asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy if he is aware of the growing public concern at the possible consequences of the establishment of a nuclear power station in this country; and if the Government will now agree to the holding of a public inquiry on the issue.

9.

asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy if the Government will consider holding a national referendum on the issue of the building of a nuclear power station in this country.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 9 together.

As I have already made clear, I welcome public interest in this matter and I am concerned that the maximum information about it be made available in a balanced way to the public generally.

Some months ago I arranged with the ESB to resume their public information programme, which they had in hands in the past. I also arranged with the Nuclear Energy Board, who have a statutory duty to promote knowledge in nuclear science and technology and to act as an agent for dissemination of information on nuclear matters, to expedite the issue of suitable information material on nuclear matters generally. Furthermore, I hope that the discussion document which I published last July with its emphasis on current problems, with special reference to electricity generation, will give a much clearer picture of the general energy situation in this country and help to resolve any doubts that may exist as to the realistic options open to us to meet energy demand in the coming decade.

Bearing in mind the very great deal of information which has been publicly available for many years past about conventional nuclear electricity stations, I do not consider that a public inquiry, and still less a national referendum, would serve any useful purpose. While I have no objections in principle to the holding of such an inquiry, I feel obliged to say that no valid reasons or cogent arguments in favour of the holding of a public inquiry on the nuclear project have yet been put to me. If they are, I will certainly consider them fully.

I am, of course, always glad to study any representations which interested groups may wish to submit to me.

Is it not a fact that in virtually no country in the world has a proposal to go ahead with a nuclear energy scheme not been met with very serious concern by the general population and that is a factor which has created a demand for a public inquiry? Would the Minister agree that this documentation and the information to which he has referred emanated from vested interests so that it is one-sided? Is it not advisable that either a referendum or a public inquiry be held so that the views of both sides could be heard and, then, if the case of the Minister is as good as is claimed, his side should win?

It is very important in discussing this whole question to draw a distinction between conventional nuclear energy stations and the fast breeders and reactors such as Windscale in respect of which a public inquiry was held. The conventional type of nuclear reactor that is suggested for the Carnsore site is in use in more than 200 sites around the world in countries of various ideological administrations. The need for a public inquiry has not been proved to the Minister.

Is the Minister satisfied that the Nuclear Energy Board are fulfilling their role as a public information centre? They have been remarkably silent. Also, in view of the latest information regarding health hazards to workers in nuclear stations in America where it has been found that the established safe levels have now proved very dangerous to workers, would it not be advisable to have a public inquiry into the whole matter? It has been found in America that 13,000 workers at nuclear energy stations have been exposed to unnecessary radiation hazards.

I would refer the Deputy to my original reply where I said that:

I also arranged with the Nuclear Energy Board, who have a statutory duty to promote knowledge in nuclear science and technology and to act as an agent for dissemination of information on nuclear matters, to expedite the issue of suitable information material on nuclear matters generally.

Has that come to light?

Regarding the second part of the Deputy's supplementary, this is a question that relates to the whole general debate involved in this issue of nuclear energy resources.

When will the debate take place?

Would the Minister not agree that to associate Windscale energy with the Carnsore Point project is to give the impression that they are the same whereas one involves reprocessing while the other is a generating station?

That was pointed out.

Would the Minister not agree also that the attitude of the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy in appearing to have something to cover up while there is nothing to cover up is tending to harden attitudes and to make much more difficult the possibility of an alternative source of energy?

In reply to Deputy Browne, I attempted to draw a clear distinction between Windscale and the Carnsore Point situation. I would not accept that the attitude of the Minister has hardened in any way the various attitudes to Carnsore Point and to nuclear energy generally.