an issue this is. I appeal to everyone in this country, to the Minister of State and our MEPs, to raise this issue in the European Parliament and to ensure that the political groupings to which they are affiliated also do so. This is a European problem from which Ireland can suffer seriously and it must be solved.

Ireland is pursuing this issue in the courts and there must be some way by which we can obtain an injunction against it. We might not succeed in bringing the British authorities to court for two or three years. We do not know what the consequences will be if the plant is commissioned.

It has been pointed out in newspapers that this development is uneconomic and that there is no guaranteed market for this material. This material will be placed on ships for export, but Japan or some other country may not need it. Material was sent back previously as it was not up to the required standard. What will happen to this material in such a scenario? A ship will be in mid-sea with a highly explosive substance on board. It will not be able to return to Sellafield or go anywhere else and the material will probably be dumped at sea. This issue is too serious and this commodity too dangerous to even contemplate such events. I appeal to everyone, particularly our MEPs and diplomats, to increase awareness of the fact that this could be the most serious disaster ever to befall the country.

Mr. Ryan

I wish to share my time with Senator Costello. I will take 15 minutes and the Senator will take five minutes.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Ryan

One of the great moments in Irish history occurred in 1977 when popular resistance prevented the imposition of a nuclear power plant on this State. It was one of many occasions throughout history when the extraordinary wisdom of democracy was shown, when the good sense of ordinary people across the political spectrum was demonstrated. In particular, I remember Ógra Fianna Fáil giving the then Minister, Deputy Desmond O'Malley, a fairly rough ride on this issue. It was not a party political issue, many of the parties were not nearly as vocal as the public. It was one of the most profoundly wise decisions this country ever made and one which other countries are now scrabbling to catch up with. As Members of the House know, I intensely admire Sweden, but it and countries like it now have to adjust to a post-nuclear era when they no longer have nuclear power.

I remember driving past a nuclear power plant in France. I still find those places a little bit nerve wracking and I am an engineer, although I am not necessarily frightened of technology. I do not want to wear the House out with my teaching techniques, but I teach students the rudiments of process design, how to design the process and the criteria that make something successful. There are four or five, depending on how one works it out. The first is that it should be technically feasible – that is the easy bit. The second is that it should make economic sense, the third is that it should be safe, the fourth is that it should be environmentally acceptable, and the fifth – which is probably implied in the others – is that is should serve some social purpose. That is the left winger in me.

If one looks at the nuclear industry, it is, to a point, technically feasible. It is technically possible to do those things. The economics of the nuclear power industry are perhaps among the most dishonestly quantified in the whole area of processing. The cost of initial development is left out because that was paid for by weapons research. If one had to add – as one would in every other industry – the entire cost of research, development etc., the nuclear industry would be uneconomical.

As Members know, the nuclear power industry in Britain could not be privatised because the costs of decommissioning were so enormous and so uncertain that no sane private purchaser would take it on without an indemnity from the Government which would have cost more than it would have got from privatisation. It stayed in public hands, not because the present or previous British Governments are keen on State ownership, but because the market will not accept it. The market is quite happy to write off the research costs because it does not cost it anything to do so, but the future uncertain costs of security and decommissioning are another matter. How much have the costs of securing out-of-date, closed down nuclear plants increased in the last three weeks? We do not know, but probably dramatically because risks now exist of them being sabotaged that we did not imagine would have existed before. There is huge uncertainty. On the question of economics, the whole thing makes no sense.

Is nuclear power safe? At the risk of boring the House, I must ask what does "safe" mean. Safe never means that there is no risk, nothing is risk free. Safe means that the risk must be at best quantified and then a decision must be taken if the risk is acceptable or otherwise. There are two issues involved in risk. The first is how big is the hazard. In this case it is enormous. We do not know how big it is, but it is enormous. We have not had enough body counts from nuclear accidents yet to know how big the risk is. What were regarded as safe levels of exposure to ionising radiation, which are all essentially determined by the unfortunate people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima – because that is the biggest experiment we have ever had in the exposure of people – have been reduced continuously as time progressed. It turned out that lower levels of exposure to radiation were actually seriously hazardous to human health. This is not theory, this is what happened. We do not yet know what is a safe level of exposure. Therefore, the scale of what could happen from an accident is unknown and unquantifiable and the only sensible thing is to say that it is enormous.

How likely are nuclear accidents? It was likely to happen more frequently than people used to admit. There was Three Mile Island and others, Detroit was nearly lost, there was the famous China syndrome and then Chernobyl, all of which got worse and worse. That was before the present, new and more threatening phase of terrorism. Now we know the likelihood of an accident or an incident which causes damage is vastly greater. Therefore, the risk has gone up.

That having happened, we are now told that this risk, which is quantified, is acceptable. The reason it is acceptable is because those who stand to benefit from it have decided that we and a significant proportion of the British population are not a significant enough matter of consideration to influence their decision. The risk is deemed to be acceptable. That is the decision that the British Government took, it took it when it sustained Sellafield and now it is taking it when it expands Sellafield. The essential decision is that in spite of the fact that the risk is quantifiable and large, it has decided that it is worth taking. That really is the most extraordinary thing.

In that context, when there is a decision to make something which is manifestly risky acceptable, and to deem the risk acceptable, one inevitably ends up with what has happened. One ends up with lies and cover ups. Why? Because we know and they know that nothing can be absolutely safe. Every time somebody in Sellafield says that there is no risk from Sellafield, that is a lie. It is a lie because there is a risk with everything. The need to over-compensate for the risk involved means that they have to say things that are technologically untrue. It is impossible to say that any piece of technology is 100% safe. No honest engineer would say that anything is 100% safe, it is a question of the degree of risk. They will say that Sellafield is 100% safe, that is untrue, it cannot be true and the reason they say it is, is to cover up the scale of the risk. The risk is clearly unacceptable, but someone has decided that the risk is worthwhile, and that is what produces the lies and the cover ups.

That said, are we really serious about doing anything about it? It is not often that I feel that Senator Ross is the extremist in the House, but the sort of language that he used was perhaps a little bit too extreme for me. There are many things we could do that we do not that suggest that we are not really serious. I do not want to start anything about the Minister of State's now famous radio interview, because I think he was in a quite extraordinary no-win situation. Those things cannot be dealt with, but I do not think we have done the minimum that should be necessary. Let me give two instances. On today's Dáil Order Paper is the Radiological Protection (Amendment) Bill, 1998. There is urgency. It passed through this House three years ago and is still on the Order Paper of the Dáil. Are we really serious? The second one is the Containment of Nuclear Weapons Bill, 2000. We are approaching the end of 2001 and that is also still on the Dáil Order Paper. The enactment of both pieces of legislation as a matter of urgency would demonstrate some seriousness, but they will not be enacted, deep down in the rhetoric of the Government there is another set of priorities. Apparently, it has decided that these are not election issues. Whereas other issues – that I do not propose to go into – of a more socially acceptable kind which will appeal to part of the core vote will be sailing through and taking up vast quantities of time, issues like radiological protection and containment of nuclear weapons will have to wait until another agenda is met. That is wrong and quite clearly suggests that the Government is not serious about these issues despite its fine rhetoric recently.

There is something particularly sorry about the issue of the MOX plant. I keep thinking about the leaked e-mail from the adviser to the British Minister recommending the publication of the bad stories at a time when nobody would notice. Of course, people are outraged and say they would not dream of doing such a thing. Then what happens out of the blue, at the height of an international crisis of unprecedented proportions, which everyone is saying is on the scale of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, which I believe, while perhaps not a nuclear threat, nevertheless threatens a level of bloodshed, disorder and instability on the planet, the likes of which we have not seen since 1939? A decision is made by the Government of the neighbouring island to do something it knows will be unpopular at home. They have, however, a Prime Minister who is sailing so high in public approval that nobody dares criticise him. They also know it will be unpopular here, but believe we are not in a position to do anything serious about it.

My message to the Government is that its rhetoric is fine – it is not the first Government which did not manage to resolve the issue – but there are actions it could take to demonstrate it is serious. There are the legislative actions which should be on the Order Paper of the Dáil tomorrow and dealt with by next week. There is no reason that should not happen other than lethargy and indifference.

Having said that, the next, very apposite, question is what the European Union is doing in all of this. Let us examine the contrast. A neighbouring government is doing something unsafe, uneconomical and a potential environment disaster and apparently the European Union is impotent. On the other hand, we have a national airline, the only guaranteed link between ourselves and the United States, the single biggest investor in this country, yet the European Union is doing its best to make us close it down. I wonder what is going on and what is the agenda. The same European Union that is prepared to take the risk of closing down the only guaranteed link between this country and our greatest single investor is, at the same time, prepared to blink about what is happening across the Irish Sea. Some foolish people tell us the European Union is the reason we have better environmental standards. As long as it tolerates what is being done in Sellafield, the European Union is in no position to lecture anybody about environmental standards.

If the European Union, so extraordinarily arrogant on the issue of our national airline, is so supine on the issue of Sellafield, one has to assume there is a reason for it. The reason, I believe, is because this links in to the whole defence issue. It is not about nuclear power or the peaceful use of nuclear energy. It is about creating the cycle to make more and more and better and better – excuse that description – nuclear weapons. Sellafield is uneconomical, unsafe and a threat. The idea that the European Union, the alleged institution of democracy, freedom and accessibility, would tolerate this sort of misbehaviour simply to facilitate the nuclear weapons industry, while at the same time threatening to close down a small country's national airline, raises fundamental issues about the whole institutional relationship between this State and the European Union.

All speakers have been vociferous in their forthright condemnation of the circumstances arising at Sellafield. Sellafield with its track record of leakages, contamination, discharges and the huge number of health scares on this side of the Irish Sea was bad enough in the past, but now it plans to proceed with the commissioning of a reprocessing plant using mixed oxide fuels for which the only markets are Germany and Japan. As the former has already indicated it is unlikely to be a customer any longer, reprocessed fuel will have to be transported around the world to Japan. This will mean stockpiling plutonium and uranium and making Sella field a prime terrorist target. The ships sailing around the world will also be prime targets for hijacking or other sorts of terrorist attack.

Already, there is considerable evidence that a significant amount of plutonium has got into the hands of people who could use it to mount terrorist attacks. This is unnecessarily creating a position in which we could become a target for any terrorist attack on Britain. It is beyond logic that Britain is doing this to a friendly neighbour. It is unnecessary on economic grounds. The only possible economic justification for this project is the £450 million to £500 million which has already been spent. I presume nobody wants to take responsibility for a project which I am sure will be loss making if and when it is up and running.

I read the Minister of State's speech with interest. I do not doubt his tremendous conviction on this matter. He has a good track record in expressing concern and doing his best on the issue. However, I am extremely disappointed that the outcome of all the efforts made to date is one big round zero. We have not had a single element of success on Sellafield or Thorpe and, certainly, we are unlikely to have any on MOX. We have protested, taken the legal avenue and got the support of OSPAR. We are taking the matter to a tribunal of arbitration and, of course, the British Government has refused to wait to see what the outcome of that will be. We are taking the matter to the European Court of Justice and the United Nations, but are not getting results. We will have to devise a more effective policy to get the desired result.

It is incredible that the Government and all sides of the House are 100% behind the Minister of State's position. Probably uniquely in the two Houses, we share exactly the same view on what should happen to Sellafield, yet we have not been able to achieve an iota of success. Obviously, the measures that have been taken are useless. The second half of the Minister of State's speech related to the national emergency plan. Unfortunately, this is where action must be taken. It appears all we can do is prepare ourselves, revise the national emergency nuclear fallout plan and suffer the consequences.

The very least that should be done is to take up the suggestion made by Senator Ross. Let us bring in the British ambassador. Why should he not come to the Oireachtas to meet us and listen to the unanimous view of Senators and Deputies on what his Government has just decided against our wishes. That step is essential. We have had bilateral avenues and some words exchanged with the British Prime Minister. That approach has been very respectable, but I fear the end result will be the demise of the respectable approach.

As Senator Ryan indicated, this country decided against nuclear power nearly a quarter of a century ago. The people took to the streets and to the fields, roads, avenues and little laneways of Wexford, down to Carnsore Point. The end result was that despite a determined movement by the Government of the day, the decision was taken and that decision was never reversed. That is what will happen now, there will be mass campaigns on the streets. It is a shame that a Government is not able to achieve on behalf of the people something that ultimately will be achieved through grassroots protests. The Minister should be introducing new approaches, but there is not a single new approach in his speech. Effectively, the Government is devoid of a response, of ideas as to how to reverse the decision. If the Government is devoid of ideas, that means that the people will have to deal with it.

The Minister should at least respond to the main proposal made in this House concerning the British ambassador. He should indicate just how far the Government is prepared to go within diplomatic channels so that someone can be taken to task severely and in a public fashion. This should happen in the public arena, in the full glare of television and radio. The Government should give a clear message to the British Government.

I have a particular interest in that I probably live nearer to Sellafield than any other Member of the House, 90 miles downwind on 90 days of the year. As a resident of Northern Ireland and a taxpayer there, it is my money that is being wasted on this too. I am grateful to Senator Ryan for his technical expertise in this which I found extremely helpful. We should all pay heed to his warnings in relation to risk. I will not follow him into the wilder reaches of conspiracy theory because I do not think this has an awful lot to do with armaments and war planning. It is just dirty politics.

We have all seen cases where people are afraid to write off an investment that has gone wrong or afraid of the loss of jobs in an area where jobs are scarce. It is not without note that for a number of years under the Labour administration the Minister responsible for the environment was also the Minister sponsored by the trade unions on the Sellafield site. It is not surprising that people are flogging this particular dead horse for which there seems to be no economic or other justification.

I remember when Sellafield was called Windscale. It got such a bad name that the name was changed to Sellafield but the practices were not changed and, by and large, the same people were running it. This was the original cowboy outfit. I had some dealings with those people many years ago when we were trying to investigate the possible impact of a health nature on the County Down coast. These people have literally been criminally negligent over the years. The litany of escapes, leaks, bad management and culpability is very long. These people cannot be trusted to run a plant such as this and we should not allow them to extend their activities or even to continue them.

This is a severe source of pollution, not only potentially wind-borne pollution, but there is an fallout going into the Irish Sea and it is polluting our waters and the fishing grounds. It is a pity the British ambassador was not present to hear what was said and the matter needs to be taken up directly with the British Government. It is an example of bad neighbourliness to behave in this way.

There is a principle of European law which states that the polluter should pay, but we should not wait for that stage. We should take action to prevent the pollution taking place in the first place. Every interest should be mustered, not only through the courts but also through the European Union. If the Union means anything, it is about good neighbourliness, about not taking advantage. It is noteworthy that this news was put out under the mandate of the leaked e-mail which Senator Ryan referred to and which said that any bad news or dirty news should be made known this week. We should let the British Government and the world in general know that we are aware.

The Minister should assemble as many friends as possible to create a lobby. One person who has made an acute study of this over the years and probably knows more about it than anyone else, is Mr. Eddie McGrady, the MP for South Down. Mr. McGrady is always extremely vociferous and has been arguing this for the past 20 years. If the Northern Ireland Assembly survives over the next week or two – I sincerely hope it does – the Minister will find that he has many friends there. Exactly the same concerns are being expressed on all sides of the House there as are being expressed here and in the Dáil, and it would be a pity not to make common purpose with them.

I am aware there is a groundswell of responsible public opinion in Britain opposed to nuclear proliferation generally and it takes the same view as we do of the manner in which the decision was announced. I wish the Minister well but it is time to step up a gear or two and to be aggressive about this in every forum and avenue that can be found. It is clear that the unanimous sentiment of this House is fully behind the Minister in any action he may take.

I welcome the Minister to the House. It was most interesting to listen to the contributions of all the Senators to the debate on British Nuclear Fuels and Sellafield. We must muster international support, particularly from the citizens of Britain. It is as important to them as it is to us. They will be the first affected by any accident. We should open up relations with people there who are actively involved and who object to the development of this facility. Many of the people involved in the protests at Carnsore Point were people from the world of music, like Christy Moore who participated in the objections to that proposal. They helped to muster a huge national anti-nuclear movement. We need to raise that consciousness in Britain and Ireland to strengthen the hand of the Minister and the Government.

The decision of the Prime Minister to announce this in the wake of what happened in New York was certainly not in the interests of good diplomatic relations with a neighbouring country. In my view, there was a definite breach of trust in the manner in which it was done. The circumstances were very questionable, although we should not over-emphasise the conspiracy theory. However, one must be concerned at the huge change, particularly in Prime Minister Blair's interest in relation to the armaments race. It is a matter of concern that Britain should contemplate a move in that direction in the longer term, perhaps in conjunction with the United States. It is worrying for Europe and for Ireland that the strength and thrust of the major super powers may be channelled in that way. That concern extends to the use of nuclear spent fuels.

The Irish people are deeply concerned about radioactive fallout, having regard to the experience which we have witnessed in Chernobyl and elsewhere and the manner in which people have suffered as a result. Ireland has participated actively in helping to alleviate some of the problems, including health problems affecting children. That experience illustrates the serious problems of radioactivity and the importance of proper safety measures.

Against the background of events in the United States, the expansion of British Nuclear Fuels, with its history of accidents and cover-ups, is disturbing. I concur with the view that we must take a firm approach on the issue at European and international level. It should be a priority for our Government in its dealings with Britain in relation to the commissioning of this extension of British Nuclear Fuels. The Minister of State and his predecessors have done good work in progressing the legal aspects with a view to bringing it under judicial review but it now needs a stronger input. The Minister of State needs the full support of the Irish people in pursuing this issue in the interests of all of us.

I welcome the debate and the very worthwhile suggestions which emerged from it. Hopefully, that will have a beneficial effect. The views of the Seanad should be conveyed to the British ambassador and the British Government.

I thank all ten Senators who contributed to this debate – Senators O'Dowd, Caffrey, Fitzgerald, Norris, Ross, Farrell, Ryan, Costello, Hayes and Chambers. A great deal of wisdom was expressed in the debate and there was also much concern. A common thread through all the contributions was the concern with regard to the safety factor and the danger which is presented by these installations so close to our shores. There was concern and anger, which underlay most of the contributions, at the decision by the UK Government to proceed with this plant, notwithstanding the present international situation, in the aftermath of the events of the 11 September in the USA, and the fact that Ireland had embarked on an initiative last June, via the OSPAR process, to prevent the commissioning of this plant. The Irish Government, through my Department, had requested the UK authorities to defer any announcement and any decision with regard to the MOX plant until the proceedings under the OSPAR arbitration process had been concluded. I share the sentiments which were voiced in that regard during this evening's debate. I am quite horrified that that decision was taken, in the light of all those issues.

Senator O'Dowd and others complimented the Department officials and the RPII personnel on their excellent efforts in this matter. I welcome those comments, which I fully endorse. Several Senators spoke of the possibility of the UK ambassador being invited to address the Seanad on this matter. That is a matter for the Seanad – I do not know what the protocol may be. I have met a succession of British Ministers on numerous occasions, sometimes in London, sometimes in Dublin and also on the margins of other fora, to spell out loudly and clearly the objections and very serious concerns of successive Irish Government about the presence of nuclear facilities in the UK in such close proximity to our shores. Every possible opportunity and every possible forum has been and will continue to be used, at ministerial and official level.

With regard to the MOX facility itself, I see it as perpetuating the reprocessing facilities at Sellafield. That is the issue we have targeted in the OSPAR process. Senator Costello reviewed the question of our success, and I do not blame him for that, but there have been successes. Under a previous Government, which included his own party, there was a significant success in objecting to the proposed NIRAX waste storage facility at Sellafield.

The OSPAR Convention, which Ireland played a major role in putting together, has been very successful, involving 15 countries and the European Union. There are 16 signatories to it. It was advocated in the discussion tonight that we bring other countries along with us. There is an opportunity which has been availed of to repeatedly bring our concerns and objections to that forum. We had the oppportunity to table a motion before the OSPAR meeting of June 2000 calling for the complete cessation of reprocessing facilities at Sellafield. Our good colleagues and friends in this battle, as I unapologetically call it, the Danish Government, had a similar and less robust proposal before the same convention. A modified version of those two motions successfully went through that session of OSPAR. Some 12 countries voted with the Irish and the Danes. That sent out a very clear message, if we want to get a message across internationally, of our concerns and objections, particularly as maritime countries, countries with which OSPAR is concerned, with regard to contamination of the sea and the protection of our maritime environment. Naturally, we are concerned about the Irish Sea while our more northerly colleagues, the Nordic countries, are concerned about their fishing grounds. The OSPAR forum is ideally suited to take action and make all possible progress to maintain our seas, waters and fishing grounds in a non-polluted fashion, particularly in a non-nuclear polluted fashion.

We have repeatedly called particularly for the cessation of reprocessing activities at Sellafield because reprocessing equals discharges into the Irish Sea, or the marine environment. In our case, our immediate concern is the Irish Sea. A decision has been taken to perpetuate it by way of this new reprocessing facility – the MOX plant – to which we have objected. It represents an expansion of nuclear activities.

The safety culture at Sellafield was mentioned by a number of Senators. A decent, proper, reliable and credible safety culture does not exist. As I said, the Nordic countries have been working hand in hand with us in objecting to these facilities. I journeyed to the Nordic countries in preparation for the meeting in June 2000. The Danish Minister visited me and I went to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Finland. I had excellent meetings at ministerial level in those countries.

Our efforts and those of successive Governments to bring an end to this blight on our doorstep and this malaise, which is precisely what it is, have taken on a whole new vista and perspective given the present situation. The way to bring these facilities to an end, as we have repeatedly requested for many years, is via the economics of the business. It is not economic nor will it be. The business, that is, BNFL's nuclear activities at Sellafield and elsewhere, will no longer be economically viable without MOX. It is very questionable whether the business will be economically viable even with MOX and therein lies our case in the first instance under OSPAR.

Colleagues in this House and concerned people outside can take it that the Government from the Taoiseach down is absolutely adamant that on this occasion the legal process will be followed. This has already been embarked upon. It was initiated last June via OSPAR and will be pursued under EU law, the EURATOM Treaty and the EU treaty. It will be pursued, if necessary, under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS. These options are being looked at by our advisers, will be brought to the Attorney General very shortly to finalise the matter and go to Government again very soon. The Government is determined not to rest on its laurels in this case, but to go down every possible avenue, particularly the legal route, to prevent this plant. I am reliably advised that some time will elapse before it can be fully commissioned. These legal paths will be followed to prevent this plant from being commissioned and presenting a further and ongoing hazard to the people of this country.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to sit again?

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

Barr
Roinn