Brendan Howlin
Question:1. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the parliamentary liaison unit. [50471/17]
Ceisteanna - Questions
Departmental Operations
Gerry Adams
Question:2. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the functions of the parliamentary liaison unit in his Department. [51687/17]
Joan Burton
Question:3. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the parliamentary liaison unit. [51728/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
As outlined in the strategy statement, my Department provides support services for the Taoiseach and the Government. As part of this service, the parliamentary liaison unit was established to perform a liaison function to help ensure that Ministers and Departments are properly informed of new responsibilities and procedures of the Thirty-second Dáil.
The unit provides support to Ministers and their Departments on Oireachtas matters with a particular emphasis on assisting Departments with Private Members' business. It provides Departments with detailed information on the rules and procedures with regard to Private Members' business.
In performing this function, the unit liaises on a regular basis with advisors to the Independent members of Government, including the chief strategist for the Independent Alliance and the political co-ordinator for the Independent Ministers in government to ensure they are informed of Oireachtas issues and to assist them in engaging with the new procedures arising from Dáil reform. The parliamentary liaison unit provides detailed information on upcoming matters in the Dáil and Seanad and highlights any new Oireachtas reform issues.
We have tabled several parliamentary questions on the parliamentary liaison unit to find out exactly what it is supposed to do. According to the Government website, whodoeswhat.gov.ie, "The Parliamentary Liaison Unit facilitates the enhanced relationship between the Government and the Oireachtas with a view to ensuring the timely implementation of the Government's legislative programme." However, the website does not refer to certain Members of the Oireachtas. According to replies to parliamentary questions, as repeated by the Taoiseach today, its purpose is to support Ministers and their Departments on Oireachtas matters with a particular emphasis on assisting Departments with Private Members’ business.
The Taoiseach is telling us that the purpose of the unit is to support Independent members of Government in understanding Oireachtas procedures. I am somewhat confused about who exactly it is aimed at. Let us suppose we are to believe what has been published and that the purpose of the unit is to liaise between the Government and the Oireachtas. I have not had any contact with the parliamentary liaison unit. Will the Taoiseach identify the individual Deputies who have been liaised with, and to what end? Is there any interaction between Members who are not supporters of the Government and the parliamentary liaison unit?
In September last year, the then Taoiseach, Teachta Kenny, spoke in the Dáil about the need to improve communications between Ministers and their Departments. He outlined how, to facilitate this approach, a parliamentary liaison unit was established. He specifically said that it was to facilitate an enhanced relationship between the Government and the Oireachtas.
More recently this role of improving communications between the Ministers and the Opposition spokespersons has disappeared completely, as it did today, from any definition of the unit. Can the Taoiseach explain if the parliamentary liaison unit has any role in engaging with the Opposition parties or Members on the preparation of legislation as set out by his predecessor?
Could he also outline to the Dáil his current thinking on Seanad reform? The Manning report was published in April 2015. The former Taoiseach wrote to party leaders last year seeking nominations. We nominated Seanadóir Rose Conway-Walsh. There has been no contact with her since then.
The programme for Government, which is now 18 months old, contains a commitment to pursue the implementation of the Manning report as a priority. I wrote to the Taoiseach on this issue in August and in a reply to me in October he said he would be contacting party leaders with a view to having the group up and running as soon as possible. He also said the implementation group would be up in the next few weeks. Two months later, no one has been in touch with me and neither have I seen any evidence of the implementation group being established or the chairperson being identified. Will the Taoiseach undertake to liaise with Opposition parties to expedite this matter early in the new year? He also said in his response earlier that the parliamentary liaison unit was communicating with the chief strategist of the Independent Alliance. Does the Taoiseach know the name of this strategist and if so could he give it to the Dáil?
In an answer to me last week the Taoiseach said there were 24 staff assigned to the Government secretariat, protocol division and parliamentary liaison unit. How many of these 24 are assigned to the parliamentary liaison unit? What is their rank? Are they deputy secretaries, assistant secretaries or principal officers? Rather like the strategic communications unit, this appears to be something which could have a lot of mission creep. When it was first introduced the indication, as now, was that it was to deal with minority members of the Government. It is worth reminding the Taoiseach that Parliament is made up of a variety of different parties and Independents, not all of whom are either in or supporting the Government with confidence and supply. If there is an information structure for liaison, explanation and information about initiatives being undertaken by the Government it is right that, as with the strategic communications unit, that kind of information is available on an equal basis to all the parties and all the Members of the Oireachtas. Otherwise, it smacks of more resources being devoted to Government for information purposes in the context of Government information services with many staff, as the Taoiseach said in his reply of last week.
May I speak?
The Deputy is not included but he may come in.
The Taoiseach's notes will probably tell him that last year his predecessor informed the Seanad that the parliamentary liaison unit had been established as a "catalyst" for improved communication between Ministers and Opposition spokespersons and their teams. That was the original idea of the parliamentary liaison unit and the Taoiseach's predecessor, in the context of the confidence and supply agreement and the facilitation of Oireachtas reform, made it clear that he wanted improved relationships between the Executive and the rest of the House on various issues and communications between Ministers and Deputies. We have learned over the past year or so that the unit has been diverted into working with Independent Members and helping Ministers prepare for Private Members' Business. That was never the original intention. It seems that more and more, the architecture of Government is being turned into a prop for the political parties which make up the Government. We have to be extremely careful about the trends that are emerging.
The Taoiseach said he was reviewing his Department. Could he indicate whether the review has informed him what he will do in respect of this unit? Will he make a statement available on the number of queries handled for each Independent Deputy? What Independent Deputies are on the inside track, those who vote with the Government, such as Deputy Lowry who regularly does that, or Deputy Mattie McGrath-----
Deputy Harty.
Deputy Harty. Are they the Independent Members who are being helped or assisted by the liaison unit? We know that in recent weeks other Deputies did not get the information they looked for in parliamentary questions. If this parliamentary liaison unit was working effectively, as originally intended, to help communications between the House and the Executive we might not have had all the difficulties and challenges we have faced in recent weeks. For full transparency it would be useful if the Taoiseach could outline what Deputies are being assisted by this liaison unit.
The make-up of this Dáil and the new procedures that have come into place as a result of Dáil reform have resulted in the Government doing its business in a very different way from previous Governments. It has also meant an increased workload for Departments, particularly in respect of the volume of Private Members' business. The parliamentary liaison unit, which is based in my Department, was set up to perform a liaison function to help ensure that Ministers and Departments are properly informed of their new responsibilities and procedures in the Thirty-second Dáil. The parliamentary liaison unit was established 18 months ago, in May 2016. It is staffed by three people, a principal officer, a higher executive officer and a clerical officer, all of whom are civil servants. The chief strategist for the Independent Alliance is Mr. Tony Williams.
I am not reviewing my Department. Structures and staffing are entirely a matter for the Secretary General. I intend to leave that to him as the best person-----
I thought the Taoiseach had announced that he was doing a review.
I also announced that I had taken wise counsel on that and decided to leave all these matters involving staffing and structure to my Secretary General. That is my decision.
As I have said previously, the unit performs a liaison function to help ensure that Members and Departments are properly informed of the new responsibilities and procedures of the Thirty-second Dáil. If one takes, for example, Private Members' business, the make-up of the current Dáil and the new procedures that have come into place as a result of Dáil reform have resulted in Government doing its business in a different way from previous Governments. It has also meant a dramatically increased workload for Departments, particularly in respect of the volume of Private Members' business. Currently, for example, there are 105 Private Members' Bills awaiting Second Stage in the Dáil and 40 awaiting Committee Stage. Departments can sometimes have several Bills, both Government and Private Members', relative to their area on the Order Paper in either House in any given week. The unit is continuously in contact with the Departments about the progress of these Bills and to assist officials with procedures and any issues that may arise.
The unit was established to perform a liaison function to help ensure that Ministers and Departments are properly informed of new responsibilities and procedures in the Thirty-second Dáil. The main focus of the unit is to liaise with Departments and advisers on Oireachtas matters with a particular emphasis on assisting Departments with Private Members' business. In performing this function the unit has been happy to engage with any member of the Opposition, where appropriate. It is not the function of the unit to ensure the support of Deputies in the House. That is a political function. The parliamentary liaison unit's role is to provide information on Dáil and Seanad issues and on Dáil reform and primarily, the unit assists Departments and advisers on Oireachtas matters.
Should the Departments not be doing that?
One would imagine so.
There are 14 questions in the next batch so it might be appropriate to move on.
Would it be possible to devote 30 minutes to those questions?
To this batch?
Yes because they cover Brexit and Northern Ireland and many other things in between.
Yes, if Members are amenable we will give the time.
Does that mean that the questions about the EU will be taken tomorrow?
Yes. Are we amenable to that?
That is fine.
There is a lot on the EU here.
Brexit Negotiations
Micheál Martin
Question:4. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has written to Prime Minister May since he requested a written commitment by the British on the way in which trade would continue here after Northern Ireland has left the customs union and Single Market as a result of Brexit. [50533/17]
Micheál Martin
Question:5. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken to Prime Minister May regarding Northern Ireland recently. [50534/17]
Micheál Martin
Question:6. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken to Prime Minister May since 29 November 2017 in respect of the Brexit divorce bill and the upcoming European Council meeting. [51710/17]
Brendan Howlin
Question:7. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent engagements with Prime Minister May on Northern Ireland. [51721/17]
Joan Burton
Question:8. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contact with Prime Minister May regarding Northern Ireland. [51726/17]
Gerry Adams
Question:9. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken to the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Theresa May, since 17 November 2017. [51915/17]
Micheál Martin
Question:10. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if there were discussions regarding the future of east-west relations post Brexit when he was speaking with Prime Minister May. [51994/17]
Stephen Donnelly
Question:11. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken to the Democratic Unionist Party, DUP, leader since 4 December 2017. [52886/17]
Micheál Martin
Question:12. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the contact he or his officials had with Prime Minister May of her officials over the first weekend in December 2017 prior to the time when the EU-UK deal was nearly finalised. [52907/17]
Micheál Martin
Question:13. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he or his officials blocked the DUP from seeing the final texts of the EU-UK deal. [52912/17]
Joan Burton
Question:14. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his contact with Mrs. Arlene Foster, MLA. [52946/17]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:15. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent conversations with Prime Minister May. [52956/17]
Micheál Martin
Question:16. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his conversations between Prime Minister May and DUP leader Arlene Foster since 4 December 2017 on the draft EU-UK deal on phase 1 of Brexit talks. [53225/17]
Brendan Howlin
Question:17. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his telephone call with Prime Minister Theresa May on 6 December 2017. [53134/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 17, inclusive, together.
I spoke by phone with Prime Minister May most recently on Wednesday, 6 December and again on Thursday, 7 December.
On both occasions we had good conversations as we took stock of the situation that unfolded on Monday, 4 December and the prospects of getting back to a point of satisfactory progress. I reiterated the firm Irish position regarding the text that had been agreed on Monday, 4 December.
On Friday morning, I was pleased to announce that, following further intensive negotiations, we had reached a satisfactory conclusion which did not involve any change to the guarantee regarding the Border we had secured earlier in the negotiations. In my statement on Friday, I said we had achieved all we set out to achieve in phase 1 of these negotiations, that we had the assurances and guarantees we needed from the United Kingdom and support for them from the European Union. I am satisfied sufficient progress has been made on the Irish issues. The parameters have been set and they are good.
It remains a matter for the European Council, however, to decide later this week whether it is satisfied to accept the recommendation of the European Commission that sufficient progress has been achieved on all three phase 1 issues. Assuming that happens, we can move on to the work necessary to convert the commitments made last week into the necessary provisions in the withdrawal agreement, which will be an international agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom. We also want to begin discussions about transition arrangements and the new relationship between the EU and the UK in phase 2.
We will remain fully engaged and vigilant throughout the next period of work. As I stated last Friday, this is not the end; it is the beginning of the end and there is much to be done in respect of Brexit. Throughout, we participated in these discussions as part of the EU 27. I have also spoken with the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, and the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, on several occasions. Irish officials were also in contact with the EU task force over the intensive period of negotiations in recent weeks, as well as engaging with other EU institutions like the European Parliament and member states for support. We were also in bilateral contact with the UK at political and official level. While these contacts were focused primarily on finding a way forward in the negotiations, the UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, and I remain in agreement on the importance of ensuring close ongoing bilateral Ireland-UK relations. I was not party to any discussions between the UK Prime Minister and the DUP leader, Arlene Foster, MLA, in respect of the EU-UK negotiations, nor did I speak directly with the DUP leader over the course of the intensive negotiation period of the past two weeks. We last spoke on 12 November.
The Article 50 process is a negotiation between the EU 27 on the one hand and the UK Government on the other. As such, it is a process that involves sovereign Governments rather than individual political parties in any of the relevant jurisdictions. In the same way, neither I nor my officials had a role in any decision made about sharing a draft text with the DUP. Given the nature of the negotiation structure, that was entirely a matter for the UK Government.
Tomorrow there will be statements on Europe and we can go into the issue in more detail then. However, as the Council President, Donald Tusk, noted, the first phase was the easy part and those who say the key issues are definitely settled are clearly fooling themselves as there is much work to be done in phase 2.
Does a definition of "frictionless border" exist? Will the Taoiseach indicate what exactly his definition of a frictionless border is? Obviously, it involves no physical barriers. Will it, however, involve no payments or costs of trade? We know the objective is for there to be no change. However, if there is change, how much it fits with the Taoiseach's understanding of what is possible? The UK Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, David Davis, and others have spoken about a Canada-plus type of trade agreement. Where do services stand in all of this? Merchandise goods are straightforward enough. What is the outlook for services, as well as for different standards and approaches?
The Taoiseach must acknowledge there are profoundly different views on what the agreement involves, its status and its implications between Dublin and Westminster. The commitment to an open border is contradicted by the statement that the UK as a whole will leave the customs union and the Single Market. On Ireland, the agreement states that regulatory alignment will be maintained if there is no overall deal. If there is no overall deal, however, the UK's membership of the customs union and the Single Market would automatically lapse, which will include Northern Ireland.
While I accept it is as far as we possibly could get at this particular stage, there are still irreconcilables in the text. Has the Taoiseach received assurances from Europe as to what happens in such circumstances? I hope such circumstances do not happen but I believe part of the evidence suggests Britain is heading towards a soft Brexit if it can bring its politics around to that. That is in the best interests of the British people and Britain itself.
Northern Ireland will also be a topic for statements tomorrow and there is much more to be said. However, I want to point to statements made by the Taoiseach last Friday and again in the Belfast Telegraph that his Government has decided that no Irish Government will ever again leave Northern nationalists and Northern Ireland behind. I regard that as an offensive comment on many levels. It suggests the Taoiseach is more eager to promote his Government than respect the consensus that has operated among democratic parties here for 40 years. I do not believe anyone can look at the enormous effort and political commitment placed by Irish Governments of different parties into Northern Ireland, from the Anglo-Irish Agreement right through to the Good Friday Agreement, and say that they were leaving anybody behind. At such a moment, it was an offensive comment to make and I ask the Taoiseach to withdraw it. The Good Friday Agreement and a decade of hard negotiations after it never saw an Irish Government leave Northern nationalists or unionists behind because of parity of esteem. That is the whole basis on which citizenship emerged in terms of Irish citizenship and European citizenship.
We were always Irish citizens.
Yes, but the Good Friday Agreement underpinned the rights of people to Irish citizenship, which in turn underpinned their European citizenship rights, which facilitates what was agreed last Friday.
It could be argued that had the Governments in which the Taoiseach served showed half as much interest in Northern Ireland, then we might not have the deadlock and lack of co-operation we currently have.
In future, will the Taoiseach show a bigger approach to this issue, which used to be defined by the greater recognition of the work of others? Will he agree that the absence of the Northern Assembly and Executive is causing long-term damage while major cuts in vital services are being implemented? There has been a deep regression in the rhetoric from London on Northern Ireland. It is an issue to which the Government and the Oireachtas must pay significant attention. I will comment more on that tomorrow.
The joint report between the UK and the European Union, as agreed and published, was welcomed by all of us last Friday. It contained three levels of safeguards to avoid the so-called "hard-border" option. Obviously, the first two were negotiated and are dependent on the outcome of negotiations. The third was the so-called "backstop" or fall-back position that in the event of there being no agreement, there will be full alignment on the island of Ireland to avoid any reinstatement of the need for customs or any other checks for goods, people or services moving between North and South.
That has been fundamentally resiled from by several members of the British Cabinet since. We are now told that all the paper is subject to full agreement and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. The backstop, accordingly, does not exist, if that interpretation is to stand. This morning, Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament's co-ordinator on Brexit, said the comments by the UK's Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, David Davis, in particular, undermined confidence in the trust that the European Parliament can have in the British Government. The European Parliament is to vote on a draft resolution tomorrow. This will be subject to amendments to condemn comments made by several members of the British Government and to demand swift legal assurances from the United Kingdom.
Will the Taoiseach put the draft report agreed last week to this Parliament in order that we can formally adopt it as a position and strengthen his hand in future negotiations? Will he seek stronger support from the British Government to get its own Parliament to approve it and to confirm an agreed interpretation of the words? In the discussions I had with the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade in advance of the welcome agreement reached last week, we agreed that on these matters, there could not be what used to be called "constructive ambiguity", namely, an agreement of language that we often had in Northern discussions to ensure a slightly different interpretation could be placed to bring everybody along the path.
These are fundamental issues for us and we cannot have either fudge or ambiguity with them. Will the Taoiseach set out for us today the measures he intends to take to ensure that our understanding of the words agreed and the words written down and circulated will be honoured in full by all parties to the report last week?
Last week, the Taoiseach used quite strong language about the nature of the deal struck when he said that it was bulletproof, yet we are all aware of and concerned by the rather definitive comments given by Secretary Davis from the British Cabinet. Anybody who knows Irish history would be particularly worried and, at this time of year, I am sure the Taoiseach may recall the Roman god Janus, the god of openings and beginnings, but also the god that is two-faced. Looking at Irish history, people are understandably concerned and worried, notwithstanding the subsequent retraction and rather stronger statements in the British House of Commons in the debate when Ms May gave her take on events yesterday. Is the Taoiseach concerned that this tacking backwards and forwards, in a very long British tradition where Ireland is concerned, is significant, and perhaps understandable? What does the Taoiseach feel he needs to do tactically and strategically to address that?
There has been a great deal of positive goodwill for Ireland which is very important for future negotiations. What needs to be done to restore trust in that indication, if not a solid agreement, that the Taoiseach himself said was bulletproof? What does he want now in the structure of the negotiations which seem like they will only really commence after the meeting in March? What does he require? Do we now require a significant and specific Irish presence attached to the Barnier task force? It is now going to move into the minutiae under a number of key headings of negotiation and while being one of 27 has been a great strength and I have no difficulty with that, we also have to be able to explicitly look after Irish interests and border interests to ensure that there is no hard border. The statements at the weekend were contradictory.
Following the publication of the communiqué last Friday, Sinn Féin warned that the devil would be in the detail and in recent days, the Minister, Deputy Coveney, and the Taoiseach have had to reject British Government efforts to water down the implications of that communiqué. The issue of whether it is legally binding or simply a statement of intent is still not resolved. I appreciate the difficulties the Irish Government has had in this negotiation. Sinn Féin's experience over many years of negotiating with British Governments and, if I may say so, with Irish Governments, is that agreements reached do not always translate into actions or subsequent legislation. For example, after almost 20 years, with the Good Friday Agreement turning 20 years old next year, there is still no bill of rights for the North or charter of rights for the island. This issue of rights is at the heart of the current difficulties. The refusal by the British Government and by the Democratic Unionist Party, DUP, to embrace rights is at the heart of the ongoing difficulties in the Northern Assembly, contrary to the Fianna Fáil leader's untruthful claims about two problem parties.
The letter recently sent by over 200 citizens from civic society in the North, mainly nationalists, to the Taoiseach, identifies these issues and concerns. The human rights lawyer, Niall Murphy, one of the signatories, identified rights as critical to the future stability of institutions in the North. He asked why there should be a right in Donegal and not the same right in Derry. The communiqué sheds no light on the future role of the European Court of Justice and in particular the right of European citizens in the North to have access to the courts in the EU. I first asked this question on Monday a few weeks ago, after the aborted press conference, and the Taoiseach did not answer it. Will he tell us how he squares the circle of the British Government saying it is going to end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, to withdraw from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and to repeal the Human Rights Act when that threatens the very human rights elements and safeguards of the Good Friday Agreement?
Finally, I dislike the term "Northern nationalist". One never hears of western, southern or eastern nationalists but I welcome the Taoiseach's assertion that no Irish Government will ever leave Northern nationalists behind again, not least because it acknowledges since partition the reality of life for most nationalists in the North.
There has been consensus in this House about the need, whatever negotiations and disputes may be happening between the United Kingdom and the European Union, to maintain the position of having no hard border and to get those commitments. We saw from David Davis' comments that the British Government cannot be fully trusted and the constant repetition of "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" is still a slightly worrying backdoor out of commitments. That being said, I think everybody in this House has held fast to the key issue of having no hard border and should continue to do so but the pressure is undoubtedly going to intensify in the second phase as the trade discussions unfold between Britain and the European Union. We can see that Britain cannot entirely be trusted, given the elements that exist in the Tory party that have a hard Brexit perspective and do not really care about the consequences.
Has the Taoiseach had any indication from the EU about its attitude towards those trade negotiations? It seems to me that it makes no sense for anybody to have tariff barriers or borders, not just on a North-South basis but on an east-west basis. I worry, in the same way that there are fairly rotten politics from the Tories, that there is an element in the EU that wants to punish Britain for political reasons and may also be tempted in that regard when it comes to wider negotiations. We have to say that not only do we want no border between east, north and south, but it does not make any sense for anybody to play politics with getting a good deal which is good for everybody. That means ensuring we do not have custom barriers, tariff barriers or any other kind of barriers in as far as it is at all possible for everybody's best interests.
Many questions have been posed to the Taoiseach and I look forward to receiving the answers. We need to acknowledge the strong support given to the Irish position by the other EU 26 and key personnel such as Michel Barnier and Guy Verhofstadt. I have a technical question about the legal status of the text agreed between the UK Government and the EU last Friday. Different interpretations have been put forward. We heard one interpretation by the EU, others from spokespersons for the European Commission and others from spokespersons for the UK Government. Has the Attorney General been consulted on the process leading up to the agreement?
Has the Attorney General given any advice to the Government on the final text agreed? I seek clarification on the legalities of the text agreed. I accept the European Council has to consider the matter further at this week's meeting. I ask the Taoiseach to give some legal clarification regarding the text agreed last Friday.
I will try to answer as many of the questions asked as I can. The joint report agreed by the EU and the UK - Ireland is of course part of the European Union team - was agreed on Friday last. It is my intention to endorse it in Brussels at the European Council on Thursday. It is a political agreement so it is more than a statement of intent. It is politically binding. As a political agreement, it sets the parameters for the UK withdrawal agreement, which is legally binding. Therefore, this is a political agreement between the EU on the one hand and the UK on the other. It informs the content of the UK withdrawal agreement which will be a legally binding international instrument.
It is worth recalling two important sentences from the joint report. The last sentence in paragraph 43 states: "The United Kingdom also recalls its commitment to the avoidance of a hard border, including any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls." That is the definition the EU and UK have made of a hard border - no physical infrastructure, no related checks or controls. Paragraph 46 states: "[The commitments] are made and must be upheld in all circumstances, irrespective of the nature of any future agreement between the European Union and United Kingdom." Therefore these are commitments which must be upheld in all circumstances irrespective of the nature of the final agreement between the EU and the UK. While people in different places for all sorts of reasons will put their own complexion on what this report means and does not, I will quote from the black and white text because that was hard negotiated and very much defends our position.
However, as I said on Monday, this is not the end; it is only the beginning of the end. I said on Friday that it would be very important for us as a Government to be fully engaged and vigilant when it comes to phase two. That involves the withdrawal agreement, phase two, new treaties, the drafting thereof and the ratification thereof. Brexit is not sorted; it is just starting. There is a long way to go yet.
If the schedule is adhered to - it may not be but I think it will be - the United Kingdom will leave the European Union in March 2019. There will then be a transition period for roughly two years. There will then be a new relationship. This is something that will go on at least until 2021. During that period it will require from this Government the same level of engagement and vigilance we have shown in the past year. It will take a lot of politicians' time, civil service time and Government resources. However, it is something we have to do and very much intend to do.
I was asked about the EU-UK new relationship, the final status relationship if one likes, after 2021. I was interested to learn that the United Kingdom Cabinet is meeting this week to consider that and I will be interested to know the outcome of its deliberations as to what the United Kingdom would like to see its new relationship with the EU look like. Our view is very much that the relationship that exists between the European Union and the UK should be much as it is now. We never agreed with Brexit as a policy; we do not think it is a good thing. Therefore, of course, we would like a new status, a new relationship between the EU and the UK, resembling as much as is possible what we have now. That is very much the position we will feed into in determining the EU position, which has yet to be done. We will have to agree guidelines for the second phase of negotiations and that has not been done yet.
Deputy Boyd Barrett is correct on one level: there will be different views across European capitals on this. Some people in other European capitals will be less enthusiastic than we are about maintaining the status quo. We also cannot ignore the fact that they might have a point. Some of those countries will say it is not right that Britain should continue to have all the benefits of the customs union and all the benefits of the Single Market while leaving it and having none of the responsibilities, costs or obligations. We have to listen to that argument because that is a fair point. The European Union will fall apart - or may fall apart - if countries can pick and choose, if they can have the benefits of membership but none of the responsibilities, obligations or costs.
While I absolutely want to retain free trade as it exists now between Britain and Ireland and between Britain and the EU, crucial to making free trade happen within a free-trade bloc is that free trade must be fair. I do not think we can have unfettered free trade with a neighbouring country or a third country that has lower labour standards, lower health and safety standards, inferior animal welfare standards, reduced environmental standards or engages in state aid. The European Union happened in the first place to ensure we could have free trade across Europe, but also so that we could have the same harmonised basic and minimum standard to ensure that trade was fair.
These are all things we will have to consider as 27 member states in developing guidelines for the final status agreement. That is where the whole concept of maintaining full regulatory alignment is at its strongest. "Maintain" means to keep as it is now, full and not partial alignment, making sure that our rules and regulations are line with each other. While I have heard some comment on alignment, we sought legal advice from the Attorney General on it. Alignment is a term used in European law and European treaties. It is the specific term used in accession treaties. When countries apply to join the European Union, they have to align their rules and regulations with the acquis communautaire, with European law, before they join. Maintaining full alignment after a country leaves is in many ways something similar but, of course, that is the backstop option and there are two other options as well.
In terms of the ongoing negotiations, as part of the joint report we have agreed that we will retain a dedicated Irish stream throughout phase two because of the unique issues that Ireland faces that have not gone away. They are still relevant and that is why we have that written into the joint report.
How will that unique stream manifest itself?
I do not know for certain. That is something I will be talking to Michel Barnier, Jean-Claude Junker and Donal Tusk about on Thursday. I imagine it will be something similar to what we have had in the last number of months where no member state was a member of the task force, but Ireland was, if one likes, behind the door in the next room when it came to any issues pertaining to and specific to Ireland - not general issues. I suspect it will be something on those lines, but I will have an opportunity to meet Mr. Junker, Mr. Tusk and Mr. Barnier at the EPP summit before the Council. That is one of the things we will discuss there and thereafter also.
Deputy Micheál Martin picked up on a remark I made about no future Irish Government leaving Irish citizens in Northern Ireland behind. Certainly I did not mean any offence by that. I was not referring to governments that existed over the past 20 years. Good work was done by the Government of the former Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern. Deputy Martin's work as Minister for Foreign Affairs during some of that period was sterling work and something of which he should be very proud. I was not trying in any way to disparage or make any offensive remarks about any Government over the past 20 years, not least the ones that succeeded in putting together the Good Friday Agreement. I was making a more historical point, referring to the fact that in the 1920s we were forced to accept partition. We were weak as a country; we were a fledgling country and had to accept partition. As a consequence we left behind hundreds of thousands of people who consider themselves to be Irish and were, in fact, then and remain Irish citizens. Then through the 1920s and 1930s let us not forget that it was governments in this State and this Oireachtas that put up the customs posts in the first place that then through in the 1930s engaged in an economic war that divided us further from Britain and from Northern Ireland.
Looking back historically in the 1950s and 1960s, Irish Governments at that time could perhaps have done more to vindicate and stand up for the civil rights of Catholics in Northern Ireland at that time. That is what I was referring to and not the past ten or 20 years. Certainly it was not-----
So it is a partisan view.
Certainly it was not a partisan view.
That period would cover Cumann na nGaedheal, Fianna Fáil and inter-party Governments but-----
It is not that simple.
-----what it was not was an attempt to-----
One could argue that the Governments of the 1970s did an awful lot to protect the State and that those who left people behind in Northern Ireland were not governments but other organisations-----
I think that is perhaps a matter for a historical symposium.
-----where we had bombing and destruction for 40 years. We will discuss it some other time.
We will discuss it another time but, to clarify, I was not trying to make a disparaging remark about the Fianna Fáil Governments in the past 20 years.
I take the point.
In terms of the joint report, it was formally adopted by Government this morning. It does not require a parliamentary vote but if one is possible I would be happy to accept it and welcome it. However, I am not sure that will be possible because I will be travelling on Thursday so that would have to be done today or tomorrow.
On the question relating to the European Court of Justice, ECJ, the plan as set out in the joint report is that the ECJ will continue to have jurisdiction over citizens' rights for a period of about eight years but that will not be permanent. EU citizens who do not live in the EU will not be able to access the European Court of Justice in perpetuity in the same way United States citizens who do not live in the US cannot access the US courts and Irish citizens who do not live in Ireland cannot, in all circumstances, access the Irish courts because locus standi-----
Belfast is in Ireland. It is a matter of geography.
It is certainly in Ireland but it is not part of the State.
This is not Ireland; it is only a part of Ireland.
That is what the Good Friday Agreement states, as the Deputy knows, and it is something to which he signed up.