I wish to share my time with Deputy Tom Kitt.
Adjournment Debate. - British Nuclear Fuel Stations.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
On 16 December 1993, the day after the Joint Declaration and the announcement by the British Minister for Agriculture in the House of Commons that the go-ahead had been given for THORP, I said that the British Government was in effect treating this nation in a cavalier way in regard to THORP. However, this cannot compare with the cavalier way in which the Government has treated my efforts to raise this issue in recent days. I have the greatest of respect for the Minister of State at the Department of Tourism and Trade, Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan, but I thought that the Minister of State, Deputy Gilmore, who has had much to say in recent days, or a senior Minister, would have come into the House to reply to this debate.
The Ceann Comhairle and his office were hoodwinked last Thursday. When I tried to table a Private Notice Question on this matter I was informed that, on the advice of the Department and the Attorney General's office, this matter was not regarded as urgent, but rather an ongoing one. At the very time I would have been asking the question, if I had been allowed, the Minister of State, Deputy Gilmore, was stating on national radio that the matter was extremely urgent and that the Government was treating it in that way. He was also meeting a number of members of the STAD group, but he would not come into the House to answer questions on the matter. I had to raise it another way.
The Government's attitude on the STAD case and Sellafield is laudable — I am sure there is all-party agreement in that regard — but is contradicted by its attitude to the Fianna Fáil motion on nuclear weapons and the non-proliferation treaty. The Government, in effect has sided with the major powers who are in favour of nuclear power. It did not support our motion. Many interest groups, in particular Greenpeace and Earthwatch, are disappointed with the Government's attitude to the renewal of the treaty.
I exhort the Government to row in behind the four courageous people from my constituency who took a case to the courts on this matter when Governments — including the Government of which I was a member — failed to do so. People, particularly those living on the east coast, are very concerned about Sellafield, especially the commissioning of the THORP plant. With two Deputies from other parties, I visited the plant more than a year ago and was astounded at what I saw. I came away more despondent than ever. I was not surprised the British Government gave the go-ahead to the commissioning of THORP because £3 billion was spent on the plant's expansion. I ask the Government to row in behind the courageous people from my constituency who have, in effect, done what the Government should have done many years ago. Will it take over the case and indemnify those people who have literally put their lives on the line by taking this case against all the odds? They were told by numerous legal advisers that they did not have a case. They have got their case past the first hurdle, but there is a long way to go. It is incumbent on the Government to support them.
The Government should also examine the question of transporting hazardous material to and from the plant through the Irish Sea. We are all aware of the difficulties in regard to Canadian waters and Spanish fishing rights. The Government should have a say in regard to the transport of materials in the Irish Sea. Will it take into account the fears of people, particularly those living along the eastern seaboard, and take over this case?
I do not allow my office to be hoodwinked and any decisions I make are of my own volition.
I accept that.
I thank Deputy Ahern for sharing his time with me and express appreciation of the determined efforts of Mark Dearey, Mary Kavanagh, Ollan Herr and Constance Short, the four Dundalk people who took the case to court and were given the go-ahead to sue BNFL, which runs the Sellafield nuclear plant, through the Irish courts. I also applaud Mr. Justice O'Hanlon for his judgement in the case. In expressing my appreciation of those four people, I speak from the experience of having twice visited Sellafield. I first visited it during a protest meeting outside Sellafield and subsequently while participating in an RTE radio programme hosted by Mr. Joe Duffy from the plant. I came away from both those visits with a feeling of horror and despair, horror at the scale and size of the plant and despair at the intransigence and stubborness of BNFL which is determined not to listen to the genuine concerns of the Irish people about the dangers of the plant.
During the period of the last Government, in which I served as Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs, every opportunity was availed of to raise this issue at European level. I am sure all Members are opposed to the developments planned for Sellafield, especially the THORP plant. Until now legal obstacles emerged regardless of the efforts made to take on Sellafield, but this judgment has changed everything which means, for the first time, the door has been truly opened for the Irish Government to take a legal challenge against Sellafield all the way to Europe. Stop THORP Alliance Dundalk — STAD — can now proceed with its action against BNFL in the Irish courts, but is not in a position to incur the costs of taking such an action any further. The Government has a moral duty to take on this case on behalf of the four brave people concerned and on behalf of Irish people in general and must indemnify the costs of their legal action.
My visits to Sellafield were disturbing. The full commissioning of THORP would increase tenfold radioactive emissions into the Irish Sea. It would also increase substantially the risk of a major accident at the plant. On behalf of future generations and for the sake of our children let us grasp this historic opportunity to fight Sellafield where it matters and where it will hurt, namely, in the courts. Let us fight to win. Those four Dundalk people have opened the door for the Government. I urge the Minister and the Government not to walk away at this critical stage. Will the Minister grasp this opportunity? I appreciate he is Minister of State at the Department of Tourism and Trade, but I hope he will speak on behalf of a Government that has given consideration to this matter since it was first raised by Deputy Dermot Ahern and me.
I am here on behalf of the Government. Deputy Stagg had a prior commitment and was unable to come into the House to reply to the debate. It was not the Minister of State, Deputy Gilmore, who was supposed to reply.
He had a great deal to say a few days ago.
Mr. O'Sullivan
Like Deputy Dermot Ahern, I was in London on that historic day, 15 December 1993, and I, too, was disappointed the following day when THORP got the go ahead. I would have thought that in the interim Deputy Ahern would have used his very powerful position to highlight this matter rather than raise it on the Adjournment tonight. While this is an important vehicle by which to get the message across, we should use every opportunity to make known our views on THORP.
Over the years, successive Irish Governments have shared a general national concern about nuclear power installations at Sellafield, the continuation and expansion of spent fuel reprocessing facilities on the site, including THORP, discharges of radioactive waste into the marine environment and shipments of radioactive materials through the Irish Sea. It has repeatedly been argued that the only way to resolve Irish concerns about Sellafield is to close the plant. These views have been conveyed repeatedly to the UK Government, but to no avail. As a result, the Government has decided something more positive needs to be done to tackle the problems of Sellafield, particularly the threat of pollution and its effect on the health and safety of the Irish public. The Government's policy agreement, A Government of Renewal, sets out a series of actions the Government will pursue in relation to Sellafield.
My colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Stagg, has drawn up a blueprint to implement the various commitments on Sellafield and the Irish Sea, including a reassessment of the legal possibilities of taking a court case against Sellafield and the question of requesting arbitration on THORP's radioactive discharges into the Irish Sea under the Paris Convention on Marine Pollution. The Attorney General has been asked to advise as a matter of urgency on these legal matters. The blueprint for action on Sellafield is also being studied by my colleagues, the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, and it is expected that the inaugural meeting of the task force of Ministers and official experts will take place shortly. The aim of the task force will be to develop a concerted strategy for implementing the Government's proposals on Sellafield, is the first comprehensive initiative taken by any Government to date to tackle the problems of Sellafield.
The Government considers that the THORP reprocessing plant, which began operations last year, represents an additional and unnecessary risk to the health and safety of the Irish population. When THORP was originally given the planning go-ahead in 1977, nuclear power was still generally believed to have a prosperous future and reprocessing was thought to be a key factor in the uranium fuel cycle. Today, the arguments for reprocessing are not convincing. The anticipated expansion of nuclear power has not materialised and the plutonium and uranium recovered from spent fuel are no longer required for reasons of economy or security of supply. Indeed, they are adding unnecessarily to the huge stockpile of nuclear materials which exists worldwide and which is considered by some countries, including Ireland, to be a major security and political problem.
During 1993, many requests were made to the UK authorities, by Ireland and other EU member states, to hold a public inquiry into THORP and to have an environmental impact assessment undertaken, but these requests were refused by the UK Government. The decision of the High Court, which established the jurisdiction of the Irish courts to hear the substantive case brought by a group of Dundalk residents against British Nuclear Fuels Limited concerning THORP, therefore is welcome.
The four plaintiffs from Dundalk are seeking an injunction to restrain operations at the THORP plant until it has fully complied with the EU directive on Environmental Impact Assessment and also the justification principle under EURATOM legislation. Ireland and the Attorney General have been named as co-defendants in the proceedings on the basis that the State should have intervened to ensure that EU legislation was fully complied with before the plant went into operation. On 22 March 1994, Mr. Justice Carney made an order allowing the plaintiffs to serve a plenary summons, outside the jurisdiction on British Nuclear Fuels.
Counsel for BNFL applied to the High Court on 8 December, 1994 to have the company discharged from the proceedings. It put forward a motion seeking to set aside the earlier court order of 22 March 1994 allowing service outside this jurisdiction. The application of BNFL was heard in the High Court by Mr. Justice O'Hanlon over six days from 9 to 20 December 1994. Although Ireland and the Attorney General are named as co-defendants in the substantive case taken by the Dundalk residents, the Government also resisted the application of British Nuclear Fuels to have an order allowing service of the summons out of the State set aside. This is a clear illustration of the Government's commitment to do all in its power to eliminate the threat posed by Sellafield and THORP.
In his judgement, Mr. Justice O'Hanlon concluded that the original order made by Mr. Justice Carney giving leave to serve out of the jurisdiction was validly made and he, therefore, refused the application to set aside the order giving such leave. It is understood that BNFL is likely to appeal the judgement to the Supreme Court. The Attorney General's office is examining the judgement and will advise the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications on its implications and the further action required on our part. There have been many requests that the plaintiffs should be indemnified by the State in respect of their costs of pursuing the proceedings. It was indicated, in response to two parliamentary questions on 24 January, that it was considered appropriate in the circumstances to await the outcome of the case taken by British Nuclear Fuels Limited before reaching a decision, one way or the other, upon that request. The Attorney General's office will now consider that matter further but if, as expected, BNFL appeals to the Supreme Court, the Attorney General will await that judgement before reaching a decision. Deputies can be assured that, in the event of an appeal by British Nuclear Fuels to the Supreme Court, the Attorney General and the Chief State Solicitor will be instructed to strongly resist such an application, as in the High Court case.
It is clear that there is widespread opposition in this country to all operations at Sellafield. The Government is committed to taking all possible action open to it to secure the objective of the eventual closure of the plant. Such action includes the possibility of taking legal action if a sustainable case can be shown to exist based on sufficient evidence. As I have already stated, the Attorney General has been asked to reassess the legal possibilities of taking a court case against Sellafield.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.15 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 5 April 1995.