Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Oct 2016

Vol. 925 No. 2

European Council Meeting: Statements

The Taoiseach

I welcome this opportunity to address the House in advance of the European Council meeting that begins tomorrow in Brussels. The agenda includes a discussion of the current migration situation, the European Union's trade policy and a number of trade agreements, a range of global and economic issues, and external relations, specifically with Russia and Syria. I have asked the Minister of State, Deputy Joe McHugh, to address this point of foreign policy in his closing remarks.

Before I turn to the agenda in more detail, I will refer briefly to the informal summit of 27 EU Heads of State and Government that took place in Bratislava last month. I have already answered questions from Deputies in the House about the summit, but it is worthwhile recalling that its objective was to hold a broad debate on the renewal and future of Europe following the UK vote to leave the Union. The meeting assessed the key challenges and priorities for the EU. Our discussions covered migration, internal security, external security and defence, and economic and social development, including issues affecting youth. I acknowledged the strong concerns our partners have in regard to migration and security and assured them Ireland will continue to contribute to the response to the migration crisis. I also said we would engage in the further development of the Common Security and Defence Policy in support of international peace and security, as provided for in the EU treaties. I highlighted the priority Ireland, together with many of our EU partners, attaches to economic issues, in particular the Single Market, digital single market, jobs, and investment and trade. I argued that we need a balanced approach to the debate on the future of Europe.

There was no discussion of the UK's decision to leave the EU other than a report from President Tusk of his meeting with British Prime Minister, Ms May, and a reaffirmation of the agreed principles that there can be no negotiations before the UK triggers Article 50 and that access to the Single Market requires acceptance of all four freedoms. In my discussions with other leaders, however, I reminded them again of Ireland's specific concerns arising from Brexit, particularly in regard to Northern Ireland, the peace process, North-South relations, citizenship issues, the common travel area, the Border and bilateral trade. I also had the opportunity to elaborate upon these points to the head of the European Commission's negotiating team, Michel Barnier, when I met him in Dublin last week.

It was agreed at Bratislava that the process of reflection on the future of Europe should continue at the October and December European Councils. Another meeting of the 27 will take place in Malta in early 2017 before the process concludes in March to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. A declaration to this effect was issued, along with a short work programme or roadmap as set out by President Tusk, President Juncker and the Slovakian Presidency. The October European Council will hear a short update from the Slovakian Prime Minister, Mr. Fico, on that roadmap.

Returning to the agenda for tomorrow's European Council, Heads of State will begin by once again looking at Europe's work in responding to the migrant and refugee situation, which, quite rightly, remains an issue of the highest priority.

The Commission is expected to give an update on progress on a range of EU measures, including relocation and resettlement and the European Coast and Border Guard, which has now been established. Many EU measures are having a positive impact. The number of people attempting to cross the Aegean Sea has decreased substantially since the EU-Turkey statement was agreed in March. While this is to be welcomed, far too many people are still risking their lives by travelling the extremely dangerous route from Libya to Italy.

The European Council will look at protecting external borders, tackling migratory flows along the central Mediterranean route and maintaining control of the eastern Mediterranean route. The EU-Turkey statement and the partnership frameworks, or "migration compacts", with third countries will also be considered under these headings. The migration compacts aim to ensure coherence between the EU's migration policy and its external and development policies. Overall, we welcome their development and their focus on working more closely with countries of origin and transit, as well as countries hosting large numbers of displaced people. We support the intention to build on existing policies in this area. The first countries the compacts are being developed with are in Africa. We support the intention to make swift progress on the external investment plan to boost investment and job creation in African partner countries. Although Ireland is at one remove from the full force of the crisis because of its geographical location and its non-participation in certain justice and home affairs measures under Protocol 21 of the treaties, it is continuing to contribute to the EU response. The Government decided voluntarily to opt in to EU measures and to take up to 4,000 people who need international protection. This commitment is being implemented. There has been good progress with the resettlement of refugees from outside the Union. As of 11 October, some 500 such refugees have arrived in Ireland, mostly from Lebanon. We are on course to meet our target of 520 by the end of the year.

Progress on relocation, taking migrants that have already arrived in Greece and Italy, has been slow for all partner countries for a variety of reasons that are outside our control. Progress is at last beginning to be made. As of 11 October last, a total of 69 people had come to Ireland from Greece. There are arrangements in place for more people to start coming here. It is expected that by the end of this year, Ireland will have accepted up to 400 people through the relocation pledge. Ireland has provided over €42 million in humanitarian assistance in response to the Syria crisis since 2011 and has pledged a further €20 million in 2016. Over the course of 2015 and 2016, Irish Naval vessels have rescued almost 13,500 migrants in the Mediterranean. LE James Joyce returned to Ireland on 30 September 2016 and has been replaced by LE Samuel Beckett, which commenced operations on 2 October 2016. I commend the exemplary service which the members of our Defence Forces are providing and I express the gratitude and admiration of this House and the Irish people for their efforts.

The European Council will also consider trade policy. The central topics for this debate will be the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement, CETA; the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP; other trade negotiations; and the EU's trade defence instruments, which are crucially important in the face of global challenges such as steel over-capacity. As Ireland has one of the most open economies the world, there can be little doubt that we have been beneficiaries of free trade. For this reason, we are strong supporters of the EU’s international trade agenda. I am aware that some Members of the Oireachtas do not share this view. However, the Government is keen to ensure progress in international trade negotiations so that Ireland may benefit further.

The CETA agreement is of immediate importance. Ireland's exports to Canada are worth approximately €1.87 billion per annum and could increase substantially with the new trade agreement. CETA will create opportunities for Irish companies by opening up public procurement markets in the Canadian provinces, providing unlimited tariff-free access for most of our important food exports and allowing the recognition of product standards and certification, thereby saving on double testing, which is of particular importance to small and medium-sized enterprises. Ireland also successfully campaigned for a low beef import quota from Canada to the EU, thereby safeguarding our important EU market in this area. Ireland was among a group of member states that successfully sought the designation of CETA as a mixed agreement. This means that national parliaments, including this House, will be involved in the ratification process. We fully support the provisional application of CETA at the earliest opportunity. When it is signed, there will be an accompanying interpretative declaration clarifying that CETA will not affect public services, labour rights or environmental protection. It is hoped that the agreement will be signed at the EU-Canada summit on 27 October next. The European Parliament is expected to give its approval in December.

The prospects for finalising TTIP with the US are less positive. Ireland is still aiming for the European Council to send a solid signal of support. We continue to call for as much progress as possible in the negotiations to maintain the momentum towards an ambitious, comprehensive and mutually beneficial agreement. Obviously, TTIP will not now be concluded before the US Presidential election. There are prospects for other trade deals, in particular between the EU and Japan, which together account for more than a third of the world's GDP. Free trade negotiations were launched in 2013 and there is now an ambition, certainly on the part of the Commission, to finalise them before the end of the year. There will also be a discussion on the EU's trade defence instruments, which have come up for consideration due a variety of global trade factors, such as pressure in the steel sector. We recognise that unfair practices need to be tackled efficiently and robustly.

Many other issues need to be prioritised here. While not everything falls for decision by the Heads of State and Government at this time, there will be a brief discussion on a range of issues like the ratification and entry into force of the Paris agreement on climate change, energy union and the 2030 climate and energy framework, the Single Market, the digital single market, the capital markets union, the reform of the EU telecommunications and copyright rules, the Commission's new proposal for expanding its European fund for strategic investments and fighting youth unemployment. Obviously, we have a number of priority interests across the board. I have spoken many times about the Single Market and the digital market. There will not be any discussion on Brexit other than a brief update from Prime Minister May. We look forward to consulting the House after the summit.

Deputy Micheál Martin

The issues to be discussed at this week’s meeting of the European Council are of fundamental concern to the people of this country.  They address profound economic and humanitarian challenges.  It is clear that the Government needs to play an active and constructive role, but we are seeing, at best, a reserved approach lacking any initiative. The time available for these statements does not allow me to deal with every item on the agenda, let alone the Brexit elephant in the room, which is not down for discussion but overshadows everything.  As such, I would like to address the current state of the Brexit process and the linked issues of migration and Russia’s aggression against democratic forces in both Syria and Europe.

In the days after the UK referendum in June, there was great fear and uncertainty about what would happen.  Four months later, the situation is much worse. The UK Cabinet has failed to set out even the most basic framework for how it wishes to proceed.  There are many reports of splits between UK Ministers.  At one end, the Brexiteers are continuing with their nonsense argument that everything is okay and it really does not matter what is agreed.  The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has said the UK will have no problem quickly negotiating trade deals amounting to ten times the EU's internal market.  Given that the EU accounts for 23% of global income, this forecast does not even fit into the realm of fantasy. On the other hand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is apparently trying to point out that simply walking away from the EU would be the most damaging thing possible for the UK economy.  His reward for this is to be subject to daily abuse about supposedly trying to sabotage Brexit.

There is an increasingly fevered atmosphere in London, with daily leaks, counter-leaks, policy announcements and U-turns.  Those who sold Brexit based on a sleazy, dark campaign are still pushing their agenda. Their arrogant belief in their own righteousness is growing. A few things are becoming clear in the midst of all of this.  It is highly likely that in the first half of 2019, the UK will cease to be a member of the EU and will not be willing to agree to any of the basic requirements for membership of the Single Market.  There seems to be almost no possibility of a soft Brexit. Prime Minister May has said that the UK's bottom line is that it must be free to exclude EU citizens from an automatic right to live and work in the UK and that Westminster must be able to act without reference to the court which enforces EU rules.  She has said that a great repeal Bill will be introduced next year and will take effect immediately on day one of Brexit.  This stated purpose of this legislation is to end immediately the application of EU law in the UK.

As freedom of movement and the primacy of EU law are two defining features of membership of the Single Market, the only reasonable conclusion is that a hard Brexit is under way. This is an appalling scenario for Europe as a whole, but for Ireland most of all.  If it is to be mitigated in any way, it will require unique agreements and unprecedented speed.  No modern trade agreement has ever been negotiated in two years, even when the process has started with clear objectives.

As my party has been saying for some time, Brexit is already hitting Ireland. The collapse of sterling is already damaging businesses and costing jobs. Businesses and communities that are threatened by weak sterling and new trade barriers lack security regarding their future. Before this problem becomes a crisis, we must start acting. My party is calling on the Taoiseach to state clearly to the other governments that the response to Brexit cannot wait for two years and that it needs to start now. There must be agreement on the core principle that the European Union will seek to help member states disproportionately affected by Brexit. It must allow and provide aid to industries that need to diversify and move away from over-reliance on the United Kingdom market and those which need help to maintain markets following the UK leaving the Single Market. We also need an early and formal acknowledgement that Border communities must be supported. They are already feeling the impact of acute sterling volatility and face extraordinary uncertainty about the future. Thus far, there have been many warm words but little substance. We need a concrete recognition from the European Union that Ireland's interests are understood.

We should formally state to the UK Prime Minister, Ms May, our concern that the unique position of Northern Ireland was not recognised by her in the Brexit cabinet committee established last week. The committee is due to oversee all elements of the Brexit negotiations and has 12 full members. By any measure, this is a large committee. However, the UK Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has no right to attend other than when summoned. The internal fights in the Tory party are enough of a priority for the Tory chairman to be a member but Ireland ranks far lower.

UK Ministers should cease giving us lectures on the future of Europe. In May and June we heard what they think of us. They should park their arrogance and get on with stating what they want. The statement of the UK Foreign Secretary in Turkey to the effect that he supports that country's application for EU membership is brazen, even for him.

The summit will also deal with the ongoing humanitarian crisis of migration to Europe and the aligned issue of Russia's escalating aggression towards democratic forces in Europe and elsewhere. I have been saying here for years that the root cause of the mass migration from Syria is a brutal regime seeking to destroy the popular will of a democracy. The refugee crisis is no accident; it has been Syrian state policy for five years. There was a clear opportunity to transition to a government chosen by the Syrian people in 2011 and 2012, but this was rejected by the Assad regime. Syria has been a client state of the former Soviet Union and Russia for over 50 years. This relationship has been toxic for Syrian people in recent years. Russia chose to veto every effort on the part of the United Nations to stop the fighting. Russia vetoed four resolutions at the UN Security Council which had almost universal international support. Russia even vetoed a move to allow the International Criminal Court to investigate the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people.

There will be a full session tomorrow on the inhumanity of the joint Syrian-Russian bombing of Aleppo where this matter can be addressed more fully. However I wish to make clear that the pathetic and craven attempt to avoid a clear and specific condemnation of Russia's behaviour simply exposes those who adopt this stance. After weeks of being challenged, some of those who claim to be anti-war will hold a demonstration tomorrow, but they are attacking all foreign forces to avoid focusing on Russia's unique role.

Deputy Paul Murphy

Deputy Martin should join us.

Deputy Micheál Martin

They had no problem focusing on the US and UK when those countries proposed bombing the grotesque and genocidal ISIS movement. Let us be clear: according to independent non-governmental organisations, 80% of Russia's bombs have been directed against democratic forces, including Kurdish forces. They have repeatedly targeted hospitals and used bunker-bursting bombs against civilian areas. That is not by accident; it is a core strategy. To try to equate this with the actions of democratic nations bombing ISIS is perverse. Yet, that is what we will continue to hear from those in this House and outside who love nothing better than to accuse others of hypocrisy.

We saw the same thing when Russia invaded, partitioned and started a war in a neighbouring country because people in that country wanted to get away from Russian dominance. In this House, Deputies trotted out the most sinister misinformation and moral relativism. In Europe, Sinn Féin even refused to condemn the partition of a sovereign country and repression against a national minority.

Russia's interference in the democratic politics of various European countries is growing all the time and always involves the support of hard right forces. It has acknowledged allocating funding for the National Front in France and has given, but not acknowledged, funding for a range of other neo-facist groups in Hungary and elsewhere. Russia's transparent support for Donald Trump's campaign and sinister attacks on Hillary Clinton are unprecedented and serve as a warning to us. At this grave moment, with this frantic anti-EU aggression and basic values at stake, those attending this EU summit must not step back. They must not agree with the right-wing politicians demanding an end to Russian sanctions. In fact, they need to wake up and stop acting as if Vladimir Putin will one day become a reliable neighbour. What we need from this summit is more clarity and a determination to get to grips with Brexit. We need a commitment to do whatever it takes to help countries under pressure. We need an unequivocal statement that Europe will not be intimidated by Russia or any groups trying to undermine basic democratic values. Ireland must speak up in this regard.

Deputy Gerry Adams

This week's meeting in advance of the European Council is a key and important engagement as the British Government Brexit plans have become far clearer in recent weeks. Front and centre of our Government's approach must be an appreciation of the fact that citizens in the North voted to remain in the European Union. That must be advocated, recognised and respected.

Yesterday during Leaders' Questions, I noted the remarks of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, James Brokenshire. On 9 October, he said there is a "high level of collaboration on a joint programme of work" between this State - that is to say, the Irish State - and Britain. He said, "We have put in place a range of measures to further combat illegal migration working closely with the Irish government". He also stated, "Our focus is to strengthen the external border of the common travel area [CTA], building on the strong collaboration with our Irish partners." Now, the Dáil has not heard a word or a whimper from the Taoiseach on any of this. We get this information from a British Minister. This British Minister was claiming that the British Government is to move the front line of immigration controls to Irish ports and airports to prevent illegal migration into the British state. As I said yesterday, this clearly is not feasible. I also made the point that I am not enamoured of the response of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to these claims. I asked the Taoiseach yesterday whether these measures were in place. I am asking the Taoiseach the same question again. Yesterday, I called on the Taoiseach to make a statement on the matter and he refused to do so. The British Government claims that the Irish Government has agreed to move the front line of immigration controls to Irish ports but the Taoiseach has refused to confirm or deny this to the Dáil. That is totally and utterly unacceptable.

The Taoiseach also went on a little diversion and referred to his need to know what we are talking about in terms of the Executive in the North. He said:

...we are not going to get any specific or particular circumstances right unless we know. If there is a division of opinion about what Northern Ireland wants, I cannot sort it out unless there is consensus and agreement on what the horizon or objective is on the part of the Executive in the North. Deputy Adams's party can help to realise that.

Let us be clear. The Taoiseach knows the Northern Ireland Executive position as well as I do. His officials are in contact with all the northern parties. He meets the leaders there regularly and I imagine he reads their public pronouncements or gets briefed on them.

The DUP and the British Government do not accept the democratic will of the people in the North. Sin é, the Taoiseach knows that. Sinn Féin does and other parties there do as well. It would be better if the Executive was united. That would be the best position. It would be better if the DUP agreed with the rest of us and, more importantly, with the electorate but it does not. We have to deal with that reality and so does the Taoiseach, instead of trying to blame Sinn Féin in some way. We should not, however, give up on the DUP. Many unionists are very concerned about the economic consequences of Brexit. That includes supporters of the DUP. We all need to reach out to them but we cannot ignore the result of the referendum. Sinn Féin is not for turning on this issue and the Taoiseach should not be for turning on it either. I said yesterday - and have said consistently - that Martin McGuinness has held the same position since the referendum, namely, that the Government’s principal objective must be to secure the position of the island of Ireland within the EU in line with the democratically expressed wishes of the people in the North and that there should be no deviation from that. Last week, the deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, travelled to the European Parliament and held a series of meetings with EU leaders and senior MEPs in Brussels where he urged them to support citizens in the North to accept the referendum result and to recognise the unique circumstances here and for the entire island of Ireland. I ask the Taoiseach to relay the same message and to urge his European counterparts to do the same at this week’s Council meeting.

There does need to be a unified approach to ensuring that we all work together to get the best possible deal for the people of this island, North and South. Sinn Féin is playing its part in this regard. We are standing up for citizens as best we can and it is critical that the Government plays its part and that the Taoiseach takes the lead in this issue.

It is important that at this meeting the Taoiseach lays out the need to secure the position which I have just outlined and which he previously acknowledged and said he would advocate, that is, to secure the position of the 32 counties and all of our offshore islands within the European Union. The Good Friday Agreement, of which the Taoiseach is a coequal guarantor, must also be protected. The all-island civic dialogue will be a key part of that. I spent a few days in the North and there is a big appetite regarding this issue from disparate people. Thousands of individuals from Derry to north Louth protested against Brexit on 8 October, including members of the Taoiseach’s party. I was very pleased to see them on some of the footage. This demonstration organised by Border Communities against Brexit shows the depth of concern among those communities. However, that is not the only place that will be affected by Brexit. I look forward to seeing how the Taoiseach will be received when he puts this position to the Council and tells it that he wants it to accept that all of the island of Ireland needs to be sustained and retained within the European Union.

Before I give way to Teachta Crowe, the Fianna Fáil Leader is always condemning Sinn Féin for being soft on Russia and Russian behaviour. Let me say, without any equivocation whatsoever, that Sinn Féin has consistently condemned imperialism from all quarters, including Russian imperialism and interference by any state in the affairs of another. I include in that regard the awful military assaults taking place at this time which ought to be - and are by our party - condemned.

Deputy Seán Crowe

I was going to talk about Syria but we will possibly have an opportunity to address that matter tomorrow. The Taoiseach spoke about the EU Canada comprehensive economic trade agreement, CETA. My frustration in respect of this is that we have had no debate on it in this Chamber.

Deputy Paul Murphy

Hear, hear.

Deputy Seán Crowe

It has been raised with various Ministers at committee meetings but there has been no real debate in the House. Across the EU, this matter was treated secretively at first, as was the case with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP. It is almost as if a climate of secrecy is being encouraged and informed citizenship about these trade agreements is discouraged. It has potentially massive implications for Irish citizens. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, environmental, health and farming groups have raised concerns about it and we need to address them. There is something wrong and rotten about the fact that a debate has not been allowed in respect of it.

The Taoiseach

It has to be approved in the House, as is the case with all the other parliaments. There will be a full discussion on it here.

Deputy Paul Murphy

The Taoiseach wants it to apply provisionally.

Deputy Seán Crowe

That is when it comes to the end but surely in the run up to it-----

The Taoiseach

It is a mixed agreement so the Deputies have to pass it.

Deputy Seán Crowe

-----we should have this opportunity and we do not have it. When we deal with other trade agreements, we have the opportunity to discuss them when we get the final document. It is not enough to speak for two minutes about a comprehensive deal that will have a huge impact on people.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputies can have their bilaterals afterwards. The Deputy’s time has expired. I call Deputy Paul Murphy.

Deputy Paul Murphy

I will share time with Deputy Boyd Barrett - five minutes each.

The free trade agenda of right-wing governments, including this one, and the European Commission, has run into massive public opposition. As a member of the trade committee of the European Parliament for three years, I campaigned against CETA. We employed what we referred to as a Dracula strategy to try to bring what was happening in respect of TTIP and CETA out into the open and allow people to see what was a corporations' charter being written completely undemocratically, which would create a real problem for all the right-wing governments in Europe and for the European Commission. That has worked and TTIP has run into the sand of popular opposition and the complications posed by Brexit. Now the agenda is to get CETA implemented as quickly as possible without a vote in this House. That is contained in the Taoiseach's speech and I will explain that in a moment.

CETA is TTIP in Canadian disguise. A total of 81% of the companies that operate in Canada are subsidiaries of US companies. In that context, 24,000 American companies operate in Canada. It is a way for the same interests in terms of major global capital to pursue the race to the bottom in respect of regulation, workers' rights, consumers' rights, and the environment, and to create a parallel supposed court structure to enshrine the rights of corporations to sue states if they interfere with their right to profit.

The agreement includes regulatory co-operation, which sounds like a nice thing. It would seem to make sense for countries and trade blocs to co-operate. In reality, however, what is proposed is lowest-common-denominator regulation in respect of a range of different things. First, the establishment of a regulatory co-operation forum under CETA, which will involve experts - people linked to the big businesses responsible for this - who will play a role in drafting regulations in the future will have a chilling effect on countries willing to regulate in the future. Second, the investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS, mechanism is renamed the investment court system. That is just rebranding of ISDS with the same essence, the right of corporations to sue states if they interfere with their investments or their right to profit, and a chilling effect will apply. Third, CETA is a living agreement, which means that it is fundamentally undemocratic. It is not accountable to this Parliament or to the European Parliament. Other bodies instead will hold sway. A range of committees, including at the top, the CETA joint committee - which is completely beyond any democratic control - will be established. Fourth, the threat to public services still exists in the drive towards liberalisation.

I want to deal with the process because what is contained in CETA is fundamentally undemocratic.

It is an attack on people's rights in terms of undermining democratic checks and accountabilities. It is very appropriate that the method pursued to implement CETA is just as undemocratic. The Taoiseach said that Ireland sought the designation of CETA as a mixed agreement. That means there will have to be a vote on it in this House but he went on to state: "We also fully support the provisional application of CETA at the earliest opportunity." That means there will be no vote in this House and no vote in the European Parliament before it provisionally comes into force. In terms of what that means, we must read the agreement. Article 30.8.4 states: "If the provisional application of this Agreement is terminated and this Agreement does not enter into force, a claim may be submitted under Section F of Chapter Eight (Investment) within a period no longer than three years following the date of [termination of] the provisional application, regarding any matter arising during the provisional application of this Agreement..." That means that it comes into effect without any democratic decision of this House or anywhere else, and a Canadian company or a US company with a subsidiary in Canada can sue this State if we say we do not want fracking to take place or if we increase labour regulation. It can sue this State despite the fact that no vote has taken place, and it has the right to do that for a period of three years. That is what it states. That is the impact of provisional application, and that is why it is the road that is being taken, because the Government has met opposition in the Seanad, in the Walloon Parliament and in the German constitutional court. The Taoiseach has a real problem in terms of getting this measure through, and so this is the route to go down.

The other point that I raised with the Taoiseach previously is that it is arguably unconstitutional. Article 29.5.2 of the Constitution states that the State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann, but provisional application means there can be a charge on the State because a company can take Ireland to the investor court. It is an issue, therefore, in terms of the constitutionality of this agreement. The Taoiseach has met massive opposition to this agreement. He will continue to meet it. People will not buy the trick of provisional application.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I am a little out of breath because I joined the many thousands of students protesting outside the House. I want to give a shout out to them. They are keen that the Taoiseach hears their opposition to fees and the potential for a student loan scheme. I mention that in passing. I support them 100%, and I hope the Taoiseach does also.

I will attend another protest this evening, which relates directly to the Taoiseach's position in Europe and the European Council. That protest relates to the appalling atrocities taking place in Syria. The protest will make a specific call on the Taoiseach to speak out and condemn all bombing, military intervention, and support for warring factions in Syria or in other conflict areas in the Middle East, particularly Yemen, and in Iraq.

The need for this issue to become a priority and for the Taoiseach to speak out loudly on the public stage in Europe, and to the United States and Russia, hardly needs to be stated. The estimated number of deaths in Syria is 470,000. Between 7 million and 11 million members of the Syrian population are displaced, out of a population of 22 million. The appalling Russia and Assad assault on Aleppo is an obscene action by any standard that must stop immediately. The need for the Taoiseach to speak out and for Ireland to play a role on the international stage in speaking out against these atrocities is urgent.

It is very important, and this is the point of the protest, that we are even-handed and consistent in our humanitarianism and our opposition to war. What the Russians and Assad are doing in Aleppo, and what they have done to their own population, which rose up in a peaceful popular revolt against the brutal regime that is the Assad regime, is appalling and beyond words in its horror. Equally, however, other powers have now cynically manipulated the civil war that has erupted in Syria to try to further their own interests. We must be absolutely consistent in opposing their bombing, their manipulation and their actions, which are serving only their strategic and political interests and making an already bad situation worse, effectively pouring petrol on a blazing fire.

It is noticeable that some people are very one-sided in their condemnation, so I repeat that we must condemn utterly the barbarity of the Russian and Assad intervention with consistency and authenticity. Our opposition to horror and war requires us to equally condemn US bombing, for example, the bombing in Manbij, which claimed the lives of 60 civilians in July and helped scupper a ceasefire. There is no condemnation of that atrocity, for example, in the Fianna Fáil motion that has been submitted. There is no condemnation of the 20 civilians killed in Damascus by US bombing. There is no condemnation of the 43 bombing assaults by the United Kingdom. There is condemnation of the bombing by France, which has killed dozens of civilians. There is no condemnation of the fact that the US, France and Britain continue to sell billions worth of arms to Saudi Arabia, which it is using to support groups like the Al-Nusra Front, which is up to its eyes in the horror going on in Syria, or the appalling Saudi bombing of Yemen, which is creating a humanitarian crisis just as bad as that in Syria and in which the US is directly involved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Thank you, Deputy.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

That is why I am asking-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy-----

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I have just gone over the time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes. That is the point.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle interrupted me ten seconds before I was due to finish.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I knew the Deputy was in full flight. I was alerting him.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Let me finish. I ask the Taoiseach to use his platform within the European Union to condemn all bombing and to call for all foreign military intervention to cease in Syria and in the wider region.

Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan

I wish to share my time with Deputy Pringle, six minutes and four minutes. The two most urgent issues for the European community are the human tragedy in Syria, with the loss of life, the destruction and the displacement, and what only can be described as a sleepwalking exercised into CETA. I listened to the Taoiseach's speech on CETA and the long list of positive reasons to support it, but there was no mention of the investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS, mechanism, the protection of public services, a Dáil debate or the need to ratify. There are concerns, yet we appear to be pushing ahead for Ireland to sign on 27 October and ratify in December.

There is disquiet, concern, criticism and outright opposition to this agreement, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, and the economic partnership agreements, EPAs. The critics are not anti-trade, but why is there this rush to sign while the EU is waiting on a decision from the European Court of Justice on the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement? If the ISDS goes through, this State can be sued by corporations and multinationals for loss of profit and the loss of potential profit. While this aspect appears to be removed from the provisional application, we know it is not gone. Do these investor courts have any place in trade deals? Will Ireland seek a ruling from the European Court of Justice on the ISDS? What way will Ireland vote on the ISDS mechanism if there is an option against its inclusion? The recent Seanad motion has to be taken into account, and also the serious aspects in terms of our Constitution and signing the agreement. The advice of the Attorney General should be sought.

There is another aspect to this and it relates to development aid from Ireland and the EU because it seems that the private sector will be the driver of the new sustainable development goals. There is a real possibility of development aid from Ireland and from the EU being used to underwrite or de-risk private sector investment and loans. There is a particular implication for agriculture. What we are seeing is European food exports and European food companies becoming increasingly dominant across Africa.

That is contributing to unemployment on African lands, to food security risks, to rural flight and to migration. There is a need for a human rights assessment of the effect of EU and Irish agricultural investments in Africa, as the Danish agricultural group, Arla, has done. In the area of EU and international aid, there is an increasing emphasis on terms like "strategic advantage" and "commercialisation" and it undermines the good reputation we have when it comes to aid.

Syria shows how ineffective the EU and the United Nations are. We said "Never again" after Rwanda and after Srebrenica but another such situation arises now in Syria. There is indiscriminate bombing and indeterminate bombing of schools, market places and hospitals. The EU has to use all the influence it has not just on Russia and Iran, but also on the United States and EU member states to stop the bombing. At the very least, the EU has to take a lead in continuing the ceasefire. There has to be a minimum of three days' ceasefire so that there can be medical evacuation and medical supplies can go in. Apart from injuries through war, Médecins sans Frontières has told me of the effect on people with illnesses, such as diabetes or asthma, who have not been able to access the medication they need. We do not have a strong EU voice on this matter.

We are also seeing siege being used as a war tactic in Syria, something we associate with the Middle Ages, but is taking place in a country that is only a four-hour flight from Ireland. The Taoiseach spoke about how we were dealing with refugees but we are extremely slow and need to be more flexible and fairer. We also need a fast-track system to help Syrian refugees.

I hope Ireland can have a voice at EU level on the Cuban blockade. The Cuban five have eventually been released from their unjust imprisonment in America, due to the campaigns and intervention of people like Pope Francis. With the support of President Obama, there are better diplomatic relations and there has been an easing of some travel restrictions but the blockade continues. It is illegal and immoral and it is having disastrous effects on the people of Cuba. Irish and European banks cannot have any engagement with Cuba so billions in money and resources are being lost to Cuba as a result. Our President is visiting next February and we have good relationships with Cuba. We will be part of the resolution to stop the blockade and will vote against it with other European countries but the blockade continues.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

There are a huge number of issues for the upcoming Council of Europe but, in the limited time available, I will not be able to address all of them. It is vitally important to send out a clear message that we are opposed to all bombing taking place in Syria and all such actions of the international community, whether they are Russian, American, Saudi Arabian, Australian, New Zealanders, British, French, German or from any of the many countries that are bombing in Syria and killing civilians. No matter who makes the bombs, it is wrong and Ireland has to send out a clear message to the European Council to that effect.

I congratulate the Walloon Parliament for voting to reject CETA and it is interesting to see the pressure being put on Belgium by the European Commission to reverse the decision by Friday, so that the Council can take a decision to adopt the agreement. I hope the Walloon Parliament stands firm because this is a bad deal for Europe, for Canada and the rest of the world. I pay tribute to the Seanad, which voted against its provisional ratification, and it is disappointing that we have not had an opportunity in this House to debate the motion and have a vote on it because it is vitally important.

In response to my questions on CETA, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Mary Mitchell O'Connor, has been a bit economical with the truth. She said a declaration will be signed to the effect that the investor-state dispute mechanisms and the investor courts will not apply but this will be the case only during the provisional ratification period, which can last up to three years. When every member state has gone through the ratification process, the investor-state mechanism comes into being as part of the overall operation of CETA. It is disingenuous for our Minister for jobs to respond to questions about CETA in this way. It sends out the wrong message but the public, and some parliamentarians across Europe, see that there is something badly wrong with CETA and such international trade agreements. We are rushing into it like headless chickens saying, "It is good for trade and that is all we need to know". That is completely wrong and we need to take a step back. I urge the Taoiseach not to support the provisional ratification on Friday. There is no doubt the European Commission will be busy trying to bribe the Walloon Parliament with offers before Friday but hopefully it will stand firm.

The Taoiseach said he expected Theresa May to update the Council on the British plan to trigger Article 50 in March next year. In the context of Brexit, something we have not considered is the fact that after Brexit in 2019, or whenever it happens, over 70% of our trade exports and imports will be outside the European Union, and we should then consider our own position within the European Union. We should consider an Irexit in light of the potential impact of Brexit on the common travel area and our international trade, with tariff barriers being increased. We could protect the common travel area and trade and we could do a lot to address the imbalances which currency fluctuations are causing now by leaving the European Union ourselves. We could take back sovereignty and stand on our own two feet rather than kowtowing to the European Commission as we have continually done over the past 40 years. It should be a contingency plan and by putting it forward it we might have a better hand in negotiations.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

It is important to have a proper debate on this but I do not believe statements such as these are a worthwhile way of dealing with such huge issues. People across the globe have concerns about trade agreements but the Taoiseach and other Ministers are going over to Europe and will acquiesce in what the Europeans want. There are huge issues and no possibility to opt out. Instead, we are being cajoled and bullied by eurocrats to get back into line. After Brexit we need a serious reassessment - though we needed it anyway and I believe we had the Brexit vote because of the functioning of the European Union. It is too big and, across a whole range of areas, it is out of touch with the feelings of ordinary families in ordinary places.

The EU was not even consulted on the ceasefire or any other agreements in Syria. Two years ago, I visited Syrian refugee camps in Lebanon and saw the pain and anguish on the faces of the people. I saw only elderly women and small children. They had only hours to leave their home and they had suffered persecution and threats. They had no hope of going back. With the bombing, devastation is being heaped on Syria on a daily basis. I attended an international conference during the summer on the situation in the Middle East and on the persecution of Christians throughout the region.

We look back and all the figures and facts are there to prove it. They show clearly that while we had awful dictators in some of those countries, such as Iraq and Syria, Christian communities and minority Muslim communities were allowed to practise and cherish their faith with impunity, and now they are being massacred. We bombed the hell out of the place to get rid of these dictators and the situation of persecution is far, far worse.

I commend the Naval Service on the proud work it has done on humanitarian grounds in the Mediterranean and the thousands of lives it has saved over the past two years since it went there. It is heart-rending to see and it must have an awful impact on those Naval Service personnel. I salute and commend them.

We need to give serious thought to and have a proper debate in this Parliament, which we have not had, about what is happening in the Middle East and about that persecution. In that vein, the rural Independent group has a Private Members' motion coming up in a few weeks time to have some meaningful and insightful debate on what is happening in the Middle East. There is warmongering, terror, destruction and devastation of life and communities. We have Russia, the United States, and many others pulling the strings and interfering. It is not a much better place than it was. It is a far worse place than it was under the dictators, and that is serious. It is food for thought. We should be examining it, and the European Union must take a stance on it.

Getting back to the trade agreements, we have not had any meaningful discussion on them and I have little faith in the Taoiseach and whatever other of the Ministers go there because we seem to be the good boys of Europe. We do whatever they ask. Whatever they want, we will merely sign up. We are the good boys in the class. Where is our thanks? I will not use the word, which starts with an "s", that is our thanks, but that is what we get. We saw what we got in the strong talk after Brexit and the threats that were made to the British people on what to do. We need to assert ourselves. We need to be able to be a proud country with a record of neutrality and of standing up for ourselves and our people, which is the Government's duty and the duty of every elected Member of this House. I commend the Seanad on the motion it passed recently, but we must reaffirm that we are a country in our own right and expect to be treated so.

Moving on to Brexit and the possible implications, which, as the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, has just arrived, I believe the budget did not address. There was little or no Brexit-proofing in the budget. We had our eye off the ball as far as I am concerned. We remember the hard Border. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle and the Minister of State, Deputy Joe McHugh, will remember it more than anybody because they travel through that country. We had great freedom in recent years to travel across the Border to anywhere without the long checkpoints, searches and whatever else.

Only two weeks ago, I travelled from Croatia into Bosnia-Herzegovina on a new motorway, most of which was funded by the EU which was great to see as it was badly needed in that country for access. Going into Bosnia-Herzegovina, we met the hard border with the European flag flying alongside the Croatian flag, and we were an hour on a bus. Every passport was taken off the bus - 52 of them - and brought into the checkpoint and scanned, and there were delays. Can Members imagine that happening again in Newry, Aughnacloy or any of the crossing points? This is what we are faced with and what we are not dealing with. We will be a pressure point for access to Britain.

We are not dealing with the issue in the south east, the port of Rosslare. Those in the export and haulage sectors are most concerned because much of the produce from Ireland's agricultural sector depends on them as it travels to Rosslare, across to England and from there on. There are good arrangements with hauliers and contractors on both sides such that now not only do lorries with drivers embark but also only trailers and containers which are taken off by a sister company and brought through England and on to France and elsewhere. This is significant. Over 70% of our exports could be to outside of the EU if the British Prime Minister, Ms Theresa May, presses that button, engages the treaty article and implements Brexit. It is vital.

Take the mushroom sector, which is big in my county. It is big in Monaghan, and Tipperary seems to be one of the largest mushroom producing counties. Two or three big businesses involving 30, 40 or 70 jobs have gone in recent weeks. They were struggling anyway with competition from Poland and other countries due to low wage costs there, and now this is a step too far. They just could not keep pumping money into a loss-making situation. I have sympathy for them, many of whom are good friends of mine and who have given good employment. They set up this business, had tough times and worked hard at it. It is nearly like how dairy cows have to be milked regularly in that the mushrooms have to be picked regularly too. They do not wait for a five-day week. The flushes come in and they have to be picked properly and to a high standard. Now the producers are facing a perilous situation. I note the Minister of State, Deputy Joe McHugh, is laughing. I do not know whether he is laughing at what I am saying or laughing at something else, but it is no laughing matter. It is very serious. It involved significant employment in Tipperary, significant payment of rates and a significant service sector serving the mushroom plants, with construction, maintenance and delivery to and from the plants and the use and transportation of by-products as well to the highest standards. It has been wiped out before our eyes. The impact on the mushroom sector is merely one salutary lesson that we should take from Brexit.

Every other agriculturally based sector, the haulage sector and all kinds of jobs and exports will be devastated and the Taoiseach will merely go and sign up - "How much, Sir? Three bags full, Sir. I will sign it." - and come home again. That is what we, the yes men of Europe, have been doing and it is time we stood up and asserted ourselves. It is time we had a proper Brexit impact analysis and deal with it at EU level as well. I do not have much faith in the Taoiseach because history has shown us. We were going to burn the bondholders, according to the former Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr. Eamon Gilmore, and we laid down, tickled their bellies, saluted them and said they were great people. We are still doing the same. We are merely walking blindfolded towards the implementation of Brexit. We will have to consider opposition with the bureaucrats because they are only threatening and intimidating bully boys, and it is time that they learned. They have not learned anything from what happened with Brexit. They should have sat up and paid heed, not threatened an all-out cut-off and serious repercussions and reassessed where Europe is going. The project was a good project when it started out but sadly it has lost its way. It has got too big, a bit carefree and a bit intimidating of the small nations, and we need to re-examine it.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

If I am joined by my colleagues from the Social Democrats or Independent Deputies within our group, I might share time with them but if I can otherwise, I will take the time.

There is a wide agenda before the Council but I will address, first and foremost, my comments regarding the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, which is due for approval and, as I understand it, signature with the Canadian authorities sometime next week.

Deputy Seán Crowe

On the 27th.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

The Minister of State, Deputy Joe McHugh, might confirm whether that is the time it is being considered.

The case and argument from my party, in Canada, Brussels and Dublin, is that we should put a stop to this process and that the agreement we are about to sign is not right. It is a fundamental undermining of some of the regulatory provisions that we have been championing for 30 or 40 years, and more than anything else, there is an issue of democratic accountability.

It is not only that the Upper House, Seanad Éireann, has voted already, with a majority stating we should put it on hold. It is not only that the parliaments in Bulgaria and Romania have real concerns around visa provisions within a trade agreement with Canada, but the decision by a sizeable majority in the Walloon Parliament to put a stop to proceedings has to be respected. There is considerable impetus within the Council, because of Brexit and because we want to be seen as being able to act, to plough ahead regardless, but that would not be the right approach.

As an alternative, one of the approaches the Taoiseach might take at the Council on Thursday is to ask that the European Court of Justice give an opinion on whether the really controversial elements within the trade agreement, namely, the investor-state distribution system or the investment courts system that modifies it, are, as many would contend, in breach of fundamental European legal rights and legal structures. If he were to do that, it would do much good in terms of restoring some of the reputation of the State on international trade issues and it would lead to far greater legal clarity prior to any agreement being signed. It would also address one of the main fundamental concerns with the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, which is also the case with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, that we are creating a mechanism where corporations have excess power over governments in terms of the regulatory systems we are putting in place. That is the reason the Green Party in Canada was the only party that was fundamentally opposed to the agreement and why we have also led the campaign against it in Brussels. We believe the agreement is yet another example in the globalised trade system where we are giving excess power to corporations over states. We are not opposed to international trade. We will need international trade to make the economic transition we need to have a sustainable future. We are not opposed to agreements with Canada or the United States, which set up laws to allow one to monitor them. We do not, however, agree to the existing systems where the powers of corporations are excessive compared to the powers of governments and where we lose control of some of the regulatory systems such as the precautionary principle for which we fought for 30 years on the protection of public services and the principle that our courts are no longer potentially sovereign and that there is a yielding of national sovereignty to international dispute resolution courts where corporations would have real power over this Parliament. As has been mentioned previously, the fact that the Government is seeking to approve this trade agreement in advance of it being approved in the Parliament here only reinforces the concern that we are not recognising the democratic mandate in terms of regulatory systems. This is not just about removing tariffs, it is also about removing regulations, and that is all the more reason we should have had a more open and transparent process in how the yielding of democratic control over regulation has been ceded and why we should approve the agreement here prior to any signature going on any future agreement. There is real confusion in Brussels following the vote in Walloon yesterday. We should help address some of the uncertainty by asking the European Court of Justice to make a quick ruling on whether the new alternative court systems are in compliance with European law. If the Minister of State has time at the end to respond I would like to hear whether the Government would consider making a call, or joining others in doing so, in order that the European Court of Justice would make a ruling in that regard.

My second point is related because in the end Brexit will be an issue about what jurisdiction the UK will recognise in any post-Brexit situation. It was with real shock that we read the speeches made by Theresa May at the Conservative Party conference where she seemed to be slamming doors behind her in terms of not recognising the European Court of Justice in future, and adopting the body of European law but then reserving the right to remove it in the blink of an eye should the UK so wish. This is a connected issue because it would potentially allow the UK to operate as a rogue state in a race to the bottom whereby it would not apply jurisdictional control in terms of whatever trade arrangements are in place.

While it is not an immediate item on the agenda, it is very important that we do not just cede the argument in effect to the UK Government and wait until March to see what it does. It is important for us in the interim period that we set out our position. I do not believe our position can be to seek a side deal with the UK Government on which we would then go to the rest of the European Union to say it should be kind to us when dealing with Ireland or border issues because, in effect, that would amount to us acting as a subsidiary of the UK negotiating position. It would be far better for us to take a European position wherein we stand up for the right of the free movement of people, and make it very clear that there will not be a yielding on access to the Single Market without the UK Government yielding in terms of some of the other rights that come with such a benefit. Should the UK take the course of going the hard Brexit route, we should try to retain from the ashes some mechanism whereby we can get agreement with the UK in terms of labour, social, environmental and other standards so that the UK would not be able to play fast and loose with the Single Market. It is in all our interests to have joint accountability and jurisdiction and I would welcome if we could have some mechanism in place in that respect even if the UK opted for a hard Brexit route. It is preferable for us to analyse and investigate such mechanisms before Article 50 is triggered, which we have been told will happen in March, so that we are ahead of the game. That is something on which we must work with our European colleagues, the other 27 remaining members, and not do a side deal with the UK and then seek to get agreement from the other 26 members on whatever deal might be done.

Most important, I must say how disheartened I am at the numbers revealed by the Taoiseach today that, to date, we have brought in only 69 refugees from the port of Piraeus and the other transit camps in Greece. I see no reason why that number should be so low or why we should blame other bureaucratic systems such as that of the UN for the failure to act with due haste. It is disgraceful that we are leaving those people languishing in the most horrific basic conditions on a pier and in dusty yards in Thessaloniki and outside Greece. It behoves us as a nation not to seek to bring in 400 refugees by the end of the year but to bring in the bulk of the 4,000 people whom we have committed to bring in. If we lived up to that commitment it would say a lot that is positive and right about this country. It is not acceptable to point to the inefficiencies of the UN or whatever system is being blamed for the delay. There are hundreds of people among those refugees who would give their right arm to come to Ireland tomorrow. I cannot understand or accept that we have managed to bring in only such a small number of refugees to date. That speaks volumes about a lack of care for the issue and a lack of real attention to the detail and urgency that is required for us to act. I ask that the Government change its strategy and reality double quick.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Deputy Joe McHugh)

Gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an gCathaoirleach fá choinne an tseans labhairt le linn na ráiteas faoi chruinniú na Comhairle Eorpaigh a tharlóidh an tseachtain seo chugainn. As the Taoiseach indicated, I will focus my remarks on the external relations item of the European Council meeting. This is to consist of a broad, strategic policy debate on Russia and a likely exchange on Syria. This is a timely and welcome opportunity to review the EU-Russia relationship in all its aspects. The course of European history teaches us the value of stable and strong relationships between Russia and its neighbours to the west. In the long term, it is a strategic goal for Ireland and for the EU to have just such a partnership with Russia. However, notwithstanding that, we must be frank about current realities and the situation as it presents itself today. Unfortunately, there has been a marked deterioration in relations between Russia and the EU in recent years. The conflict in Ukraine has come to be the central defining issue, although there are also grave concerns over Russia's role in the Syrian conflict.

It must be acknowledged that there has been no major change in policy by Russia or any indication that it is seeking to improve the relationship with the EU. That is regrettable, but it is a reality that we cannot wish away. In March, the EU agreed a set of principles to guide our relations with Russia. Ireland fully supports the way forward that has been outlined. We believe there is merit in seeking a selective engagement with Russia on foreign policy issues and specific sectoral areas of interest to the EU. However, we must be clear that any resumption of selected dialogue should be gradual and that it would be used by the EU to seek a change in Russian behaviour.

As I said, the conflict in eastern Ukraine remains of paramount importance. The fragile security situation in eastern Ukraine is a matter of deep concern. It is difficult to believe that two years on from the signing of the first Minsk agreement, we are still calling for a stable ceasefire. The path for a resolution of the conflict is set out in the Minsk agreements. The EU has been very clear and consistent in linking the economic sanctions imposed in 2014 to the complete implementation of the Minsk accords. The decision to impose such measures on Russia was not taken lightly - far from it - but this is an indication of the seriousness with which the EU regards Russia's actions in destabilising eastern Ukraine.

The sanctions are intended to encourage Russia to use its influence to help ensure the full implementation of the Minsk agreements. Before this can happen there needs to be an urgent de-escalation of hostilities in the conflict zone. The criteria for amending the sanctions are clear and provide the sole basis upon which future decisions and assessments will be made. We also have repeatedly made clear the EU will never recognise Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, and that has to remain an important principle in our approach.

Ireland, together with its EU partners, remains very concerned by the ever worsening situation in Syria, in particular we are all shocked and outraged at the appalling scenes of suffering from Aleppo. The excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate use of military force against the besieged population of Aleppo constitutes a clear violation of international law. Given its role as a key supporter of the Assad regime, our concerns have been directly conveyed in the clearest terms to the Russian authorities at the direction of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I join him in urging Russia to use all its influence in Syria to end these inhumane actions against a defenceless civilian population.

Despite these negative elements, the EU still needs to look to its values and to act in accordance with them. It is of great importance that the EU maintains its support for civil society in Russia which continues to be very vulnerable. The shrinking space for independent civil society and the ongoing harassment of human rights defenders, journalists and opponents is deeply troubling. We desire a strong and stable relationship with Russia over the long term, and that goal will guide our thinking, particularly at the European Council discussion this week. We do not expect any significant change in the EU's approach to its relationship with Russia at present.

That concludes my wrap-up statement but I will respond to Deputy Ryan's question on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, and the summit that will take place on 27 October. There will be an accompanying declaration clarifying that CETA will not affect public services, labour rights or environment protection. To address the issue raised by Deputy Paul Murphy, this House will have a chance to vote on the deal because the Government insists on it.