Vol. 573 No. 3
6 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the high level group established under the aegis of his Department to monitor developments in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19566/03]
7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the high level group within his Department established to monitor developments in the aftermath of the September 2001 terrorist attacks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23083/03]
8 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if the high level group established by his Department to monitor developments in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 is still in existence; the number of occasions the group met in 2003; the date of the last meeting; the date of the next planned meeting; the work programme of the group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23910/03]
9 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if the high level group established within his Department in the wake of the 11 September atrocities in the United States has completed its work; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24086/03]
10 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the high level group established within his Department in the aftermath of the atrocity on 11 September 2001. [24877/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 10, inclusive, together.
The National Security Committee continues to meet as required and members liaise on an ongoing basis. It is concerned with ensuring that I and the Government are advised of high level security issues and the responses to them, but not involving operational security issues. The group, which is chaired by the Secretary General to the Government, comprises representatives at the highest levels of the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Defence and Foreign Affairs, and of the Garda and Defence Forces. The group continues to monitor developments which might have national security implications, in particular in the international arena.
Is the Taoiseach happy that the British Government has provided him with adequate information about safety and security at Sellafield, given that an attack on that nuclear plant could have potentially catastrophic consequences for this country? Does he agree for instance that strand three of the Good Friday Agreement should be invoked by him to get that information?
In view of the ongoing conflict in Iraq and the growing hostility in the Arab world towards the United States, have the high level group and the Government assessed the possibility of US interests in this country becoming a target for international terrorists? Has the high level group reported to the Government on that? God forbid such an unlikely event, but does the Taoiseach share the view of the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, that our first port of call for assistance would have to be our neighbours?
We have raised the Sellafield issue many times, legally and politically, in detailed correspondence with the British Government. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, is engaged in two separate legal actions under UNCLOS and the OSPAR Convention. While we have failed to gain access to the confidential information withheld from the UK public consultation papers, the tribunal has established an important international legal precedent in determining that Ireland has a right under the OSPAR Convention to access information on the marine environment, that the United Kingdom has an obligation to make such information available and that Ireland has a right to redress under the convention to vindicate the rights to such information on the law of the sea.
The issue of competency as between UNCLOS and the European Union is ongoing. The European Commission has initiated a formal complaint which has been the subject of extensive correspondence with Ireland. It is expected that the Commission will shortly refer the complaint to the European Court of Justice for decision. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government recently dealt with the matter in the House.
The events of 11 September 2001 showed the scale of the threat posed by international terrorism. The National Security Committee has not been made aware of any information which suggests Ireland is at risk but the overall international climate requires continued vigilance. The Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, under the task force on emergency planning and in conjunction with various State agencies, continues to monitor the situation. As has been said, God forbid anything like that should ever happen. Obviously, the scale of such events determines one's response but the office of emergency planning has put in place as good a contingency plan as is possible to deal with any eventuality. It is not unusual for countries hit by such disasters to seek international assistance.
Notwithstanding the existence of the high level group, is the Taoiseach aware of the recent report by the Emergency Planning Society presented to the Government in late October which called for the establishment of a single emergency planning agency reporting at the highest level to manage threats from terrorism disasters and accidents or attacks on Sellafield and so on? Does he agree that, from the society's point of view, there is some confusion as to who is responsible for the management of such threats and that it has declared the exposure of weaknesses in the way the Government responded, for example, to the possible nuclear alert following the attack on America on 11 September 2001 and following the SARS threat? Will he comment on this evaluation and indicate if any measures have been taken to address the concerns expressed by the society?
The concept of bringing together all of the agencies responsible for the sea, fire and air services is great in theory but not feasible or practical given the cost involved. In that regard there is co-ordination through the emergency planning office which continues to improve and update services. That is the best and most effective way to deal with such matters.
Two other Deputies have submitted questions on this matter. With the agreement of the House, we will take a brief question from each of them and a final reply from the Taoiseach.
How many times has the high level group met in 2003? Does it report to the National Security Committee or the Government? How does it operate? Will the Taoiseach say if the British authorities share intelligence with the Government in this area?
Did the high level group assess the ongoing cost of facilitating the US military machine at Shannon Airport and is the Taoiseach in a position to offer us a projected estimate of the cost of that operation? Did the high-level group examine the ways in which US foreign policy and the policies of the state of Israel are continuing to fuel fundamentalism? Did the group analyse the way in which the US and British Governments sought to deceive the United Nations by their attempted linkage of the terrible atrocity of 11 September 2001 with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq?
I will reply first to Deputy Ó Caoláin. The National Security Committee is not involved with foreign relations issues. It is liaising on various issues of high-level security responses rather than operational security. In reply to Deputy Rabbitte, the group has met seven times this year so far. It deals with security issues, and, though it always happened, there is now more than ever a sharing of intelligence right across Europe in the whole justice and home affairs area, and that has been fundamental even in other jurisdictions outside Europe.
