Dáil debates

Wednesday, 26 April 2006

11:00 am

Photo of Trevor SargentTrevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)

I wish to return to the Taoiseach's earlier comment that the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, is well aware of his views on the privatisation of Sellafield. I know from what he has said that he has not made a formal written submission on the British Government's nuclear plans in general, but I suggest that he should do so. He spoke a moment ago about the parties in Northern Ireland cosying up to each other, but a fair bit of cosying up is taking place in those debates and discussions. If the Government were to make a written submission, it would be on the record. It could be referred to as a matter of record that this country has made a submission in respect of the UK's nuclear expansion plans.

I thank Mr. Hickey and the other officials in the Department of the Taoiseach for meeting us to update us on the peace process, but it was a little too late, unfortunately. The meeting did not represent the type of engagement with Opposition parties that is needed. Future briefings on the peace process should be given to Opposition parties at an earlier stage of the proceedings to facilitate an exchange of views. They should not merely involve passing on a message, which is what happened in this instance, in effect.

The Governments have set a target date of 24 November and given some aspirational indications of what might happen under the default mechanism. Will they make absolutely clear the divisions of power that are envisaged in that scenario? There is a danger that the British Government will do to the parties in Northern Ireland what the Government does, in effect, to the Opposition parties in this House. The Government sets out its policy and expects the Green Party and other parties to go along with it. Will the structures under which a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister are in place be retained? Can the Taoiseach give the House some reassurances in that regard? The imposition of any other structures would represent a victory for anti-agreement Unionists and republicans. We need to guard against that. Have the details of the default mechanism, apart from the aspirations we have heard about in the media, been worked out?

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.