The Green House Effect

No, when I arrived in Dublin’s Mansion House the Lord Mayor John Gormley was not running around replacing ordinary bulbs with energy-saving lighting. Nor was he polishing his bike or clearing the drinks cabinet to make way for bottles of the organic champagne he allegedly served during his inauguration. And yet, if we are to believe such newspaper reports, all or any of the above public services seem to be about as much as Gormley has been performing since he became Dublin’s first Green Lord Mayor.

That, and welcoming bands such as R.E.M. to the Mansion House, which he did recently, partly because they support the Greens and partly because they are, he claims, his “favourite band.”

And, yes, he does have a sound system set up in the living quarters of the Mansion House where he happily plays his collection of rock CDs that range from R.E.M. through to the Waterboys, Van Morrison and Public Image.

Joe Jackson: How did you manage to become buddies with R.E.M? Were you a “ligger” before you became Lord Mayor?

John Gormley: No! I met them through the Waterboys, who helped us out a lot, years ago, playing gigs for the Greens and so on. And at one of their parties R.E.M. were there and asked was there anything they could do for us. I said ‘if I’m in a campaign, could you help out?’ and they did. And I do think R.E.M. are sincere about this issue because they have also helped candidates in Georgia, where they’re from. They certainly are delighted at what’s happening here, thrilled that I was elected Lord Mayor.

Nonetheless, some might say you are abusing your office as Lord Mayor by welcoming to the Mansion House people who did actually help fund your campaign, that it was a pay-back of sorts. How much did they originally give you?

£500. And that was half of my election budget. But no, I’m not abusing my position as Lord Mayor because although it was my way of saying ‘thank you’ to R.E.M. to welcome the premier rock band in the world to the Mansion House was entirely appropriate because they had chosen Dublin as the place from which to promote their album. That adds to this image of Dublin as a music capital of the world. The fact that such bands come here to launch an album, can’t be underestimated. Even this morning I had people from Slovenia and they said ‘we’re here because Dublin is the music capital of the world.’ Anyone can see that’s great for Dublin.

Is it true that your bride-to-be chooses your suits for you in nearby mens’ stores?

Though I’ve never, let’s say, been known as a snappy dresser, I do choose my own suits! But that detail did appear in The Sunday Times and my only problem with this is that the media does tend to present me in terms like that, as a guy who can’t dress himself, cycles around on his bike, and is force-feeding people vegetarian food! I understand that adds colour to an article and that if I start talking about my air management plan, editors, and readers, may tune out. But I did get into politics to talk about issues, not trivial things, like suits!

Fair enough. But let me just ask you, in relation to your air management plan, as it directly relates to the Mansion House, do you smoke the odd joint, or maybe take a magic mushroom with the odd glass of organic champagne when you come back here at night, to listen to your CDs?

(laughs) No, I’m afraid I don’t! And drugs were never a factor in my life. I’ve never even smoked a cigarette. I can’t understand why people would want to inhale noxious fumes. If people want to smoke hash and do magic mushrooms, fair enough but I have even banned smoking here at the Mansion House. And one of the reasons I became involved with the Greens was because I used to be one of those cranks who’d get up on buses and tell people to put out their cigarettes! That was when I was 14! But I do drink. That comment about there only being organic champagne available at my inauguration is untrue. There was one bottle, but we broke that open as a symbolic gesture on the night, that’s all! So, no, when I listen to R.E.M. I don’t need any of that stuff! Though I must say I haven’t heard Monster, which I’m told is back to heavy rock so I probably won’t like that anyway, because I don’t like loud music.

Where, then, do you stand on the question of sound pollution at concerts, and the suggestion that fines should be imposed on promoters who allow their gigs to go beyond a certain decibel level? And that residents near the RDS, for example, should be compensated for such disturbances?

There was a lot of trouble over this in relation to the Dalymount concert a few weeks ago but I checked that out and the noise levels weren’t above the acceptable level. In fact, Neil Diamond, at Croke Park, was just as loud and there was no objection there. But the Red Hot Chili Peppers, obviously, aren’t everyone’s cup of tea. So I think, perhaps, the objections had more to do with the people who were attending the concerts than with the actual noise levels. But although I agree, absolutely that if people go above the noise limits there should be prosecutions, I do not agree with Tony Gregory and Carmencita Hedermann who are saying there should be no rock concerts in residential areas like Dalymount and near the RDS.

Rock music, as I say, is good for this city. Yet the legislation must be looked at again. The standard laid down now is that you can’t go over a certain limit for over fifteen minutes so some people are going over the limit for 14 minutes and 59 seconds and then turning down the level so they can’t be caught. That’s not on, so we’ll have to come to some agreement with promoters that they can’t just operate in that way – pushing things to the letter of the law. And the regulations must be tightened up. And on the question of compensation, anyone who lives near Croke Park will tell you that their life is a misery on the day of an All-Ireland-Final. So, should they be compensated for that? It’s unfortunate that they live in that area but, for me, the real problem is the litter. And I do believe promoters should foot the bill for any damage done to people’s property, or litter caused. They make a contribution, at the moment, which is £550 and, to me, that is far from sufficient. They should be contributing a lot more.

Should rock concert promoters, plus the G.A.A., also pay all security costs?

There should be a contribution. I don’t know how that breaks down at present, but I don’t think the G.A.A. are the best at this level. Yet if it applies to concert promoters, it also should obviously apply to the G.A.A. And we have tried to get the G.A.A to pay for the clean-up after matches and for security but they simply don’t want to pay the money. Yet it’s not fair on the residents in that area that they should have the quality of their lives disturbed for a day. And it’s not fair that the tax-payer has to pay the bill for cleaning up.

The Green Party claims to believe in people empowering themselves at a local level in matters such as this but couldn’t residents around Croke Park or the RDS come back at you and ask what’s the use in lobbying politicians about this when they do nothing?

They must continue to lobby, for a start. But, yes, the whole question of empowerment is central to this because even at local level politicians don’t have much power.What we have in Ireland is not so much local government as local administration. And, you must remember that the G.A.A., for example, would have a lot of clout at central government level. And residents near Croke Park have gotten annoyed that the G.A.A. got planning permission to build a new stand because that will, obviously, mean more people attending the games. But that still went ahead.

Why? Because the G.A.A. have parties like Fianna Fail in their pocket, and residents around Croke Park should just shut up and accept they are fighting a losing battle?

I wouldn’t be in politics if I thought anything was a losing battle but the G.A.A. obviously have a tremendous amount of influence, as they did get £15 million for their new stand. In fact, the G.A.A. first contributed to clean-ups outside Croke Park in 1993, which was at a time they were seeking planning permission for that stand. Many councillors took the cynical view that this contribution was a type of inducement. Indeed, those councillors who led opposition to the new stand – Tony Gregory and Christy Burke – were then refused tickets for the All-Ireland Final, even though they’d always received tickets in the past. If it is true that they didn’t get tickets because of their opposition that is a sign of pettiness and vindictiveness on behalf of the G.A.A. I hope they don’t bar me now! But when you have a power elite like that, who do wield tremendous influence, it’s very hard to break.

In your case, is that simply because you are not part of the Fianna Fail power elite? And would this, for example, also lead to major bitching on behalf of that party because you became Lord Mayor?

There definitely are people not happy with either the electoral success of the Greens, or the fact that I got into this office, that’s sure. And, as Lord Mayor, I do get an entrée into the establishment, and see these power elites in action. One moment I’m up in Darndale, next day I’m attending an evening up in the Ambassador’s Residence and I can see the conflabs, the political correspondents talking to the heads of the parties, and business people there beside them. Watching them in action together you just know how this country works. That’s how those power elites perpetuate themselves.

And too often, you are getting advertisers dictating editorial policies. That’s part of the power elite at work and something Michael D. Higgns has complained about. And he’s right.

So who is part of this power elite?

The political correspondents of all the main papers, the managment of RTE, top business people and party political leaders.

Could you be more specific? Is this people like John Bowman, Brian Farrell, Joe Barry from RTE and Tony O’Reilly and co?

Yeah. The top echelons of the country. And Noam Chomsky, when asked was he a conspiracy theorist said “no, what I’m offering is an institutional analysis” and that’s the way I see things here. What you have here is that cosy network which means, for example, that instead of political analysis, we get gossip. Politics should be about policies and in-depth philosophy, but we don’t get that in Ireland, which is the way power elites perpetuate themselves. A public service broadcasting body such as RTE is, as Lemass said, an arm of the State. The Green Party certainly has had its difficulties getting coverage on RTE. It has even been suggested that Fianna Fail exerted pressure on RTE to keep the Greens off-the-air and I put that question to RTE and they claim they have no agenda, which, of course, they have to say.

But anyone could see that during the elections, Patricia (McKenna) got nothing on RTE, or in the main papers, such as The Irish Times. Either it was a case of ignore and help defeat them or, as I indicated earlier, turn them into a cartoon party or a one-issue party which will lessen their support during general elections. That too is how power elites work. Even after the Greens’ resounding success in Europe you still had journalists like Eilis O’Hanlon, in the Sunday Independent, writing an article about how voters in Dublin had gone ga-ga voting for the Greens but will come to their senses eventually. That piece was particularly insulting. But people had better get used to the idea that the Greens are here to stay and won’t be defeated by such strategies.

So the main strategy you see in operation in relation to the Greens is for the media to reduce the party to its smallest constituent factor and, if possible, turn it into a joke.

That’s exactly what is happening. We can release fourteen statements on Northern Ireland, or any range of issues and they don’t even get mentioned in the newspapers. But if I say I intend changing the bulbs in the Mansion House, every newspaper jumps on the story. Anyone can see what’s happening here.

Surely when you speak of that power elite you see in the Ambassador’s residence it would be more accurate to say that the business people have the real clout and that you politicians are, basically, just their paid lackies?

That’s a good point. We are the elected representatives but I do often wonder how often do we exercise our mandate or are our politicians simply puppets?

The answer must be ‘yes’ even in your own experience, when, for example, you dared to protest against planning developments in Dublin and found that politicians who are funded by contractors are really pulling the strings in these matters.

The Green Party has always suspected those links. What we would like to do is open up the whole issue and see immunity from prosecution so that someone can go up and say ‘yes, I did get a bribe’ and he won’t be put in jail. And this relates directly to the Greens, in terms of Trevor Sergeant, who stood up at a Dublin Council meeting and then was physically attacked in the chamber for asking ‘did anyone else can get one of these cheques’? A Fianna Fail councillor got Trevor and shook him by the shoulders and said ‘give me that’. And the outcome was that Trevor wasn’t very popular among other politicians and Frank McDonald, in The Irish Times pursued the issue and found there were ‘brown paper bags’ floating around, inducements of all sorts for rezoning. But we couldn’t prove anything, couldn’t get them into court.

Yet it is a widespread practice and we do have prime land being rezoned all over the place and it’s a total abuse of power. Yet has any politician here ever gone to jail for accepting a bribe in this country? For fraud? The whole Beef Tribunal was a charade, in which we arrest the messenger, the journalist Susan O’Keefe. But the one good thing that did come out of the Beef Tribunal was that it did show that people like Goodman back all the parties, a process that previously was all very secretive, even though now they’re all slinging mud at one another. You have the PDs standing up saying ‘this is a disgrace’ yet they got £25,000 from Larry Goodman. If they’re so upset about this, why don’t they give him back the £25,000 and say ‘we’re not going to take your dirty money’? That’s the sort of charade that goes on too often. And I don’t think politicians realise how powerless that Beef Tribunal has left people feeling. They’ve lost trust in established parties.

Do you think Albert Reynolds was, as he claimed, totally vindicated by the findings of the Beef Tribunal?

I don’t think he was totally vindicated at all. But part of the problem in this country is that people know one another. For example, when I go up to visit Albert and he says ‘so, how’s your dad?’ because he knows my father, you can’t help but like the guy. Likewise, the other Fianna Fail lads. One of your family dies and they turn up at the funeral. So that close network means that people don’t really want to come out and start hammering at it.

So, does that mean, if I put to you, say, questions about the way the Reynolds’ family factory – according to a report in The Sunday Times – is allegedly polluting a local river in Longford, that you can’t say, publicly, that he and the family should be hung, drawn and quartered for that? That every fine should be slapped on them?

I’m not going to say they should be hung, drawn and quartered but I will say they should be subject to the full rigours of the law.

But the problem is that the fines are so paltry that they are not a disincentive and there’s no guarantee that these people are not going to come back and pollute again. Yet it wasn’t just Reynolds, there were a number of factories involved. That story came out of a Greenpeace report on ‘the dirty dozen.’

Do you think it is telling, however, that a British rather than Irish newspaper ran with the Reynolds angle on that story?

It is telling, in a sense, in that people are afraid of Albert, because he slaps libels on them. But, in my own case, my family also knows the O’Malleys as well. And people like that have helped my family. So, even though, as a party, I detest the PDs, I find it difficult to come out and criticise Dessie, to be honest with you.

Why do you detest the PDs?

Because they are hypocrites. They say they are against the Senate and yet they enter the Senate. They say they are against the dual mandate yet many of them have a dual mandate. They said they were against pensions and yet they took their Ministerial pensions on the quiet. And they also are hypocrites, as I said, in relation to the Beef Tribunal, going around as if their halos are too heavy for them. If the £25,000 is money gained by illicit means, as they seem to be suggesting, then they should give it back. But they won’t do that. And the main question is, where do they get their money? Anyone can come in and see the Greens’ accounts and we will tell you where we got every single penny. No other party can stand up and do that. And the PDs certainly doesn’t.

This question of transparency in terms of party funding was supposed to be central to Labour party policy before they went into government but many people believe that developments along these lines are a con-job because though politicians themselves must now declare their interests they can simply pass over the reigns to husbands, wives, lovers, whatever.

That’s why this is not transparent, because you can pawn the money off on someone else. It’s not open Government, as we were promised. And Labour have certainly been compromised on this issue, in Government. If they don’t want to come out of this coalition bruised and battered they’ll have to make their mark pretty soon, and say ‘we are not going to be compromised on this issue’. The Freedom of Information Act would be perfect.

It has been suggested that you may come out of your year in office more than a little bruised and battered because you support the idea of service charges for garbage collection, water and so on.

It is going to be a huge issue first of all because central government are cutting back constantly on our budget so it means that we have a huge deficit. We are being put in the corner by the Minister for the Environment, who is saying ‘you people in Dublin City Council are going to have to introduce service charges’ and the bottom line is that if we don’t we will be abolished and service charges will be introduced anyway. But we do not want to introduce service charges, that is not our intention at all. Yet we want the Minister to let us know exactly what he is going to do and how much money he’s going to give us so we can decide how we are going to act. But, yes service charges will apply to water charges, bin collection, things like that. But part of the Fianna Fail propaganda campaign is the suggestion that I totally support the introduction of service charges, I do not. And what we’re doing is throwing the ball back into the Fianna Fail park, saying if anyone is responsible, it is your Minister who is responsible, Mr. Smith, who hasn’t been a friend to Dublin.

Why hasn’t he been a friend of Dublin?

Because, like a lot of people, he has the perception that Dublin gets everything. It doesn’t. And even this idea of decentralisation, to the Government, is simply moving civil servants down the country, not giving people power, which is what real decentralisation is about. So what we’re having is Dublin being bled, all the time, with any major grants going down the country. It’s a real problem and some of the statements Mr. Smith has made have revealed him to be very biased overall.

He’s cut our budgets constantly. Not only is there a short fall in the rates support grant, Dublin City Council is also owed approximately £6 million on rates for Government Buildings in the city. In 1993, each Local Authority received a 2.75% increase in their rates support grant. However Dublin did not benefit from this. The only conclusion one could come to was that the Minister discriminated against us because we did not have local charges.

Do you buy into the suggestion that with shops like Dunkin’ Donuts and MacDonalds, Grafton Street is “rapidly deteriorating” architecturally or would you read into that a subtext of ‘God, soon we won’t be able to tell the difference between this and Mary Street, how will we keep the plebs over at the other side of town’? Likewise, aren’t there countless Northsiders who don’t see the far side of The Liffey as their Dublin, specifically places like Grafton Street?

I absolutely agree. I think that the North/South divide in Dublin is phenomenal. But I definitely don’t see Grafton Street as going downmarket, if that’s what they’re saying. But it is true that Northsiders don’t see this side of the city as theirs. So, literally, what we are going to have to do is build more bridges, such as the bridge planned to go across from the Ormond Multimedia Centre across the Liffey to the Temple Bar. And I do hope that area, north of the Liffey, does become like a new Temple Bar area.

What about the question of the business-community’s responsibilities in terms of inner-city recreational facilities, to help ease Dublin’s drug proble?. And the question of the drugs problem itself?

80% of crime in Dublin is related to drugs. It’s a huge problem. And what we have are a lot of addicts going over to London for treatment because there aren’t adequate treatment programmes here. That’s a crucial issue, where we need proper programmes and facilities. Throwing drug addicts into jail, like Mountjoy, is crazy because they are not going to kick their habit there. The likelihood is that more people will get drugs in there, and become addicts. Young people who don’t use drugs go into jail and come out using drugs because they are stuck in a confined space and have nothing else to do. So that’s not the way to deal with the problem.

And at the Chamber of Commerce meeting we had the assistant Garda Commissioner, Barney Curran, and his attitude is that these people in the inner city have nothing and are kicking against society and what we need to do is invest and provide facilities for them. A lot of the business people agree with that. So these people can be pushed to act, to help to ease the drugs problem by building recreational facilities, or helping to start treatment programmes. Certainly, it should almost be a requirement placed on people who invest in these areas, to give something back to the community along these lines.

It has been suggested that what certain key business people actually do give back to Dublin city is drugs in that they, in conjunction with major gangs, run the drugs scene. With, perhaps, IRA and Loyalist paramilitary involvement.

I have heard that suggestion, from reliable sources.

That so-called ‘pillars of society’ are actively involved in drugs?

Yes. I’ve heard that, and so have other councillors. But a lot of those people are untouchable, because you can’t prove anything.

Do you know names, that you can’t make public?

I couldn’t. And I am going on sources like Tony Gregory, who knows this city very well.

So, can you empathise with the family of an inner city heroin addict who might then listen to politicians saying they are fighting the drugs problem when, in fact, this other power elite is dictating the exact opposite from behind the scenes. Why should that family have any faith at all in the political process?

Yes. But I don’t agree with those who say we should, for example, legalise heroin to take it away from the control of criminals. Legalising it you’re just taking it out of the hands of the criminals and giving it to other people who are going to make big profits from drugs, in a more ‘respectable’ context.

But one interpretation of the killing of the General recently is that he refused to give his share of the profits from drugs to the IRA or that they want him out of the way so they can take over the Dublin drugs scene in a post-ceasefire scenario.

I dread to think that could be true. But the question is, what are the IRA going to do with the infrastructure they have? They do have a very sophisticated infrastructure and one also hears stories along these lines. But I would say again that legalising drugs such as heroin is not the answer, because if you legalise heroin we will have an epidemic here. I feel that drugs like cannabis should be decriminalised because we’re wasting police resources getting kids on a £5 deal, or whatever. But I don’t agree with the argument for legalising cannabis because that will just lead to other problems, with people selling it behind the counter. And I’m certainly not convinced that the legalisation of heroin works because, as in Amsterdam, all its lead to is more and more people going in there just to get their fix. And if heroin is freely available here more and more people will go on heroin.

When you promote Dublin abroad, do you warn people that there have been killings on our streets and that if they walk through certain areas late at night they probably will be mugged by drug users. In other words, do you tell them about the real Dublin?

No, I don’t.

Then you are lying about the city, aren’t you?

I don’t tell lies but I emphasise the positive. When Newsweek come in, I put Dublin in as one of the seven top cities in the world, because, as Lord Mayor, I want to promote Dublin as a place people can come to. But I am not unaware of the poverty in this city, the problems, the way people are really living. For example, shop owners have claimed there are protection rackets in the city but, again, I don’t know the full extent of the problem. But I have heard of instances when certain godfathers have been jailed and when they’ve been put away the crime in the area has gone up. There are these godfathers in the city, it wasn’t just the General. And I am fully aware that this is the Dublin of which I am Lord Mayor.

As such, do you have any problems with the prostitution that goes on a few blocks from the Mansion House, in Fitzwilliam Square? Or the brothels nearby? Do you accept any of those arguments that they offer a service which is demanded from any major European city, by visiting businessmen and so on?

I wouldn’t accept that argument, no. And, I do have a problem with this issue. There is an argument for legalising prostitution, as they have in Germany, if this would lead to less pimping, less violence and more stringent health checks. That is something that should be looked into, to see if it could work. Magazines like In Dublin run ads for brothels so we can’t say it’s not happening, it is. So legalisation may be the answer.

Do you have moral qualms about women selling their services on the streets of Dublin, or boys doing the same thing in Phoenix Park, as they do?

I do. It’s dreadful that a rent-boy should be reduced to that. But they, and the women, do argue that this is the only way they have of making money. And jailing people for that, as with drug addicts, is not the way of solving the problem. I don’t think the police should hassle these people. Prostitutes have a bad enough life, from what I can gather. So criminalisisng prostitutes is not the answer, which is what has happened as a result of the new legislation. If anything, clients should be criminalised.

Do you think that politicians who are known to frequent brothels should be publicly named?

If they are not breaking the law they shouldn’t be named, if they are they should be. I think peoples’ privacy should be respected.

There was a recent story in The News of The World which suggested that boys, aged between ten and fourteen, are acting as rent boys on O’Connell Bridge. If a politician is exploiting those boys would you want him to be publicly named.

He would be breaking the law because he is having sex with a minor so, yes, I would say, nail him. And name him.

Surely too, if a journalist from that paper can sit in a car for four evenings – as is claimed – and see those boys being picked up by clients then you should call on the Gardai to mount a similar operation and nail the men in question rather than chase the kids away, which is what they seem to be doing.

I would call on the Gardai to do that. I will call the Garda Commissioner and say ‘this has to be stopped’. These clients are guilty because they are exploiting minors who, because of poverty, have been forced into these kind of situations. So the Gardai should sit in cars nearby and arrest these men. They shouldn’t harass the children. But then I don’t agree with harassment of any sort, whether it be the hair-wrappers on Grafton Street, or animal rights people outside the Bank of Ireland. I get representations from these people all the time and I believe that if they are not doing any harm to another human being they shouldn’t be harassed. On Grafton street, for example, these people add colour to the street: The musicians, for example, give a very interesting ambience to the area. And I know some business people have said ‘well, we don’t want back-packers as tourists in this city’ but I say we do. And I don’t think anyone who is adding colour to an area, should be harassed by the police.

Would you welcome a delegation of Dublin prostitutes to the Mansion House if they wanted to make representation to you along these lines, to lodge a complaint about police harassment?

I would talk to anyone, any community representative of Dublin, yes.

In the context of the allegedly Loyalist bomb attempt to the Widow Scallan’s pub, in Dublin, do you think the public should be told that there are reportedly six pubs in Dublin which are part, or fully owned by the IRA?

How are you going to prove that? I’ve heard that as well, but all we can do is hope that the peace process will last and that there are no more bombs.

Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein were previously barred from the Mansion House. Has that ban now been lifted?

We will have to look at the terms of reference that originally banned them but I think, given that there is a ceasefire, which may be permanent, that they would be allowed the use of the Mansion House again.

There was a question raised about how you would deal with being expected to officially receive, say, a French military vessel into Dublin, if it was carrying nuclear weapons, which you are totally opposed to. Have you resolved that dilemma?

No more ships are allowed in here with nuclear weapons. They were operating under a ‘neither confirm nor deny’ policy but, as far as I can tell, Nato ships now don’t carry nuclear weapons because it is too risky. But, morally, a similar dilemma will arise when I’m asked to pose with a racing car or to welcome a circus, which might mistreat animals. I don’t go out of my way to be theatrical about this but I will tell people where I stand on such issues. And I will turn down those I can’t take on, such as a coursing event where greyhound owners wanted to come into the Mansion House and I said ‘that’s not me, I’m afraid’. But, having said that, I must be honest and admit that one of the first visits I got here was from the British Ambassador and it never dawned on me to mention Sellafield, which, as you know, has always been a central issue to the Greens! But he had come prepared, so when we did talk I told him, in no uncertain terms, that I am opposed to Sellafield and want to see that plant closed.

As Lord Mayor, what do you think is the best way to deal with the issue of Sellafield? For example you’ve always advocated that the Irish Government should take legal action against Britain but it hasn’t taken that action and doesn’t look like it will. Why is that? Power elites, vested interests in control yet again?

Power elites? The Anglo-Irish Agreement is more like it. It has been suggested that Albert Reynolds said to John Major something like ‘if you help us in terms of the peace process we won’t hassle you over Seallafield’ and I think that is totally feasible. And is it just coincidental that they announced Thorp on the same day as the Anglo-Irish Agreement? So the best way to work against this is to continue pressing the government on this issue, hammer them. That’s what we did in our party political broadcast. We highlighted in big, bold lettering ‘LAST YEAR THE GOVERNMENT GAVE £43 million TO THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY.’ And we have to keep saying that, because people don’t know it. People don’t know that while the government is saying ‘yes, we want to close Sellafield’ they are contributing that kind of money to it. And, you’re right, they are not taking the legal action they could take.

So it’s another, potentially lethal con-job on the public?

Absolutely. There’s no doubt about it. When they say they want to shut Sellafield, it’s a load of nonsense. Maybe they want to, but they are not doing anything about it. And it was on this issue that we did so well in the European Elections. People are understandably concerned. More than most politicians seem to realise. That’s why it is very important for the Greens to get into power in Germany, in the forthcoming October elections. They are standing at around 10% so it’s quite feasible that with the SPD and the PDS they could get into power and cancel a few of those contracts. And if those contracts for re-processing are cancelled then where does that leave Sellafield? All they’ll have are the Japanese contacts and the thing just becomes unviable, which is what I hope will happen

But what can Ireland do? It was, after all, Albert Reynolds who originally passed the E.C. directive which lead to funding for Sellafield. Would you call on him, again, to withdraw his support for the nuclear industry?

What I will ask them, yet again, is to come clean on Sellafield and say ‘we are going to take a case against it and cut down on their financial support for the nuclear industry.

Would you bar Albert Reynolds from the Mansion House if he doesn’t withdraw his support for the nuclear industry?

It is a good idea and one I will contemplate. But I will tell him to his face where I stand on this issue and speak at protest meetings that are held outside the Department of Finance. Things like that are radical gestures in themselves. I would have to think twice about imposing a ban on someone, from my residence. I could ban him from entering my office in the Mansion House but, beyond that, I don’t think I could possibly ban him from the Supper Room, or the Round Room.

At the end of your year as Lord Mayor, what’s the one thing you hope to have achieved?

An Agenda 21 for the city, which is part of the Rio agreement and encapsulates all the things I believe we need. It’s an agenda for a sustainable city in the 21st century and has to be drawn up by 1996. If we could draw that up, I’d certainly feel my time as Lord Mayor was well spent.