Micheál Martin
Question:1 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will provide an update on discussions at the British-Irish Council. [17281/11]
View answerWednesday, 6 July 2011
Questions (1, 2, 3, 4)
Micheál Martin
Question:2 Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will give details of the issues raised during his bilateral talks with the British Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Nick Clegg, at the recent meeting of the British-Irish Council [17282/11]
View answer
Gerry Adams
Question:3 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent meeting of the British-Irish Council and any bilateral talks he held at the meeting. [18452/11]
View answer
Joe Higgins
Question:4 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his involvement in and assessment of the British-Irish Council meeting recently. [18578/11]
View answerOral answers (25 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
I attended the 16th summit of the British-Irish Council in London on 20 June. It was my first attendance at a British-Irish Council summit since becoming Taoiseach. The meeting was chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Nick Clegg; the Scottish Government delegation was led by First Minister, Mr. Alex Salmond; the Welsh Government delegation was led by the First Minister, Mr. Carwyn Jones; while the First Minister, Mr. Peter Robinson, and the Deputy First Minister, Mr. Martin McGuinness, led the delegation from Northern Ireland. Delegations from the other member administrations of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man were also in attendance.
The British Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, greeted the delegations ahead of the summit. In his welcoming remarks he underscored the importance of the British-Irish Council and the intrinsic value of all of the Good Friday institutions. He also commented on the strength of relations between the eight BIC administrations and characterised relations between Britain and Ireland as being at "an all time high" in the aftermath of Queen Elizabeth II's visit to Ireland.
The summit provided an opportunity to give an update on each administration's economic position and have a substantive discussion of the common objectives of promoting economic growth and related challenges and opportunities. The Council discussed how to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth that was more evenly shared across the member administrations. It considered measures to promote economic growth, including incentives for businesses to start, finance and grow a business; encouraging investment and exports as a route to a more balanced economy; and creating a more educated and flexible workforce. The Council acknowledged that member administrations should continue to learn from each other's successes and identify synergies across administrations.
The Council welcomed the discussion paper on an all-islands approach, AIA, to energy resources. It agreed the AIA vision of an approach to energy resources across the British islands and Ireland which would enable opportunities for commercial generation and transmission, facilitating the cost-effective exploitation of the renewable energy resources available, increasing integration of their markets and improving security of supply.
The Council discussed progress on the work to establish the BIC standing secretariat. It will receive a further progress report at the next summit in Dublin. A target start date of 1 January 2012 was agreed, subject to final details and related issues being agreed.
The Council noted the progress of each of the 11 sectoral groups of the Council which cover collaborative spatial planning, demography, digital inclusion, early years policy, energy, electricity grid infrastructure, marine renewables, environment, housing, indigenous, minority and lesser used languages, misuse of drugs, social inclusion and transport.
The Council agreed that the autumn British-Irish Council summit in 2011 will be hosted by Ireland.
While attending the summit, I took the opportunity to have bilateral meetings with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Nick Clegg; the First Minister, Mr. Alex Salmond, and the First Minister, Mr.Carwyn Jones. During my bilateral meeting with Mr. Clegg I outlined my belief that the British-Irish Council provided a useful forum for the eight member administrations to find opportunities for practical and mutually beneficial co-operation. I emphasised that we needed to look closely at the areas of work being addressed by the Council to ensure our focus was strategic and producing tangible results. We reflected on the recent successful visit to Ireland of Queen Elizabeth II and commented that it clearly underscored the close and highly developed relationship between Britain and Ireland. We also discussed economic matters and developments at EU level in advance of the European Council meeting which took place later that week. We referred to the interest rate reduction being pursued at EU level and the bilateral loan from Britain. We also discussed Irish emigrant issues, including the Hammersmith centre, Irish construction workers at the Olympic village site and tourism potential from Britain.
When I met with the Scottish First Minister, Mr. Salmond, I congratulated him on his recent electoral success. I stated the Government was fully supportive of the establishment of the BIC standing secretariat in Edinburgh and suggested we propose 1 January 2012 as an opening date. We discussed economic developments in Scotland, including renewable energy projects and the development expertise centres such as Aberdeen. This agreement was made in the context of the commitment by both Governments to the full implementation of the Good Friday and St. Andrews Agreements. I also noted that sectarian issues had, regrettably, come to the forefront in Scotland in the last few months and welcomed the Scottish Government's concerted efforts to deal with these difficulties.
During my meeting with Mr. Jones I congratulated him on his electoral success and we had a brief discussion on the close relationship between our two countries. I looked forward to welcoming him to Dublin for the next British-Irish Council summit which will take place in November.
I thank the Taoiseach for his comprehensive reply. I welcome the constructive nature of the meeting of the British-Irish Council. It reflects the ongoing progress in the sets of relationships between all participants.
Did the Taoiseach take the opportunity in his bilateral meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Clegg, to discuss Ireland's European Union negotiations, particularly our desire to have the terms of the financial assistance programme improved in terms of a reduction in the interest rate? Given that we are also seeking a reduction in the interest rate charged on the British loan, did he raise this matter with Mr. Clegg?
As I stated, I did so on both occasions. I indicated to Mr. Clegg that the decision had been taken by the Heads of Government in Brussels, in respect of an interest rate reduction being agreed in principle, that the Minister for Finance and officials from Ireland should make contact with their colleagues. I also referred to the British loan. I thanked the Deputy Prime Minister, as I did the Prime Minister previously, and indicated the nature of the discussions we were having with our colleagues abroad on an interest rate reduction.
Did the Taoiseach ask for a reduction in the interest rate on the bilateral loan?
I indicated to the Deputy Prime Minister that, obviously, an interest rate reduction was desirable but that our focus was on following through immediately on the decision of the European Council at which leaders agreed in principle that a reduction should apply and that countries the subject of an EFSF bailout should have it applied to them. I indicated to him that Ireland was measuring up on all the conditions set. I also pointed to the nature of our difficulty in seeking the agreement of everybody on an interest rate reduction.
I have two brief questions.
I will come back to the Deputy.
Ar ardaigh an Taoiseach an cheist maidir le Sellafield ag an chruinniú den Chomhairle Sasanach-Éireannach nó ag an chruinniú leis an Leas-Phríomh Aire, Mr. Nick Clegg? The Taoiseach may recall that on 15 March he agreed to raise Irish concerns about the Sellafield plant with the British authorities. I wonder whether he took the opportunity to do so at either of the two meetings mentioned.
Níor ardaigh mé cúrsaí Sellafield leis an Leas-Phríomh Aire ach nuair a bheidh an céad seans eile agam bualadh leis an Phríomh Aire, ardóidh mé arís í ag an bpointe sin. Séard a bhí i gceist ar chlár an chruinnithe — an céad cruinniú ar a d'fhreastal mé mar Thaoiseach den Chomhairle ar fad — ná, mar a dúirt mé leis an Teachta Ó Máirtín, díospóireacht faoi chúrsaí a bheadh oiriúnach a bheith ardaithe leis an Leas-Phríomh Aire.
Caithfidh mé a rá nach bhfuil sin go maith ar chor ar bith. It is not good enough. There are deep concerns here. The Taoiseach is aware that the British are prepared or have announced that they will bring in privately built nuclear plant to be constructed in England and Wales, including at the existing installations at Sellafield and in Wales. Also, we must establish whether these nuclear facilities will be scrutinised subject to EU-wide stress tests or whether the British will bring in their own test. It is regrettable that the Taoiseach did not take the opportunity to raise the issue with him.
For the information of the Deputy, I did raise this matter at the European Council meeting in respect of the stress tests being carried out on nuclear and reprocessing plant such as at Sellafield. I am pleased to report that it is included as part of the stress tests. I expect the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources will be in direct contact with his counterpart in Britain about proposals for other nuclear stations with particular reference to those on the west coast of England.
This was first raised on 15 March. It is now July.
Gabh mo leithscéal.
This issue was first raised by me here after the earthquake in Japan. The Taoiseach will recall that there have been small earthquakes in Cumbria as well. It was during the early days of this Dáil. The fact that it has not been raised directly by the Taoiseach with the British authorities is disappointing.
I have no wish to take credit from Deputy Adams in any shape or form for raising such issues of importance.
I am not looking for credit; I am looking for a resolution.
The Sellafield reprocessing plant has been the subject of discussions, questions, priority questions and Private Members' time during the past 30 years. Having visited the place myself on several occasions I am well aware, as is Deputy Adams, that some serious issues arose from leaks from Sellafield into the Irish Sea over a period of years. We are pleased to note that with all the connections, pressure and so on, this matter improved greatly. Sellafield is included. It is part of the analysis of the stress tests on nuclear and reprocessing plant in Europe, such as Sellafield.
Like the Taoiseach's Government, the British Government is imposing a savage programme of cuts on public spending. Did the Taoiseach get an opportunity to question the Deputy Prime Minister with regard to the effect of £4 billion or £5 billion of cuts in Northern Ireland and the effects these will have on hard-pressed communities and working class people, many on the margins, for whom public services are critical? Did the Taoiseach have an opportunity to raise this matter? Why is the Government, including the Taoiseach, terrified to ask the leaders of other EU states to honour the solidarity, which they maintain is a core value in the European Union, by cutting the interest rate they are charging on loans to this country? Incredibly, the Minister for Finance informed me yesterday that he did not ask the US Treasury Secretary, Mr. Geithner, about the €20 billion hit he insisted the Irish people take by making us pay the obligations of the gambling bondholders. Does the Taoiseach not accept that ordinary people in this country — taxpayers — will find it incredible that the Taoiseach has high-level access to these leaders, yet he refuses to ask them to apply a humane interest rate rather than this incredible profiteering on the misery of the Irish people to the tune of €9 billion — we learned the figure yesterday — through interest rates that are considerably over the odds?
Deputy Higgins has raised two maters. The first is valid. I raised the issue of vulnerable communities in Northern Ireland with the Deputy Prime Minister. I made him aware that in so far as the Government is concerned, we seek to work with the British Government and members of the elected Assembly and Executive in Northern Ireland with particular reference to the vulnerability of communities, especially where there are continued efforts to thwart the peace process. I note the comments of many public representatives from all shades of public opinion for restraint and calm. I pointed this out to the Deputy Prime Minister and I pointed out to him our interest in keeping the connection with the United States alive in so far as assistance under that fund is concerned. This is not only a demonstration of continued interest but also a matter of leverage for further EU funding. I made it known to the Deputy Prime Minister that it is important in the interests of Britain to continue to have facilities and support made available for communities in Northern Ireland. We discussed the question of a reduction in the corporation tax rate in Northern Ireland. This is a matter for the Assembly and the Government and the Exchequer in Britain to makes decisions on. That may come about in an all-island sense.
The second point was typical of Deputy Higgins. Let me assure him that no one in the Government is terrified of asking any leader direct questions. I have contact with them when appropriate at Council meetings. It was a part of the process, whereby the leaders agreed that a reduction in the rate should be applied in principle, that there were discussions with all of them at some stage. As the Deputy is aware, it requires agreement from the lending countries. One of these countries has still not given agreement in respect of a reduction in the rate for Ireland. This is where the discussions continue and I hope the matter can be brought to a conclusion. The Deputy is aware, as I have stated repeatedly, that the responsibility for concluding that debate was transferred to the Ministers for Finance because the stress tests on the Irish banks had not been completed when the leaders of Governments were to deliberate on the matter in Brussels. It is a case of making the leaders directly aware that Ireland is measuring up and that we have met the conditions of the bailout scheme, and making them aware of the developments in our economy, with particular reference to the balance of trade surplus, the growth in exports, the flexibility of our workforce and the stimulus provided for the indigenous economy to grow. These are all reasons people should continue to have confidence in the country. We will continue the discussions with particular reference to France in respect of the reduction of the interest rate.
The British loans are completely separate from the other EU loans. Even if the Taoiseach used the excuse that some EU countries are tagging together and he requires everyone's agreement, the Taoiseach does not need it with regard to the loans provided by Britain. I remind the Taoiseach that when the loans were offered, the British Government made it clear that they were doing so to protect their economic interests in regard to the trade between Ireland and Britain and the profits accruing to British companies. The excuse does not stand up. Why did the Taoiseach not ask the British Government to reduce the interest rate, bearing in mind the crushing burden that is on our people to meet the gambling debts of European bankers?
These things are all interlinked. At issue is the potential to have a reduction in the interest rate across all the loans.
I asked the first two questions on this issue. Specifically, I asked whether the Taoiseach asked the Deputy Prime Minister for a reduction in the interest rate on the bilateral loan. The Taoiseach's response initially was that he referred to the issue. Then he stated that he indicated to him our desire for the reduction. With the greatest of respect, that is verbiage. On decoding, it suggests an absence of this issue at centre stage in the bilateral discussions with Mr. Clegg. The same situation applies with Prime Minister Cameron. The issue was not raised in the context of a submission to the British Government to the effect that we seek the terms and conditions applying to the bilateral loan reduced in accordance with the decision of the EU Heads of State on 11 March. The point is that were the terms of the bilateral loan changed or improved, it would have a powerful impact on the rest of the debate across Europe and would be a useful and powerful signal. I note the apparent absence of either a capacity or desire to raise the hard questions with people. I already raised in this Chamber the absolute refusal of a number of Ministers, including the Taoiseach——
A question, please.
—— to raise the Geithner question. This issue simply is not raised when Government members meet people. To date, no direct submission has been made to the British leaders seeking a reduction in the interest rate on the bilateral loan, which would have an important impact on the wider issue.
The Deputy is under a serious delusion if he thinks the hard questions will not be or are not being asked. As the Deputy is aware, the European Union portion of the EU-IMF programme funding for Ireland is made up of the European financial stabilisation mechanism, EFSM, the European financial stability facility, EFSF, and the bilateral loans from the United Kingdom, Sweden and Denmark. Moreover, as the Deputy also is aware, of these three only the EFSM relates directly to the European Union. Based on the full drawdown of the €22.5 billion from the EFSM, the current margin of 2.925% and an average maturity of 7.5 years, the gross margin will be approximately €4.9 billion, out of which it will be necessary to deduct costs. The Deputy is aware of these figures as he was a member of the Government that signed up for the programme. In contrast, the margin on borrowing from the EFSF accrues to the EFSF in the first instance. Based on the current margin of 2.47%, full drawdown of the €17.7 billion available and an average maturity of 7.5 years, the gross margin will be approximately €3.3 billion. The margin from the bilateral loans accrues to the relevant country and thus far, only the United Kingdom facility has been agreed. It provides for a margin of 2.29%, which is approximately €650 million. These figures are not new but are well known. The agreements and therefore the margins for Denmark and Sweden have yet to be finalised and signed off. These matters are linked and the Government will continue to pursue the question of agreement on the overall interest rate and will continue to ask the hard questions.