Mary Harney
Ceist:1 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will give details of his visit to Moscow and his meeting with President Yeltsin. [8283/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Moscow Visit.
Bertie Ahern
Ceist:2 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the content of any political discussions he had with President Yeltsin or other senior Russian Ministers and with other Heads of Government during his visit to Moscow. [88242/95]
Dermot Ahern
Ceist:3 Mr. D. Ahern asked the asked the Taoiseach, in view of the commitment made by the Government to raise the issue of Sellafield/Thorp at every opportunity with the British Government, if he did so at the recent meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major and also with the Tory backbenchers whom he met in London; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [
I visited Moscow from 8-10 May at the invitation of the Russian Government to attend ceremonies to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. I met President Yeltsin on a number of occasions but these encounters did not allow for a discussion on substantive issues. I also met the Russian Foreign Minister, Mr. Kozyrev, and voiced to him my deep concern at the continuing conflict in Chechnya. I urged that Russia cease its military activities there and, with the active assistance of the OSCE, begin constructive negotiations towards a political solution.
I also took the opportunity to have bilateral meetings with President Havel of the Czech Republic, President Ahtisaari of Finland, Prime Minister Major of the UK and Prime Minister Kok of the Netherlands. My discussion with Mr. Major on Northern Ireland is the subject of separate questions. We touched on European Affairs in our discussion, notably the preparations for and the agenda of the Intergovernmental Conference which will be in session during the Irish Presidency of the EU next year. I found the British Prime Minister strongly supportive of my view that action at EU level has a critical role to play in the war against drugs. I believe such action is essential in convincing the public throughout Europe that the EU is relevant to the issues they see as important in their lives.
This Government is deeply concerned also about the situation at Sellafield. It believes that Sellafield poses a serious and continuing threat to the health and safety of the Irish people. However, it is not the only such hazard — the ever increasing traffic on the Irish sea, the number of ageing nuclear reactors on the west coast of Britain and substandard reactors in eastern Europe, add to the threat.
The Government is preparing a blueprint for action on the various matters covered in its joint programme in respect of these nuclear-related issues. The blueprint is being prepared by a committee comprising the Minister for the Environment and certain Ministers of State. I decided that it would not be appropriate to raise this matter in my meeting with the British Prime Minister until such time as the Committee of Ministers here had reported to the Cabinet and the Cabinet had made a decision on the issues contained in its report. Raising the matter prematurely before all the necessary work had been done would have been counterproductive.
My discussions in Moscow with Prime Minister Kok of the Netherlands and President Ahtisaari of Finland also dealt with the Intergovernmental Conference. In addition to bilateral issues affecting our States the follow-up to the European Commission's White Paper on Employment was also discussed. I had an exchange of views with President Havel on the Intergovernmental Conference and on the enlargement of the European Union to include the countries of central and eastern Europe. We also discussed bilateral relations between Ireland and the Czech Republic. In all my bilateral meetings European security was also discussed.
I will be calling the Deputies in the order in which their questions appear on the Order Paper.
Why did the Taoiseach not raise the plight of the Chechnya people with President Yeltsin? Why was it raised only with the Foreign Minister?
As I said in my original reply, there was no opportunity for substantive discussion of any issue in detail in my encounters with President Yeltsin. There was such an opportunity in my encounter — which was quite lengthy — with Foreign Minister Kozyrev and, therefore, I decided that was the appropriate way to raise the issue.
During the Taoiseach's discussions with Foreign Minister Kozyrev, did he have an opportunity of raising some of the issues pertinent to economic co-operation, of which there are a number? The issue of Aer Rianta is one that has been outstanding for some time. Has progress been made on any of those issues?
No, I confined my discussions with the Foreign Minister, Mr. Kozyrev, to the Chechen situation.
What is the Russian policy on Chechnya and did the Taoiseach get a feel for the policy the Russian Government was voicing to international leaders on the crisis? I am sure the Taoiseach pointed out that the Russian Government has changed its policy position many times since Christmas. Can he tell the House what policy objective the Russian Government is working to?
The Foreign Minister, Mr. Kozyrev, gave me to believe that his hope at that stage was for an extension of the ceasefire. He adverted to the difficulty that exists in regard to talks from their point of view, arising from the fact that the Russians do not recognise the legitimacy of the Dudayev government and therefore there was difficulty in establishing an appropriate interlocutor for talks. The primary point he made was his hope for the extension of the ceasefire. As the Deputy is well aware, the forces of the Russian Federation went on the offensive on 14 May in Chechnya, shortly after the end of the commemorative activities in Moscow, and this is a matter about which I wish to express my considerable concern.
I do not believe that this issue can be settled by the methods now being applied and certainly any insights we can draw from our history would suggest that military methods alone do not solve the problems of conflicts of identity and loyalty of the kind that exist in Chechnya and in other parts of the world. That is why I believe the government of the Russian Federation is making a mistake in the course of action it is following. The fact that an OSCE mission was admitted to Chechnya and to the Russian Federation at this stage afforded the opportunity for a more constructive approach to the issue, with the possibility of the OSCE delegation led by Hungary providing some form of mediation and engaging in discussions in which the Russians themselves might not wish to become involved directly. I regret deeply that the opportunity for a non-violent settlement of this issue was not availed of. It is a matter of regret that while I, along with so many other leaders of western European countries, raised this issue, none of these representations appears to have been successful in persuading the Russian Government to change its approach to the resolution of this issue.
I thank the Taoiseach for his detailed reply. I asked the question because it seemed peculiar in the extreme that the Russians waited until the end of the international conference to move in the direction they did.
I understand from international papers that an effort will be made at the European Council next month to put further pressure on the Russian Government. Is it the Taoiseach's intention to join with those putting pressure on them? Clearly the Russian Government has no interest in listening to international opinion if, having listened to so many leaders at international meetings, it moved in this direction hours after the leaders had left.
I indicated our position on the Chechen situation in general on the previous occasion this matter was raised and indicated clearly that the Irish Government supports the view that the European Union should not finalise the interim agreement that has been drawn up with the Russian Federation until the four conditions set out in the Council communiqué on this issue have been met. To date only one of those four conditions has been met, that is the admission of the OSCE delegation. The other conditions have not been met. The Irish Government will continue to adhere to that position and in Cannes and elsewhere we will continue to exercise the maximum pressure. I believe the maximum pressure we can exert is in the form of refusal to conclude the interim agreement until a different policy is adopted by the government of the Russian Federation.
May I remind the House that 30 minutes only are available to us for dealing with questions to the Taoiseach? Brevity must be the keynote to our proceedings.
When the Taoiseach answered some weeks ago questions on his proposed visit to Moscow he indicated that he intended raising this matter with President Yeltsin. Was he aware in advance of his trip to Moscow that he would not have an opportunity of raising these matters with the President?
I was not aware at the time I was answering those questions of the precise arrangement that would apply and of the duration of the various meetings I would have with President Yeltsin. I had been given to believe at the time I answered those questions that there would be a form of general meeting at which the President would meet a number of Prime Ministers and Presidents of the various visiting countries and this would have allowed this to happen. Such provisions were not made, although I had anticipated that they would be.
I recognise the handwriting.
It is in that context I gave the answer I gave. I did, however, decide it was essential that I should comply with the undertakings I gave this House in regard to raising the Chechen situation in the most effective fashion possible and I therefore availed of the opportunity of quite lengthy access to the Foreign Minister, Mr. Kozyrev, to raise the matter which I have just reported on to this House.
Will the Taoiseach reply to the part of my question which refers to his meeting in London with Tory backbenchers? Did he raise in his discussions with them the issue of Sellafield? Out of neighbourliness, will he raise with the British Prime Minister the possibility, per the commitment in the programme, A Government of Renewal, that he would request under the Paris Convention arbitration of the dispute between the two countries? In view of the fact that he has given us a dissertation on the Government's plans on Sellafield, how does he reconcile that with voting down our Private Members' motion on the non-proliferation treaty where we were exhorting the Government to carry out a five year review which is, in fact, writtin into the Government's programme, A Government of Renewal.?
I am answering questions about matters I raised at meetings I attended, not about general Government policy in regard to this issue, which is a separate matter. The Deputy will have adequate opportunity to raise it in the normal way.
The Taoiseach will pass that to someone else.
Was the Taoiseach promulgating policy when he spoke to the Minister about it?
The Deputy asked if I raised the matter of Sellafield with the British MPs I met in London. The same considerations applied as applied to my decision not to raise the matter with the British Prime Minister. I regarded it as premature until the working group of Ministers referred to in my reply has reported and we have established the scope and nature of the actions we will take. On our own side I felt it would be counterproductive to raise the matter prematurely either with British MPs or the Prime Minister.
Do not defend yourself.
The issue of what action we might take on the Paris Convention is being dealt with by the Ministers of State and the Minister for the Environment and a decision will be made in due course. I will notify the British authorities of the course of action we propose to take.
The Taoiseach is required to do that by law.
As regards the supplementaries raised concerning matters that transpired in the House, these should more appropriately be directed to the responsible Ministers.
The final sentence of the Taoiseach's initial reply stated that he discussed the overall European security question with all the leaders he spoke to. Did he inform the European leaders of the strong attachment of the Irish people to a policy of military neutrality and their concern that such policy be continued?
I did.
Arising from the brevity of the reply, in his discussions did the Taoiseach change the line he used when speaking to the President of the Commission recently? Was what he said to the leaders different from what he said to the President of the Commission?
The Deputy is raising an important matter which is worthy of a seperate question.
I outlined to them the present state of Government thinking on this matter and also the people's concern regarding neutrality. I referred to the various options Ireland has, as set out in my speech in UCC, of which no doubt the Deputy is aware.
The Taoiseach is selling the past.
Is it the intention of the House to confine the half hour available for questions to the Taoiseach to three questions?
I note the Taoiseach said he did not raise the issue of Sellafield because the Government has not finalised its approach. That is understandable. If the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, had followed that line on the divorce issue we would not be in the present mess.
The Government has come on side with our policy.
Has the sub-committee dealing with Sellafield considered joining the Attorney General in the legal action being taken?
All matters concerning possible legal actions are considered in the sub-committee. It is one of the issues referred to in the Joint Programme for Government.
The Attorney General is a defender in the action.
It is one of the items on the committee's agenda.
Question No. 4 in the name of Deputy Harney.
I have been trying to raise a question for a long time.
There are a number of voices raised against the Chair. I will hear Deputy Bertie Ahern, if that is the wish of the House.
The questions are different.
There are three questions to which it is intended to devote 25 minutes.
The three questions deal with serious business.
As far as the Chair is concerned all questions to the Taoiseach are serious.
Unfortunately the answers in many cases are flippant.
(Interruptions.)
Comical, not just flippant.
There is no corporate view on the matter.
I understand that the Taoiseach wants to put together a blueprint. What timescale is envisaged for doing so? Following the non-proliferation treaty conference, will the Taoiseach consider if Ireland will join in the call for an international ban on the production of civilian plutonium to match the military ban? Now is a good time to look at that as a policy issue. The matter of weapons grade plutonium is being looked at by a team of experts. They have moved to ban it and it would be significant if we moved in that direction. If the Taoiseach feels he can do so, will the Government consider sponsoring a resolution on civilian plutonium at the autumn session of the UN?
The latter part of the Deputy's question is separate from the one on the Order Paper. However, I will bring his remarks to the attention of the relevant Ministers. As far as the first part of his question is concerned, no time limit has been set for producing this but it is being treated as a matter of urgency.
Did the Taoiseach take the opportunity when in Moscow to raise any economic or business related issues given our success in this area at semi-State level and the opportunities that exist for the future or did he confine himself to move weighty worldly matters?
In which he failed.
I had considerable discussion on matters relating to economic and monetary union with the EU leaders and also with the Czech President. I also discussed the EU White Paper on Employment in preparation for the summit discussion on that matter which will take place in Madrid.
Did the Taoiseach have any discussion with the Russian Foreign Minister?
Given the disinterested response the Taoiseach received in Moscow regarding the war in Chechnya and the failure to raise the matter with President Yeltsin, does he accept that a better form of protest, if the Government were serious about its attitude towards that war, would have been not to attend the ceremonies in Moscow? Perhaps it was wrong of him and many world leaders to attend in Moscow given the present circumstances——
I do not agree with the conclusions drawn by the Deputy. The Russian Federation is a major influence and will remain so in European and world affairs. It is very important that Ireland enjoys good bilateral relations with Russia. In view of the fact that previous attempts to establish bilateral contact between my predecessor and the Russian President did not work out as planned, it was important that I avail of the opportunity when specifically invited by the President of the Russian Federation——
It did not work for the Taoiseach either.
——to attend the ceremonies in Russia. This was particularly important since in terms of absolute numbers no country lost more people than did the Russian Federation and its associated states. At least 20 million people in Russia lost their lives during that war which occurred within the lifetime of many in this House. It was important that Ireland, along with others, should show its concern and sympathy for the Russian people on that loss. It is also important to show our collective determination to ensure that such events never occur again in our lifetime.
Will the Taoiseach accept——
I am calling Deputy Cowen.
I am trying to elicit information.
Order. I called Deputy Cowen and that is who I mean.
In one of his earlier replies the Taoiseach seemed to suggest that he did not raise any economic issues with the Russian Foreign Minister. Is that correct?
No.
The Taoiseach may be suffering from delayed jet lag——
I am not.
Perhaps we could have a little more enthusiasm from the leader of the country. Did the Taoiseach raise issues relating to air transport and airport development in Moscow with the Russian Foreign Minister? What follow-up discussions took place on the range of discussions held with the Deputy Prime Minister and others in Shannon on a previous occasion?
The Deputy seems to be ranging far and wide.
As I indicated to Deputy Ahern I did not raise any issue other than Chechnya with the Russian Foreign Minister.
Thank you. We heard about Chechnya.
However, while in Moscow I had bilateral meetings with a number of other heads of Government——
I get the message.
——including EU heads of Government and, as I stated to Deputy Brennan, I raised a number of economic issues including economic and monetary union.
The Taoiseach did not bring back any jobs for Tallaght.
Is the Taoiseach saying he did not raise issues of economic co-operation with the Russian Foreign Minister? How does he expect to improve bilateral relations between Russia and Ireland if he feels he can speak on issues over which he has no direct influence such as Chechnya and fails to raise issues on which jobs are dependent here and on which jobs could be created in Russia?
(Interruptions.)
Do not defame anybody.
Can we get down to brass tacks?
At least he got to meet him.
That is a fairly pathetic response.
Let us hear the Taoiseach.
Is he sorry he went?
I considered that the opportunity should be taken to raise the situation in Chechnya in view of the importance attached to it in this House when the question of my visit to Moscow was raised.
Fine.
This was clearly an issue about which Members of the House were concerned. I had a limited opportunity to discuss any matter in detail. I could, of course, have run through a laundry list and not have discussed any matter in detail.
It is a question of priorities.
The Taoiseach could have mentioned Irish jobs.
Aer Rianta is more than a matter on a laundry list.
I considered that it was more important to discuss one matter in some detail, and that is what I did.
The Taoiseach went soft on them.
In so far as our bilateral economic relations with Russia are concerned, these are extremely good and are being progressed effectively.
Did the Taoiseach talk to the EU leaders about it?
I also had the opportunity to visit some of the Aer Rianta installations in Russia and to discuss the situation with them.
The Taoiseach should send the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, the next time as he will get a better response.
Please, Deputy Cullen.
They expressed considerable satisfaction with the profit they are able to earn there and with the effectiveness of the support they receive from the Irish Embassy in Moscow and from the authorities both here and in Russia.
The review of the Red Army swept the Taoiseach off his feet.
The Taoiseach's visit was a dismal flop.
That disposes of questions to the Taoiseach for today.
(Interruptions.)
Irish exporters should know the position.
The great defender of the Irish economy.
We now proceed to questions nominated for priority.