I very much regret the circumstances whereby this debate was unable to be completed last night. The Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs did a grave disservice to the issue, the Louth residents group and to the purpose of the motion which is to support the case against British Nuclear Fuels. His speech was not one I would expect of a Cabinet Minister. He acted in a way that not only damaged the case by referring to the "insufficiency of evidence" in terms of the legal advice to the Government which is grist to the mill of British Nuclear Fuels and something I would have to reject, but he failed to take the opportunity, despite repeated requests, to spell out the detail of the Government support for the Louth Residents Group.
On the Order of Business this morning the Taoiseach when asked, as he was asked about the ministerial task force yesterday, mumbled and murmured support for this cause. This is leaving us all in the dark. This morning I spoke with the legal representatives of the Louth residents group and they are totally unclear. Last night the only indication we had from the Government was that the Minister of State, Deputy Joe Jacob would meet the group in the middle of next week. I have no indication of the terms of the support that will be forthcoming.
The motion clearly and unambiguously includes the terms "legal costs". There has been utter confusion on the Government side. Yesterday there were reports from the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting that the Government would be co-plaintiffs. At a press briefing later last night to political correspondents the Government said it would support phased help research projects. Again this morning the Taoiseach talked about amassing the research and seemed to nod assent on the question of legal costs. The position is unfair to the residents' group. We need clarity on the Government's position.
I am pleased the Government has moved forward from its position of 6 October whereby it made a full and final offer of £200,000 based on an invoice system which did not include legal costs, the appointment of a health research worker, the recruitment of Masons, the information technology people, or the submission of a report from a nuclear engineering physicist. Those are the detailed questions the group want answered. Some of those items would cost £50,000 and others would cost more, but they would not be extraordinarily expensive. The Government has offered a global figure and claims that is the end of it. We do not know its ultimate position.
The residents submitted a letter to the Minister yesterday seeking an urgent meeting with him to clarify the position before the end of the debate on the motion. He replied stating he was not in a position to meet the clients yesterday and stated:
Further consideration is required in relation to certain aspects of the improved level of support which will be available from the Government. I can assure you that when we next meet I will have much more positive news about funding. I intend that this meeting should take place in the middle of next week.
While I welcome the Minister's commitment to meet the residents, I am concerned there will be another stand off next week similar to that of 6 October and that the matter will end in tears. I am concerned the Minister will make an offer that will fall short of what is required and we will be debarred from tabling another motion for six months. I hope the motion is not being accepted as a parliamentary device to avoid the defeat that could have been inflicted, given the indications of support from several Independent Deputies, to whom I express my appreciation.
I am still not clear on this matter. It was regrettable that when the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs was asked if he could give an indication of the level of support that might be forthcoming from the Government, he deliberately evaded and politicised the issue.
I have had discussions on the question of co-plaintiff and removing the status of co-defendant from the issue. While I cannot speak for the Louth residents' group, I am sure these matters are negotiable and that the group would welcome a partnership with the Government because of its resources and expertise. However, it would not welcome a takeover of the case which would not give it control over its future shape and direction. A decision on the case could take three years. If the State decided to drop the case next year, the group would have no say in the matter. That is a legitimate concern for the residents. They favour partnership, but not a takeover. They would have to agree the procedures of a co-plaintiff arrangement and would welcome movement in that direction.
A plenary statement of claim has been lodged by the Louth residents' group. The next step is to lodge a plenary summons against BNFL who will then have to file a defence, following which there will be a long and winding process of discovery. The existing legal requirement of discovery on the state of its documents has not been met by the State and its offices in providing documents to the group. On the eve of lodging a plenary summons and statement of claim, the Louth residents' group does not know the level of support it will get from the Government. The group is being frustrated. Yesterday's national newspapers carried advertisements as part of the group's voluntary fund raising campaign. It does not know the level of funding it will receive or whether it needs to initiate a voluntary fund raising campaign. The residents are in the dark. They are dissipating their energies with needless fractious negotiations with the Government.
I appeal to the Government to be clear-cut and generous in its approach and to reach an accommodation with the Louth residents' group next week. I will continue to monitor this issue. At the last meeting it was agreed that a stenographer will be present at all meetings and a verbatim report published. Such transparency will benefit the Minister in that neither side will be misrepresented.
