Ruth Coppinger
Question:1. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Taoiseach if he has had contact with the President of the United States of America. [27221/17]
Ceisteanna - Questions
Taoiseach's Meetings and Engagements
Brendan Howlin
Question:2. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his contacts and engagements with the US Administration of President Trump. [27640/17]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:3. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he has been in contact with President Trump since he was appointed Taoiseach. [28861/17]
Gerry Adams
Question:4. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has had engagement with the President of the United States, Mr. Donald Trump, since he took office. [29834/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
I have not had any direct contact or engagement with President Trump or the US Administration since my election as Taoiseach, although I have spoken to the chargé d'affaires by phone. However, I expect to receive a short phone call from President Trump later this afternoon. I expect this to be a brief congratulatory call, similar to several calls I have received in recent days.
As I said in the House last week, I want our relations with the United States to continue to develop based on the long-standing friendship that exists between our countries. As Taoiseach, I am committed to working productively with the US Administration in the cause of international peace and security, to promote Ireland's interests in the United States and to further strengthen the economic, trade and investment links between Ireland and the US to the mutual benefit of both countries. At the same time, I will also ensure that I promote the values of this country and the European values for which this Government stands. I will also continue the efforts of my predecessor to prioritise immigration reform in my engagements with the US Administration with a view to regularising the situation of the up to 50,000 undocumented Irish in the United States.
Last week, the Taoiseach indicated he would not withdraw his invitation to President Trump because it would cause a diplomatic incident, which is not something President Trump worries about in his daily actions. However, in the face of evil, diplomatic incidents are sometimes necessary. Last Saturday, the Taoiseach took part in the pride parade, as did I. The focus of the pride events in the US this year was completely on Donald Trump. I note the Taoiseach went further than not withdrawing the invitation to President Trump and spoke of his enthusiasm for visiting the White House on St. Patrick's Day, a tradition he is aware was debated in the House in regard to his predecessor. The proposed visit should be debated before the Taoiseach undertakes it and for him to say he would do that was planning too far ahead. This is not business as usual. The Trump regime is homophobic, sexist and racist. It is not business as usual and the Taoiseach should not do all the traditional things that have always been done. People who are in fear of Trump's policies would appreciate a gesture of solidarity from any head of state. LGBTQ people in America are currently in fear of the loss of support from the state for their marriages and employment rights and that schools will not recognise their children or allow their children to change their names. Women are in fear that President Trump will row back laws that were won over many years. The Taoiseach should not commit to visiting the White House. What will he raise with President Trump in his phone call later today?
To use the term "evil" is to employ very strong language. The Deputy would have more credibility if she used it in regard to other forms of evil, such as the Bolsheviks, who put people into gulags, set up a secret police-----
It is a bit pathetic for the Taoiseach to start this rather than answer the question he was asked.
It is a fair response and------
If he thinks that approach will get him any kudos, he is wrong. This is a serious issue and------
Deputy Coppinger asked the Taoiseach a question------
And he is not answering it.
She should let the Taoiseach------
The Ceann Comhairle should pull him up for refusing to answer.
If the Deputy was familiar with Standing Orders, she would know that I have no power to take the Taoiseach up on anything in terms of his response. The Deputy might let him respond before she criticises him.
I have not yet had the phone call with President Trump but I am fairly sure that at some point in my interactions with him, assuming we are both still in office next March, we will be discussing LGBT rights. I will not shirk from raising issues such as climate change, LGBT rights and so on with President Trump.
He should raise the issue of the Bolsheviks.
I guarantee that I do not expect-----
The Bolsheviks were great champions of LGBT rights.
I do not expect that I would ever get any kudos for exposing the far left. I am sure I would only get opprobrium. It is not very long ago that Deputy Coppinger and her Party were celebrating the Bolshevik revolution as one of the great events in history but what it led to, as we know-----
We did.
I know the Deputy believes it was one of the great events in history. However, what it led to was the ending of a democracy because there was a democracy in place until the Bolsheviks----
Under the Tsar?
There were democratic elections. Alexander Kerensky was democratically elected-----
Does the Taoiseach need a history lesson?
That is the second book the Taoiseach has recently read.
The Soviet Union ended democracy, established gulags, put people in concentration camps, set up a secret police, ended free speech and stopped all elections. However, the Deputy's view is that that was the greatest event in history.
Stalin was actually responsible for those events.
I call on Deputy Howlin to try to follow that.
If this is the way the Taoiseach is going to go, it is unbelievable. So-called new politics. Liberal and young----
Deputy Coppinger, please allow other Members to speak.
It is pathetic.
Most people are deeply concerned about the policies being pursued by the US President. Although she is not of my political family but rather that of the Taoiseach, I am very taken by the attitude of the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, who will only deal on the basis of European principles. In the short phone call that the Taoiseach is to receive this afternoon, will he specifically mention the need for proactive action across the globe on climate change and the commitment that the Taoiseach has set out for the Government in that regard? In regard to immigration, will he point out that it is not acceptable or proper for Irish citizens with who have lived law-abidingly long term in the United States to be taken away from their place of work in handcuffs without even the decency of being able to contact their family members and make arrangements before they leave? In regard to the taxation system, has the Taoiseach had any discussions with the US authorities in regard to President Trump's proposals for a border adjustment tax, which would have very profound implications for American businesses sited in this State?
I intend to raise that the European Council met Thursday and Friday last and I and the other 27 European leaders present reaffirmed our commitment to the Paris climate change agreement. This will be the first time for me to speak to anybody representing the US Administration since my election as Taoiseach and I do not know how many issues I will have a chance to raise. To date, tax policy has not been discussed.
The US Supreme Court has today lifted the block on the racist travel ban imposed by Donald Trump, which means that his plan to impose a ban on people travelling from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen to the United States will now be enforced.
Donald Trump is pursuing pure, unadulterated racism. There is no other word for it. Does the Taoiseach think that it is acceptable that we would invite to Ireland someone who would impose a purely racist ban against six nations, encompassing tens of millions of people, or is he going to speak to Donald Trump about that, say it is not acceptable, and add that we are not going to allow US immigration officers at Shannon or Dublin to implement that policy on Irish territory? It is racism. Do we stand against racism or do we not? Are we going to speak up against it and take the first opportunity to do so, which the Taoiseach has this afternoon, or not? Is the Taoiseach going to express concern about Donald Trump boasting of a €110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, a vicious, brutal, undemocratic dictatorship which kills and executes its political opponents and which denies the most basic civil rights to women, ethnic minorities and workers? Is the Taoiseach going to express any concern about the dangerous escalation of tensions by that country against Qatar and Iran, all being stirred up by Donald Trump? Is the Taoiseach concerned about these things? Will he say anything to Donald Trump today, and is he seriously suggesting inviting someone pursuing those kinds of dangerous and racist policies to this country and fete him here?
The phone call is at Mr. Trump's request to congratulate me on my election as Taoiseach. I am going to receive the phone call. Relations between Ireland and America are very important. They are going to go on long after Presidents, taoisigh and Governments change in both countries. They are relations that go back centuries. There are very important economic, cultural and family ties that exist between Ireland and America, and the relationship that we have with the United States is one that is going to have to withstand any particular Taoiseach or President.
What about Libyan, Somalian and Yemeni families?
I am not sure if I will have an opportunity to speak about it but I certainly do not agree with the travel ban imposed by the US Administration and I have no difficulty saying that if I have an opportunity to do so. Equally, even when there are governments with whom we do not agree, I generally believe that engagement is better than refusing to engage, and I would apply the same principles to counties like Cuba and Venezuela, where civil and political rights are suppressed and have been for decades, and much more than they are in the United States. If I am willing to have engagement with countries like that, surely a different standard should not be applied to the United States.
The concern specifically around the United States is not just the domestic policies pursued by this Administration but the global reach of the United States, which is unrivalled by the Cubans and the Venezuelans. The Taoiseach would accept that.
It is very difficult to know where to start with the Trump Administration. On the one hand, people accept the reality that this man was democratically returned to office. That is a fact. However, there is a huge concern around where this country and its Administration positions itself in its interactions with that Administration, and there is no appetite whatsoever simply to go along with what amounts to a fairly warped view of the world with strong elements of evil laced through.
Will the Taoiseach comment specifically on the issue of what we in this country call the undocumented, who are in fact the Irish illegals Stateside? The recent arrest of a Donegal man who has been living in the United States for 20 years has caused huge anxiety for all the Irish community. According to the immigration and customs enforcement branch of the Department of Homeland Security, there was a 37% increase in arrests on immigration charges in the first three months of the Trump presidency. Will the Taoiseach tell the Dáil if the Government has recorded any increase in arrests of undocumented Irish citizens in the United States? Is he aware of any other citizens currently being held by the immigration service for deportation, and can he report on the extent of his lobbying of the Administration in a bid to find a resolution to this situation?
I absolutely accept Deputy McDonald's point that the United States does have a global reach and that makes it different from most other states, but I do not accept the hypocrisy that I see so often in this House of people turning a blind eye to oppression, execution, detention without trial, banning elections, free association and free speech-----
The Taoiseach does it all the time. He does it all the time.
-----just because those regimes style themselves as left-wing. It is the hypocrisy I find hard to accept.
The Taoiseach should be used to it because he engages in it continually.
I am glad the Deputies do not deny that they do it, because they evidently do in the fact that-----
We condemn Cuba's human rights violations across the board.
The Deputies know the point I am making.
Do not let the truth get in the way of a good soundbite.
Never have any shame in shouting people down when one cannot bear to listen to other people and listen to the truth.
What is the truth?
This is the kind of thing that regimes like Cuba and Venezuela do. They try to suppress-----
It is extremely cynical of the Taoiseach to answer in the way he is.
Will the Deputies let the Taoiseach answer?
On a point of order, the Taoiseach has been unbelievably cynical in his answers to serious questions that were tabled about Donald Trump. He is-----
The Taoiseach is expressing a point of view, which he is quite entitled to do. The Deputies are entitled to express their point of view-----
That is why we are answering him.
-----and they have been unfettered and uninterrupted in expressing their views. The Deputies should resume their seats and let the Taoiseach respond.
On a point of order-----
No, we have had enough points of order.
On a point of order-----
There is no point of order during questions to the Taoiseach.
The question is for the Ceann Comhairle.
Deputies ask questions to the Taoiseach during Taoiseach's Questions, not to me.
A point of order is made to the Ceann Comhairle.
There is no point of order to be made.
Is it not legitimate for us to raise a protest about the Taoiseach ascribing views to us that we have never enunciated?
It is what the Deputy does every day.
We have never enunciated those views.
Both the Deputy and the Taoiseach have made political points.
He is ascribing views to us that we do not hold.
The Deputy does it every day to every other party in this House.
The Deputy should resume his seat.
Once again, the truth hurts.
That is not the truth.
It is not the truth.
That is on display today. This is the classic tactic of shouting someone down when one does not agree with someone. I agree with the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Regina Doherty. It is the standard tactic of the left to ascribe beliefs and opinions to others that they do not hold-----
The Taoiseach has just done exactly that.
-----and then attack them for holding those opinions they do not hold. It is a regular tactic of the left to tell someone what they think and what they believe and then attack them for those.
If the Deputy cannot take it, he should not dish it out.
What views do I ascribe to the Taoiseach?
This behaviour is unacceptable.
What views do I ascribe to the Taoiseach?
I have absolutely no interest in the Taoiseach's analysis of the Bolsheviks, the Russian Revolution, the Wizard of Oz, his film choices or anything else. I asked a question about the undocumented Irish and I got precisely no answer.
The Taoiseach did not get a chance to answer.
I was mid-answer.
The Taoiseach was barking on about irrelevant topics.
I was trying to answer, but as is so often the case within 15 seconds I was interrupted and shouted down. I do not think I shouted down anyone or interrupted. Those are the tactics that we have become too tolerant of in this House.
To answer Deputy McDonald's question about the undocumented Irish, that issue remains at the top of our priorities in terms of our engagement with the United States authorities. The embassy is very active on this issue, as is the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and I know the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Cannon, will take an interest in it as well, because we want to have some system put in place to regularise Irish migrants who are no longer documented in the United States, along with people from other countries as well.
Our priority of course is Irish citizens who find themselves in that position.
Many Deputies would be wise to avoid exaggerating the extent to which anything said by Ireland or its head of Government can change the trajectory of the Trump Administration.
Or anybody else on the planet for that matter.
President Trump and his Administration have been distancing themselves from international organisations and principles which have underpinned co-operation between democratic states since the end of the Second World War. That is the fundamental shift that is happening under the Trump presidency which should concern us. It is not about how we oppose Trump but how we continue to express confidence in those international organisations, rule-based institutions and agreements.
The afternoon's courtesy call will break no new ground. I take the point that it is a courtesy call but I do think the Taoiseach should perhaps stress that Ireland continues to believe in free trade and in access to markets, not protectionism, which is a dangerous trend that is emerging, and also in international co-operation on issues such as human rights and climate change.
The Taoiseach might also be mindful of the fact that President Trump's knowledge of Ireland is probably still on the level it was when he attended a Sinn Féin fundraising dinner and was welcomed warmly by Deputy Adams on that occasion. It might be useful to point out that his party's approach to taxation and trade is not one that is shared by the majority of the people.
The planned visit to the United Kingdom has been cancelled, the Taoiseach probably realises that, because there is a fear of public protest which would be too hot or large to handle. I presume the same would apply here.
Does the Taoiseach have any update on a new ambassador to Ireland? The recent passing of the great Dan Rooney, a former ambassador, reminded us of the importance of that post to Ireland and to relationships between the United States and Ireland. Has there been any indication of an imminent appointment?
I have no update on the position of ambassador. A name has been mentioned and the Deputy has seen that name in the press but that person has yet to be formally nominated or to go to confirmation. In the meantime the chargé d'affaires is acting-----
That name has been withdrawn.
If the name has been withdrawn the chargé d'affaires is working actively in lieu of the ambassador.
It is very hard to talk about a phone call that has not happened yet.
It was a great debate. Can the Taoiseach imagine what will happen after the phone call?
Trump loves the Russians so they will have that in common.
We had a great debate yesterday at my meeting with Teresa May which I think ran for just under an hour but we had two hours of questions on it.
The questions will become not "Will the Taoiseach?" but "Did the Taoiseach?" the next time we talk about this.
That is fair enough. I am happy to answer those questions but it is my intention initially to speak about the long-standing links that exist between the two countries and mention as many other issues as I possibly can but free trade is certainly one that I would like to mention and to restate Ireland's and the European Union's commitment to free trade and opposition to protectionism which was again a feature of the European Council summit last Thursday and Friday, where the council decided against proposals that would screen purchases of State-owned enterprises of companies in Europe. As much as it is possible to work in many things into a conversation, the ongoing commitment to free trade will be one of those.
Programme for Government
Micheál Martin
Question:5. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he met Independent Deputies recently about the programme for Government. [27552/17]
Micheál Martin
Question:6. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will publish all agreements with all Independent Deputies that are supporting the Fine Gael-led minority Government. [28818/17]
Gerry Adams
Question:7. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has had engagement with Independent Deputies recently regarding the programme for Government and its implementation. [29060/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 together.
A Programme for a Partnership Government, published in May 2016, sets out the agreement between the parties and Deputies who are participating in, or supporting, the Government.
Independent Deputies brought their own vision and ideas to that programme, to how our country should be governed and how we need to deal with the myriad challenges we face. I believe that this partnership Government will continue to give us an opportunity to mobilise the many talents around the table in achieving the best outcomes for our citizens.
The impact of this input is tangible. Over the past year, the Independent Deputies have led on important policy issues such as medical cards for people in receipt of domiciliary care allowance to child care, judicial reform and broadband.
My recent meetings with the Deputies focussed on a range of commitments within the existing programme which the Government remains firmly committed to implementing over its lifetime. As you know I outlined some of my priorities when I presented my Cabinet to the Oireachtas last week.
The programme for Government annual report was published on 10 May last and sets out the progress made on more than 300 commitments across all of Government over its first 12 months.
The report provides a comprehensive update on the progress of the commitments and highlights very specific plans which have been put in place to address in the short and longer term key areas of housing, homelessness, education, rural and regional development, job creation, broadband, agriculture and climate change.
The report also highlights the ambition and steps to improve services for families, children, people with disabilities and mental health problems and older people including key reforms necessary in the health and justice sectors.
Significant work has also been undertaken in advance of and following the UK's referendum on EU membership to ensure an effective whole-of-government approach to the Brexit negotiations that takes full account of the Government's negotiating priorities.
The Government will continue to implement its programme, striking a balance between addressing urgent priorities and engaging in long-term planning so that lasting solutions are implemented to secure a strong economy and a fair society.
During last week’s Question Time the Taoiseach used a series of dodges to avoid directly answering challenging questions. The pattern is similar today.
Deputy Lowry has said that he has not made a deal with the Taoiseach, even though he voted for the Taoiseach's nomination and talked to the Taoiseach at least twice before the vote. He angrily informed the Dáil that he is entitled to be able to contact Ministers directly on constituency matters and to have full access. The fact is that this facility is not available to the majority of Deputies. In Tipperary specifically, Ministers have regularly given one Deputy preference in early notice of information which he has claimed shows his influence on the Government, to the exclusion of other Deputies in the constituency. Why is a Deputy who the Taoiseach says has no arrangement with Government able to claim influence on the Government?
Central to the Taoiseach’s election was the agreement with Independent Deputies and one part of this related to Stepaside Garda station on which the Taoiseach gave a commitment to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Trade, Deputy Ross. I have no problem with reopening Garda stations which should never have been closed. The issue is the pressure put on the Garda Commissioner – was pressure put on the Garda Commissioner? – to provide an interim report to facilitate the Taoiseach's nomination. It is very curious that an interim report emerged at all because this is not a question of 100 stations but of a small number and, hey presto, one interim report came out at a very opportune time relating to Stepaside. I am somewhat curious to know whether the Commissioner got divine inspiration in producing this interim report on Stepaside at that Cabinet meeting when a lot was going on. The report was due within weeks and would have covered the whole country yet the Garda Commissioner was asked to produce an interim report before the Taoiseach's nomination. Can the Taoiseach confirm whether he had any role in this process, whether the Tánaiste had, and the date on which it was confirmed to the Taoiseach that an entirely unnecessary interim report would be produced?
In response to the question about Deputy Lowry, there is no agreement between my party and Deputy Lowry. We did speak by telephone on two occasions in the run up to the vote for the Taoiseach and for the new Cabinet. He is free to contact Ministers directly about matters that are in the programme for Government or constituency issues but he has not sought any particular commitments in that regard. That facility is open to other Independent Deputies not just those who support the Government and also to those who abstain and even those who vote against the Government-----
Not in Tipperary.
I cannot speak for everyone else in government but certainly in my year as Minister for Social Protection I would have been regularly in contact with Deputy Mattie McGrath on particular queries he had relating to social protection-----
He is on side so.
----- and he was afforded the same courtesy as was extended to other Independent Deputies.
How many did the Taoiseach actually ring?
The interim report was a long time coming. The decision that we would open six Garda stations on a pilot basis and that there would be a review of the Garda stations that were closed was made over a year ago. That interim report was a long time coming and it recommends six new Garda stations, some brand new and some old ones being reopened such as Rush and Leighlinbridge in County Carlow, and Stepaside. I did not have any role in the report.
What does the Tánaiste say?
The Deputy will have to ask her.
Deputy Varadkar is the Taoiseach. Surely, he knows.
I do not know everything everyone else knows.
He does not know whether the Tánaiste asked the Garda Commissioner.
I call Deputy Mary Lou McDonald. Can we have order, please?
The timing is extraordinary. The Taoiseach must accept that. It is not a straight answer to a straight question.
We will let Deputy McDonald in.
This is the modus operandi of the cosy relationship across the floor. It is quite all right.
It is not that cosy.
I have resigned myself to it. Is it true that the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, threatened to pull the plug on the Taoiseach's Administration on the basis of the handling of the appointment to the Court of Appeal? Is it true that he threatened to pull the plug unless the Taoiseach guaranteed that the judicial appointments legislation would go through the Houses before the summer recess? It is essential that the Taoiseach answers those questions. They are clear questions which require clear answers because it is not only me but the public who needs to understand the workings of Government. I am not asking the Taoiseach to breach Cabinet confidentiality - perish the thought - or any other long-standing convention. I am simply asking him to answer in plain language whether the Minister, Deputy Ross, threatened that course of action and if it was on the basis of the Taoiseach's handling of the appointment to the Court of Appeal. Did the Minister resile from the position on the basis that he would get what has been described as "his legislation" on judicial appointments over the line prior to the summer recess?
As with many other Ministers, I speak to Deputy Ross regularly. We spoke just last night, for example, and obviously met at Cabinet this morning. We had two phone calls last Sunday, and on no occasion during either of those phone calls did he threaten resignation to me. I have seen reports that he may have done so in the newspapers, but perhaps that was in conversation with other people or Ministers. Certainly, in neither of the telephone conversations he had with me did he threaten resignation. I am happy to clarify that and I think I have clarified it already.
The process for appointing two High Court judges and one Court of Appeal judge, Ms Justice Máire Whelan, by the President was done in the normal way. My office contacted the Áras to see when the President would be available and that was the time when we were both available. The Taoiseach or the Minister for Justice and Equality must go and, obviously, the President has to be there also. There was no undue pressure put on the Áras whatsoever to speed this up.
I did not ask that.
He is shadow-boxing.
It is very much the norm that when a judge is nominated, he or she is appointed by the President, often within a matter of days and sometimes within a week or two, for the obvious reason that someone cannot take new cases the minute he or she is nominated.
Am I to take it from that response that whereas the threat to bring down the Government was not made directly to the Taoiseach, it was, in fact, made to another Minister?
I only know about that from the newspapers. Absolutely no threat was made to me in either telephone conversation on that particular Sunday. The Judicial Appointments Commission Bill was due to be in the Dáil on 20 June anyway and was actually put back a bit.
There is a bit of shadow-boxing.
Has the Taoiseach ascertained or established with his colleagues if there was a threat to bring the Government down? That is what I am asking.
If I had to ascertain with Government Ministers every piece of gossip that appeared in the newspapers, I would have no time to get any work done.
I call Deputy Howlin.
It is a rather standout piece of gossip.
There are 20 things every day if one actually reads the papers.
Deputy Howlin to conclude on the matter.
The Taoiseach told the House last week that the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill would be in the House on Thursday of this week. When was it determined that the Bill should begin its passage today? Was it part of an agreement with the Minister, Deputy Ross, to bring it forward because only seven days ago it was to be in the House on Thursday? Is there any understanding at Government level between the Taoiseach and the Minister, Deputy Ross, on amendments to the Bill or is the Bill open to any amendment from any side of the House before it passes? Is there to be any timeline on the available space for the House to enact the legislation?
The Bill was due to be in the House on 20 June. That was the case several weeks ago when we were in discussions with the Independent Alliance on the election of a new Taoiseach and Government. It was delayed a week because Deputy Charles Flanagan, who was newly appointed as Minister for Justice and Equality, did not want to take it on his second or third day in office. It was put back a week rather than rushed forward, which is the impression that some people have created. It was due to be in the Dáil on 20 June. We have no understanding on amendments and any amendments put forward will be considered case by case basis in the normal way by the Minister for Justice and Equality. The Bill is provided for in the programme for Government which stated specifically more than a year ago that we would introduce a judicial appointments Bill providing for a lay chair and a lay majority. We would be going against our own programme for Government as agreed by Fine Gael, the Independent Alliance and Independents if we were to support amendments which changed that aspect of it.
What is the timeline for enactment?
The timeline is dependent on the House. There are nine and a half hours provided for Second Stage and it can be on Committee-----
If Deputies are offering at the end of that, it will just go on.
No one has requested a guillotine.
Northern Ireland
Micheál Martin
Question:8. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken to Prime Minister May, First Minister Arlene Foster and Deputy First Minister Michelle O'Neill since 8 June 2017; the issues they discussed; and if there was an update on setting up the Northern Ireland Assembly. [27553/17]
Seán Haughey
Question:9. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the commitments in the programme for Government on Northern Ireland. [27558/17]
Brendan Howlin
Question:10. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach his plans to engage with political leaders in Northern Ireland. [27641/17]
Gerry Adams
Question:11. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, Ms Arlene Foster, on 16 June 2017. [28794/17]
Micheál Martin
Question:12. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the meetings that were held and the issues that were discussed during the visit by political delegations from Northern Ireland on 16 June 2017. [29052/17]
Eamon Ryan
Question:13. Deputy Eamon Ryan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meetings with DUP and Sinn Féin delegations regarding the re-establishment of the Northern Ireland Executive and Brexit. [29791/17]
Joan Burton
Question:14. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meetings with the leaders of the DUP and Sinn Féin on 16 June 2017. [29837/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 to 14, inclusive, together.
I had separate meetings with DUP party leader, Arlene Foster MLA, and her colleague, Simon Hamilton MLA, and with a Sinn Féin delegation including Michelle O'Neill MLA and Deputy Gerry Adams in Government Buildings on 16 June. In my discussion with the DUP, we spoke about a range of topics, including Brexit, their negotiations with the Conservative Party and LGBT rights in Northern Ireland. In the meeting with Sinn Féin, our discussions included its concerns around Brexit, an Irish language Act and its views regarding Irish unity. In both meetings, we discussed a wide range of issues, including the urgent need to re-establish the Northern Ireland Executive, noting the deadline of 29 June for completion of negotiations. There was also agreement on the importance of a functioning Executive in the context of the Brexit negotiations which started on Monday, 19 June. I made it clear that my Government and I would work in support of the Northern Ireland parties to re-establish the Executive and in pursuit of strong North-South relations, including through the North-South Ministerial Council. I stressed the objectives of ensuring Brexit does not impact negatively on the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process and of protecting North-South trade and economic activity, the common travel area and associated reciprocal rights. I raised the ongoing discussions with the DUP on the formation of a new Government in London, which is a matter for the parties represented at Westminster, noting the need to avoid any outcome which could interfere with devolution and the prospects of re-establishing the Executive.
As reported in the Programme for a Partnership Government Annual Report 2017, the Government continues to engage with the British Government and the political parties in Northern Ireland to support the power-sharing institutions of the Good Friday Agreement, including through the current talks process to address outstanding commitments from previous agreements and support the formation of a new Executive. I made a comprehensive report to the House on my contact with Prime Minister May since 8 June during Question Time in the House on 21 June.
There is very little information available on the current status of discussions in Belfast. It is clear, however, that the absence of an Executive and assembly in Northern Ireland has left it deeply exposed during the Brexit process in London. It is my firm view that the institutions should never have been collapsed in the North and that we are going through a very cynical exercise prior to the inevitable restoration of both the assembly and the Executive. There is a clear majority in the assembly against a hard Brexit and in favour of doing everything possible to recognise the special status of Northern Ireland and its residents. Equally, the DUP no longer has the numbers to block things with a petition of concern. Anything which delays the re-establishment of the institutions will further undermine Northern Ireland's influence and leave matters totally in the hands of the Tories and the DUP.
In her meetings with the Northern parties after the election, the British Prime Minister met the leaders of all five main parties. In contrast, the Taoiseach chose to limit his meetings to the largest two. Will he explain this highly unusual decision and why he has allowed a situation to develop where, implicitly, he is seen to exclude those who represent nearly half the population in the North?
In terms of yesterday's deal, I welcome the additional £1 billion. It is welcome and we should have the capacity to welcome it. The people of Northern Ireland need it. However, the language around the deal could have been more reassuring. It should have included an explicit statement that no matter relating to the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement or the workings of the institutions can be raised in the context of that DUP-Tory co-ordination. That reassurance was not provided. There is also language which suggests a subordinate role for Dublin. That should not be there. Will the Taoiseach confirm if any of this text was discussed in advanced with him or his officials prior to its being signed off on.
Has there been a change in strategy in respect of Brexit on the part of the Government? I refer, in particular, to the remarks of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, on special designated status for Northern Ireland. That is the position of Dáil Éireann, as voted upon. Is that a new position of the Government's and are we in fact now seeking a special designated status for Northern Ireland?
All of us would welcome the deal between the Conservative Party and the DUP in some respects. An extra £1 billion pounds in investment for Northern Ireland must be welcomed. Northern Ireland has very special circumstances. However, now that, for obvious reasons, it is at the top of the political agenda as far as the UK Government is concerned, will the Irish Government step up to the plate and make Northern Ireland a priority in order that we might seek to implement all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement? Is the Taoiseach concerned about other aspects of the deal between the Conservative Party and the DUP undermining the Good Friday Agreement? Will the UK Government remain impartial as regards the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement? Is there a concern that the DUP may have issues that are not in the interests of the nationalist community brought to the top of the agenda?
Is the Taoiseach concerned about the polarisation of politics in Northern Ireland following the recent Westminster elections? Moderate voices were swept aside in may ways. If we implemented the Good Friday Agreement and stepped up to the plate, moderate voices would be allowed to be heard again.
Time is tight. I have a direct question for the Taoiseach. He has met the DUP and Sinn Féin. As of now, what is his best assessment of a deal being reached by Thursday? What is his view of what should happen in the event that no deal is reached? Is it that there would be a further delay to allow for more talks, direct rule or assembly elections? Which of those is his favoured option in the event that there is no deal? What is his best assessment now of a deal?
I will try to say this as moderately as I can in order to allay the fears of some. Will the Taoiseach explain to me the basis of his statement at last week's Council meeting to the effect that the British might change their mind on leaving the customs union? Was that just him thinking out loud or was it based on something he had picked up from the British or heard from one of the negotiators?
In the short time available, I wish, if I might, to make a point. Quite correctly, concerns around partiality and the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement have been raised in the context of the deal the DUP has cut with the Tories. I bring the attention of the House to the fact that the DUP has now signed on for the Tory Brexit agenda in its confidence-and-supply agreement. We need to be very concerned about that. We welcome the £1 billion, should it materialise. Funnily enough, the figure tallies precisely with that which has been cut from the block grant, as it is called, over the past five to six years. However, lest there be any naïveté or misunderstanding as to the intentions of the Tory Brexiteers, it is to exit the Single Market, to exit the customs union and to end the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union. I was intrigued, therefore, by the Taoiseach's comments in respect of their changing their minds and staying in the customs union. I really hope that the Taoiseach is not engaging in that type of wishful thinking because it will not serve us well.
In his discussions with the DUP and Sinn Féin, did the Taoiseach discuss community relations? At the moment, community relations are probably at their lowest level in a long time. People are in separate silos in terms of the political administration. I am speaking about people who care about community interests and things such as integrated schooling and what happens to children who live in the North, about the poisonous and toxic atmosphere that now exists between the DUP and Sinn Féin and about whether the Taoiseach, in his new role, tried to detoxify what has become a very hateful and negative political environment. It is really depressing for people in the North when elections are simply reduced to sectarian headcounts.
I will start from the top. I met the DUP and Sinn Féin, which have been the two largest parties in Northern Ireland for two elections running and which are the main unionist and nationalist parties. I spoke to the leader of the UUP by telephone and we are making arrangements for me to meet delegations from the SDLP and the Alliance Party as soon as that can be done. However, as the House is aware, the focus has been on the talks at Stormont. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, has been there for most of this week and last and has been regularly meeting all the parties.
The issues in terms of Northern Ireland are unique and are well recognised as being unique. Every country has a trading relationship with the United Kingdom. Some countries such as Denmark, The Netherlands and France have major trading relationships with the United Kingdom and they will be impacted by any new trade rules. Perhaps not to the extent we will be, but they will be majorly impacted. We have a unique issue because of the land Border with Northern Ireland and the peace process, which is very much understood in other European capitals and in the European institutions, and that is why we will need unique arrangements to deal with our situation. Whether it is referred to as special status, special arrangements or special measures does not really matter. It is not what is on the tin but what is in the tin that matters. In any conversations that we have had, we have tried to focus on what that will mean.
To answer Deputy Howlin's question, I am optimistic. I am certainly more optimistic than I am pessimistic that it will be possible to have the Executive and the assembly re-established before the deadline. I do not wish to contemplate what will happen if the Executive is not re-established.
Presumably the Taoiseach has expressed a view. Not to be taken by surprise-----
As the Deputy knows, either would require legislation. I would not wish to see or support a return to direct rule. Nor would I see any purpose being served by another election. That is why I do not wish to contemplate either of those outcomes being the case.
Deputy McDonald asked about the UK changing its mind on the customs union. I suppose I was expressing an aspiration. She may remember that a similar aspiration was expressed by President Tusk when he suggested that he may be a dreamer but he is not the only one. When it comes to these things, it is important to hope for the best and to work towards the best outcome but also to prepare for the worst. We are doing both. Given the tight parliamentary arithmetic that exists at Westminster, anything could happen in the next number of months. We need to be cognisant of that too.
And here too.
In our conversations, we did not have any detailed discussions on community relations. It was touched on but we did not discuss them in any particular depth. Having read the confidence-and-supply agreement between the Conservative Party and the DUP, I was particularly struck and disappointed by the fact that funding for shared education can now be reallocated to other purposes. That is an unfortunate step in the wrong direction in that particular agreement.