Ruth Coppinger
Question:1. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meetings with religious leaders. [13920/17]
Ceisteanna - Questions
Government-Church Dialogue
Gerry Adams
Question:2. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on any recent meetings he has held with church leaders and faith communities. [13987/17]
Joan Burton
Question:3. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meetings with church leaders and faith communities. [15507/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together.
Like public representatives generally, I meet church leaders informally from time to time in the course of attending official or public events. Last year in particular, with the 1916 commemorations, I attended many events that were also attended by representatives from various religious groups.
As Taoiseach in the previous Government, I met with representatives from the Catholic Church, Church of Ireland, the Jewish community, the Islamic community, Atheist Ireland and the Humanist Association of Ireland as part of the structured dialogue process. I also met an ecumenical delegation of European churches in the context of Ireland's Presidency of the Council of the European Union in 2013.
I have reported to the House on all the meetings I have held under the structured dialogue process in replies to various parliamentary questions since 2013, most recently on 2 February and 15 June of last year.
I have not held any meetings under the structured dialogue process since the formation of the current Government.
I want to raise with the Taoiseach the issue of the Catholic orders and the redress scheme. The whole question of how these institutions were run and so on is now a major issue. According to the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Catholic religious congregations have only paid 13% of the costs of a redress scheme set up to help survivors. The report states that by the end of 2015, the total cost of the commission which inquired into child abuse and the redress scheme was an estimated €1.5 billion. However, that progress has actually gone into reverse. Some 18 religious orders have offered the equivalent of about 23% of the overall cost. I want to ask in particular about one religious order, the Christian Brothers. They said they were on course to honour all the voluntary pledges they made. Of the €34 million that they pledged, €24 million has been paid, with the final €10 million to be paid in 2017 on a phased basis, linked to property sales. The problem is that they have tried to transfer lands that they own to the Edmund Rice Schools Trust, which are their own schools. They are trying to use this transfer as part payment of their obligations under the redress scheme. Just so the Taoiseach knows, patronage of the most recent secondary school in Castleknock, in Dublin West, was awarded to this trust. People are aghast that religious congregations are being awarded hospitals and schools like it is business as usual and as if nothing has happened, yet those congregations have not even fulfilled their obligations. The Sisters of Mercy are similar. Apparently, I only have a minute and a half so I do not have time to go into it.
I had hoped to raise with the Taoiseach the fact that, in the 1920s and 1930s, a succession of laws were passed which gave the church control over health, education, and employment as it pertained to women. Basically, the Taoiseach's ancestors-----
Thank you, Deputy.
-----in Cumann na nGaedheal were in competition with Fianna Fáil: "I will raise you a Censorship of Publications Act" and "I will bid you a Juries Act to top it off." It was a competition between the lads to see who was the most holy and who would give the church the most power.
The Taoiseach mentioned that he has not met the main leaders of the churches in an organised fashion in the last year.
In particular, does the Taoiseach intend to meet the leaders in Ireland of the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches? At such a meeting, will he raise the issue of the mother and baby homes, including the Bethany homes?
On a question that was raised earlier, will he ask about recompense and the failure to transfer assets to the State as promised? Given the fact there are many assets which are growing in value as we speak, not only is there a need to transfer the assets of specific orders to the State to ensure compensation is paid to those who were basically incarcerated in mother and baby homes but those assets need to be frozen pending the outcome of any inquiry, commission of inquiry, truth commission or otherwise and pending possible criminal actions by An Garda Síochána in the future if such is intended or required when the full horrors of what we have seen emerge from Tuam in particular have been revealed.
The Taoiseach met Pope Francis briefly last week. I do not know whether he had enough time to mention the recent revelations or whether he suggested to Pope Francis that, when he arrives in Ireland, he comes bearing orders to the orders based in Ireland to relieve them of whatever assets they hold to ensure they pay their full dues, if they could ever do that.
I want to know if the Taoiseach has raised with any members of the hierarchy, either formally via the kind of meetings which the Government has with leaders of faith communities or informally, the issue of the findings at the Tuam site.
In terms of the preparations which are being made for Pope Francis's visit to Ireland next year, will Pope Francis be afforded the opportunity to visit one of the many mother and baby home sites around the country? It is only right and proper that he should be invited, as the head of the Catholic Church worldwide, to visit at least one of the 139 or 140 institutions which feature in the examination of the commission on children who were in mother and baby homes.
Has the Taoiseach had any recent correspondence or contact, formally or informally, with the religious orders that were the subject of a nefarious deal between the then Government, the then Minister for Education and the then Taoiseach to allow an indemnity to be given to the orders in regard to their liability for these events? While we know there will have to be more redress for other people as a result of the current commissions of inquiry under way, following the publication more recently of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the €1.5 billion cost of the redress scheme so far, has the Taoiseach approached the congregations to meet their moral and ethical liabilities, of which we have heard an awful lot in regard to the Garda in recent days? Surely the religious bodies have moral and ethical responsibilities. Has the Taoiseach raised this with them in terms of the further sums they are willing to pay, which they owe and are committed to?
There seems to be a marginalisation of the contact or engagement in interfaith dialogue between the Taoiseach and the churches. The point I want to specifically zone in on relates to a case I raised last week, that of John Allen. We are rightly talking about the horrors of the past but, right now, current Government policy is treating in an appalling manner victims of child sexual abuse in primary schools across the country. We had the Louise O'Keeffe case, which went all the way to the European Court of Human Rights and which found in her favour. The subsequent interpretation and application of that decision by the State has been shocking in its cynicism and is an attempt to narrow the application of the judgment in regard to the cases of people like John Allen, whose abusers have been convicted and are in jail. Has the Taoiseach discussed this with the religious orders? In this case it was a Christian Brother who abused Mr. Allen and was convicted.
The Taoiseach inadvertently misled the House last week when he said the European Court of Human Rights had decided on the idea of prior complaint. It did not. It is the Government that decided on prior complaint, interpreting the court decision. I would ask the Taoiseach to, at a later date, go back over the transcripts and correct the record of the House. I do not believe he intentionally misled the House but I think it was misled in that regard.
I put it to the Taoiseach there is a need to engage with the religious orders in regard to this cohort of our population right now. They went to the Supreme Court and they were threatened with costs. There is culpability of successive Governments on this, as I have said, but I am saying now and have been saying for the past year that we need to do right by current victims of child sexual abuse. We can go on about the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s but it is happening right now. These people are financially ruined, are in very difficult circumstances and are psychologically under enormous pressure. I think it is unacceptable and it speaks very badly of the Government in terms of its lack of humanity and discretion in dealing with this. It is not that huge numbers have been through the courts. Even to take the cases where convictions have taken place, there is no compensation and there is no reaching out to these victims.
I am not sure I can answer all of these questions in the time available to me. I have asked for a report in respect of the particular case mentioned by Deputy Martin. I am also in the process of sending him a letter in respect of some progress made following the issues he raised last week. I will be happy to engage with the religious communities about those who are affected now.
Deputy Burton raised the issue of the Pope's visit here and whether he will visit one of the mother and baby homes. I do not have any control over the schedule of the Pope when he comes here. It is the Pope's choice to come to Ireland and to Dublin-----
I think his visit is about families. It would be appropriate to visit one of the homes.
-----for the world convention of families. I do not have an input into his schedule, no more than-----
Why not? Can the Government not suggest that?
Order, please.
He is invited here by the bishops and the church. Obviously, the State will make its facilities available for the Head of State of the Vatican. To be honest, I do not know of correspondence being received by the Department from the religious orders but there may well be. I will check that for the Deputy and I will advise her in respect of the mother and baby homes.
Deputy Coppinger raised several questions about the religious institutions and their failure to measure up. I take a very strong view about this. It is Government policy that the church congregations should increase their contributions towards the substantial costs of the redress scheme to achieve a 50% share, as that is only equitable and proper. As things stand, the State and the taxpayer have met some 86% of the cost of redress.
In 2009 the Christian Brothers offered to transfer its 49 school playing fields, valued at €127 million, to a new joint trust between the State and the Edmund Rice Schools Trust. As the initial offer would not result in a tangible contribution towards the cost of redress, the then Minister, Ruairí Quinn, made two counter-proposals to try to progress matters. Unfortunately, the Christian Brothers decided to reject those counter-proposals and, in 2015, decided to proceed to transfer the fields to the Edmund Rice Schools Trust. It is disappointing the Christian Brothers withdrew their offer. I understand the Minister, Deputy Bruton, would be very happy to engage with the congregations to see if a mutually satisfactory solution could be achieved that would make a tangible contribution towards the cost of the redress response.
Why are they being awarded schools and hospitals?
Following the publication of the Ryan report, five congregations offered to transfer properties to the State and the voluntary and community sector in addition to making cash contributions.
The total value of those offers was €237 million. The Christian Brothers offered their 49 school playing fields at a value of €127 million to be transferred to a new joint trust between the State and the Edmund Rice Schools Trust, to which the congregation's primary and secondary schools were transferred. The then Minister, Deputy Quinn, had a counter-proposal that the playing fields would instead be transferred to the State, with guaranteed access for the schools currently using them under licence for as long as they were required. That counter-proposal was not accepted by the Christian Brothers. The Edmund Rice Schools Trust was also opposed to it.
In July 2013, the Government agreed to a revised proposal by the then Minister, Deputy Quinn, under which the congregation would be asked to transfer the playing fields to the trust for the continued beneficial use of the schools subject to the legal requirement that the prior approval of the Minister be obtained for a disposal of any part of them and that, in the event of any proposed transfer, the State be entitled to receive at least 50% of the proceeds. Under that proposal, in terms of reckoning that contribution towards the cost of redress, it was proposed that the fields and associated lands be valued on an open market value basis at the date of the transfer to the trust. A sum of 50% of that valuation would be reckoned as a contribution towards the cost of the response. The revised proposal was put to the congregation by the then Minister, Deputy Quinn, in a letter on 15 October 2013.
In the context of a High Court award, the congregation then undertook a comprehensive review of its capacity to meet all of its obligations, including its outstanding redress contributions. A final response to the Minister's proposal, therefore, was not received until 9 September 2015. In a letter of that date, the congregation stated that as the initial proposal of joint ownership was not accepted by the Minister and as his counter-proposal was not acceptable to either it or to the Edmund Rice Schools Trust, it was proceeding with the formal transfer of the sports fields to the Edmund Rice Schools Trust. The letter stated that the transfer was to complement the transfer of school properties to the trust in 2008 at an independent valuation as of the transfer date of €430 million. The letter also stated that the congregation wished to honour its pledge of investment in education and welfare for present and future generations of children in Ireland. There has been no further communication from the Christian Brothers since.
Why were they awarded the Castleknock secondary school then?
If I owed the State money and then made a deal with the State and welched on it, the sheriff, the Criminal Assets Bureau or An Garda Síochána would be knocking on my door looking for payment. At this stage, the Taoiseach said that there is no further contact with the orders. Is the Taoiseach intending to contact them? Is he intending to have the meetings that I suggested earlier? Is he intending to put it to them that if they do not transfer to the State assets to pay their contribution to the redress scheme, which was very limited, the State will seize the assets that are due to it?
I understand that Pope Francis's visit to Ireland is in the context of families. Obviously, the children and adults who were in various institutions and were the subject of the redress that we are speaking about are all parts of families. For a long period, many of those families were not recognised. There are broadly recognised now. While I understand that the Taoiseach cannot, nor should he try to, dictate the Pope's itinerary in Ireland, given that he will no doubt have a chance to meet him and talk to him either one to one or with other members of the Government and senior members of the hierarchy, he might discuss the most outstanding feature of the recent history of churches in Ireland, which is what happened in the institutions that they ran and governed. I put it to the Taoiseach that he would be seriously lacking in his responsibilities as leader of people in Ireland by not advising the Pope about what happened in this country, the efforts the Government has made to advance redress and the lack of support that has been received for almost a decade from various religious congregations-----
Thank you, Deputy.
-----to meet the moral and other obligations they entered into-----
The Deputy is eating into the time of other Members.
-----that they would finance 50% of the redress, which comes to a figure of about €750 million.
All of the outstanding committed contributions are being pursued. In particular, officials in the Department of Education, the Chief State Solicitor's office and the HSE are following through on the completion of the remaining property transfers under the indemnity agreement. I understand they are near the completion of 11 of them. Progress is also being made on the completion of the 2009 voluntary offers of €96 million, being contributed in cash and property. The 2002 indemnity agreement is binding on the parties to it, including the State and the 18 contributing congregations. It is not possible to open that agreement unilaterally or try to force the party to do something that is not provided for in the agreement. Regrettably, the 2002 agreement means that the present Government does not have legal mechanisms open to it to compel the religious congregations to meet the 50-50 target or to deliver more rapidly on the voluntary offers made back in 2009.
Would the State consider taking educational property off the religious? It would be appreciated that the strong constitutional protection afforded to private property in the Constitution makes it virtually impossible to confiscate congregational property, as has been suggested by some. Obviously, I believe that a better approach is for the congregation to enhance significantly its cash contributions and to enter into discussions with appropriate Ministers regarding the voluntary transfer of key properties in the education sector and the health sector to the State.
Pope Francis is a very different kind of Pope, as Deputy Burton is aware.
That is why I made the suggestion.
He has been dealing with the poor and deprived in Buenos Aires in Argentina for many years. He is showing evidence of that in Rome. I am quite sure that Pope Francis is very well aware of the issues surrounding the church, the difficulties created over the years in Ireland and the situation of the Catholic Church in particular involving not only the residential institutions, but also mother and baby homes. The Vatican is well informed, I am quite sure, of the issues of the day in that regard. As Deputy Burton is well aware, it is a matter for the Pope himself in terms of the World Meeting of Families. People in mother and baby homes were parts of families and people in residential institutions were parts of families. It is the Pope's decision.
We have 24 minutes left for the next two batches of questions. The Taoiseach's reply to the next grouping is a long one, so he might tailor it.
Constitutional Convention Recommendations
Gerry Adams
Question:4. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on outstanding recommendations arising from the Constitutional Convention. [13986/17]
Brendan Howlin
Question:5. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach his plans to hold referendums that arise from the outstanding recommendations of the Constitutional Convention. [15196/17]
Ruth Coppinger
Question:6. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Taoiseach his plans for referendums on constitutional amendments; and the issues that may be dealt with. [15211/17]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:7. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recommendations arising from the Constitutional Convention that have not yet been implemented or that are still awaiting a plan for implementation. [15226/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, together.
The previous Government responded in the Dáil to all nine reports of the Convention on the Constitution. I will summarise the convention's main recommendations for referenda and the response to them as follows. In its first report, the convention recommended that the age threshold for candidacy in presidential elections be reduced from 35 years. A referendum was defeated on this on 22 May 2015. A recommendation to reduce the voting age to 16 was accepted but a referendum was not held on this matter. Deputies will be aware that a Private Member's Bill to reduce the voting age to 16 in local and European elections will be before the Seanad tomorrow night.
In the convention's second report, the reference in Article 41.2 of the Constitution to "a woman's life within the home" was considered. The Programme for a Partnership Government commits the Government to holding a referendum on this issue.
In its third report, the Convention recommended an amendment to the Constitution to provide for same-sex marriage. A referendum on marriage equality was held on 22 May 2015 and was passed by a majority of 62.1%.
The convention's fourth report made recommendations on the electoral system. A recommendation for a referendum to permit the appointment of people other than Oireachtas Members as Ministers was not accepted, as the Constitution already allows the Taoiseach to nominate as Ministers two persons who have not been elected to the Oireachtas but who have been nominated to the Seanad. The recommendation that Ministers be required to resign their Dáil seats on appointment to office was not accepted. The convention did not put forward proposals on how the resultant Dáil vacancies might be filled.
In respect of the fifth report, on amending the Constitution to give citizens resident outside the State the right to vote in presidential elections, Deputies will be aware that I recently announced that the Government has decided to hold a referendum to amend the Constitution to allow Irish citizens resident outside the State, including those in Northern Ireland, to vote in Irish presidential elections. Extending the franchise in presidential elections to Irish citizens resident outside the State gives rise to a range of legal, policy and practical issues. To have an informed public debate on this, the Government published a detailed options paper last week to set out the range of options available to give effect to the recommendation of the Convention on the Constitution.
As regards the sixth report, on the offence of blasphemy, the Programme for a Partnership Government says that a referendum will be held on removing the offence from the Constitution.
The seventh progress report made recommendations relating to Dáil reform, some of which would have involved a referendum. The House will be aware that Standing Orders were amended in January last year to provide for the direct election of the Ceann Comhairle by secret ballot and the selection of the Chairs of Oireachtas committees on a proportional basis using the d'Hondt system. These steps were in line with recommendations made by the convention and did not require a referendum.
The programme of Dáil reform in the current Dáil builds on these reforms introduced by the previous Government. It reflects many of the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention. Moreover, the programme for a partnership Government commits to a referendum on enhancing the reference to the Ceann Comhairle in the Constitution.
As regards the convention's eighth report, the programme for a partnership Government states that this report, which deals with economic, social and cultural rights, will be referred to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government for consideration of the substantial questions it raises on the balance of rights, proper governance and resources.
Deputies will be aware that a Private Members' Bill to amend Article 45 of the Constitution and insert a provision on the rights contained in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was before the House last week.
The convention's ninth report did not make recommendations for constitutional change.
There are no plans otherwise to implement Constitutional Convention recommendations for referendums that were not accepted by the last Government other than as set out in the programme for a partnership Government document.
We know that the last Government failed to implement many of the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention, of which I was a member. In fact, during a one-hour debate in this Chamber, four of the reports of the Convention were dealt with. That was an insult to those who took part and made the recommendations. The proposals put were dismissed out of hand. That was a pity because of the time and effort people put in.
When does the Taoiseach intend to produce the wording for the referendum on blasphemy and for the referendum on the removal of the provision relating to the position of women in the home in the Constitution?
Since the current Government was formed, has the Taoiseach given consideration to looking again at some of the issues the last convention proposed that future conventions should consider? I realise the Citizens' Assembly is dealing with the issue of repeal of the eighth amendment. However, other issues and recommendations were raised at the time by the Constitutional Convention, which was made up of citizens as well as politicians. It was a good mix for the purposes of informing those of us in this House and in the Seanad how people from various sectors and parts of society viewed the issues raised at the convention. Certain outstanding issues have never been addressed and are not addressed in the Taoiseach's reply. Specifically, what are the dates for the referendums that the Taoiseach promised when the Government was formed?
Of all the referendums in all the world, the one the Taoiseach announced on the flight to the United States was rather funny. The Constitutional Convention recommended that the voting age be reduced to 16 years of age and that economic social and cultural rights be enshrined in the Constitution. I would have thought the removal of the reference to the role of women was somewhat more pressing, given its archaic and sexist connotations of the duties of women being limited to the home. I am surprised the Government has not been taken to court over the reference to women not needing to find employment. The same applies to the removal of blasphemy.
The recommendation the Government has chosen to introduce a referendum for relates to voting rights for citizens abroad or in the North for presidential elections. I would have thought that was not the most pressing of the recommendations listed.
Of course, the most obvious recommendation relates to the referendum to repeal the eighth amendment. The Government has shoved that into another assembly. The eighth amendment is a long-overdue deletion. While the Citizens' Assembly and the Taoiseach are dithering, women are being denied access to proper treatment for their health. Prosecutions are taking place in the North of people who have received safe medical abortion pills. These same pills are used by women in the Republic who go to the North to get them. Dawn raids have taken place. I hope that will be taken on by the Northern Ireland Assembly and by Sinn Féin, which is now the largest party in the North. That outrage must stop. Surely the Taoiseach would agree that these are far more pressing issues than the franchise for the presidential elections.
There are many pressing issues in this increasingly failed State. However, there is no greater emergency than the housing and homelessness emergency. The report of the Constitutional Convention was absolutely clear in its instruction to the Government on the issue of housing. Fully 84% voted at the Convention for the right to housing to be inserted into the Constitution. The Government has done nothing about that.
The convention also overwhelmingly voted for all the rights enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to be inserted into the Constitution. Yet, this week, the Government is going to vote down Deputy Pringle's Bill on the matter. Later today, I will bring a Bill to insert the right to housing into the Constitution by referendum. However, the Government refuses to support the insertion of these rights into the Constitution and it intends to vote down the Bill. This is despite the fact that the convention set up by the Taoiseach has called for it.
Why on earth were the non-housing related economic, social and cultural rights referred to the Joint Committee on Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government? It was perfectly right to refer the housing question to the committee but it gave us the disaster that is the Rebuilding Ireland - Action Plan for Housing and Homelessness document. Why were all the other rights demanded in the report referred to the housing committee? What is the Taoiseach going to do about this?
Over the years, the approach of the Government in preparing for referendums has been inconsistent. It was once accepted practice that a detailed consideration of policy implications would be published in advance of a particular referendum and a genuine political consensus was sought before proceeding. However, we have got to the stage where little is prepared in advance. For example, nowadays we wait until the campaign to have any formal independent impact review of the proposals. I put it to the Taoiseach that before the next referendum, we should first agree a process to follow in preparing for a referendum. A formal White Paper should be published in advance of a referendum on the specific implications of the proposal and a review of the potential costs. I am unsure what is delaying the establishment of the Oireachtas budget office. Anyway, until we establish other independent review structures, will the Taoiseach agree to publish a White Paper and a cost review of all amendments thus far proposed by the Government? Will the Government facilitate such a review for Opposition proposals?
I will set out the costs of the various referenda since 2001. Referenda have been held on prohibition of the death penalty, the International Criminal Court, the Nice treaty, the protection of human life in pregnancy, the Treaty of Lisbon, twice, the Houses of the Oireachtas inquiries, judges' remuneration and the treaty on stability. The costs came to €11 million, €10.8 million, €15 million, €22.2 million, €14.8 million and so on. I agree that-----
I was referring to the cost implications once a referendum is passed.
Obviously, the cost implications are one thing. I agree that there should be a process to set out the structure, strategy and timing for a referendum.
The convention made many recommendations to the Government. The Government did not accept all of them. However, we are waiting for the report of the Citizens' Assembly on the eighth amendment. This should be made before the end of June. The Government has not discussed whether a referendum or referenda should be held this year, or, if so, which referenda should be held.
A comment was made on voting by emigrants living abroad. This issue has been around for a long time. Philadelphia was a place many Irish emigrated to directly after the famine and in the years since then. This issue has always been raised with the diaspora. It might not be of interest to those who are registered here. However, I will use the example of the Brexit referendum in Britain. While 5.5 million people were entitled and registered to vote as expatriates, only 26,000 took up that option.
It may not be of great importance in other countries but, in terms of Irish emigrants and the Irish diaspora, when the issues are dealt with here, I believe there will be a good response. We must define a new electoral register and the conditions and criteria for those who will apply, which will be done by 2025. I agree with and will try to get an analysis for Deputy Micheál Martin of the range involved. I also agree that, in respect of any decision made by the Government on a referendum, a process should be set out which is clear for everyone to discuss.
In respect of the eighth report referred to by Deputy Boyd Barrett, the programme for Government says the following:
The eighth report of the Constitutional Convention on economic, social and cultural rights recommended that the State progressively realise economic, social and cultural rights subject to maximum available resources, that this duty be recognisable by the courts, and that specific additional rights on housing be inserted into the Constitution. Due to the substantial questions raised on the balance of rights, proper governance and resources, we will refer this report to the new Oireachtas Committee on Housing for consideration.
Obviously, it will have to consider more than housing. It must also deal with social and cultural rights. Inserting such provisions into the Constitution and making them recognisable by the courts would clearly raise very substantial questions and that is an issue on which we must deliberate here.
When are we going to do that?
I do not have an answer for Deputy Ó Snodaigh in respect of-----
When are we going to do that?
Allow the Taoiseach, please.
-----when we will have the wording on blasphemy. As I said to Deputy Micheál Martin, the Government has not actually decided whether to hold a referendum this year. We are waiting for the report on the eighth amendment. We have not decided what we are doing next year. If we are to hold a referendum, we must prepare a White Paper, a strategy and a structure that will allow everybody to understand the timing and the approximate costs involved.
In order to accommodate everybody and given that we have only nine minutes left for the next group of questions, perhaps we should move on. Otherwise, we will not get to them.
Could I ask a brief supplementary question?
Well, if we do that-----
We do not have the time.
The Deputies must decide if they want to continue with this group of questions and to abandon the next. It is a matter for the Deputies.
Could we have just one more minute, between myself and Deputy Ó Snodaigh, for a supplementary?
What about the next group of questions? We cannot do that. We do not have enough time.
We are not going to get through the next group in any event.
We will get as far as we can but if we do not start, we will not get anywhere. Is the House agreed that we move to the next batch?
We are not going to get through them.
We will try. The answer from the Taoiseach is short. It is not a long reply.
There are six different topics.
Taoiseach's Meetings and Engagements
Micheál Martin
Question:8. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he and his departmental officials have carried out an assessment of the legislative changes that will have to be made following the British Government triggering Article 50. [15138/17]
Brendan Howlin
Question:9. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on Brexit will next meet. [15197/17]
Gerry Adams
Question:10. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the Welsh First Minister, Mr. Carwyn Jones, in Cardiff on 10 March 2017. [15228/17]
Gerry Adams
Question:11. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he or his departmental officials have had contact with the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, or officials in her office since 20 March 2017. [15229/17]
Gerry Adams
Question:12. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has met party leaders from Northern Ireland since the Assembly election on 2 March 2017. [15405/17]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:13. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his conversation with the Prime Minister, Theresa May, in the aftermath of the events in London on 22 March 2017. [15433/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 to 13, inclusive, together. I spoke with Prime Minister May on Wednesday evening, 23 March 2017, following the horrific attack in London the previous day. I offered the sympathy of the Irish Government to the British people and offered any assistance that may be required. The Prime Minister confirmed that the injuries suffered by an Irish person were not life-threatening. We also spoke about the ongoing negotiations at Stormont towards the re-establishment of power-sharing in Northern Ireland.
While I did see party leaders from Northern Ireland at the funeral of Martin McGuinness in Derry on 23 March, there was no opportunity for bilateral meetings with them. It is deeply disappointing that the Northern Ireland parties were unable to reach agreement on key issues to allow for the formation of a new Executive before yesterday's 4 p.m. deadline. This means that the people of Northern Ireland will continue to be without political leadership at this critical time as the UK prepares to commence the Brexit process tomorrow with the triggering of Article 50. I expect to speak to the British Prime Minister again tomorrow. The Irish and British Governments have engaged intensively with the parties over the course of the past three weeks. I have kept in close touch throughout with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Flanagan, who, along with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. James Brokenshire, has made every effort to facilitate agreement. In its role as co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement, the Irish Government will continue to do all in its power to facilitate agreement to get the Northern Ireland institutions back up and running as soon as possible. I would urge all of the parties to explore every possible avenue to resolution in a spirit of goodwill and compromise. I met the Welsh First Minister, Mr. Carwyn Jones, in Cardiff on Friday 10 March. We discussed the close relationship between Ireland and Wales and the importance of the Holyhead and Pembroke ports for trade and travel between these islands, as well as general issues of concern arising in a Brexit context. The Government has a clear and comprehensive Brexit plan. This includes a deep analysis conducted across Government covering a range of models for the future UK relationship with the EU. Substantial work has been undertaken across Government to identify the key strategic policy and operational risks and impacts. This work is now being intensified and prioritised across all Government Departments and agencies. The next meeting of the Cabinet committee on Brexit is provisionally set for 11 April 2017. I expect to speak to Prime Minister May tomorrow. Obviously, we will respond to her letter and the European Council and Commission will respond in due course.
We have six minutes left, so each Member has one minute.
I do not think the Taoiseach responded to my question. Basically, the Article 50 process will begin tomorrow and it is absolutely clear that we are not prepared for it. I accept that there has been a lot of activity but there is no public evidence that we have detailed proposals or have made preparations for different possible outcomes. I welcome Mr. Barnier's mention of the parity he intends to give to Northern Ireland but that is just one of many issues with which we must deal.
The British Government has accepted that Brexit will involve an enormous legislative workload. I noted last week that the UK Government is now grappling with the fact that it may not have enough personnel or capacity to deal with the huge legislative impact, particularly in terms of EU-UK agreements. If, for example, we get a deal on the common travel area, it is inevitable that we will need legislation to copperfasten that. If we get a reciprocal deal relating to access to education and health services, which is what the common travel area is all about, namely, a seamless interaction in services right across the board between the UK and Ireland, we will need legislation for that. What arrangements are in place to begin preparing the relevant measures? Given that there is already a backlog of legislation, how does the Government propose that this extra challenge be met? I ask the Taoiseach to comment on that.
Given the range of questions here, grouping them together is ridiculous. I will concentrate, in the short time available, on the collapse of talks yesterday in Northern Ireland. The Taoiseach is well aware of the goings on in the weeks since the election and the failure by the DUP in particular to engage in a positive way in the talks. Given that the current British Government has a specific duty to live up to the obligations and commitments to which it and previous British Governments signed up under the Good Friday Agreement, the Fresh Start agreement and so forth, does the Taoiseach believe that an indication from the UK Government that it will act on an Acht na Gaeilge or a bill of rights might dissolve the negativity that exists within the DUP and negate the obstacles to a positive outcome? Everybody wishes to see the Assembly up and running properly again and a Northern Ireland Executive being formed but that will not happen if the current approach by the DUP continues and if that party is backed up, in terms of legacy issues, by the British Government. Will the Taoiseach reiterate the position that Irish Governments must take and put it up to the British Government to live up to its commitments and obligations?
The Taoiseach mentioned the fact that he passed on his sympathies and condolences to Prime Minister May after the atrocious attack in London last week. We all condemn that attack as absolutely murderous and appalling and sympathise with the innocent victims. I wonder how many more of these atrocities have to take place, not just close to us in London or Paris, but also those that continue every single day in Mosul, as we speak, in Syria, where hundreds have been killed in the past week, and in Afghanistan, where 1,400 people have been killed in over 1,000 airstrikes, mostly carried out by the US? How many more of these atrocities, whether in the countries to which I refer - and which are rarely mentioned - or closer to home, as we saw last week, have to occur before somebody such as the Taoiseach says to Theresa May that the best way to stop terrorism is to stop participating in terrorism? We are participating in terrorism by allowing US troops to go through Shannon Airport on their way to kill 1,400 people in Afghanistan, not to mention the 1 million dead in Iraq and a state that is destroyed. The idea that this would stop atrocities in the West has been proven wrong by appalling events like the one that took place last week in London. When is the Taoiseach going to come to the realisation that we need to stop participating in terrorism ourselves or we will continue to be appalled by the sort of atrocious attack we saw last week?
In respect of Deputy Micheál Martin's comments at the beginning, we are well prepared for this. The UK Prime Minister will move Article 50 tomorrow. That means sending a letter to the President of the European Council. The Council will present its draft response — it is only a draft response – by Friday. From our point of view, it is important that the draft would cover and refer to the main issues applicable here in Ireland, including the peace process, the Border, the common travel area, our trading relationships and our place in the European Union. These will all be considered and, I hope, signed off in terms of the ground rules for negotiation on 29 April. It is from then on that the real negotiation will start in respect of the issues that will arise. The common travel area is a priority for us. It has been in place since 1922. I refer to the acquired rights of the Irish and English. We will prioritise this in the negotiations with the European Union and bilaterally with Britain.
In respect of Deputy Ó Snodaigh's question, it is imperative that the British Government lives up to its responsibility in implementing in full the Good Friday Agreement. I point out to the Deputy that the Democratic Unionist Party was not in existence when the Good Friday Agreement was formed. The issue of the Irish language-----
It was.
It was. It has been in existence for years.
The issue of the Irish language is important for Irish nationalists. It is something that everybody would not find intrusive. I have hopes regarding the options being considered by the Secretary of State, Mr. Brokenshire. I do not support direct rule and nobody wants more elections in the North. Therefore, there is a period of extension which will run through the recess in the Commons over the next couple of weeks. I hope this matter can be resolved. I spoke briefly to the Deputy's party leader in Derry the other day about this very issue, and I also spoke briefly to the Secretary of State. There was not much time for long discussions. I hope that an arrangement can be put together and that the parties, principally Sinn Féin and the Democratic Unionist Party, will form an Executive and have a common set of objectives. It is very important that the voice of Northern Ireland leaders be heard in respect of what they consider to be the important issues to be dealt with there.
On Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett's point, nobody condones the events that have led to the loss of innocent lives, whether in South Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Mosul or so many other locations.
Afghanistan.
The terrorists behind the attacks in Nice, the Bataclan theatre, Brussels and Germany were all internal to the countries in question. This was also the case in the United States. The individual in the most recent case, in London, had travelled up from the south of the country on one of many trips to that city. In 80 seconds of terrorist activity, he carried out the mayhem that caused loss of life to innocent people. I cannot answer the Deputy's question except to say that the geopolitical circumstances of many areas around the world are such that there are now 40 different wars or conflicts, none of which is on EU soil. That is not to say, however, that people should not be vigilant considering what has happened in EU countries in recent times.
They are using European-----
That concludes Taoiseach's Questions. I call Deputy Jim Daly, on behalf of-----
On a point of order, the Democratic Unionist Party was set up in 1971.
That is not a point of order.
Gabh mo leithscéal. I apologise to the Deputy.
I call Deputy Jim Daly to present a revised Order of Business.
Deputy Coppinger is an accurate person.
I call Deputy Jim Daly to present a revised Order of Business.