asked the Taoiseach if he will report to the Dáil on his discussion with the British Prime Minister last week.
2.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Talks with British Prime Minister.
1.
asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent talks with the British Prime Minister regarding the implication of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
At a brief, informal meeting in London on 19 February, the Prime Minister and I reviewed the working of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to which we are both committed. The Prime Minister expressed satisfaction at the decision of the Government to sign the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism. I expressed the concern felt in Ireland about the Sellafield plant and the Prime Minister said that she would let me have a full report on this.
Is the Taoiseach aware that his sudden announcement in London of the decision to sign the European Convention on Terrorism has caused a considerable amount of concern? In deciding to sign did the Taoiseach and the Government give any consideration to entering reservations as did many other European countries, particularly in regard to extraditing our own nationals? Could the Taoiseach indicate whether we signed with reservations or unreservedly?
Only one country entered a reservation on signature and a number of states entered reservations on ratification.
Perhaps we will have an opportunity to consider that whole question further at another time. In discussing Sellafield with the British Prime Minister, did the Taoiseach press for any specific action and did he indicate to the Prime Minister that the only thing that would really satisfy public opinion here is the closure of this serious menace? If the Taoiseach did not ask for the closure of Sellafield, what did he press the Prime Minister to do in regard to Sellafield?
I endeavoured to answer that question in the Dáil in reply to a Private Notice Question raised by Deputy Allen. I have already given an answer in the Dáil on that. I explained to the Prime Minister that the nature or our concern and the grounds for it which I set out in this House in reply to a question. Those grounds include the frequency with which in the recent past incidents have occurred, a much greater frequency than over the previous 30 years, and also the revelation that information in relation to the event that occurred 30 years ago proved incorrect by a factor of 40. These are matters which I mentioned in this House as our concerns and I conveyed these concerns to the Prime Minister, indicating that we would wish to see a monitoring process carried out under international auspices so that we can be assured as to whether the Sellafield plant can continue in operation.
Expressing concern is of some value but what I am trying to ascertain is if in the course of discussions the Taoiseach pressed for some specific action, something that would reassure public opinion here and in Britain. Am I correct in assuming from the Taoiseach's reply that he did not propose to the Prime Minister that this operation be closed down? In his representations did the Taoiseach make any differentiation as to the two separate aspects of the Sellafield operation, the fact that one portion of this plant is concerned with military nuclear matters and another with civilian nuclear power? Did the Taoiseach advert to the nuclear military side of this operation in these discussions?
My concern is with the possible dangers to this country arising from this station, its siting and its operation. These are the matters I raised. Before I met her the Prime Minister had announced an inquiry into recent events there. I indicated that we were concerned that the whole matter should be reviewed at international level. Our own monitoring of air and sea has indicated that the plant, even allowing for the recent incidents which have taken place, has not up to this point caused any worrying pollution problems of either air or sea in terms of radioactivity. But the point I was making in the Dáil, and which I sought to convey to the Prime Minister, is that while that is the case, and there is no concern that need arise from what has happened, the frequency of the incidents and the revelation that previous information was incorrect raised doubts with regard to the furture of that plant and that with a view to establishing whether those doubts were justified and whether we can justify what action has been taken, we felt the matter should be reviewed internationally.
Just one more question.
Then I will call Deputy Mac Giolla.
Then I would like to come in again on the Anglo Irish Agreement. The Taoiseach is not according this matter the urgency public opinion here would wish him to give it. Did the Taoiseach, in talking to the British Prime Minister, advert to two aspects of the matter, one the constant leakages and emissions which are a cause of danger and concern and which are, more seriously, an indication of the faulty nature of this plant; and, secondly, the fact that these frequent occurrences there are a cause for worry as to whether or not there might not some day be a major explosion or failure at this plant? Is the Taoiseach not aware of the widespread anxiety here, among experts as well as among ordinary members of the public, about the very existence of this plant apart from reassurances about its operation?
It is precisely those concerns that I have referred to in my reply to this House to a question on the Adjournment. Even though what has happened so far has not had any adverse effect here, the frequency of these incidents raised doubts about the operation of that plant.
As a whole?
The number and variety of incidents that have occurred raise doubts as to its operation, and it is our concern for the future arising from that that I expressed in this House and conveyed to the Prime Minister.
Did the Taoiseach raise with the British Prime Minister the very serious crisis which is developing in Northern Ireland if the Unionists opt out of local government and particularly if the planned series of strikes or lock-outs which they propose take place, and did the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister discuss any political initiatives to overcome that?
I appreciate that the practice is, after a brief informal meeting of that kind, to issue a brief statement and not to go beyond that subsequently. I am holding to that position. As that statement said, we are reviewing the work of the Anglo-Irish Agreement to which both of us are committed. Even in the limited time available, that review was fairly comprehensive.
Let me ask the Taoiseach, in the light of whatever discussions he had and bearing in mind the crisis which is developing, if he feels that the speech of the Minister for Foreign Affairs was helpful in the situation particularly as he is the man primarily responsible.
I note that this morning's Belfast Newsletter referred to the speech as having been helpful in clarifying a number of issues which have given cause for concern. I thought it a very interesting comment in that report.
Could the Taoiseach say, in view of the rejection of the proposals put by the British Prime Minister, what he feels the next moves towards devolved government might be?
I will not comment on that point in response to the question. It is a separate question.
In his discussion with the British Prime Minister did the Taoiseach form any view? If so, will he convey to the House the resoluteness of the British Prime Minister at this stage in regard to the agreement? In particular did he draw her attention to the statement she made on 17 December last to the effect that the people of Northern Ireland can get rid of the Inter-Governmental Conference by agreeing to devolved government? Also she said: "if they do not want the conference the remedy is in their own hands". Did the Taoiseach form any view in his discussions with the British Prime Minister on whether there is a weakening of will on her part or on the part of the British Government about the implementation of the agreement at this stage?
The statement issued after the meeting referred to the fact that we are both committed to the agreement. Those words speak for themselves and they have been validated by the stance taken by the Prime Minister in discussions with the Unionist leaders yesterday.
Has the Taoiseach's attention been drawn to the fact that that statement of yesterday has words in it which could be interpreted in different ways and certainly at best are ambiguous? In particular I refer to the use of the word "while" in this statement. Will the Taoiseach not agree that the introduction of this word "while" would qualify any reaffirmation of intention with regard to the agreement? The words used were: "While reaffirming the Government's commitment in regard to the implementation of the Anglo-Irish agreement it was understood that if after discussions with all concerned the ideas raised in our talks today bore fruit, we should consider what that meant for the work of the Inter-Governmental Conference". Will the Taoiseach indicate his interpretation of those words and whether I am right in my interpretation of the introduction of the word "while" into the terms of that statement?
The prefacing of those remarks by the word "while" committed to the agreement I would interpret as reassuring rather than otherwise. With regard to the second half of the sentence the Deputy will note that the wording used corresponds closely with that of the agreement in relation to the work of the conference which, of course, will not operate in areas in respect of which governmental functions were devolved to an executive in Northern Ireland established on a basis of participation between the two communities.
Does the Taoiseach accept that the words, "we should need to consider what that meant for the work of the Inter-Governmental Conference" introduces any element of doubt into the situation? When he is replying perhaps he will indicate if a meeting of the conference which was to be held in February has been postponed or cancelled and whether we are to read any significance into that.
As far as the meeting is concerned, preparation for that meeting was not completed and the meeting will take place later. It was not ready to take place at this time, the end of February. I am sorry if I missed the Deputy's first point.
I am asking the Taoiseach about the use of the words in that communiqué of yesterday.
Those words I regard as adhering very closely to the wording of the agreement and I think the Prime Minister was pursuing exactly the same approach as we have pursued here in pointing out that to the extent that functions can be devolved on a participatory basis to that extent the conference would no longer have a function in the area in question, because in that area the different parties in Northern Ireland, particularly the constitutional parties representing the Nationalist minority, would have their role to play directly. The wording there is very exact and precise and I am perfectly satisfied with it.
We will have to bring this to a conclusion.
I have one question.
A final question from Deputy Mac Giolla.
Did the British Prime Minister request postponement of the Inter-Governmental Conference and was the request made at the meeting with the Taoiseach? Did the Taoiseach agree to it at that meeting?
The matter was not raised at my meeting with the Prime Minister.
Tabharfar freagraí scríofa ar cheisteanna 3, 4, 5 agus 6.