Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 30 Oct 1996

Vol. 470 No. 7

Adjournment Debate. - Legal Action Against BNFL.

Mr. D. Ahern

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to raise this matter which I tabled last Friday, the day after the significant Supreme Court decision in this case. I heard, with some glee, the Minister's contribution in the Seanad. Like many of the Senators who contributed to the debate, I very much appreciate the work the Minister has done on this matter and the manner in which he addressed the Fianna Fáil amendment tabled today in response to an amendment from the Labour Party which was more or less welcoming the decision.

The four residents who have taken this case over the past number of years have put their houses and livelihoods on the line. The time has passed for congratulating and welcoming the decision, it is now time for action. I made the point during the past week or so that the Government had an opportunity for the past two years to have an each way bet on this issue and now it is time for decisions. I compliment and thank the Minister for the manner in which he addressed the Fianna Fáil amendment, which he acknowledged strengthened the deliberations of the Seanad in this regard.

When I raised this issue last Thursday I made a point about the costs borne by the litigants to date. I am thankful they were awarded their costs in the High Court and the Supreme Court, but as the Attorney General will know they are party and party costs, the costs of the court action. There have been a great deal of additional costs that they might not be allowed in the normal court action, which will also have to be borne by them and I hope the Minister will be able to meet those.

The matter has moved on. The four litigants are willing to meet the Government or anybody to ensure that this case is taken over, with some venom, by Government action. It is vital — the Minister touched on this in his response in the Seanad tonight — that the Minister and his representatives attend any meetings and that they also have in attendance the Attorney General or a representative of his office so that the legal teams of both sides can come together. The Minister dealt with the issue in that manner.

Deputy Seán Ryan, Deputy Helen Keogh and I visited the THORP installation some years ago. After that visit I was more worried than ever about the Sellafield issue. The scale of the procedure there is mind-boggling. An incident like Chernobyl gives us a horrible insight into what is possible when a major accident occurs.

The final straw, not just for the four residents but for many people on the east coast, occurred on the same day as the joint declaration on the peace process. That was an historic day for our country but it was also the day on which a British Minister announced in the House of Commons the authorisation for the commissioning of THORP. Government and Opposition in this House protested about that decision on the following day.

The Minister and the Government have an extremely difficult decision to make but now is the time to make it. We have learned more about Sellafield in the last few years than ever before. That plant was called Windscale originally, its name changed but we still got no information. In this era of more available information, the Minister, the Government and their legal advisers should know that there are more reasons to take a case on Sellafield and they should use every opportunity in that regard.

A number of reputable people and reports might help the Government in this matter. About a year ago the former company secretary of BNFL, Mr. Harold Bolter, said there had been an unreported build up of plutonium gases in the Sellafield complex in 1990. Some weeks ago a leading British scientist, Mr. Peter Taylor, referred to the danger of overground storage tanks at the complex. The Minister mentioned this when I raised the issue with him some days ago and also in his Seanad speech tonight. The British geological survey on seismic problems in the Irish Sea and on both islands must also be taken into account in any further expansion of Sellafield. There were recent revelations on the BBC and in The Scotsman about ten previously unreported serious incidents in the British nuclear industry on the west coast of Britain. The Dounreay plant is in a critical condition. The Sellafield authorities have sought authorisations to emit other gases into the air and the Irish Sea.

In a recent parliamentary question I asked the Minister to use his good offices to ensure the British authorities properly complied with EU Council Directive 96/29 EURATOM, issued on 30 May 1996, which lays down revised basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. The Minister said that each member state has until 30 May 2000 to bring into force laws under this directive. This is a further point in favour of our bringing a case against Sellafield.

I compliment the Minister for accepting the Fianna Fáil amendment in the Seanad. It strengthens the Seanad's deliberations and reflects the view of all sides of this House also. It is important that from now on that the legal representatives of the Minister and the litigants come together as soon as possible so that this matter can be progressed.

Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications (Mr. Stagg)

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter and giving me the opportunity to address this issue in the House. In the Seanad this evening a motion welcoming the Supreme Court judgment of last week and commending the Government for its continuing efforts to monitor the activities of the UK's nuclear industry and on the steps the Government is taking to minimise risk from that industry was universally supported. In the course of the debate, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I indicated that I did not oppose the Fianna Fáil amendment which I suggested enhanced the original motion, thereby reflecting the thinking of the Seanad and the Irish public.

The Supreme Court was unanimous in its decision to uphold the 1995 judgment of the High Court establishing the jurisdiction of the Irish courts to hear the substantive case. The judgment confirmed the entitlement of the four County Louth residents to sue for damages arising in Ireland through the Irish courts. The extent to which they could pursue their claims, based on European law, was considered to be a matter for the trial judge. I wholeheartedly welcome this significant decision which confirms the right of access by citizens, in this case the four County Louth residents, on issues of concern to them in the courts of their own country. The plaintiffs were also awarded their costs against BNFL. The State was ordered to pay its own costs.

I congratulate the four people who took this action — namely Ms Constance Shortt, Ms Mary Kavanagh, Mr. Mark Deary and Mr. Ollan Herr. I pay tribute to these brave people who have selflessly stuck to their guns with no possibility of personal gain and the potential for great personal loss. Their stand has been compared to that of David against Goliath. While the Government was criticised by that comparison, we know the result of that contest and I hope for a similar one in this case.

The plaintiffs have now been given leave by the court to serve summons on BNFL within four weeks of the date of judgment. The substantive case taken by the plaintiffs will then be scheduled for hearing in the High Court. It is not possible at this stage to state when the case will be heard. Notwithstanding that the Government and the Attorney General are named as co-defendants in the substantive case which is to follow, counsel for the State has supported the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court in opposing the appeal of British Nuclear Fuels. The State gave the fullest backing it possibly or legally could to the group in establishing the right to take the case in the Irish courts.

In addition, my Department, other Departments and the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland are making available, on a voluntary basis, to the solicitors of the four Dundalk residents all the relevant files and documentation concerning Sellafield and related aspects relevant to the substantive case. My Department has already disclosed to the plaintiffs the nature of the documentation available within my Department concerning Sellafield and other related aspects relevant to the substantive case.

There have been suggestions since the court's findings that the State should join the residents and support them in their substantive action against BNFL or take over responsibility in the legal action against BNFL regarding Sellafield. The Deputy will be aware that I am favourably disposed to the ultimate objective of the County Louth residents, which is the cessation of activities at Sellafield. However, consideration of these matters is complex and needs time and detailed examination by the Government, with the assistance and advice of the Attorney General.

I have offered to meet the plaintiffs involved in the court case because it was indicated publicly, on their behalf, that they were anxious to cooperate with the State towards shared objectives of both parties. The latest correspondence I have received from the plaintiffs' solicitors — which arrived today — points out that they would prefer a meeting on this subject with legal representatives attending on both sides. I have sought urgent comments on this modified suggestion from the Attorney General. My colleague, the Minister for the Environment, is calling a meeting of the Committee of Ministers on Sellafield tomorrow at which this subject will be discussed.

Time constraints do not allow me to elaborate further but more information is available on the record of the other House.