The Government has been subjected to a barrage of unfair criticism from Greenpeace and some anti-nuclear campaigners for not doing enough to prevent the shipment of weapons-grade plutonium from the United States to France for reprocessing. The reality of the situation is that Government Ministers - at the Departments of the Environment and the Marine - have taken all reasonable steps to protect the safety of the citizens of this State and to uphold our nuclear-free policy.
As on previous occasions when nuclear waste and toxic materials were being transhipped to neighbouring countries, the Government sought and secured assurances from the authorities concerned that the vessels would not enter Irish territorial waters. It arranged that pilots from the Air Corps would overfly the ships to ensure those commitments were kept. It is difficult to see what more could be done, given the right of such ships to "innocent passage" on the high seas and the friendly relations that exist with the United States and France.
Nuclear power is a highly emotional subject. Public confidence in the industry has been damaged by accidents and cover-ups on an international scale. In Ireland, the situation has been particularly fraught as a result of the long-term pollution of the Irish Sea by British Nuclear Fuels through its main power and reprocessing complex at Sellafield. Public concerns and Government representations in relation to that plant have been ignored for many years by the British authorities, with predictable consequences. An extremely negative view of nuclear power now exists here.
The reprocessing of weapons-grade plutonium - as part of the dismantling of the nuclear arsenals held by the US and Russia - should be a matter of public satisfaction. The material has been sent to France because a suitable reprocessing facility does not exist in the US. But Greenpeace has condemned the reprocessing and transhipment as both expensive and dangerous. Risks are automatically involved in any shipping of materials. But the alternative method of disposal suggested by Greenpeace - vitrification and containment - is open to challenge. The campaign being run by anti-nuclear activists does not allow for uncertainties. Such an intransigent approach can be dangerous.
In upholding the nuclear-free policy of this State, we must recognise that other governments and societies have made a different choice. And, insofar as those policies and practices do not have a direct and negative impact on the health or welfare of our people and conform to international law, they have to be acknowledged.