Vol. 545 No. 5
8 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at the meeting of the British-Irish Council on 30 November 2001; if the issue of Sellafield and the decision of the British authorities to proceed with the MOX plant was raised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30580/01]
9 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the contacts he has had since 28 November 2001 with the British Prime Minister in relation to the peace process. [30635/01]
10 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach the subjects he intends to discuss with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, at the British-Irish Council meeting to be held in Dublin on 30 November 2001. [30950/01]
11 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting on 30 November 2001 with the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. [30957/01]
12 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the recent direct contacts he has had with the British Government concerning the imminent commissioning of the MOX nuclear plant at Sellafield; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30961/01]
13 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent developments in the Northern Ireland peace process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30962/01]
14 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the British Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30963/01]
15 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet with the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30964/01]
16 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30965/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 to 16, inclusive, together.
The British-Irish Council established under the Good Friday Agreement held its second summit meeting in Dublin Castle on Friday, 30 November 2001. Together with the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, and other members of the Government, I was very pleased to welcome Prime Minister Tony Blair, and representatives of the devolved administrations, including Mr. Jack McConnell, First Minister, Scottish Executive, Rhodri Morgan, First Minister, National Assembly for Wales, and David Trimble, First Minister and Mark Durkan, Deputy First Minister, Northern Ireland Executive.
The Isle of Man was represented by Mr. Donald Gelling, Chief Minister of the Isle of Man Government. Jersey was represented by Senator Pierre Horsfall, President of the States of Jersey policy and resources committee, while Guernsey was represented by Deputy Laurie Morgan, President, States of Guernsey advisory and finance committee.
The main focus of the meeting was the issue of drug misuse and how co-operation in this area might be developed within the council. The council agreed elements for a framework for future co-operation and established a group of senior officials to advance work in the agreed areas. Following the discussion on drugs, the council was updated on work being undertaken in sectoral areas including the environment, social inclusion, transport, the knowledge economy and tourism and health by the relevant lead administrations.
Jersey, with the BIC secretariat, has also taken the lead in designing the BIC website, in consultation with the administrations of other members. In the first instance, the aim is to create a public site as a showcase for the work of the British-Irish Council. The aim is to launch the public site in spring 2002.
The next summit level meeting will be hosted by Jersey in April 2002, and that meeting will focus on the issue of the knowledge economy. Scotland and Wales will host a summit in September 2002. Northern Ireland will host a summit in early 2003.
The third plenary meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council was held on the afternoon of Friday, 30 November 2001. With the Tánaiste and other members of the Government, I was pleased to welcome the Northern Ireland Executive delegation led by Mr. David Trimble, First Minister and Mr. Mark Durkan, Deputy First Minister. The Council expressed its satisfaction at recent positive developments in regard to the implementation of all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement.
The Council received a progress report on work done by the working group on the establishment of an independent North-South consultative forum and agreed that further discussion take place at the forthcoming institutional format meeting with a further progress report to be made at the next plenary.
The Council also received a report from the consultants engaged to carry out the study on obstacles to cross-Border mobility on the island of Ireland. The report will be published shortly to allow interested organisations, including Departments and individuals, the opportunity to present their views on the recommendations and their implementation.
The Council received a report on enhancing competitiveness in the two economies which was commissioned by the Northern Ireland Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, working in conjunction with InterTradeIreland, the trade and business development body. The Council requested that the relevant Departments and agencies pursue the competitiveness agenda, to mutual economic benefit, in the areas for which they have a key responsibility.
There was also a discussion of the effect on the economies of both jurisdictions of the horrific events of 11 September. The Council agreed that their aftermath poses significant challenges for the economies of both jurisdictions. The Council considered how the tourism agencies on the island of Ireland are developing proposals to reduce the impact on tourism.
The Council considered and approved a schedule of NSMC meetings to take place over the coming months. It is planned that the Council will hold a first meeting in institutional format before the end of December. The Council also agreed that its next meeting in plenary format would be in Northern Ireland in May 2002.
Copies of the communiqués that issued after the meetings of the BIC and the North-South Ministerial Council have been placed in the Library.
Both plenary meetings proved extremely successful and highlighted the useful work being done by the institutions established under the Good Friday Agreement. They provide a useful forum for discussing matters of real practical interest and importance. The occasions demonstrate, yet again, that there is a great deal of normal business that needs to be discussed both between North and South and between the representatives of these islands generally. Our meetings clearly demonstrated that we can do this in a constructive and co-operative way which serves the interests of all the people we represent.
In the course of a bi-lateral meeting, I discussed a number of issues with the Prime Minister Mr. Blair. In particular, I expressed grave concern about Sellafield and the British Government's decision to go ahead with the MOX plant.
I raised the issue of co-operation by the British authorities with the independent commission of inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. We also had an opportunity, briefly, to discuss the forthcoming European Council meeting at Laeken as well as the ongoing situation in Afghanistan.
I welcome the decision of the Ulster Unionist Council to back Mr. David Trimble's leadership strategy and I congratulate him on the outcome achieved.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, met the Secretary of State, Dr. Reid, MP, on 3 December and discussed a number of current issues. They also met General John de Chastelain. General de Chastelain confirmed that he and his colleagues remain fully engaged in carrying out their mandate and achieving further progress in the process of putting paramilitary arms, both loyalist and republican, completely beyond use. I met Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams on 3 December and we discussed recent developments.
I hope we can look forward to a period of sustained stability where the institutions and the processes of the Agreement can be allowed to work. I very much welcome the progress that has been made in securing a resolution of the Holy Cross school issue in Ardoyne. The work of the Executive and particularly the direct engagement of the First Minister, Mr. David Trimble, and Deputy First Minister, Mr. Mark Durkan, demonstrates the type of progress that can be made by the parties working closely together in tackling the many challenges they face.
There are quite a number of questions which have been answered together and many issues to which the Taoiseach replied. Will the Taoiseach confirm, first and foremost, that the copies of the communiqués are available in the Library and can be accessed by Members?
In raising the issue of Sellafield with the British Government, has the Prime Minister Mr. Blair referred, as his Secretary of State for energy, Margaret Beckett, MP, has, to the substantial amount of capital investment which has already been put into the facility by the British Government and the economic dominance in the region of Cumbria which Sellafield represents for the 16,000 people directly or indirectly employed by the facility? If he has referred to this economic dimension, leaving aside the hazardous nature of the activity and its pollutant effect upon the Irish Sea, has the Government thought of sharing the financial burden associated with getting beyond the present situation in Sellafield? Has the Government considered on the one hand, helping the British Government to overcome what it would perceive as financial loss for money spent which cannot be retrieved and, on the other hand, coming perhaps jointly to the Commission in Brussels looking for some special kind of package for alternative forms of employment in the region of Cumbria to facilitate a move away from this environmentally dangerous activity at Sellafield to other forms of economic activity which will secure the economic base of the region of Cumbria? Has this matter been raised by the Taoiseach or by the British Prime Minister or is it possible to get beyond the confrontation which has characterised exchanges between the British and Irish Governments for probably the past 15 to 20 years?
There is no doubt about the economic consequences of the entire development. Many of the recent discussions have been about the MOX plant but, as the Deputy said, certainly over the past 17 or 18 years the discussions have been about the overall development. I know that Sellafield provides a huge economic input to Cumbria and I have acknowledged that on many occasions. We must be honest and frank about it. If anybody was asked to shed 15,000 or 16,000 full-time jobs and 3,000 or 4,000 part-time jobs, it would be an enormous undertaking.
It is like Shannon.
At this stage I do not think the British Government will do that in the short term. While that clearly constitutes an enormous part of its position and that is why there is such strong support for it in Cumbria, regardless of what its own health and safety people, the local authorities and politicians and other experts have said over the years, it will stick with it. Why does it do that? It does it because of its economic significance to them. I do not agree with that but I understand it and I think most people here do.
Having said that, the other argument applies, particularly in the case of the MOX plant, that according to its own examination there is no justification, economic or otherwise, for it. The MOX plant will effectively perpetuate the nuclear reprocessing activities at Sellafield and it will continue for another generation.
If it was to be turned around, there would be this enormous capital investment which clearly will have to be written off. The Prime Minister Mr. Blair did not confirm that to me but, according to everything I see and study, that is the only way it can be handled. The plant only has 11% capacity. There is no case being argued that it can go much better than that.
The German Chancellor, Mr. Gerhard Schröeder has outlined where he is going, which is a different place than that to which his predecessors were going, and I think he is very determined on that. I have spoken to him and listened to what he has said publicly about that matter. France is in a different category and it is not as clear where it is going. Japan has stated that it will not get into this position. Therefore, if one just confines the arguments to the MOX plant issue, our view, which has been put forward by all our experts for years, is that any perceived economic benefits associated with the Sellafield plant such as the employment it creates are greatly outweighed by the serious environment issues, and I have had that discussion.
The Deputy will be aware that I have said previously that the Prime Minister Mr. Blair, who no doubt understands our concern, would probably feel that we overstate the fact that there will be an increase in radioactive discharges to the marine and terrestrial environments due to the volume of the international shipments, including shipments in the Irish Sea. I think he would accept that and all of our other arguments, but he probably would argue that we overstate them. The British Government puts a huge emphasis on its support for BNFL and because of its investment it is not interested in changing its mind.
On the other hand, although we did not get all we wanted the other day, it has given us an opportunity to engage in these arguments. That is one of the benefits. For all of my political life – and I am sure long before that – the British Government has always stood behind BNFL. No matter what we said it would simply stand back and say that was its position. At least this gives us a chance to discuss some of these issues. There are many other countries, as well as ourselves, which are fairly united on the issue. It was interesting to hear David Trimble's strong opinions on the matter.
A motion was passed.
He was representing the views of the Assembly. Some of our SDLP colleagues in County Down, including Eddie McGrady, were probably among the first people to speak on the issue approximately 15 years ago. These are issues that need to be discussed. I would be misleading the House if I said it would be easy. Minds are very closed on this matter.
Has the Taoiseach raised the question of financial assistance?
I have not raised the question of financial assistance from us but on several occasions I have tried, because it has been highlighted to me by the Department, to discuss with them the economic realities of the issue. I did not say we would contribute.
During his discussions with the British Prime Minister, what answer was obtained by the Taoiseach with regard to the security measures being implemented, or to be implemented, due to the heightened threat of terrorist activity following the atrocities of 11 September? Ireland and the UK may need to consider certain financial arrangements as a follow-up to any closure at Sellafield, but did the Taoiseach introduce alternative proposals about life after Sellafield in Cumbria? With regard to employment, Sellafield could perhaps be converted into a nuclear clean-up facility and other kinds of employment might also be possible in that event. Was this mentioned to the British Prime Minister?
Has the Taoiseach discussed with representatives of other countries the possibility of Ireland giving a lead in bringing together countries where there is equal concern about the issue? As far away as Chile, South Africa, New Zealand, South Korea and Panama people want to see an end to nuclear transportation and thereby to reprocessing. Will he take a lead in that development? Some Nordic countries have been part of arrangements concerning OSPAR. Will he take that diplomatic work further afield and build the international links needed to make progress on this matter?
We raised the issue of security at every opportunity. There is nothing secret about the British Government's response to that. It always indicates that it is increasing its vigilance both in terms of health and safety and of physical security due to the increased threat of terrorism. I have seen articles in the British newspapers about people being able to drive in to sensitive areas. I am not sure if that is correct.
It is. I was there.
I ask Deputy Sargent not to interrupt.
I was answering the Taoiseach.
I stated in my answer to Deputy Quinn earlier that until now the British Government has not engaged in discussions about life after Sellafield but following the tribunal hearings we have had new opportunities to present our arguments and we may make some progress. Its view is that after investing so much money its commitment should be unwavering. It sticks to the line that it has done everything it can. We must continue to challenge its views and we will have to use the EURATOM Treaty, the OSPAR Convention, the findings of the Law of the Sea Convention and EU regulations in that regard.
As I reported to the House already, I have had lengthy discussions on this matter with the Prime Minister of Norway, our colleagues in Iceland and, in the past number of years, with our colleagues in the EU and the rest of the Nordic countries. I have not had discussions on the matter with Chile or South Africa.
Does the Taoiseach intend to?
If it would be helpful.
I would prefer if the Taoiseach did not answer questions that came by way of interruption.
Yesterday I asked the Taoiseach whether BNFL had arranged an appointment for the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland to inspect its facilities. He will recall that a commitment to this effect was given a month ago. He said yesterday he would check the position in that regard. Will he report on that?
I understand the Government has received a UN report on the threat posed by nuclear terrorism. It is within the competence of the Government to decide whether to publish this report. Will the Taoiseach give a commitment that the Government will publish the report? Many people, especially those on the east coast, are concerned about the threat of a nuclear attack on Sellafield. It is something about which we should be seriously concerned.
Reports attribute a robbery of £250,000 worth of cigarettes in Dundalk to the Real IRA, members of which were supposedly wearing Garda uniforms at the time. Will the Taoiseach give an assessment of the threat posed by the Real IRA to the peace process?
While the RPII has not been notified of a date for its meeting with BNFL, the meeting is to take place. The invitation has been there for quite some time and there has been contact between the parties. I have asked the RPII to let me know when a date is fixed.
I assume all UN reports are in the public domain and I have asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, to check this. If it is a normal UN report I do not see why it should not—
No.
Is it a confidential report?
It is a UN report which is not being published but it is being given to member state governments. It is within the competence of the Government to decide whether to publish it in its own jurisdiction. I am asking for a commitment once the Taoiseach has checked out the situation.
I was not aware of the report. I have asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs to check the matter and I will let the Deputy know the result.
I do not want to say too much about the Real IRA but there is clearly a difficult group of committed, dangerous people still about. I do not want to say anything about the Dundalk operation as I have insufficient information but there is clearly a group, both within this country and elsewhere, which is still operating.
(Dublin West): The Taoiseach said the economic costs of implementing the wishes of most people on this island with regard to the closure of Sellafield and the cancellation of plans for the MOX plants had been stressed to him. The economic costs of closing and converting pale into insignificance compared to the cost of continuing with this plant in the event of the following: the continuing environmental pollution of the Irish Sea; the possibility of an accident such as that at Chernobyl which would be catastrophic in its costs; or the effects of an attack on or sabotage of the plant. Does the Taoiseach agree that the case should be pressed from that point of view in the knowledge that the British Prime Minister may be quite hypocritical on the issue? It is only a week since his Chancellor of the Exchequer voted about £100 million extra to drop bombs in Afghanistan, something not previewed two months ago. Will the Taoiseach bring these points home? It is not a question of thousands of workers losing their jobs, but of providing alternative employment for them. It is time that the polite exchanges gave way to a vigorous and robust attack on the unsustainable position of the British. Will the Taoiseach appeal to ordinary people in Britain and elsewhere who support the view of the majority of the Irish people in this regard?
Has the Taoiseach received any information from the British or does he believe that the recent international tribunal judgment provides us with a platform that would enable a joint approach from the British and Irish Governments to the European Commission to seek help and assistance in the decommissioning of what are regarded as environmentally, or from a security point of view, dangerous installations?
Does the Taoiseach believe that the Hamburg court could halt the start up of the MOX plant if the British Government does not provide sufficient and satisfactory information on 17 December?
The view of our legal team is that it could halt it if we pursue that line. Deputy Quinn asked about a joint approach. The tribunal is clearly trying to get us to engage together to open up that opportunity. We welcome this because these were issues we could never get at. There is an opportunity to deal with the problem. We know the stated position. While the storage of this waste and liquid in tanks in Sellafield poses an enormous risk, we want to see it solidi fied for safer storage. BNFL is looking at doing things after 2015 and 2018 and it is the same with the British Government's position on the old Magnox reactors which it wants to phase out between now and 2018. I am not saying that they will not do so, but we will engage with them and try to find a way of putting the case to Europe. There have been other cases which have been helped out and other industries have moved on, for example, the steel industry in Germany.
On the issue raised by Deputy Higgins, the gloves have long been off. That is the reason we are in Hamburg with the OSPAR Convention and are looking at the EURATOM treaty. We now have to take the legal route. Tough statements have been made in the last 15 years and our stated legal position is on record. Perhaps more could have been done during the years. There is now a realisation in relation to the OSPAR Convention and the European Union that this is a real issue which is getting more attention. While we may not have won everything at Hamburg, our case has been well put and we must keep on with the process and continue using the legal mechanisms available to us. Otherwise the issue will continue with people shouting at each other and getting nowhere.
