I wish to share my time with Deputy Bell.
Private Members' Business. - Case Against BNFL: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to urgently support the legal case of the Louth Residents Group against British Nuclear Fuels through the provision of the necessary financial assistance towards research and legal costs as well as the appropriate technical expertise and information.
—(Deputy Yates.)
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I commend the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, for backing down relatively gracefully last night and for accepting this motion. He had no other choice as a firm commitment had been made by him and the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, to STAD and the Louth residents. They were honour bound to pursue this case and the course the Minister of State has taken is the right one. It is unfortunate it took the intervention of the Independents, especially that of the Minister of State's constituency colleague, Deputy Fox, threatening to bring down the Government, to ensure that justice began to be seen to be done for the campaigners against Sellafield from Dundalk.
I commend my colleague, Deputy Stagg, for his vigorous action. He was the first Minister in the Irish Government to take on the issue of Sellafield. He was the first to go to the UK and seek to be actively involved in the public inquiry into NIREX. He played a strong role with our civil servants whom I also commend for their role, and helped bring about the defeat of NIREX. He deserves enormous credit and it is good to see him take this brief for the Labour Party.
He deserves credit for turning himself into a yo-yo?
He is the first Minister in history to do what he did. Deputy O'Keeffe had the chance in the Government before that.
He is the best man for turning himself inside out.
During the partnership Government, I asked the then Minister, Deputy Cowen, to take some action against the British Government and he refused. The day of the Downing Street Declaration, the cynical British Government gave the go-ahead to THORP. I remember that morning because I asked the Minister, Deputy Cowen, if he would take action on behalf of the Irish people and he laughed at me. That is the record of Fianna Fáil on Sellafield.
The Deputy should read the record.
Fianna Fáil let us down and that is the sad situation. However, Deputy Stagg in the previous Government began finally to stand up for the Irish people in this regard. My belief has always been that, under Article 170 of the EU Treaty and Article 147 of Euratom Treaty, we should have taken the British Government to court 35 to 40 years ago or at least 20 to 25 years ago. An appalling list of accidents and incidents at the Sellafield complex has made the Irish Sea the most contaminated in the world and has led to the release of dangerous emissions. It has resulted in a situation where the residents of County Louth and County Dublin are vindicated in what they are doing. The correct approach now is to fully support those who are taking the action and I commend the Minister of State for making a U-turn.
I echo the sentiments expressed by my colleague Deputy Broughan. I am glad my colleague, the former Minister of State, has joined us because I hoped to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the work he has done. I agree with Deputy Broughan that he approached this case in a strong way and pulled no punches. He went to the UK, took on the British authorities on their own ground and largely won the argument he put forward. It was the first time any progress was made and it was made by my two colleagues, Deputy Howlin, as Minister for the Environment, and Deputy Stagg.
I have been listening to people on this subject for 40 years in County Louth, at local authority level and at Dáil level. I have listened to speakers at meetings and to numerous experts telling us what we should and could not do. I refused to attend the conference organised in Drogheda because I did not believe and still do not that British Nuclear Fuels should be given a platform to tell us lies about the situation in Sellafield, because it has been doing so for 40 years. We in County Louth are the nearest neighbours to Sellafield as the crow flies and nearer than many cities and counties in the UK.
During the election campaign, I listened every day of the week to people who told me that the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil had an agreed arrangement that they would underwrite all the costs of the residents' group in Dundalk. They would pay for all the research and legal fees. They would give them an open cheque book. My colleague, the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, led the charge in that.
I never said "an open cheque book".
It was on public record in all the papers in County Louth and was broadcast on LMFM every day. The people of County Louth were told prior to the election that they would be given an open cheque book, that everything would be paid for.
Can this be true?
On 7 October, that position was reversed on the Adjournment.
Will the Deputy give way?
No, the Minister had his say.
I have not. I challenge the Deputy to show anywhere where I said there would be an open cheque book.
All the spokespersons for his party told the people of County Louth during the election campaign that the Minister would give the Dundalk group an open cheque book.
I did not.
It is true.
That is what the Minister told them. There would be no restrictions; they would be given everything they wanted. Then there was a complete U-turn and the people were conned once again. It will happen again. It took a couple of Independent Members to upset the applecart.
That is what they will do from now on. Every time a U-turn is attempted, the Government will be caught with its pants down. That is what happened last night in this House because of the Fine Gael motion and the attitude taken by the Independent Members.
When Deputy Howlin was Minister for the Environment, he set up a series of meetings with the residents' group and kept us all advised as to what was happening. He did not tell them lies; he told them the truth. They had a good understanding. He appointed a senior official in his Department to liaise with them and they had an open door to the Department at all times. He only promised them what was possible within national and international law. There was a fair relationship and understanding between the Dundalk group and the former Ministers, Deputy Howlin and Deputy Stagg. That was all smashed to pieces within a couple of weeks.
I suggest to the Minister to tell the people of County Louth the truth. What is happening and what will he do? From 7 October until now, the situation has changed about five times. The people of County Louth are confused about this Government's position. What will the Minister do? What is the Government prepared to pay? Will it pay for the research and how much will it allocate? Will the Minister join them in the case or let them take it themselves? Will the case be taken with the inclusion of the State?
I hope when the next general election occurs the record will show what has happened in County Louth on this subject.
I am glad to have the opportunity to share time with some of my colleagues. I heard a lot of hypocrisy last night and tonight. I challenge Deputy Bell to produce any quotation in which I said the four County Louth residents could have an open cheque book. Even if I did not use the term "open cheque book" I know the Deputy will not be able to find such an occasion because I would never do such a thing.
Your election manifesto used the words "fully funded".
Deputy Bell might remember that during the election, he put out a leaflet in which he claimed the Labour Party took the case. Did he or did he not make such a claim? Labour had to withdraw that claim. He claimed credit for taking this case during the election.
Fianna Fáil's election manifesto said it would support the legal case. Is the Minister denying the existence of that manifesto? It used the words "fully funded".
This issue has been dogged by inaction for the past two and a half years. It has been dogged by suspicion engendered because Deputy Stagg and his Government, and Deputy
Yates, who is a Johnny Come Lately in all this——
No more bluster.
That is rubbish. The Minister was busy cosying up to BNFL.
I ask Deputies Stagg and McGahon to behave.
The previous Government strung out the representatives of the people. The Deputy went to them because he was forced to do so.
Has the Minister seen this document? It is in black and white.
I compliment Deputy Jacob for his actions since becoming Minister of State. He has been working in very difficult circumstances——
The Minister should not blame Deputy Jacob, he wrote the document.
I ask Deputy Stagg for the last time to desist or he will have to leave the House.
There is a harp on the document, Minister.
——because of the legacy of the last Government.
That is a fabrication.
The Minister is looking for a fall guy.
"Fully funded" was the phrase used.
I have always been of the opinion that it should not be left up to four residents to take an action against BNFL. It is the duty of the State to take that action. In Government, Deputy Stagg hid behind the residents and allowed them to take the action. I have always supported the residents. I have done a lot of work and the residents know that. My family has raised funds for STAD which is more than any of the other Deputies from County Louth have done.
The Minister's family will have to do much more fund-raising because he will not give them any money.
The Minister is being provocative. He can do more than his family in the position he now holds.
(Interruptions.)
Will the Minister resume his seat for a moment? I will have to suspend the House if this disorder continues. Members had their opportunity to speak and they should allow the Minister to make his contribution without interruption. I appeal to Members to address their remarks to the Chair.
On 5 November 1996 the previous Government decided to seek the removal of the State as a defendant in this case and offered financial assistance for research only until 5 November 1997.
That was an unconditional down payment.
The Government then entered negotiations with the residents, part of which entailed the question of legal costs. I put it to some Members who are coming after me that they received requests for legal costs. What did the previous Government do about that? Nothing, because it was advised that it should not pay legal costs. Members opposite are hypocrites and they know it.
The Minister promised to fully fund the costs. He is a disgrace.
Three days before the election, the previous Government promised £200,000.
The Minister is a disgrace.
I appeal again, and perhaps for the last time, for Members to allow this debate proceed in an orderly fashion. Each Member has a time slot. Some have already used their time and they should not infringe on the time available to the Minister.
By the decision of 5 November 1996, the previous Government entered discussions with the residents——
On a point of order, so that the Minister is not accused of misleading the House, is it true the Fianna Fáil document stated the case would be fully funded by his Government? We do not want him to mislead the House.
That is correct. We are not going away from that.
That is not a point of order.
The histrionics let the Opposition down.
We listened to the Minister for two years — cosying up to BNFL.
This was never a party political issue. On 3 June, three days before the election, Deputy Howlin wrote a letter to these people stating:
"I wish to confirm that I am willing to propose to Government to increase the figure from £100,000 to £200,000".
Unconditional — the Minister should quote accurately.
The election was held on 6 June. The Government stayed in situ until 26 June——
The offer stood until the Minister came in to reverse it.
That Government met on at least three occasions after it made that commitment. At no time did Deputy Howlin propose to Government that it should give £200,000. What he did bring to Government was the proposal to fill 72 State boards, some of which were filled on the last day. So much for the priority the Deputy showed for Sellafield.
Red herrings.
The Minister has a hard neck.
On a point of order, the Minister has misled the House. The positions filled by me, if that is what the Minister is talking about——
By the previous Government.
The positions filled by me were so required by law.
Deputy De Rossa filled two posts on the last day.
Red herrings. The Minister is misleading the House. That is not accurate.
There is no point in continuing this debate unless Members continue in an orderly fashion. I ask the Minister to address his remarks to the Chair and Members to allow him to speak.
I challenge any Opposition speakers who follow me to say——
Does the Minister not know what is in his own party's election document?
——that I am misleading the House if I say the previous Government, for two and a half years, was advised that there was insufficient evidence to take a case against BNFL.
That is not accurate.
The advice was that by taking a case the State would prejudice any future case. I also challenge them to say whether it is the case that their advice at that time was that there was little or no scientific proof on which to base a case. Yet they were stringing out these people.
Put up the white flag and surrender.
No person, Deputy or party has a monopoly on this issue.
The Minister seems to have a monopoly on fairytales. He should do what he promised and provide the money for the case.
We are all agreed that there should be, in a spirit of co-operation with these residents, a proper collation of research so that these people and the State can establish whether or not there is a case.
The Minister should do what he promised.
Unless that evidence is established, there will be no case. They are not foolish and they know this.
It is a scandal that the Minister is undermining a case before the courts.
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
On a point of order, we have a member of the Cabinet speaking on the debate. In the interests of being constructive, what are the terms of the Government support for this case?
That is not a point of order. If there are further interruptions, I will suspend the House.
The Government will do much more than the previous Government did when in power.
This is outrageous. The Minister is undermining the case. He should apologise to the residents.
The Deputy should allow me to speak. He is a democrat——
A question has been asked. The Deputy should wait until it is answered.
This is outrageous. The Minister should apologise. He has referred in detail to a case before the courts and has sought to undermine it. He should withdraw from the House. What he has done is disgraceful.
If Deputy Stagg persists in interrupting I will have to ask him to leave the House. In view of the continuing disorder I am suspending the sitting of the House for 15 minutes.
I am asking the Chair to make a ruling. It is an absolute disgrace.
We are losing time.
We cannot proceed unless the House agrees to do so in an orderly manner and to respect the ruling of the Chair. Will Members respect the ruling of the Chair?
I am asking the Chair to rule——
The Deputy must leave the House because he has failed to recognise the authority of the Chair even when the Chair is on his feet.
I wish to raise a point of order.
The Deputy has been totally disorderly and I ask him to leave the House.
The Deputy is a joke.
I must insist that the Minister withdraw his very damaging statement. It is scandalous.
The Deputy is showing gross disrespect for the Chair.
People can see the histrionic antics the Deputy is engaging in. I have a right to speak.
There is a case before the court which the Minister pretended to support. We now know he does not support it. He has undermined the case. It is scandalous. He should withdraw the statement he made.
(Interruptions.)
I move that the Deputy be suspended owing to his continuing disorderly conduct. The Deputy must leave the House.
Before abiding by the ruling, I wish to state that the Minister who is legally qualified has come to the House and undermined the case of the Dundalk residents.
The Deputy knows what the truth is. He wants to be thrown out of the House.
(Interruptions.)
The sitting is now suspended.
Sitting suspended at 7.25 p.m. and resumed at 7.40 p.m.
Some 15 minutes of our time remain. Is it correct that we lose five minutes before 8.15 p.m. because of the interruptions?
That is correct. We will lose 15 minutes if this goes on.
We would have had another five minutes from 8.10 p.m. to 8.15 p.m.
On a point of order there is a roster whereby Government time is from 7.10 p.m. to 7.40 p.m.
Under Standing Orders time lost can be made up next week in Private Members' time.
This will continue next week.
Whatever time is not exhausted, approximately 10 minutes, can be carried over to next Tuesday in Private Members' time.
The suspension was for 15 minutes and there was considerable injury time which would amount to about 20 minutes.
There will be no injury time.
Are we restricted by the Order of the House? Is it not possible to continue the debate after 8.30 p.m.?
It is not possible to continue after 8.30 p.m. but the lost time can be allowed next week.
Is it possible to continue by agreement of the House?
No, under Standing Orders, the Order of the House was agreed earlier.
If agreement can overcome the problem it would be advisable to continue after 8.30 p.m.
The time being used up now cannot be allowed so I would ask Members——
On a final point of order, since I was due to reply to the debate I understand that will now be taken next week.
Yes.
On a point of order, will you make a ruling on whether it is in order for a Minister of the Government to come into the House and refer in detail to a case that is before——
That is not a point of order. The Deputy must resume his seat.
It is a spurious claim.
May I ask in an orderly manner if——
It is not a point of order. The Deputy will have to find another way to pursue this matter.
Surely if someone has broken the rules of the House——
The Deputy should resume his seat.
Surely if a Member——
Will the Deputy resume his seat and allow the proceedings continue?
The Deputy should have left the House 15 minutes ago.
I ask the Deputy to leave the House.
A senior Minister has undermined the House.