Joan Burton
Question:1. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach when Cabinet committee A, economy, last met. [13572/18]
Ceisteanna - Questions
Cabinet Committee Meetings
Mary Lou McDonald
Question:2. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach when Cabinet committee A, economy, last met; and when it is scheduled to meet again. [15858/18]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:3. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach when Cabinet committee A, economy, will next meet. [16370/18]
Brendan Howlin
Question:4. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach when Cabinet committee A, economy, last met; and when it will next meet. [16461/18]
Michael Moynihan
Question:5. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Taoiseach the Cabinet committee in which agriculture is discussed; and when it last met. [16522/18]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
Cabinet committee A covers issues relating to the economy, jobs, the labour market, competitiveness, productivity, trade, the Action Plan for Rural Development, the digital economy and pensions. There has been significant progress on these issues since the start of the year, including the publication of the roadmap for pensions reform, the launch of the Action Plan for Jobs 2018 and the publication of the review of Enterprise 2025, the Government's medium-term enterprise policy. The last meeting of Cabinet committee A took place on 18 January. The next meeting has not yet been scheduled.
Issues related to the agriculture sector are discussed as required in Cabinet committee A - enterprise and rural affairs issues; Cabinet committee C - Brexit; and Cabinet committee D - climate action and the national planning framework. As with all policy areas, agriculture issues are regularly discussed at full Government meetings where all formal decisions are made. It was discussed this morning.
As there are so many people asking questions, we need to stick to the time allowed.
I understand the Government is publishing the stability programme update this afternoon at 3 p.m. I presume it is being done right now. There was a practice introduced by the previous Government. The then Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan, and I introduced what we called the spring economic statement. Last year, it became the summer economic statement. When will the spring or summer economic statement be published and when will the amount of fiscal space available for October's budget be known? The objective was we would have a clear indication of the fiscal space available at this time of the year so we could have a proper debate. It is doubly the case when we have an Oireachtas committee that is supposed to scope out the options for Government and democratise the Government process. Is that still to be the case? I understand from reading the Sunday Independent, the Government plans to change its budgetary stance and move away from tax cuts towards funding what is described as working family social PRSI benefits such as childcare, parental leave and so on. Is that true? Will we have press releases determining these matters or will we have a debate on options within the Oireachtas as we envisaged? A new schools capital programme was published last week to deal with schools in population-pressure zones which caused great consternation to schools that have been waiting many years for very significant refurbishment and replacement schools. Will there be an additional capital plan to deal with that?
Other speakers have mentioned the real distress and pressure the ongoing fodder crisis is causing. Farmers are paying at least double the normal cost of feed which is an unbearable pressure for them. It is a scandalous situation. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine met in emergency session last week but the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Creed, has yet to outline any comprehensive plan to deal with the fodder shortage. That needs to happen urgently. Unfortunately, he was not in the Chamber today. The Minister said last week that he was prepared to talk to banks about credit for farmers and was prepared to pay for the transport of silage from one end of the State to the other. He also said he would not issue vouchers for feed concentrate to alleviate the very real animal welfare problems.
Teagasc advised subsidy of, and access to, these meal concentrates. My colleague, Deputy Martin Kenny, asked that the Minister start paying the 15% outstanding green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, payments. That is a very sensible suggestion. Will the Minister do that? He should pay the farmers now because the need is real and acute. His prime responsibility is to Irish farmers who are in crisis, not to the EU rules. The transport subsidy scheme has been a failure and has merely resulted in the price of fodder rising and in spreading the shortage. Had the Minister spent the same amount of money on vouchers for meal as he spent on the transport subsidy and as advised by Teagasc we would not be in the situation we are now in. The Taoiseach did not respond to the earlier questions on this subject. I await his response and hope it will be more positive than that from the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Doyle.
It seems to me that the most elementary function of a government in order to have a functioning economy is that its citizens can exist in that economy at the most basic level. Students from Dublin City University, DCU, gathered outside Leinster House today because they have been asked to suffer an increase in rent from €4,500 per year to €8,700. For many that means they will leave education.
An open letter was written today by a student nurse who is leaving nursing studies because after paying for her accommodation and her bills she has €4 a week left to live on. Even somebody on average industrial earnings is paying 70% of their income to meet average rents, which are now between €1,800 and €2,000 in Dublin city.
Does the Taoiseach recognise that if students, people on low income, nurses and a vast number of our citizens cannot put a roof over their heads we have a serious economic problem? Does he recognise how serious the problem is? Talking about limiting rent increases to 4% against that background is worse than useless, a futile exercise in closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Does he not need serious emergency measures to bring the cost of accommodation down to a level where people can exist?
For the past month or three weeks there has been enormous pressure on agriculture. People say there have been 12 dry days since 23 July 2017 resulting in a crisis. The agriculture industry is fantastic. Yesterday, my constituency colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Creed, announced the reopening of the Chinese market. Many people, officials, Ministers and successive Governments have worked extremely hard for a long time to get everything right but none more so than the farmers, the primary producers, who have adhered to the highest possible regulations in the way they conduct their business. The majority of farmers are excellent at what they do and produce a top quality product. We must make sure we have sustainable agriculture.
Yesterday, at a Dairygold meeting, a farmer told me that the former Minister in the Department, Deputy Coveney, had said six or seven years ago that there were exciting prospects for agriculture. There was nothing exciting about it yesterday when 2 inches of rain were falling. Herds face health challenges and farmers and their families are under real pressure. The weather pattern is that when autumn is very wet there will be a late spring, although this is not scientific. The Department has to have a unit to prepare for this type of crisis. It is only five years since the last one. There was one in 1985-86 and in 1998-99. The crisis needs to be considered holistically and not just in an immediate way.
Has the economy committee in the Department of Finance undertaken any work on the impact of quantitative easing on economic performance? What is the likely impact of the unravelling of the quantitative easing over time on interest rates and our economy? I think there are issues bubbling in the background that have not been properly interrogated, notwithstanding other medium-term risks.
I share Deputy Howlin's concerns about schools. There seems to be a woeful lack of planning in the announcement of schools. Many schools announced four or five years ago in my constituency and around the country are on split sites or in prefabs. There is no planning and they are in crisis because they have no accommodation or very poor accommodation. It baffles me that those schools, which have heard the type of announcements we heard last week, have not been prioritised although many of them are in dire straits, because there is a lack of follow through.
The Government has a tendency to fail to act on a problem until it becomes a crisis. That tendency is manifested in housing, health and the fodder crisis. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine said a couple of weeks ago that there is no issue with fodder and it is a simple matter of transporting it around the country. A week later the co-operatives imported fodder from Britain. Something that could have been dealt with much earlier was allowed to become a crisis causing much stress and strain to the farming community.
The stability programme update, SPU, will be published this afternoon. The Minister for Finance is doing that in line with new procedures. He will then consult with the budget oversight committee thus giving the Oireachtas an opportunity to engage with him on the SPU. We do not yet have a date for the summer economic statement but there will be one and it will be in the summer.
It will be in May or June, I suspect, but we do not have a date for that as yet.
Will the Taoiseach guarantee the weather as well?
I wish I could.
Is the Taoiseach promising a summer?
The forecast is looking good for the next few days anyway. I am looking forward to it. It is going to be a good weekend.
Notwithstanding speculation in newspapers, the Government's overall budget policy remains unchanged. It is to be prudent first of all and to continue to reduce the deficit. We still have a deficit so we will continue to reduce it and also the debt. While our debt has come down, it is still very high. Our national debt works out at roughly €45,000 per person. That is a consequence of the financial crisis and the lost decade, which Members will have heard me speak about before. When we entered the financial crisis, the debt per head in Ireland was approximately €15,000. Although we are in a good position, with the economy being strong, with the fall in the deficit and in unemployment and with incomes rising, and with all such trends going in the right direction, the country is still dealing with many legacy issues, not least the enormous debt placed on the heads of people. It now stands at €45,000 per head. As well as reducing the deficit, we need to reduce the debt. The most important thing is that the Government will be prudent in the decisions it makes on budgets. We will not adopt the policy of the past – the if-I-have-it-I'll-spend-it procyclical economic policy. I encourage Opposition parties not to go back to that philosophy in their demands in the run-up to the budget. After that, it will be matter of investing on a two-to-one basis in favour of investment and public spending. I refer to spending on infrastructure and public services. It will also be a matter of finding some space for tax reductions, particularly focusing on middle-income earners and the fact that people on very modest incomes pay income tax at the highest marginal rate. The average person working full-time in Ireland earns €46,000 per year. If he gets a pay rise, does a bit of overtime or gets an increment or promotion, he finds more than half of it is taken away in income tax and PRSI. We would like to raise the threshold further and allow more people to keep more of their hard-earned money.
With regard to the fiscal space, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, prefers not to speak of that and instead prefers to talk about the fiscal stance, which takes into account issues wider than the question of how much money is available to allocate. I refer to the deficit, for example. We would all agree that no matter what the fiscal space is, we should not have a higher deficit next year. The economy is going well. When the economy is going well, one should try to reduce and eliminate the deficit so there will be some headroom should the economy slow down. No matter what the fiscal space is, we should still try to reduce or eliminate the deficit. We should still be trying to reduce the debt. That is why we have put forward the concept of the rainy-day fund, or of setting aside some money for a downturn in the economy, if it occurs.
A Fianna Fáil proposal.
It is ours as well.
It is a bad proposal.
Great minds think alike sometimes. It is a good proposal because we do not want to go back to the mistakes of the past whereby, in a downturn or slowdown, public spending was reigned in and people were asked to pay more taxes at the worst time for them.
We had a pension reserve fund of €25 billion.
In terms of what is available to allocate in the budget, it is important to state most of what may appear as so-called fiscal space is already allocated. We have already announced that capital expenditure will increase by €1.5 billion next year. That means extra money for housing and health care, such as the children's hospital. The cost of that really falls into next year. There is to be further investment in transport. This is good expenditure but it is already committed. Also to be considered is the impact of increased public sector pay. There is a further pay increase for public servants in October. The full-year cost of that next year has to be borne in mind. This is good spending. It is extra money for teachers, nurses and gardaí but it does mean the money has to be taken out of the budget for next year. Also, there is the full-year cost of the increases in social welfare for jobseekers, lone parents, the disabled, carers and other groups who have seen a welfare increase in the past few weeks. The full-year cost of that has to come out of the allocation for next year also. Also to be considered are the demographic effects of an ageing population. There is to be an extra €200 million for pensions, and there is to be an additional health care cost. Taking into account the full-year cost of measures already announced and committed to, including the costs of demographics, pensions and health care, the figure amounts to well over €2.5 billion already. When one looks at the figures in that way, one sees that what is left to be allocated for new measures in the budget is quite small.
With regard to the capital plan for education, we are building more schools and providing more school places than ever before. In fact, we doubled the number of additional school places provided since 2010. Some 9,000 new school places were created in 2010. In 2017, we provided 18,000 additional school places. The capital budget of the Department of Education and Skills has increased by 56% since 2012. That is a major increase. It had been slashed by 40% between 2007 and 2010.
Prefabs are only ever a temporary solution. There are quite a few classes in prefabs in St. Mochta's in Clonsilla, which is in my constituency, but that is because a whole new school is being built. The children are in the prefab while the school is being rebuilt. Back in 2008, at the height of the so-called Celtic tiger, when there were many fewer children in school, there were 2,000 prefabs. Now, after a big-----
Ruairí Quinn's efforts.
----- increase in the number of students in school, and after a number of very difficult years, the number of prefabs has been reduced to 1,325. That contrasts significantly with the position in 2008, when there were more children in prefabs but fewer children in school. At that time, there was a much worse situation than currently.
With regard to the capital allocation for education, that is outlined in Project Ireland 2040. Some €8.4 billion has been provided for investment in school buildings. That is up from €4.9 billion in the previous ten years. In the last ten years, just under €5 billion was allocated for school buildings. That increases to €8.4 billion for the next ten years. That includes the prefab replacement scheme, commencing in 2019; the deep refurbishment of existing buildings; the modernisation of science and PE facilities, which is very important now that PE has become a subject for the leaving certificate; and also investment in digital technologies in schools.
Cabinet Committee Meetings
Joan Burton
Question:6. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach when Cabinet committee B, social policy and public services, will next meet. [13573/18]
Mary Lou McDonald
Question:7. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach when Cabinet committee B, social policy and public services, last met; and when it is scheduled to meet again. [15859/18]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:8. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach when Cabinet committee B, social policy and public services, will next meet. [16371/18]
Brendan Howlin
Question:9. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach when Cabinet committee B, social policy and public services, last met; and when it will next meet. [16462/18]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 9 together.
Cabinet committee B last met on 26 March and while the date of its next meeting has not yet been scheduled, it is likely to meet next month. The committee covers the areas of social policy and public service reform, including education, children, social inclusion, Irish, arts and culture, and continued improvements to and reform of public services.
Through the work of Cabinet committee B, the Government is keen to ensure policies and services not only protect the most vulnerable in society but also provide opportunities equally for all citizens to learn, work and prosper, irrespective of gender, race or social status.
The Cabinet committee aims to ensure a co-ordinated approach to the delivery of commitments in A Programme for a Partnership Government and provide the opportunity to shape proposals on issues such as equality, disability and disadvantage, which require input from multiple Departments.
Recent measures advanced include ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with a Disability, which will come into effect on Thursday; gender equality measures; and implementation of structures and funding to support the North East Inner City Initiative, which seeks to bring a transformational change to an area that has struggled with deprivation for many generations.
Budget 2018 measures included an increase of €5 across all welfare and pension payments. Working family payment thresholds increased by €10 per week for low-income working families, and the national minimum wage was increased to €9.95 per hour.
A social impact assessment of budget 2018 conducted by the ESRI confirmed that these measures are effective in ensuring everyone is benefiting from the recovery. It also finds a similar progressive pattern in budget 2017 measures, with the biggest gains going to those on the lowest incomes.
There is obviously a broad array of questions that I could ask. I will just focus on the issue of pensions reform because I know the Government published a roadmap on it recently. The Oireachtas has been waiting since last year for Government amendments to the Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registration Bill to deal with issues that affect defined-benefit pension schemes, in particular. The Taoiseach will be aware that there are ongoing and growing numbers of disputes over pensions provision. He will know the controversy over the CIÉ pension scheme. There is a certain irony in that the staff of Irish Life, the largest pensions provider in the State, went on strike last week because their own defined-benefit scheme is to be suspended as and from June. When will the legislative provisions to deal with these matters be advanced?
The Bill is in limbo since last year. Will the budget include provisions for auto-enrolment in pension schemes in order that robust provision can be made for people's pensions into the future? The Taoiseach will recall that we, in government, substantially changed the public pension scheme to make it affordable into the future. We need to have general provision throughout the economy for pensions into the future. Will there be a State contribution alongside contributions by employers and employees to ensure robust payments are set aside to provide properly for ageing citizens?
The Taoiseach stated that the aim of the committee is to protect the most vulnerable. I would like to return to the issue of housing and homelessness, which was raised in the previous batch of questions, because I think we can agree that those without a roof over their heads - individuals and families in homelessness - are among the most vulnerable. I understand the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government is bringing forward a new set of proposals. He believes they will tackle issues for tenants in the private rented sector and I hope he is right. The proposals include a rent register and an increase in the minimum notice period. We will support anything that is credible, progressive and has a prospect of working. We have been saying for a long time that tougher sanctions are needed for landlords using illegal notices to quit and for breaches of the rent pressure zone, RPZ, legislation. We welcome the fact that the proposed legislation will make it a criminal offence for landlords to increase rents in RPZs above the 4% cap, but this must also apply to letting agents, online rental platforms and to student accommodation. We have to make sure that new sanctions are enforced.
I would like to raise one glaring omission from the legislation, which is the Focus Ireland amendment. This would prevent buy-to-let landlords who benefited from tax breaks from seeking vacant possession if they seek to sell their property. We need to restrict the criteria for issuing notices to quit. Landlords can use them when a family member needs the property. This clause should be removed from the Residential Tenancies Acts. The proposed Bill is set to be first substantive piece brought forward by the Minister since assuming office almost a year ago. When will it be published? Will the Taoiseach confirm that it will include some of the measures I have described? Most important, contrary to his position in 2016 when Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil voted down the sensible and proportionate Focus Ireland amendment, will he ensure that the amendment is inserted in the legislation because it is necessary and it would be a tiny step in the right direction?
The Taoiseach did not answer my final question about the unaffordability of rent and accommodation and, therefore, I will try again. DCU students were protesting outside Leinster House earlier. They are being asked to swallow a 30% rent increase, bringing their rent up to almost €9,000 annually. This is because student accommodation was not covered by the Government's inadequate rent cap legislation. Will the Taoiseach do something for the DCU students and other students who will be unable to continue their studies if they are asked to swallow these rent increases? Does he accept that a 4% rent cap is ineffective? Even the imposition of criminal sanction in the legislation mooted earlier by the Minister would be a futile, half-baked exercise in closing the door after the horse has bolted because the problem is rents are unaffordable. Will the Taoiseach please address this point? There is no point limiting average rents of between €1,800 and €2,000 in Dublin to a 4% annual increase. Rents need to be reduced to affordable levels. These average rents equate to 70% of the income of the average worker. That is not sustainable or payable. I mentioned the young student nurse who wrote an open letter to the Minister for Health about how nurses are going home at the end of the week in tears because they only have between €4 and €6 left in their pocket after they have paid their rent. I ask in all sincerity what the Taoiseach will do about that. If all the Government is promising is to limit unaffordable rents to 4% annual increase, that is a complete waste of time.
I have just been thumbing through an article by Tony Connelly of RTÉ regarding our economic growth figures. Apple iPhone exports account for 25% of our growth according to an IMF estimate. Earlier I asked the Taoiseach about quantitative easing and low interest rates. There is a great deal to be unearthed yet from our economic data in the context of a discussion on the economy. With regard to social policy and public services, the public, unfortunately, does not have confidence in a range of public services, with housing and health being the top two. The rental issue is, as has just been articulated, putting enormous pressure on people on a number of fronts such as young people who move to cities for work and so on. A significant proportion of their income goes on rent and they are left with little disposable income. The lack of security of tenure for many families has led to the homelessness crisis and continues to compound that. Fundamentally, there is a lack of supply. The Department of Finance conducted an analysis of the lack of action two years ago in the context of incentivising supply. That is needed. The rental market is contracting in some regards despite all the talk. The number of units available now is lower than two or three years ago and, therefore, we have a critical issue on the supply side that needs to be dealt with.
With regard to the health sector, we need honest budgeting and transparency at the core of what it will take to make sure people do not have to wait inordinate times to access basic treatment, surgery and consultants. The figures, unfortunately, have not improved by any significant yardstick.
The Taoiseach can only take three minutes to respond to these questions because we are running out of time.
I will cover as many as I can. I will begin with Deputy Howlin's questions on the roadmap to pensions reform that has been agreed and published by Government. I am committed to this. I started this work as Minister for Social Protection and I am keen to drive it through to completion if I have the opportunity to continue in my current office. We have run into some difficulty getting it right when it comes to further protections for defined benefit, DB, schemes. We still intend to have the legislation processed before the summer recess but we want to protect members and former members of DB schemes in such a way that this does not put companies out of business. Legislation that would put the entire deficit on the shoulders of the employer could put companies out of business in many cases and, as a consequence, cause people to lose their jobs and their pensions. In other cases, and this would apply to semi-State companies, in particular, while it might not put a company out of business, the legislation would make the company's debt so high that it would be unable to invest anymore. That would have a serious impact on the public good because large State-owned enterprises need to be able to borrow to invest in infrastructure and if they cannot do so because the pension scheme deficit has to be put on their balance sheet, that would create huge problems for society. Whatever we do, we have to get it right. We are not quite in the position that we have that right but we are still working on it. We anticipate having a social welfare and pensions Bill enacted before the summer recess.
Auto-enrolment will commence in 2021 and it will be very much targeted at the private sector.
Nearly everyone in the public sector has a pension, a reasonably good pension in most cases, and pays into the fund. Two thirds of those in the private sector have no pension provision, other than the State pension. That is an enormous inequality with which we need to deal. We are setting the date at 2021 because we need time to prepare. First, we need to put the legislation and systems in place. We also want to give employers, employees and their unions notice that this will happen. If employers or employees are required to pay into a pension scheme fund, that will impact on business plans and wage demands. We want to give people good notice. As part of our renewed and deepened engagement with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, and IBEC, we are working very closely with them on these proposals because we want to do it on a tripartite basis, with the Government working with employers and unions to get it right. It will not work without support from IBEC and ICTU. We are very keen to have them on board.
It is intended that there will be a State contribution roughly similar to what is available under the current tax relief system. Roughly one third of whatever contribution an individual makes would be the State's contribution. We intend to publish a straw man proposal - a rough outline - in June as to how this will work and allow people to comment on it. Giving people in the private sector decent pensions is one of the really big changes we could make. Two thirds of them have no pension provision beyond the State pension. If we can do this, we will have done a good service for them when they retire. It will not make a huge difference for those who are now in their 50s or 60s, but it will make a huge difference for persons who are now in their 20s, 30s and 40s. It is a big long-term change and reform with which I want the Government to be associated.
I am sorry, but we will have to proceed to Question No. 10.
There is still no answer to the question on housing, despite it being asked twice. There were three minutes spent on one issue. Could it be spread out a little?
Can we take two minutes from the next slot?
I am easy. Do Members want to take it? There are just nine minutes remaining.
There are only nine minutes remaining.
I can try to answer the rest of the questions.
We can move on to the next ones.
Can we, please, have the answers to the next questions?
Taoiseach's Meetings and Engagements
Seán Haughey
Question:10. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Chancellor Angela Merkel on 20 March 2018 in Berlin; and if he discussed corporate tax rates and the European Commission proposal for a digital tax with the chancellor. [13797/18]
Micheál Martin
Question:11. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Chancellor Merkel; and the issues that were discussed. [13927/18]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:12. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Chancellor Merkel on 20 March 2018. [13943/18]
Eamon Ryan
Question:13. Deputy Eamon Ryan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with Chancellor Merkel. [13952/18]
Brendan Howlin
Question:14. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Chancellor Merkel on 20 March 2018. [13982/18]
Mary Lou McDonald
Question:15. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent engagement with Chancellor Angela Merkel on 20 March 2018. [14007/18]
Mary Lou McDonald
Question:16. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach the foreign visits he plans to undertake to the end of June 2018. [16168/18]
Brendan Howlin
Question:17. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the mayor of Chicago, Mr. Rahm Emanuel. [16665/18]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 to 17, inclusive, together.
I travelled to Berlin on 20 March for a bilateral meeting with Chancellor Angela Merkel as part of my strategic engagement with our European partners. We discussed preparations for the March European Council, including Brexit, trade, Economic and Monetary Union, EMU, and the tax challenges of digitalisation. I also took the opportunity to congratulate the Chancellor on her recent re-election for the fourth time.
On Brexit, we welcomed the previous day's agreement between the task force and the United Kingdom that a backstop for the Irish Border, agreed to in December, would have to be legally operative in the withdrawal agreement, to apply unless and until an alternative solution was agreed to. I took the opportunity to thank the Chancellor for her ongoing support and solidarity for our unique concerns arising from Brexit, especially the need to protect the Good Friday Agreement and ensure there would no be hard border on the island of Ireland.
I updated the Chancellor on my meeting with President Trump in Washington the previous week. As representatives of countries that both support free and fair trade, we shared concerns about the President's approach to steel and aluminium tariffs and looked forward to clarification on the exemption process for the European Union, which was forthcoming later that week.
On Economic and Monetary Union, we agreed on the importance of ongoing work by Finance Ministers, with a view to decisions in June in areas where agreement was strongest such as completing banking union and further developing the European Stability Mechanism.
On the tax challenges of digitalisation, we agreed that all companies, including large digital platforms, should pay their fair share of tax based on where value was created, not simply where a transaction happened. We will continue to engage actively with ongoing work at both Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, and EU level. I highlighted my concern that unilateral EU action had the potential to damage EU competitiveness and disadvantage smaller member states and also that it might result in a retaliatory response from the United States. We did not have a broader discussion about corporate tax rates, which are clearly a matter of national competence. Ireland's 12.5% rate is long-standing Government policy and remains the centrepiece of our competitive tax offering. The Chancellor and I agreed more generally that Europe must adopt a positive approach to digitalisation and that our approach should not be insular. That means a digital Single Market that is open, competitive and innovation-friendly, with high levels of protection for personal privacy and the free flow of non-personal data.
Our exchanges also covered bilateral relations, which are excellent. I look forward to the further strengthening of this relationship in the period ahead as we tackle the urgent demands of Brexit and play our part in shaping the European Union's response to new challenges and opportunities. This work will be guided by the comprehensive review of relations between Ireland and Germany that was published by the Tánaiste last Thursday. It is entitled, Ireland and Germany, A Wider and Deeper Footprint.
I also met the Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, on Easter Sunday for a brief courtesy call. As well as discussing the mayor's programme in Ireland, we discussed Brexit and political and economic developments in Ireland and the United States. After that, he attended the Leinster game in the Aviva Stadium as my guest.
Forthcoming visits include a speaking engagement in the university in Leuven on 26 April; the EU-Western Balkans Summit in Sofia, Bulgaria, on 17 May; and the European Council in Brussels on 28 and 29 June. A number of other visits are also envisaged. They will be announced once they are confirmed.
With the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, the Franco-German axis is becoming more central in determining the future of the European Union, the dynamics of which will change. It is welcome that the Taoiseach travelled to Berlin last month to meet the Chancellor. German support for the Irish position of avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland will be very important coming up to the June summit and perhaps the October summit too. I hope it is firmly in place. I know from my experience that Germans are very interested in the peace process and want to see it maintained. I hope the Taoiseach impressed on the Chancellor the important role small nation states have to play in the evolution of the European Union. He has stated we are willing to pay more into the EU budget post-2020, which is reasonable. His meeting took place against the background of a Commission proposal for a digital tax and the ongoing push for a consolidated corporate tax base and the harmonisation of corporation tax generally. There are also discussions on the reform of the eurozone and its governance. I know that the Minister for Finance, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, has allied Ireland with northern EU states in that regard. Did the Taoiseach impress on the Chancellor the tax rules and rates for individual member states and that there was to be no weakening of tax sovereignty as far as individual nation states were concerned? If he did, what was the Chancellor's reaction?
Yesterday the Government issued its latest Brexit briefing, which is startling since it seems to be already out of date. The bulletin points to the schedule of meetings in Ireland agreed to for the negotiations. What it does not state is that the schedule is already well behind. The most crucial meetings intended at co-ordinator level were delayed and are no longer due to be separated from other negotiations. I do not know whether the Taoiseach discussed that matter with the Chancellor. The bulletin also talks about the key issues being decided in June, but yesterday the Tánaiste admitted that there had been no substantive progress and said everything might fall apart. I know that conflicts with the Taoiseach's position and that he does not see a problem with everything being delayed until October. However, the Tánaiste has a different view. Will the Taoiseach tell me why the co-ordinators' meeting was delayed and if he was consulted about the move away from the agreed schedule of meetings? Will he explain if he agreed that the meetings would no longer be focused solely on Ireland but could be linked with a meeting on the overall final status negotiations? I am sure he will accept that this flies in the face of an earlier claim that negotiations on the backstop had been decoupled from negotiations on the final status of UK-EU relations.
Germany is the most powerful state in the European Union and probably the biggest supporter in Europe of the state of Israel. Does the Taoiseach ever raise questions with it about its policy of providing pretty much uncritical support for Israel, particularly given what has happened? Before the Easter break, I warned the Taoiseach in this House that innocent, unarmed protestors would be shot by Israeli snipers. That was two days before it happened and the Taoiseach did not answer the question. I asked him to speak up if people were killed, but the European Union has remained silent. Unarmed protestors marched to vindicate international law. The right to return is part of international law, as confirmed by United Nations resolutions. Some 34 unarmed Palestinians were shot for trying to assert their rights under international law.
No Israeli diplomats were expelled and there was no threat of sanctions or discussion of military strikes or other measures. Does the Taoiseach think he should speak up to the leaders of other European Union countries, Germany in particular, who do not like to criticise Israel, and tell them this is not acceptable and that Europe should take action and sanction Israel for this murderous activity?
I have raised on several occasions that this is an unsatisfactory way to deal with fundamental issues. The Taoiseach has in the past agreed with me that we must have a better structure for debate on Brexit issues. I want my party to be supportive of the Government position because it is in our national interest that, by and large, the House be united in terms of its thinking on and approach to this issue. Although I do not wish to be discordant, I am a little concerned that there seems to be a divergence of views coming from the Government. At the weekend, I heard the Taoiseach's view which gives comfort to those in the United Kingdom who are positing the position that it will be all right, we can have a normal relationship after Brexit and everything will be fine. Some in Britain are campaigning for the final settlement to be put to a vote. That is in our national interest and I hope that all Members will work to that end.
The Tánaiste, Deputy Coveney, has stated that if we do not see substantive progress on the alternative to a backstop by June, then we will not see it by October. However, the Taoiseach has stated that it will be grand if we do not see it until October. We must have much clearer, sharper and more joined up messaging. I would like the opportunity for us to debate these issues in the House such that we can all be on message and be clearer in the message we are giving to the United Kingdom authorities in particular.
I thank Deputy Howlin. There shall be no more questions or answers on this issue as the allocated time has elapsed.
Who groups the questions?
We will have to find a more satisfactory way to deal with this item of business because it is not working as currently structured.
There should be fewer questions and more time to answer them.
Who groups the questions?
Leaving party politics aside, when one has three minutes in which to answer 17 questions, one will only be able to answer two or three of them.
We will ask the Dáil reform committee to quickly-----
Who groups the questions?
-----look at this matter. The Department of the Taoiseach groups the questions but if they are all similar, one cannot go through them individually.
To give an example, Questions Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, were grouped together. Those questions were to ask the Taoiseach when Cabinet committee B will next meet and when it last met. It is fair to group those questions together but there still was not sufficient time to answer them because they were omnibus questions.
I acknowledge that we must deal with these matters.