Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:1. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach when Cabinet committee E, health, will next meet. [39620/17]
Ceisteanna - Questions
Cabinet Committee Meetings
Brendan Howlin
Question:2. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach when Cabinet committee E, health, last met. [39628/17]
Gerry Adams
Question:3. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach when Cabinet committee E, health, last met; and when it is scheduled to meet again. [40412/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
Cabinet committee E met on 12 September. A date for the next meeting is not yet confirmed. Cabinet committee E covers issues relating to the health service. As well as addressing current issues and challenges faced by the health service, the Cabinet committee will oversee the development of the Government's response to the Sláintecare report.
As I have previously stated, the Government agrees with the broad principles of the Sláintecare report, which align well with current policy direction in many cases. However, as recognised by the Oireachtas joint committee, further work is required on the costings and practical implementation challenges. In addition, the Government needs to consider the phasing and sequencing of the recommendations, given budgetary and capacity constraints.
The Minister for Health is developing a reform roadmap in response to the Sláintecare report by the end of the year and, in parallel, is establishing a programme office and recruiting a lead executive as recommended by the committee. The work will be taken forward under the auspices of the Cabinet committee.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach again about the Cannabis for Medicinal Use Regulation Bill 2016, whether it was discussed at the health committee meeting and the decision of the Government and its representatives on the Joint Committee on Health to support stopping the Bill even though it had passed Second Stage. As a doctor, how can the Taoiseach stand over a report that is essentially determined by a report from the Health Products Regulatory Authority, HPRA, which does not comprise doctors or experts in the field of medicinal cannabis, is 77% funded through fees from the pharmaceutical industry and led the committee to make a statement to the effect that "there is still a shortage of peer-reviewed evidence for the efficacy and safety of cannabinoid treatment for many conditions" while, at the same time, refusing even to take testimony from, for example, Professor Mike Barnes, honorary professor of neurological rehabilitation at Newcastle University, who wrote the authoritative report on medicinal cannabis for the British Parliament and said the exact opposite to what our committee said? According to Professor Barnes, while it is certainly true that more peer-reviewed work is always needed, it is untrue to imply that current evidence is inadequate, particularly given that there is considerable evidence of efficacy in the context of chronic pain and spasticity - both indications having licences in different jurisdictions - as well as nausea, vomiting, anxiety and childhood epilepsy.
That is just one example - I could quote more but I do not have time - of where the actual medical experts have given evidence, although ignored by the health committee, directly counter to the recommendations essentially inspired by the HPRA. I mentioned the IMO to the Taoiseach last week and he dismissed it as a trade union. It is a trade union of doctors compared with members of the HPRA, who are not doctors or experts. Will the Taoiseach continue to allow Fine Gael or, for that matter, Deputy Micheál Martin and Fianna Fáil, to block legislation which is backed up by medical and scientific evidence on medicinal cannabis?
I call Deputy Joan Burton in place of Deputy Brendan Howlin.
I want to raise a very pressing issue which involves relatively small amounts of money. It is the situation of hospices in Ireland, in our area of Dublin West, which serves Dublin 15, Dublin 7, much of County Meath and the rest of Dublin, and also the sister service in Raheny under the auspices of St. Joseph's hospice service. When the country was in financial collapse, the staff of the hospices, which are designated section 39 organisations, voluntarily took the parallel FEMPI pay cuts. Staff in hospices are qualified nurses, doctors and physicians and therapists of various kinds and are paid on HSE scales. The Taoiseach's Government is batting this back and forward. The amounts of money are relatively small. The Taoiseach's Government is refusing to fund the hospices to provide for the reinstatement of the FEMPI cuts that the doctors, nurses and home care teams, who we all praise, took. I do not think there is anybody in this Chamber who does not have personal experience of a hospice. Why has the Taoiseach and his Government failed to respond? He is passing the buck from himself to the Minister, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, who has a level of responsibility, and now onto the HSE with the Minister for Health not really being accountable on this. The hospice in Milford is affected by this. The general system of people dying, often in noisy wards in public hospitals, is completely replaced by the hospice movement providing for people in the terminal stages of illness with dignity and grace and with their families around them. I do not understand the Taoiseach's attitude. He is personally aware of the work of the hospices. I do not understand where his Government is coming from.
Given his former role as Minister for Health, I do not understand why the Taoiseach has cut €50,000 from the healthy babies initiative in Ireland which was used to promote breastfeeding. That is another issue.
I am struck by the almost laissez-faire approach of the Taoiseach and Government in the area of health. Did I hear correctly we were given a date for the last meeting but no date for the next? The number of people on hospital waiting lists in August increased for the month by 3,500 so we now have almost half a million people awaiting outpatient treatment. The Minister for Health tried to bury this bad news by releasing it late on a Friday evening. Trolley numbers are also up. August saw 7,781 admitted patients on trolleys. That is an increase of 27% on 2016. I do not know about anybody else but that fills me with fear and trepidation as we head through the autumn and into the winter time. The reality is the level of overcrowding now in our emergency departments remains at a record high. In the first eight months of 2017, 65,455 people admitted for care were on trolleys. That is up 7%. It is absolutely shocking. I have no sense of any plan emerging to deal with it. Yesterday there were 494 people on trolleys. In Cork, there were 50 patients in the ED and 51 in Limerick. It is very clear these people are being failed. What will the Taoiseach's commitment be in respect of the budget? I have heard him time and again offsetting his responsibilities to the HSE. We are all aware of the statutory function of the HSE but the Taoiseach is in charge. What plans does he have in the budget to recognise these crises?
Three weeks ago, my colleague, an Teachta Louise O'Reilly, published a proposal to establish Comhliosta, an integrated hospital waiting list management system, to try to tackle the waiting lists more efficiently and reduce waiting times. This would create a new model to maximise the capacity of the public hospital system. I recommend that initiative to Government.
As I will be discussing in a later question, the Taoiseach has a very well deserved reputation for believing in spinning every situation. I thought his performance yesterday was particularly good in terms of the question on health.
I thank the Deputy very much.
During Leaders' Questions, the Taoiseach cited the National Treatment Purchase Fund as an initiative that was delivering improvements. What he did not say was it was he and his Government that abolished and fought against its retention. James Reilly mothballed it in terms of waiting lists. Does the Taoiseach accept the policy of diverting money from the National Treatment Purchase Fund was wrong and that waiting times just went too long and that people are waiting far too long?
In terms of health policy in general, there is a bit of confusion. I will hear the Taoiseach's reply on it. The Taoiseach has clearly abandoned the compulsory insurance policy and White Paper, which we were promised in 2011. We were promised it up to about 2015 to 2016. Now we have the Sláintecare report. Other Deputies have mentioned the 645,000 people on waiting lists, emergency department overcrowding, huge problems across the board, 459 people on trolleys yesterday, the hospice situation and the situation of section 39 staff. We raised it with the Taoiseach and he has been very dismissive of it. They are in a really tough situation now. They took a cut at the time and they have not got the allocation from the pay award. They are meant to compete with the other hospitals and everybody else for staff on lower wages. It is not sustainable and it is wrong to put our hospices in that situation. I thought there would be big plans on health following the Taoiseach's election but I have not seen any. Is the Sláintecare report Government policy now or not? The Taoiseach used the phrase "the Government's response to Sláintecare" as if to say the Oireachtas had produced Sláintecare. What is Government policy or Fine Gael health policy because I cannot find it anywhere? Perhaps the Taoiseach will clarify that particular point for me.
The Taoiseach has four minutes to respond to all the questions.
I should point out that most of these were not issues that were discussed at Cabinet committee E but I will try to answer some of them if I can. The medical cannabis regulation Bill was not discussed at the committee. The Health Products Regulatory Authority, HPRA, formerly known as the Irish Medicines Board, has access to experts in pharmacology, medical staff and medical advice and the committee decided not to proceed with the Bill based on that advice.
On the pay question-----
And ignored all the other advice.
-----as relates to section 39, I understand it relates to bodies that are funded in the main, although not entirely, by Government, in which staff are not considered to be public servants. As a result of that, these bodies were given a block budget from which to pay their staff salaries but also to pay for other things and are not therefore bound by FEMPI, either on the way up or on the way down.
They were bound on the way down.
They did take the FEMPI cut on the way down.
They took the FEMPI cut.
The Taoiseach has one minute left.
Regarding people awaiting outpatient appointments, it is important to have a fuller understanding of what waiting lists and waiting times mean. More than half of those who are now waiting either for an outpatient appointment or for surgery wait less than six months. By the way, I do not think six months is anything to be proud of, but it is important to point that out. About a third of them wait less than three months. Therefore, even if everyone waited less than six months or less than three months, 500,000 people would still be on waiting lists. What is crucial-----
Is waiting time.
-----for individuals is how long they wait.
Of course.
It would actually be possible to have greater numbers on waiting lists, but people waiting less time.
We all know that.
The key thing to look at is the number of people who have been waiting more than three months or more than six months as the case may be.
It is encouraging that in August we saw a fall of 2,000 in the number of people waiting for inpatient operations and day-case procedures. It appears that traditional funding for the HSE and the dedicated funding for the NTPF had an impact on that. I acknowledge that was something Fianna Fáil sought in the confidence and supply agreement and it appears to be having some success. We need to consider whether additional funding will be required for that next year.
In response to the question on budget announcements, as I have said previously, the budget will be announced on budget day.
I understand the Taoiseach is taking Questions Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, in the names of Deputies Adams, who is being substituted by Deputy McDonald, Deputy Howlin, who is being substituted by Deputy Burton, and Deputy Micheál Martin, together.
Government Information Service
Gerry Adams
Question:4. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach when the strategic communications unit in his Department will be established; the number of staff that will be assigned to the unit; and the cost associated with its establishment. [39624/17]
Brendan Howlin
Question:5. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the establishment of a strategic communications unit in his Department. [39626/17]
Micheál Martin
Question:6. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the new strategic communications unit in his Department. [39659/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, together.
Communications is an essential part of effectiveness of any modern organisation. That is particularly true of Departments and public service bodies in all countries, given the impact of their activities on the lives of citizens. That is why communications should be treated as a strategic, whole-of-government activity which should be conducted to the same level of professionalism as any other activity, such as human resource management or financial management.
Ireland should aspire to meeting best international practice and we are seeking to draw on the experience of other countries in this regard.
The new strategic communications unit aims to help achieve that over time. It will be integrated entirely within the Civil Service structures in my Department, with the director of the unit reporting to the Secretary General of the Department. Needless to say, no political or party political work can be carried out by the unit.
A high-level working group, chaired by the Secretary General, will be established to ensure successful oversight and delivery of the work plan of the unit. Further cross-departmental oversight will be provided by the Civil Service management board.
The operating principles for the unit, as I mentioned, will ensure that it does not engage in any party political work.
The unit will convene briefings and consultations across Government, including with Ministers and wider stakeholders, as appropriate. A network of communications professionals from across Government will be developed to share best practice and develop continuing professional development for the communication function.
The unit has commenced work but further organisational change will be required before it is fully operational.
The current staff of the unit is made up of six serving public and civil servants, assigned on secondment or through reallocation of internal resources within the Department of the Taoiseach. It is headed by a director, on secondment from a State agency, at assistant secretary level. The other five staff have been reassigned from within the Department.
Further staff will be recruited, including through the assignment of three media and communications assistants, who were already in the process of recruitment, to fill existing vacancies through an open competition run by the Public Appointments Service. Staffing decisions on the unit will be made by the Department’s senior management.
Every effort will be made to avoid duplication with existing functions, both within the Department and across the public service. Indeed, one of the principal purposes of this initiative is to reduce duplication and increase whole-of-Government co-ordination.
As well as increasing the effectiveness and quality of communications, this will also lead to greater value for money and reduced expenditure overall.
As an initial step in the modernisation of communications, my Department conducted some research on existing communications activities, including the range of campaigns, brands and channels of communication used by different agencies, which have built up over many years under successive governments. The results of that research will be used by Civil Service management to help frame the workplan for the new unit.
Of course, most of the existing communication activities are an essential part of the work of State agencies, in areas such as transport, tourism, trade and investment promotion, food, energy and public health. Nevertheless, there are significant opportunities for building the effectiveness of that existing capacity, as well as for rationalisation.
This will ensure that the new approach to strategic communications will be cost neutral. In fact, it is likely to give rise to a significant increase in value for money and a reduction in overall expenditure over time.
Given that there would be no change of policy or direction from this Government on the Taoiseach's watch, it was probably inevitable that he would dedicate his efforts instead to a change of tack in terms of spin, presentation, the look of the thing and how it sounds to the public.
From the Taoiseach's response I have no sense as to the relationship between this strategic communications unit and him, as Taoiseach. What function does it serve for him as he goes about his business? Is this a souped-up PR function for him as Head of Government? He has not made that clear.
How can the Taoiseach claim this is cost neutral? The Taoiseach has gone further in saying that it will yield savings. I believe he said that six civil servants had been moved on secondment. Presumably those positions have not been backfilled. Presumably whatever work these individuals were doing within the system previously is left undone or else new folks have been recruited to do it. I ask the Taoiseach to clarify that for us.
Can the Taoiseach confirm that two members of the communications strategic unit travelled to London recently to meet officials in the office of the British Prime Minister? If they made that trip, what was its purpose? While I accept the absolute commonality of position between Fine Gael and the Tories, I wonder if that is the model the Taoiseach wishes to imitate or ape given the absolute mess his friends across the water are making of the negotiations and the communications on Brexit.
What are the implications of this unit for the established infrastructure of the Government press office and so on? Who does what?
The Taoiseach would want to expand on what he envisages as the role for this strategic communications unit. As he spoke, I actually felt he was really talking about something like a political propaganda unit because he indicated that the purpose of the unit was to get the good news to the people. Are we going to see the Taoiseach's photo on the side of a bus, announcing to the plain people of Ireland, "Be happy"?
The Deputy can rest assured that there will not be anything like that.
It all sounds like this is PR and spin.
I think I have seen her on a bus though.
He has confessed on many occasions to his particular love of the media and, I think, their corresponding appreciation of him. That is well known about him. It is a very good and important attribute in politics; many of us probably wish we had his skill in that regard.
The Taoiseach spoke about six people being employed. The head of the agency is a very fine public servant. His salary is quoted as being approximately €120,000. If their average salary is €70,000, it tops out at €420,000 just on salaries. Admittedly these are public servants moving from other jobs. However, presumably someone on a salary of €120,000 was not doing nothing previously and must have been doing something.
A story appeared in one of those media outlets he admires, the Irish Examiner. I am sure Deputy Micheál Martin admires it; I certainly admire it, given that it contains some of the best journalism in Ireland. It reported a potential €160,000 tender to find out the public's perception of the Government and to inform its work. This was a long story published last week. How is this not political research? How can asking about any government in any country at any time not be political research?
I think that is wrong. Will the Taoiseach clarify whether he is proposing to divert money to this project at a time when we have just heard sad stories about the health service?
Since he established this unit the Taoiseach has continued to change his story on what it is to do. Originally, it was supposed to be completely separate from the Government Information Service. He said that in the House but now he is claiming it will integrate fully with the Government Information Service. Originally, he admitted that it was his personal initiative. Now he claims that it is a standard Civil Service unit. He said in August it would employ two people and be cost neutral. Last week, in response to a parliamentary question, he outlined how it will have six staff and will save money into the future. Which is it? Could the Taoiseach clarify for us whether it is he who personally decided that the head and deputy head of the unit should take up their roles, and that neither of them is a permanent member of the staff of the Department of the Taoiseach? Did the civil servants come up with this proposal? Why were the positions not advertised? That is best international practice, which the Taoiseach has told us is behind all of this in the first place. Could he clarify why they are represented at meetings of political advisers if they are not political? If they are appointed to their role by the Taoiseach and not by the Secretary General, then they are political staff. The Taoiseach can dress it up any way he wants but that is the simple fact. That he keeps denying it just confirms in my view that he has been caught installing the largest political spin operation in the history of Irish Government. Could he explain, as Deputy Burton asked, the €150,000 that is to be spent on researching public attitudes to Government? Which subheads have been reduced in order to fund the staff of the unit and measures such as the market research, which is political by definition? There is no way one can demarcate that exercise from the political dimension. Could the Taoiseach also explain if there are changes being made to his Department's website and, if so, if that went to tender or if it is being done internally?
It is a little bizarre to hear Deputy McDonald talk about the absolute commonality between my party and the British Conservatives and then to talk about Brexit. My party is and has always been a very pro-European party that is committed to European integration. Up until very recently Sinn Féin wanted Ireland to leave the European Union. It opposed our entry into it and has consistently opposed every single European treaty.
1973.
At least when it comes to issues such as European affairs the Euroscepticism of the Sinn Féin Party very much mirrors the Euroscepticism of the British Conservative Party.
We are Eurocritical.
I am also a little bit amused to hear Deputy Burton refer to my love of the media and their love of me. On the rare occasion that I open the Sunday newspapers and flick through them I do not feel that they love me or that I love them for that matter.
Maybe not enough.
They are not that bad to the Taoiseach now.
I will move on and answer some of the questions. My view is that communication is a virtue. Citizens have a right to know what their Government is doing. They have a right to know the full story about what is going on and they also have a right to know how taxpayers' money is spent. There is huge fragmentation out there. One needs to just think of the number of different Departments and Government agencies and all the different logos and identities they have. If one asks people which bodies are Government bodies there is confusion as to whether it is a public body, an NGO or private body. There is confusion as to whether it is part of central government or if it is part of local government because we have seen such a massive proliferation of government in recent years
So it is an educational initiative for the public.
That is the kind of thing that we want to change; we want to move away from that fragmentation. It is something that has been done in Holland, where they took 200 different logos and identities and moved them into one so that people knew what was part of central government and what was not. It is something as well that they have done in Britain where they have saved money overall in having a single central government identity.
This is very strange.
Could the Taoiseach come back to Brexit? I think he is sinking.
In terms of the kind of information that may be of interest to Members, if they look at the total communication and marketing spend across Government it runs to about €170 million a year. A lot of that is totally legitimate. It includes the tourism marketing fund for Tourism Ireland. It also includes Bord Bia promoting Irish food abroad. It further includes public health messages encouraging people to avail of BreastCheck and other such measures. However, a lot of it is Departments and agencies promoting their own existence and to me that is wasteful and is not in the public interest.
Could the Taoiseach give us some examples?
Irish Water.
The Taoiseach should be allowed to speak without interruption.
I would like us to have a single central government identity so that people know what central government is and what it is not, what it is doing and what it is not, and what it is responsible for. I believe there is a deficit there and that deficit can be best addressed by being much more strategic in the way that we let people know what we are doing as a Government.
It was absolutely my idea to establish it.
It was.
Yes, absolutely it was my idea to establish it but, obviously, it is a Civil Service unit so the staffing was done by the Secretary General.
Did the Taoiseach suggest the head of staff?
I suggested the head.
The Taoiseach said-----
The Taoiseach did suggest a head. Are they attending-----
Yes, but I did not suggest any other staff and I have not been involved in tenders for research or making any particular decisions on staffing. In terms of the question on the subhead, the subhead is obviously the administration subhead of the Department.
Why were the positions not advertised?
It is not my role to decide how units are staffed within the public and Civil Service.
It most certainly is.
The Taoiseach should be allowed to speak.
On a point of order, the Government has made it clear that all positions in public bodies are to be publicly advertised and the Government made a big song and dance about it for the past five years.
And then broke it.
On a point of order.
No, hold on.
Is it the case that the staff attend political advisers' meetings?
I call on the Taoiseach to answer the question.
On a point of order.
Could Deputy Burton put her point of order?
There is a Public Appointments Service, which the previous Government indicated would be responsible for filling all staffing positions.
The Taoiseach will answer the question.
Those are not points of order, by that way.
I realise that but it was only afterwards that I realised it. I cannot think for them.
I will not be so presumptuous as to tell you how to do your job, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but it is of course within your authority to rule them out of order.
Hold on. What the Taoiseach is saying to me is that I knew what Deputy Martin and Deputy Burton wanted to raise as a point of order. I cannot think for them.
That is fair enough.
It is out of order.
I stand corrected, again. I have forgotten the questions now. They are so much more obsessed with my public relations than I am interested in them.
We are asking why the positions were not publicly advertised.
I do not know why.
I will leave it to the Taoiseach. There are no more points of order.
They are supplementary questions.
It is pretty normal for people within Departments to be reassigned to different roles.
Yes, but the Taoiseach appointed those people to this unit.
That has been the practice since the foundation of the State. Every role within a Department is not advertised.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, on a point of order.
No, we are moving on to the next question.
I asked a supplementary question about whether the communications staff attend meetings of political advisers.
And if they were in London?
Not that I am aware of.
Could the Taoiseach check it?
The Taoiseach is not aware of it.
British-Irish Co-operation
Gerry Adams
Question:7. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his engagement with the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Philip Hammond, on 31 August 2017. [39625/17]
Micheál Martin
Question:8. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his latest conversations or meetings or both with Prime Minister May and the topics they discussed, in particular regarding the Border between the State and the Northern Ireland. [39657/17]
Eamon Ryan
Question:9. Deputy Eamon Ryan asked the Taoiseach the talks he has had with the British Prime Minister on Brexit over the course of the summer recess. [39688/17]
Micheál Martin
Question:10. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will clarify his comments on not bringing forward proposals on the Border here in the event of a hard Brexit, in view of the fact that he informed Prime Minister May regarding his intentions on this; and the nature of her response to same. [40404/17]
Micheál Martin
Question:11. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has recently spoken to Prime Minister May regarding the ongoing negotiations in Northern Ireland to enable the Northern Assembly to be reconvened. [40407/17]
Micheál Martin
Question:12. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Prime Minister May on 25 September 2017; and the issues that were discussed. [40673/17]
Micheál Martin
Question:13. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if devolved responsibilities in Northern Ireland were discussed with Prime Minister May; and if there was concern regarding these responsibilities being put on hold in view of the fact that the Northern Irish Executive has not been established yet. [40674/17]
Gerry Adams
Question:14. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has had engagement with the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Theresa May, since 26 July 2017; if so, the issues discussed; and if the efforts to restore the political institutions in Northern Ireland was one of these. [40535/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 14, inclusive, together.
I met Prime Minister May in London on Monday last. We discussed the political situation in Northern Ireland and both the Prime Minister and I agreed on the need to have the power-sharing institutions restored as soon as possible. We repeated our strong message to the Northern Ireland parties to redouble their efforts to reach an agreement to re-establish the Executive. We reaffirmed our two Governments' commitment to protecting the peace process and the progress made in Northern Ireland in recent years.
During the meeting we also discussed the ongoing Brexit negotiations and the Prime Minister's speech in Florence last Friday. I indicated that my Government wanted to make sure that the close relationship built up between the two countries in recent years is maintained into the future, although Brexit is clearly an enormous challenge to that.
While the Florence speech contained some welcome elements we need to see more detail and, in particular, we need to see greater clarity on how we are going to avoid a border between North and South. In this context, I welcomed the Prime Minister's clear statement that physical infrastructure would be unacceptable.
Our meeting in Downing Street followed my meeting with the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, in Dublin on 31 August, when we also spoke about the serious issues arising from Brexit. During that meeting I underlined to the Chancellor the importance of making sufficient progress on the phase 1 issues currently under discussion. They are citizens' rights, financial matters, and, of course, the unique Irish issues. I also made clear the Government's objective that there should be no new impediments to the all-island economy that has been able to develop over the past two decades and which is a gain of the peace process that benefits communities across the island.
The Prime Minister's speech in Florence contained some welcome elements. I believe greater progress on the phase one issues is needed. I hope that the round of negotiations under way in Brussels can help move things forward and I look forward to meeting with other EU presidents and prime ministers in Tallinn tomorrow.
In respect of the Taoiseach's exhortation to all and sundry that the power-sharing institutions be re-established, it is the absolute intention and resolve of Sinn Féin to see precisely this happen. For it to happen, the issues of contention which had been agreed upon previously have to be addressed. We have set these issues out for the Taoiseach and his colleague, the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, in the clearest possible terms. I respectfully suggest that, rather than endlessly restating his desire for this to happen, the Taoiseach might set out for us what precisely he is doing to ensure that commitments are met around Acht na Gaeilge, a bill of rights, and funding for legacy inquests. As the Taoiseach knows, there are families that have waited decades simply for an inquest into the death, shooting or killing of a loved one. Not all of these families are republican or nationalist, lest there be any misunderstanding. Those issues need to be resolved. It is as clear as the nose on anybody's face that this is the case. When they are resolved, we will move forward with the institutions. The Taoiseach and others here like to play the game of saying Sinn Féin does not want the institutions. We want them. I would go so far as to say that the institutions are a necessary part of our journey as Irish republicans, committed to an equal society and a united Ireland.
On the issue of Theresa May and Brexit, the Prime Minister's speech in Florence clarified precisely nothing. What we have from Theresa May and the British system is lots of words and noise but no meaning. We need to move to a position where the British set out not some meaningless formula around "no return to borders of the past", but concrete propositions as to how we will protect the interests of Ireland, North and South. We must make absolutely sure that there is no border. It is not a case of highlighting the technology that might manage or ameliorate a border. We cannot afford a border, economic or otherwise, on our island.
In August, the Taoiseach unveiled his new Brexit policy in Belfast which, in spite of the enormous spin, amounted to saying that he was not going to propose anything until London had proposed something. After nearly a year and a half, he could have come up with something better than that. Without question, the Brexit debacle and mess is 100% the fault of the British Government. However, the lack of specifics in our position is becoming ominous. That is particularly dangerous in the context of Northern Ireland, where the Assembly and Executive are not running. Northern Ireland essentially has no coherent voice in respect of the Brexit negotiations.
I have been very critical of the collapse of the Executive and believe Sinn Féin was instrumental in contriving it. Given the enormity of Brexit and the extraordinary negative consequences emanating from Brexit for this island, it is incredible that the Executive and Assembly are still not up and running. While all parties have to contribute, including the Democratic Unionist Party, I do not buy what has been happening for the past nine months. This periodic, serial creation of crises in the Good Friday institutions and framework is not acceptable.
Deputy Martin's words demonstrate remarkable ignorance.
I have been there. I have been in negotiations with all parties.
I have been there with the Deputy.
Deputy McDonald was not. She was never in negotiations.
I have, and I have seen Deputy Martin at close quarters.
When I was Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy McDonald, was nowhere. What tended to happen was that certain people came out for the photo calls. The Deputy was never at negotiations with me or Shaun Woodward. Commitments that were given then were not dealt with or seen through. Every now and again it suits to create a crisis. There is a media acceptance of this which, at times, we all get a bit tired of. The endless crises, the suspension of judgment-----
The Deputy should get on the field and puck the ball.
We have the same sort of choreography going on there all the time, and the same drama and melodrama of meetings, and will the crisis be resolved?
This is really beyond stupid.
At the heart of it, there is a cynicism at play.
There is.
I have to put that on the record of the House. That said, it is particularly serious in the context of Brexit. That is the most serious issue facing jobs and the quality of life of people on this island. It should trump every other issue facing this island right now. Has the Taoiseach put it directly to the British Government that Northern Ireland needs special treatment in the context of Brexit? Has he raised the issue of a special economic zone? We have put forward the idea that Northern Ireland should have a special economic zone post-Brexit. That would respect the constitutional framework as laid out in the Good Friday Agreement.
The British Government has said it will implement the Good Friday Agreement in full. Has the Taoiseach asked it how it sees the agreement's provisions relating to the European Union operating into the future and particularly the fact that the largest cohort of EU citizens outside of the EU border will be in Northern Ireland post-Brexit?
In its recent position paper, Britain effectively tried to use Ireland as a hostage to win free access to the Single Market. Has the Taoiseach put it to the British Government that a failure to recognise the unique position of Northern Ireland is a departure from nearly 30 years of policy which secured and implemented the peace settlement?
It would be helpful if the Taoiseach would outline Ireland's strategy in respect of the continuing fallout from and discussion around Brexit. The British position now seems to be that they will leave, hard or whatever way, but that they will leave and will then seek to renegotiate on a single-country basis those arrangements that they had before. It is a version of having one's cake and eating it.
The sooner there is an Executive in Northern Ireland the better not just for the North, but for the whole island of Ireland. As we speak, Scotland and Wales have a voice in British constitutional and devolved government arrangements. Northern Ireland, which is likely to be the worst affected, has no voice at all. We get long lectures from Sinn Féin about its detailed positions.
They are the positions of nationalist communities and progressives in the North.
The real position is that there is a serious risk of the Northern economy suffering across the political divide. It does not matter which section of the community is in question. The Northern economy will be suffering.
Does the Taoiseach see merit in what was suggested by former MP, Mr. Mark Durkan, namely, using the various mechanisms and structure of the Good Friday Agreement to provide for North-South issues? This has received a very wide welcome across Northern Ireland, and on east-west issues also.
Could the Taoiseach also tell us, in the context of discussions we had earlier, why his strategic communications staff were in Downing Street? This was widely reported in the Irish media and it was tagged onto the Taoiseach's visit. What was happening there? Were they with the Taoiseach or were they an advance team for him?
There were not any staff of the strategic communications unit in Downing Street with me. If Members of this House do not know it already, they should not believe everything they read in the papers. That simply was not the case. Obviously, if there is a role for people to communicate what the Government is doing, it might be appropriate for them to be there. I am not saying it would not be appropriate. I am saying it did not happen. The Deputy should not believe everything she reads in the papers.
The strategic communications unit did have a role in producing a very good video about Ireland's Rugby World Cup bid, which was seen by about half a million people. It is entirely appropriate and right that the Irish people should know this bid is happening and that it is being backed by the Irish Government. It is not just an IRFU bid, but a national effort involving the GAA, the Government and the Administration in Northern Ireland. It was disappointing that the Northern Ireland Administration had to be represented by its chief civil servant, David Sterling, rather than by Arlene Foster and Michelle O'Neill, who should have been there.
Why is it only up to Sinn Féin to represent the people in the North? Is there not a responsibility on the part of the Taoiseach's party to do so?
I mentioned Arlene Foster as well. It is the strong view of Government that the Northern Ireland Executive should be functioning. People in Northern Ireland want and expect devolved government and it is important that Northern Ireland should have a unique voice. As Deputy Burton pointed out, there is a Scottish First Minister and a Welsh First Minister. There is a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly and they have a role in the constitutional process. There is somebody one can ring if one wants to talk to Scotland or Wales. The fact that Sinn Féin and the DUP have not come together to form a Government is letting down the people of Northern Ireland.
The Taoiseach should run in an election, put it to the people there and see how he gets on.
It is not good enough always to be asking others to make compromises. Politics is about compromise and Sinn Féin will have to make compromises to allow an Executive to be established.
On what, Taoiseach? On which element - legacy funding, an Ghaeilge? I ask the Taoiseach to set out where the compromises should be made.
The Taoiseach without interruption.
This is the constant pattern of the debate we have in this Parliament.
At least it is not scripted.
The only time the Deputy is not scripted is when she is interrupting.
The Taoiseach is so clever he does not need a script. He should set out the ways we should compromise.
Without interruption please, Deputy, or I will have to ask you to leave the House.
Is it any small wonder the people of Northern Ireland-----
Vote for us in massive numbers? No, it is not.
Is it any small wonder that the people of Northern Ireland do not have a First Minister or a deputy First Minister?
It is because we do not like corruption in Government.
Is it any small wonder the people of Northern Ireland do not have an Executive or an Assembly? It is because this is the attitude of Sinn Féin. They are constantly hectoring and making smart aleck remarks. There is a lack of temperance, a lack of respect for other people and an inability to listen or to compromise.
Tell us what we should compromise on. Is it the bill of rights?
I expect the Deputy to adhere to the Standing Orders of the House.
It should be of no wonder whatsoever that the people of Northern Ireland have no government and have no voice. The style of politics, debate and negotiation favoured by Sinn Féin is to interrupt people and shout them down-----
The Taoiseach would be an expert in that.
They shout them down and show total disrespect for anyone who does not share their views.
We will now move on to Priority Question No. 34 in the name of Deputy Ó Cuív. The Minister, Deputy Humphreys, is present.
What are we to compromise on? I will write to the Taoiseach and he can write back in reply. It is not a laughing matter.
I am laughing at the Deputy, not the issue.
I am not laughing at the Taoiseach. I do not find him funny at all.
The Deputy is very cranky today.
I am not cranky at all. I find the Taoiseach facile and dismissive on important issues.
Can the Members please stop? The Deputy is on her feet; she may as well leave.
Are the Taoiseach's questions over?
If the Deputy was listening, she would have ascertained that.
I assume the Taoiseach is leaving as well. Gabh mo leithscéal, Deputy Ó Cuív.
Tá fáilte roimh an Teachta.
What the Deputy is doing is very unusual and I find it wholly unacceptable.
I am not disturbing the House.
Deputy McDonald is disturbing the House. Please leave.
I am leaving.