Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 18 Sep 2018

Vol. 972 No. 1

Ceisteanna - Questions

Cabinet Committee Meetings

Joan Burton

Question:

1. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach when Cabinet committee C, European Union, including Brexit, last met; and when it is scheduled to meet again. [27644/18]

Mary Lou McDonald

Question:

2. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach when Cabinet committee C, European Union, including Brexit, last met; and when it is scheduled to meet again. [29286/18]

Eamon Ryan

Question:

3. Deputy Eamon Ryan asked the Taoiseach when Cabinet committee C, European Union, including Brexit, last met; and when it is scheduled to meet again. [29412/18]

Joan Burton

Question:

4. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach when Cabinet committee C, European Union, including Brexit, last met. [37674/18]

Brendan Howlin

Question:

5. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach when Cabinet committee C. European Union, including Brexit, last met; and when it is scheduled to meet again. [37751/18]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.

Cabinet committee C assists the Government in its ongoing consideration of Brexit. It also covers other EU and international issues and supports my participation as a member of the European Council. It last met on Thursday, 21 June in advance of the European Council on 28 and 29 June. This was the third such meeting of this Cabinet committee. The next meeting has not yet been scheduled.

Given the significance of Brexit and other EU issues, these matters are frequently discussed by the full Cabinet, including in detail at our meeting in Derrynane in July and again at this morning's meeting. I also meet regularly with individual Ministers or groups of relevant Ministers to focus on particular issues, including those relating to the EU and Brexit, with a view to seeing how the Government can best support delivery of priorities and commitments. Preparation for Brexit at official level in regard to the negotiations and in preparing for the potential consequences of the UK's withdrawal from the EU is intensive, with a range of interdepartmental and senior official groups meeting very regularly.

We are now entering the witching period with regard to Brexit when deals and compromises emerge, very often late at night. The Government is hinting heavily that a deal on the backstop is nigh and that Ireland is willing to compromise on the previously cast-iron backstop guarantee. Michel Barnier is speculating on "de-dramatising" the backstop. Does the Taoiseach agree that this is a period of maximum danger for Ireland, notwithstanding the valuable solidarity offered to us by our colleagues in the EU? From a democratic point of view, the Taoiseach needs to enlighten people about what the Government's position is now as against what he previously described in this Chamber as a cast-iron commitment. We need to know the Government's plan of action and its approach to these negotiations. We do not want the Taoiseach to come back with some outcome that is less than satisfactory and causes serious problems in respect of the Border. Everybody, North and South, regardless of background, agrees on what is the most favourable outcome for Ireland. Now we find that this is in some peril. Will the Taoiseach enlighten us about his plans?

I accept that media reports in Ireland and across the water in Britain yesterday about the implementation of the backstop agreed between the British Government and the EU in December amounted to speculation. Nonetheless, at this stage, they are very worrying.

It is clear there is still a wide difference of opinion between the various actors, that is to say, the British Government and the European Union. I have heard the Irish Government say that Chequers represents a basis for progress, although I do not know what that means. I believe the Chequers plan put forward by the Tory Government does not resolve the crucially important and sensitive issues surrounding the Border and the protection of citizens' rights in the North. On the contrary, I think it serves only to confuse and deflect. Theresa May's plan falls well short of what was contained in the December backstop and well short of the benchmarks that had been agreed to protect the Good Friday Agreement in all of its parts, which includes no diminution of the rights of citizens in the North of Ireland and to ensure no hardening of the Border.

That is the bottom line. We have an agreed cross-party position right across the Oireachtas that the way to do that is to ensure the North remains within the customs union and the Single Market, although there are different iterations of that. It is very important at this stage that the Government holds firm and that Mr. Barnier and the negotiating team hold firm. What is meant by Chequers as a basis for progress? What is meant by latitude or a perception of latitude on the part of Dublin in terms of revisiting the backstop? The bottom lines are the bottom lines. They are the minimum necessary protections for this island and they have to be honoured.

It seems we are coming down to the crux of the withdrawal element within the Brexit negotiations, and it seems to focus on the issue of whether there will be a border in the Irish Sea or what type of border would exist between the island of Ireland and Britain. I know our preference might have been for as easy a border-less east-west outcome as a North-South one. However, as I understand it from listening to Michel Barnier, the EU has to protect its own Single Market and, in doing so, while it may be willing to offer concessions to ensure there is no border on the island of Ireland, it will not provide such a mechanism for the rest of the UK and, therefore, there will have to be some sort of border in the Irish Sea.

If that is the case, can the Taoiseach outline whether the Government is considering technological applications that might be able to manage that and which would be able to get over some of the constitutional difficulties the UK Government might have? Does he agree that, in hindsight, maybe we made a mistake last December? On the Monday, the original deal was done with the UK Government which envisaged that outcome but the British Government then capitulated and, by the latter part of that week, on the Thursday, there was a new wording along the lines of "one for everyone in the audience", that the Single Market does not matter. Maybe we should have been more honest and direct last December by holding to the line of the agreement that was written on the Monday rather than putting in the fudge on the Thursday. Does the Taoiseach believe there is some way we can overcome this issue of the border in the Irish Sea that I believe Michel Barnier wants?

Other Deputies have raised issues that are very important. I am deeply concerned there will be a lot of quickly moving parts in a very short period of time, and that we might be blindsided by some of the decisions that are happening. On the domestic front, it was announced a year ago as a key Brexit support measure that there would be a €300 million Brexit loan fund. It was announced during the summer that, of the 5,000 companies the Government had announced would benefit from it, only ten companies had done so, and of the €300 million that was going to be made available, less than €2.5 million had actually been allocated. Is the Taoiseach happy with that position? What is the up-to-date position and has there been a dramatic change since June? We need to prepare. While I am very happy to be part of the Brexit group that meets periodically with the Tánaiste, these are the practical things that should be happening in parallel to the negotiations.

It is clear there is an overwhelming momentum to conclude a withdrawal agreement. A car crash Brexit next March is simply not going to happen because the financial, economic and security damage caused would be much worse than any alternative. We should also remember that the Taoiseach and Tánaiste repeatedly said that Ireland would veto the continuation of the talks if there was any backsliding but they failed to do so when the critical moment came in March. Since then, in July, Michel Barnier signalled the de-dramatising of the backstop. There has been a constant drip of stories from London, Dublin and Brussels about what is on the way. As we head into the decisive weeks in the negotiations, it would be helpful if the Taoiseach would clarify whether the backstop still means what was claimed for it in December. Last December the Taoiseach told the press conference in Government Buildings that the backstop means continued membership of both the customs union and the Single Market. That is the key point. Both he and the Tánaiste referred to the deal meaning, effectively, the continuance of the status quo, not just in terms of border checks but, crucially, the administration of trade. Can the Taoiseach assure us there will be no attempt to redefine what is meant by the backstop? In particular, is it still his belief that Northern Ireland should continue with full access to both the customs union and the Single Market, and that it is not good enough to just find a way of not having a border? Can he explain why, so far, we have heard nothing about any discussion on how regulatory alignment would be maintained in Northern Ireland if the blockage on east-west checks is overcome?

There is an informal summit of EU Heads of Government this week in Salzburg. I appreciate the Taoiseach does not have to report to the House because it is to be an informal summit, either before or after the main meeting, but perhaps he might give us an indication of what he would hope to achieve at that summit. Although decisions cannot be made, does he expect to make some progress in regard to resolving the Irish question in the context of Brexit? What other issues of importance are on the agenda for that informal summit?

As I said earlier, it is not advisable for me at this stage in the negotiations to give a running commentary on how things are going but briefings are available to party leaders and, of course, they are available through the co-ordination group headed by the Tánaiste. I welcome the fact some parties have been attending the group regularly. Suffice to say, a lot of briefings have been going on and there have been a lot of stories in the media which have been very far off the mark.

In terms of the Government's position in this phase of the talks, our position is as it has been since the very start. We want the withdrawal agreement to include a commitment to retaining the common travel area, a transition period giving businesses and people time to prepare for any permanent changes that may take place in the rules of east-west trade between Britain and Ireland and protection of citizens' rights for those EU citizens living in Northern Ireland. There is also the backstop - the Irish protocol - which gives us a legally operable guarantee that should it not be possible to negotiate a new comprehensive relationship between the UK and the EU that negates the need for a border during the transition period, we will have the backstop to fall back on. This is something we hope will never need to be used. We would prefer to resolve the situation through the new EU-UK relationship, and I have always said that. We want option A as opposed to option C, if we want to go back to the language of December. However, we still need it because when I hear people talking about negotiating a new deal between the EU and the UK, something similar to Canada, for example, first, that would not solve the border problem and, second, it took seven years to negotiate. We need to know there is a legally operable backstop in place which would apply unless and until we can develop a new-----

Does that mean Northern Ireland would still be in the customs union and Single Market?

The backstop is no secret. The backstop, or at least the draft backstop, was published back in March so anyone can see in black and white what that means. It means applying the rules of the customs union and the rules of the Single Market to the extent they applied to the all-island economy. I should not need to elaborate on it. The EU published our draft of the backstop back in March. That has not been accepted by the UK Government so we now need to negotiate. As I have always said, we are flexible on the language but we cannot be flexible on the outcome.

I thought it was cast-iron.

The outcome has to give us what was agreed to last December and must become law, namely, a legally binding and operable backstop in the withdrawal agreement. Without it, there cannot be a withdrawal agreement, as everyone should understand at this stage.

In essence, dedramatisation is about trying to move away from language such as "a border in the Irish Sea". People can misinterpret such terms as referring to some form of constitutional border. No one is disputing the constitutional status of Northern Ireland which will be part of the United Kingdom until such time as the people there vote to say otherwise. Sometimes when language of the kind referred to is used, it can be seen as some sort of constitutional move or grab. It is not part of the Irish Government's agenda to change the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. As I have often said, I do not want a border between Larne and Stranraer anymore than I want one between Newry and Dundalk. The things being examined include the checks that may need to take place. We already have checks taking place on an east-west basis, including sanitary and phytosanitary standards, SPS, checks for agricultural products coming from Britain to Ireland. We also have certain North-South checks in relation, for example, to cigarettes and excise duty on diesel. We are trying to profile the checks which might take place, but the principle remains that there should be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

Taoiseach's Meetings and Engagements

Joan Burton

Question:

6. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Ms Christine Lagarde. [28850/18]

Brendan Howlin

Question:

7. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with IMF managing director, Ms Christine Lagarde. [29004/18]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 7 together.

I had a very positive meeting with Ms Christine Lagarde, IMF managing director, in Government Buildings on 25 June. I also hosted a dinner to mark her visit to Ireland on the evening of 26 June. Our exchanges covered the economic outlook, international trade and gender equality issues.

On the economic outlook, we discussed the latest IMF Article IV assessment of the Irish economy. We agreed that the economy was enjoying a period of strong growth and increasing employment but that we must proceed carefully to ensure the benefits were shared throughout the country, while guarding against the type of policies that had resulted in the boom and bust pattern of the past.

On trade, we discussed the risks posed by growing international tensions. I welcomed Ms Lagarde's strong and vocal advocacy for preserving and deepening the rules-based multilateral trading system, which is, of course, crucially important to our own highly open economy. We agreed that in a trade war there would be no winners.

Ms Lagarde also informed me about the work she was doing to advance gender equality, including placing it at the centre of the IMF's work. I offered her my strong support in that regard. I also took the opportunity to highlight some recent Government initiatives in this area, including the recently published Gender Pay Gap (Wage Transparency) Bill and the Better Balance for Better Business initiative which I subsequently launched on 30 July and which aims to increase women's representation on company boards and in senior management roles.

It is the tenth anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers and our own financial and construction sector collapse which caused so much suffering and unemployment, the loss of trade and the collapse of many businesses for families and individuals across Ireland. The Taoiseach referred to threats to the international economy and the risk of a trade war, obviously something he does not want, but the two greatest threats to the economy are the inability of the Government, despite its good intentions, which I acknowledge, to get to grips with the housing issue and its inability to get to grips with the health issue. The Government is hapless in dealing with both, notwithstanding its genius for spin. Did the Taoiseach consider asking the IMF to provide the Government with advice on how to get to grips with the housing and health issues? We received some advice from the IMF in the past, some of which was very difficult, while some, in particular in addressing unemployment and getting people back to work, was quite helpful.

The Taoiseach referred to the gender pay gap. Why is the Government restricting the companies which will be subject to the gender pay gap legislation to those with 250 employees or more? Why can we not start with companies with 50 employees or more, as has happened in our neighbouring country, the United Kingdom? There is no rational basis to so heavily restricting our approach to companies having to publish information on why women are so significantly underpaid.

The Taoiseach will be aware that Ms Christine Lagarde again warned about the impact of Brexit on both Britain and the European Union as a whole. There have been substantial changes in various forecasts on the impact of various scenarios, ranging from a car crash next March to the now clearly dead option of EEA membership for the United Kingdom. When Copenhagen Economics studied the different scenarios, it estimated that national income would be hit by approximately 4.3% in both the customs union and free trade agreement scenarios. In both scenarios under discussion, therefore, Ireland will be hit worse than any other European Union member state. Will the Taoiseach confirm that this analysis continues to form the basis of and inform Government policy? The study also points to the impact of the costs that will ensue from the United Kingdom not being in the Single Market, irrespective of customs and trade policy. This is because compliance rules will place very significant and unavoidable burdens on many companies. Does the Taoiseach accept that this is another reason detaching Single Market access from the backstop is unacceptable?

On trade wars, has the Government written formally to President Trump or otherwise communicated its opposition to and alarm at the increasingly protectionist approach he is taking to trade and the degree to which his actions and policies could cause a very destabilising era of trade protectionism?

I return to the issues of the gender pay gap and gender equality more generally. I understand these matters formed part of the Taoiseach's discussions in June with Ms Lagarde. The gender pay gap is a frontline equality issue, not a sideline, petty concern. It is a matter of deep concern that, notwithstanding legislation on equal pay for work of equal value dating back to the 1970s, we continue to witness gross disparity in the earnings of men and women, respectively. I share Deputy Burton's concern about the very high threshold for the implementation of the legislation and reporting requirements, which is companies with 250 employees or more. I do not accept that a lower threshold would create an undue administrative burden, which is, I suspect, the response the Taoiseach is lining up. The suggested penalties for companies which fail to make information public must be pointed and of sufficient weight to act as an incentive to good practice and a disincentive to continuing with bad practices. When does the Taoiseach intend to introduce the Bill in the Dáil and when will a debate take place on it? I ask him to confirm his political commitment to the speedy passage of the legislation which is just one of the measures needed to achieve full equality for women in society.

The answer to Deputy Burton's question is that we did not specifically ask the IMF to advise us on health reform or housing. I will consider it as it is always useful to have an external view from an international body on how one is doing.

Generally, we use the OECD for that, but we could potentially ask the IMF to do it. I am a little taken aback that a centre-left politician would ask us to bring in the IMF to advise us on health and housing. Given the IMF's view as to how to reform public services in other jurisdictions, I am not sure the answer we would get from the IMF would be supported by parties of the left, but it is never a harm to ask. It certainly gave us some good advice in the past during the bailout-----

It has changed its tune and has suggested we invest in people. Parties of the left agree with that, but clearly Fine Gael does not.

-----and other advice that we did not follow. For example, the IMF took the view that we would help to resolve our unemployment crisis by cutting the minimum wage. That was done by Fianna Fáil and the Greens in office and we decided to reverse that when Fine Gael and the Labour Party came into office. Fine Gael has increased the minimum wage three times since, with a further increase in January.

As for international analyses as to how Ireland is doing, I note that the United Nations Development Programme, UNDP, released its figures last week as to how Ireland is performing across a number of measures. The UNDP uses something called the human development index, which, unlike gross domestic product, GDP, which just measures economic success, power and prowess, looks at things such as life expectancy and education and many other different factors. The UNDP put Ireland in fourth place in the world and said Ireland had moved up the rankings between 2012 and 2017, more quickly than any other country in the world. While we have serious problems and enormous challenges in this country, which no one denies for a second, at least one body, the United Nations, recognises the enormous progress we have made. I imagine that if a UN committee of less stature had a critical report about Ireland, it probably would have been major news, but when a big agency such as the UN Development Programme produces a report such as the one it has produced, it barely gets noticed. Perhaps this is an opportunity at least to put that on the record of the Dáil.

The Government approved the general scheme of the gender pay gap Bill. I acknowledge Senator Bacik in particular as being one of the leaders behind this who gave impetus to the Bill. It will promote transparency on wage levels, initially for large employers. The general scheme proposes that we start with employers of more than 250 employees and extend over time to smaller employers of about 50. Like many things, and as is often the case with a new policy or measure, this would be done with a view to phasing it in. Phasing in measures allows us to pick up mistakes and so on. We do not want to wait until we have everything ready and all the staff and IT systems in place to do this. We can bring it in in phases. We often phase in policies, which I do not think is necessarily a bad thing. The legislation will come before the Dáil and the Seanad, which may decide that 250 is too high and 50 too low and decide on a different figure, and we are certainly open to considering that.

Regarding trade wars, "Yes, absolutely" is the answer to Deputy Micheál Martin's question. When I met President Trump last March, it was one of the issues we discussed. I explained to him why we believe trade wars have no winners and why we believe in free trade across the Atlantic. I always use the opportunity when I engage with the US Administration to point out the extent to which trade in Ireland now very much goes both ways. The US has a small trade surplus with Ireland. We have a surplus in terms of goods, and they have a surplus in terms of services. President Trump often sees trade only as goods. He very much fixates on cars, steel and other manufactured items, whereas we all know that the economy is much more than goods. Services are now the biggest part of any western economy, and the US has a very significant surplus with Ireland when it comes to services. Investment goes both ways. Approximately 150,000 people in Ireland work in US-owned firms. Approximately 100,000 Americans across 50 states work in Irish-owned firms.

I always try to make this point, that free trade makes everyone better off in the round. I keep making that case. I also made the case with Kevin Hassett, who visited last week. Last week I had the opportunity to meet him in the US ambassador's residence. The Ministers of State, Deputies Breen and O'Donovan, very recently paid a visit to the United States to discuss Aughinish Alumina and Rusal and our concern that US trade sanctions may affect Rusal. We are working very hard on that, and Deputy Deasy is very involved in it too. The answer, therefore, is "Yes". It is always our role in engagements with the US Administration to make the case for free trade, which, along with free enterprise, once was a core American value but is less so under the current Administration.

Regarding the better balance for business initiative, we have established a business-led group charged with increasing the representation of women on boards of Irish publicly listed companies. The group is led by Bríd Horan, former deputy CEO of the ESB, and Gary Kennedy, who is chair of Greencore, and it is based on the successful model in the UK. It will engage with companies and report back on actions to increase the percentage of women on corporate boards and in senior management in leading companies. Deputies will be aware that we have met and exceeded our target of ensuring that at least 40% of State board members are women - we met the target in July - and that in the past year, 52% of appointments to State boards through the Public Appointments Service, PAS, process were female. This is the first time that more than half of the people appointed to State boards through the PAS process have been female. We are not going to wait at 40%. We are going to keep moving towards parity. Furthermore, about 40% of appointments last year to the senior positions of the public service, those of Secretary General and assistant secretary, were female.

Taoiseach's Meetings and Engagements

Brendan Howlin

Question:

8. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his bilateral meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Theresa May, at the Council of the European Union. [30645/18]

Mary Lou McDonald

Question:

9. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach when he last spoke to the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Theresa May. [30677/18]

Micheál Martin

Question:

10. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the personal contacts he has had with Prime Minister May in the period since the last meeting of EU leaders. [36990/18]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 to 10, inclusive, together.

I had a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister May on the margins of the European Council in Brussels on 28 June. We discussed the current political situation in Northern Ireland, whereupon I emphasised the Government's commitment to the Good Friday Agreement and we reaffirmed the determination of both Governments to secure effective operation of all its institutions. In line with this, we agreed that a meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference would take place in London in July in accordance with the Good Friday Agreement. This was co-chaired by the Tánaiste and the Minister, David Lidington.

We also discussed Brexit and I advised the Prime Minister that there would not be much time left if we were to conclude a withdrawal agreement and have it operational by the time the UK leaves the EU in March. The UK gave clear commitments and guarantees on the Border in December and again in March, and we need to see detailed, workable proposals from the UK to deliver on these commitments if it cannot accept ours. I told the Prime Minister that the EU 27 agreed that if we did not get agreement on the backstop and the other outstanding elements of the withdrawal agreement, including the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, ECJ, it would not be possible to finalise the withdrawal agreement as a whole, including transition arrangements, which are essential for the UK. I have always said that I hope the future relationship between the EU and the UK will be as close and comprehensive as possible and that it will remove any need for a hard border or for the backstop to be invoked. Nonetheless, we will need a legally robust backstop to apply unless and until better arrangements are negotiated and enter into force, thus ensuring there will never be a hard border on this island. While I am confident we will achieve a very close, comprehensive and ambitious future relationship with the UK, the Government is of course continuing to plan for a full range of scenarios. We need to bear in mind that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union and with it the Single Market and the customs union and, therefore, things will change.

I also spoke to the Prime Minister by phone on 7 July, when she briefed me on the outcome of her Chequers Cabinet meeting the day before. I welcomed the fact that the UK Government had reached a position whereby it would put forward detailed proposals for the future UK-EU relationship post Brexit. I expressed my hope that the UK Government would engage constructively with the Barnier task force and other member states. I also said that the Government was open to proposals which meet our aims of avoiding a hard border and maintaining free trade with the UK while respecting the integrity of the Single Market and the customs union.

I will travel to Salzburg tomorrow for the informal meeting of the European Council and I will meet Prime Minister May there over breakfast on Thursday. The Brexit negotiations are now in the final stage and talks will take place continuously from now on. I welcome the commitment from both sets of negotiators to intensify negotiations in the coming weeks. As the Prime Minister and I agreed, our offices have maintained close contact over recent weeks at ambassador and Sherpa level and we and our offices will continue to do so in the period ahead.

I call Deputy Burton.

Deputy Howlin?

Deputy Howlin is not here.

Yes. I am taking Question No. 8 on his behalf.

Yes. I am calling Deputy Burton.

We have already had an amount of discussion on the potential backsliding from the backstop. We have explained that people are really concerned and worried about what the implications are likely to be and about what the transition period is likely to be. As far as most of us can make out about what those in the UK want, whether the Tory Party or the Labour Party, it is that they essentially want the UK to step out of the EU and then, quite quickly, to step back into an agreement that would effectively mimic both the customs union and the Single Market. Obviously that would be on the basis of negotiations with the 27. It is the magical thinking about which there has been talk for a long time. When the Taoiseach has the bilateral meeting with Mrs. May to which he has just referred, does he hope to get clarity on the current status of the Chequers papers and the Chequers proposals? Clearly, an element of that relates to a political situation and a political proposal in the context of the internal difficulties in the politics of the UK, but it really does pose enormous difficulties for us. These papers also propose something we discussed before the summer break, namely, the "max fac", the maximum facilitation of movements and so on.

The second item on the discussion table in Salzburg is the issue of immigration. We know that the recently elected Government in Austria has taken quite a hard line on this. It seems to be another very far right government. Does Deputy Varadkar propose, as Taoiseach, to say anything about immigration? Could he share with us the sense of what he proposes to say on that matter because I am conscious that there are still huge numbers of deaths occurring in the areas around the EU, although the numbers are diminishing?

The Deputy is significantly over time.

Will the Taoiseach tell us about that?

In the Taoiseach's first response he said that he and Theresa May affirmed their determination to see the institutions in the North back up and running. I put it to him directly that there is in fact no determination from the British Government to achieve that outcome. In fact, it has acted to frustrate that very course of action. We achieved an agreement or accommodation last February and when the DUP ran away from that there was not a word nor a scintilla of pressure or incentivisation to return to the institutions from the British Government. The British Government, which the Taoiseach says has a firm determination to achieve fully functioning power sharing, is the same British Government that looks the other way as the DUP involves itself in scandal and in the waste of public money through the renewable heat incentive, RHI, scheme and, worse still, openly and brazenly refuses and faces down the rights of sections of Northern society. That is the fact of it. The British Government which the Taoiseach says affirms the commitment to re-establishing power sharing is, in fact, a British Government which has given safe shelter to the DUP at Westminster, far away from the halls of Stormont and away from any form of accountability. That is the truth.

Whereas I welcome the fact that the intergovernmental conference was convened in July - that was a necessary first step - I am now concerned that the foot has come off the pedal. We need a thoughtful map back to real, genuine power sharing and that has to mean the vindication and realisation of rights, be they language rights, marriage rights or the right to inquest. Families have waited decades for that simple, democratic, fundamental right. It is utterly shocking. I have said so to Theresa May and yet she looks the other way and stalls. I read no urgency, much less an affirmed determination, on the part of the Tory Government to re-establishing power sharing.

If we do not conclude the questions we will not be able to get answers.

I put it to the Taoiseach that it is actually very dangerous for him to set out that rhetoric on the floor of the Dáil, but that it is even more dangerous if he actually believes and is gripped by the delusion that the Tories have done anything positive or assertive to ensure a pathway back. They have not. They have frustrated progress.

The Taoiseach might clarify something for me. Earlier he spoke about the backstop and I sought clarity on whether the backstop meant continued membership of both the customs union and the Single Market for Northern Ireland because he seemed to indicate that there could be a Canadian style agreement or that Britain will be outside the customs union and the Single Market. The Taoiseach said at a press conference last December that the backstop would mean continued membership of the customs union and the Single Market for Northern Ireland. Can he please confirm that is still the position in respect of what the backstop actually means?

Today marks exactly 600 days since the main institutions of the Good Friday Agreement were collapsed over the details of a heating scheme. That is why it was collapsed - a heating scheme. I was fundamentally of a different position. It should never have been collapsed. It was a reckless and irresponsible position in which to be, given the threat of Brexit. In the past road blocks like this were dealt with through intensive engagement not just at ministerial level, but between the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister of the day. Even the most fervent member of Fine Gael could not describe efforts to re-establish the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement as either urgent or intense. July's meeting of the intergovernmental conference, to which the Taoiseach referred, was not even a sideshow. In my view, the disrespect shown to our Government was a disgrace. There is no way around the fact that, in comparison with the relations which various Taoisigh of different parties had with Prime Ministers Major, Blair and Brown, there appears to be no leadership being shown by the heads of government on Northern Ireland. In the face of the immense threat of Brexit and the real damage being done to the foundations of the peace settlement, can the Taoiseach explain why he and the Prime Minister have shown so little initiative?

If we put to one side the tragic Stormont debacle in which the Taoiseach flew to Stormont to sign a deal which never materialised, there has been no attempt to convene all-party talks or to take any joint initiative. Can the Taoiseach detail whether he has proposed any initiatives or is he leaving everything to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade?

First, there is no backsliding on the backstop from us. In terms of the transition period, we want it to run until the end of 2020, which means that no changes would take effect until January 2021. There will be changes, however, under our central case scenario which is based on a successful negotiation of a withdrawal agreement with a transition period and a backstop. It will still be the case that the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union and with it the Single Market and the customs union. Therefore, as things stand, we are planning for a situation in 2021 where there will need to be east-west checks and controls, though not between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. We are making those preparations in our ports and airports now. We confirmed in Derrynane in July that we would hire 1,000 additional staff. That will happen on a phased basis.

Does that mean Northern Ireland will stay part of the customs union?

Today we approved recruitment in 2019 of 270 additional customs staff, 116 additional sanitary and phytosanitary control staff, 51 additional staff for the HSE's environmental health service and 14 professional property staff, given the infrastructural needs. I should emphasise however that these are for the ports and airports including Dublin Port, Dublin Airport and Rosslare. They are not for along the land border because we are not making preparations for a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. I think Deputy Martin is attempting to ask a trick question. Maybe I am being unkind to him.

The backstop was published in March.

Yes, but what does it mean?

It has been there in black and white for everyone to read since March.

What does the Taoiseach think it means?

It says that the common commercial policy, the rules of the customs union and the rules of the Single Market will continue to apply in Northern Ireland unless and until there is a new agreement that makes it unnecessary and that it would apply to the extent that is necessary to avoid a hard border and to continue to protect the all-island economy as it now works. I do not have it front of me, but it was published in March. It has not changed since.

The Taoiseach said it would mean continued membership of the customs union, about which he was very clear. I am simply asking if that is still the position. It is a fair and straightforward question. It is not a trick question.

It depends on how one defines "membership".

I am referring to membership of the customs union.

Obviously when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, Northern Ireland will leave with it. That is a statement of fact, as everyone knows. The draft backstop, as published in March, means that, to all intents and purposes, Northern Ireland will stay in the customs union and the Single Market. Even at that, it is not as straightforward as that. It is the full regulatory alignment and the application of the rules which allows us to avoid a hard border and continue to protect the all-island economy. The document has been published since March. I do not think the Deputy should need me to interpret it for him at this stage.

No, but it is a fundamental point. Does the Taoiseach agree?

Top
Share