Skip to main content
Normal View

Northern Ireland

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 17 February 2015

Tuesday, 17 February 2015

Questions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)

Micheál Martin

Question:

1. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will provide details of his statement on 17 October 2014 regarding the commencement of political talks in Northern Ireland. [41669/14]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

2. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach his views on his close contact with the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, on the political talks in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41670/14]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

3. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the discussions he has had with the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, regarding the Northern Ireland talks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41691/14]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

4. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken to the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, regarding the next stage of the talks in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43795/14]

View answer

Gerry Adams

Question:

5. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will provide details of his statement on 7 October 2014 regarding the commencement of political talks in the North of Ireland. [43810/14]

View answer

Gerry Adams

Question:

6. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on discussions he has had with the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, regarding the political talks in the north of Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43811/14]

View answer

Joe Higgins

Question:

7. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on discussions with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom regarding Northern Ireland. [43820/14]

View answer

Joe Higgins

Question:

8. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on discussions with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and other political leaders in Northern Ireland. [43821/14]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

9. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has discussed the best way to deal with the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland with the British Prime Minister, David Cameron; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44782/14]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

10. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has been provided with a report by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on progress after seven weeks of political talks in the north of Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46810/14]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

11. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach when his Government expects an agreement on the all-party talks in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46811/14]

View answer

Gerry Adams

Question:

12. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if the prospect for success of political talks, involving all parties in the North of Ireland, and both Governments, was discussed at the recent meeting of the British-Irish Council on the Isle of Man; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46819/14]

View answer

Gerry Adams

Question:

13. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he met the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, while attending the European Union Council meeting; if efforts to reach agreement between the North’s Executive parties was discussed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2136/15]

View answer

Gerry Adams

Question:

14. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions with the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, in Belfast in December 2014; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2142/15]

View answer

Gerry Adams

Question:

15. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on subsequent discussions with the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, following their departure from Belfast on 12 December 2014; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2144/15]

View answer

Gerry Adams

Question:

16. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the Government's commitments to the Stormont House Agreement of December 2014; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2145/15]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

17. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the meeting with the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, on 11 and 12 December 2014 in Belfast; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2160/15]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

18. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken to the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, regarding the recent deal in the North of Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2177/15]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

19. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken to the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, regarding the lack of agreement between the parties in Northern Ireland regarding flags and parades; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2178/15]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

20. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach his views on the 23 December 2014 Stormont House Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3268/15]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

21. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the joint paper that the Irish and British Governments agreed before talks took place on 11 December 2014; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3276/15]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

22. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the position regarding his telephone conversation with Prime Minister Cameron; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3277/15]

View answer

Richard Boyd Barrett

Question:

23. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom around the political talks leading up to the Stormont House Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4358/15]

View answer

Oral answers (32 contributions)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 23, inclusive, together, as they relate to the Stormont House Agreement, and the remaining questions are different.

I recall that when I answered questions on Northern Ireland in October last, the British and Irish Governments had just confirmed their intention to convene all-party talks. Since then the political landscape in Northern Ireland has changed significantly and for the better.

The successful conclusion of the Stormont House Agreement on 23 December 2014 represented the culmination of many months of negotiation and behind the scenes diplomacy, but also a prolonged period of close relationship building. I am pleased that the Government and I, working closely with our British counterparts, and, of course, with the Northern Ireland parties, have played an important role in helping to broker this agreement. The negotiations involved a huge commitment from both Governments, the First and Deputy First Minister and all the parties concerned. The Prime Minister and I maintained close contact regarding Northern Ireland over this time, including in particular our joint visit to Stormont on 11 and 12 December in an effort to finalise the talks process. I believe that our direct involvement in the talks at that time helped to move them forward and laid a firm platform for the agreement ultimately reached on 23 December. I met Prime Minister Cameron most recently at the EU Council meetings in December and last week but I did not have an opportunity to discuss Northern Ireland issues in detail with him on those occasions.

I outlined in January's Dáil debate on Northern Ireland the detailed provisions of the Stormont House Agreement. Briefly, the agreement covers a broad range of political, social and economic issues. It sets out a plan for financial and budgetary reform. It proposes a way forward on flags, identity, culture and tradition through the establishment of a commission, envisages the devolution of responsibility for parades to the Northern Ireland Assembly, establishes a programme of institutional reform at Stormont and progresses a number of outstanding aspects from the Good Friday and St. Andrews Agreements. Significantly, it establishes a new comprehensive framework for dealing with the legacy of the past.

In the context of the agreement, the Government undertook a number of commitments which will be an important focus of our work in the period ahead. These include the drafting of legislation where necessary in relation to the establishment of new institutions for dealing with the legacy of the past. In particular, legislation will be required to establish an independent commission on information retrieval, which will enable victims and survivors to seek and receive information about the death of their loved ones. The Government committed to a number of measures that will contribute to economic renewal in Northern Ireland as well as being beneficial to the all-island economy. These include Stg£50 million in financial support to complete the A5 road project in the north west and a commitment to further progress the north west gateway initiative.

In the period ahead, we will continue to advance political progress and to play our part in the implementation of the Stormont House Agreement. To this end, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Sherlock, attended the first quarterly review meeting on 30 January which agreed a comprehensive implementation plan for all provisions of the agreement. As part of the ongoing contacts between the two Governments regarding the implementation of the agreement, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Ms Theresa Villiers MP, met the Minister in Dublin last week, which was an opportunity for both Governments to review progress on the implementation of the agreement. The meeting also gave the Minister the opportunity to discuss a broader range of issues with the Secretary of State, including the justice and security situation in Northern Ireland and a number of specific legacy cases.

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. It is four months since Northern Ireland-related topics have arisen during Questions to the Taoiseach. That is an example of the impact of cancelling questions on Wednesdays, which the Taoiseach did some years ago, and of failing to re-schedule Tuesday sessions when he is away on other business. It is also a good illustration of how Northern Ireland matters have been marginalised in the House.

The budget Sinn Féin and the DUP have been moving through the Assembly contains a raft of what could be termed "deep austerity measures". Despite all we have heard about them, it is fair to say that those who are allegedly radically against austerity are busily implementing these cuts. The trade unions in the North have started a campaign on these cuts calling them "a savage attack on public services in Northern Ireland". All that has been achieved in the two years of posturing by Sinn Féin and others is a moving around of cuts between Departments and more borrowing to try to deal with the situation.

The Irish National Teachers Organisation, INTO, for example, estimates that schools, which all of us will agree are key to the future of Northern Ireland, will experience a 4% cut in real terms and the loss of 500 teachers, which is a worry given the fact that in parts of east Belfast and west Belfast, there are significant early school leaving figures that bode ill in terms of the future. We need more investment in education in the North, not less; we need more school completions in the North, not less; and we need proper linkages between education and a bridge to third level and a bridge to employment, not less. I do not believe, therefore, that this aspect of the deal is good for Northern Ireland. There are exceptional issues relating to Northern Ireland that need financial underpinning. Will the Taoiseach comment on that? Does he believe that this is the case?

I was in Northern Ireland last week speaking to analysts and academics and I was shocked at the poor school completion rates in many state schools. Up to 40% of pupils do not complete second level. In many of the socio-economically disadvantaged areas in the North such as west Belfast, east Belfast and Lurgan, school completion figures are shocking. If we want a proper dividend from the Good Friday Agreement, I would have thought that both Governments and the Executive would have made one major effort to deal with educational achievement and attainment, in particular focusing on school completion rates. We did this in the Republic. The school completion rate was 78% in 1997-98 whereas now it is 91%. That was because of focused policies dealing with disadvantage, which have achieved significant results. If there was a similar singular focus on such issues, better school completion rates could be achieved in many socio-economically disadvantaged areas in Northern Ireland. That would contribute in the long term to a more sustainable peace than we currently have because the interface walls are as high as ever and they have increased in number.

This is a huge issue in terms of whether or how they will ever come down and in terms of integration.

I do not understand how Sinn Féin or the DUP can stand over the cuts on teachers and investment in education, because this is the main issue at the core of social and education policy in the North. The health indices are also very poor in some communities, in terms of life outcomes, quality of life and so on. Does the Taoiseach think this aspect of the Stormont House Agreement is a good deal?

I accept and agree it is imperative that a significant effort must be made to implement the agreement. Many of these agreements are made, but significant numbers of items on the agenda tend to be delayed in implementation. As far as I can see, all that has been implemented so far is the austerity budget.

Cross-Border co-operation is a weak dimension to the agreement. It has been withering on the vine over the past years, there is a lack of momentum in terms of the institutions that have been established and morale is low in a number of cross-Border institutions. Has the Government any agenda in terms of significantly enhancing cross-Border co-operation, in particular between the existing institutions, and are there any ideas for new cross-Border institutions? I believe, for example, that there should be just one Enterprise Ireland on the island, supporting all small to medium sized enterprises. I see no reason for two such institutions as one would suffice. However, these issues are not even being put on the table for these talks.

On the issue of parades, does the Taoiseach believe that the issue of devolving the management and decision making in regard to parades should go to the Assembly? Politics is all around these issues and the political system and the politicians have not been capable of resolving the parades issue. The Parades Commission was undermined - and by the British Government in recent times - in a number of ways. If we stack it up against what has been proposed, a strong independent and objective parades commission is a better option than leaving the issue to the Assembly. Three or four years ago, the political parties promised they would resolve the parades issue, but they did not do so. Many of the issues raised in the Stormont House Agreement have been kicked down the line, but the danger in kicking the can down the road is that matters only get worse in terms of how they are managed. The parades issue in particular has always been a catalyst for potential difficulties and I do not believe devolving it to the Assembly is a great idea. That decision should be revisited.

In terms of the past, I welcome some elements of the agreement. However, I was in south Armagh last week and met the parents of Paul Quinn. I had almost to pinch myself to accept the reality that they have got no satisfaction in any shape or form in terms of anyone owning up to his murder or giving information to the police. This man was murdered in an unspeakable manner, with every bone in his body broken. There seems to be a vow of omerta in place across the entire community. Sinn Féin personnel have undermined the individual murdered, releasing unfounded rumours about him. I met the support group and the parents. Paul Quinn's parents would be cynical and sceptical about any look at the legacy of the past, but this murder happened in the more recent past, just a number of years ago, yet there has been no response from anybody in the IRA. It seems a different law applies and nobody can provide any resolution or sense to the family in regard to what happened.

I have heard many comments from Sinn Féin spokespersons saying they blocked austerity in Northern Ireland, but clearly the budget and its implementation is a matter for the parties in the Northern Ireland Executive. The role and responsibility of this Government and the British Government in regard to the matters that are the subject of the Stormont House Agreement is to work with the parties. The implications of the budget and the allocation of resources or moneys from the British Government are matters that were discussed between the Prime Minister and the First and Deputy First Ministers. Despite all of the difficulties over the past years, it was not a case of reducing numbers of teachers and other essential services and they are now in a position of being able to continue to recruit teachers.

I agree with Deputy Martin on the truth of some of the issues he raised following his visit to Northern Ireland. The level and degree of co-operation between the Government and Ministers of State is very strong and visits take place regularly. The next North-South Ministerial Council will take place in early summer 2015 and I understand a great deal of cross-Border work goes on at that. The peace dividend arising from the European Presidency we held continues and we want to see it continue further. We have been supportive of the decision made by the British Government to allow our corporation tax rate to become the subject of examination and decision by the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have often made the point that this is a small island and clearly, it is a matter for Northern Ireland as to how it wants to make up the money it may lose in the context of reducing the overall corporate tax rate and of how we present the island of Ireland as an attractive location for industry and investment.

As happened in Deputy Martin's time in government, we continue the process of engaging with Northern Ireland Executive Members. They participated in the flow of information, through our Presidency of the European Union, and we have co-operated with representatives from Northern Ireland on trade missions abroad. Some of these visits took place at the same time as our Presidency and included personnel who represented the Northern Ireland Executive, in most cases the First and Deputy First Ministers.

On the question of parades, it must be borne in mind that the parties themselves invited Dr. Haass to Northern Ireland originally to attempt to breach some of the gaps that had arisen and that the parties wish to agree on a number of matters where they feel there is agreement. The Stormont House Agreement states that powers to take responsibility for parades and for related protests should be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and that the remaining issues in that regard, including a code of conduct, criteria and accountability must be addressed in legislation. The Assembly is one where legislation can be drafted and put through. This legislation will focus on the rights and responsibilities of those involved in or affected by parades and related protests, with proper regard for fundamental rights protected by the European Court of Human Rights.

I understand from the agreement that the Offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers will bring forward proposals to the Northern Ireland Executive by June of this year and there will be full public consultation in regard to any legislation proposed. It is by agreement of the parties themselves that responsibility for the issue should be devolved to the Assembly. Clearly, they know the ground very well.

In regard to issues of the past, this issue resulted in agreement after 11 weeks of intensive discussion. The issues in this regard included finance; welfare; flags; identity; culture; transition; parades; the past; institutional reforms; and outstanding commitments. The processes dealing with the past are to be victim centred. The United Kingdom and Irish Governments recognise there are outstanding investigations and allegations into Troubles related incidents, including a number of cross-Border incidents. They are committed to full co-operation with all the bodies involved to ensure their effective operation, to recognising their particular and distinctive functions and to bringing forward legislation where that might be necessary.

The Executive will, by 2016, establish an oral history archive to provide a central place for people from all backgrounds and from throughout Ireland and the United Kingdom to share experiences and narratives related to the Troubles. That archive will be independent and free of all political interference. A comprehensive mental trauma service will be implemented. It will operate within the NHS and will work closely with the victims' and survivors' service, which is important. The Deputies will also be aware that there will be a new independent body called the historical investigations unit which will take forward the investigations into deaths related to the period of the Troubles, including outstanding cases from the PSNI's historical inquiries team and the legacy work of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. The Department of Justice and Equality here and the Northern Ireland Office will work with senior members of the Judiciary to bring forward proposals for consultation to reform the way the legacy inquest function is conducted to better comply with the European Court of Human Rights Article 2 requirements. Such requirements include that it be reasonably expeditious, independent, effective, transparent and capable of securing accountability. That unit will be overseen by the Northern Ireland Policing Board and should be able to complete its work within five years of its establishment.

The agreement also provides for an independent commission on information retrieval to be established by the UK and Irish Governments. Its objective will be to enable victims and survivors privately to seek out and receive information about Troubles-related deaths. The commission's remit will cover both jurisdictions and will be entirely separate from the justice system. Once established, it will run for no more than five years. It will be led by four members - an independent chairperson, together with one member each nominated by the Executive and the Irish and British Governments. I assume that the information relevant to whatever case is in question will be made available to the persons who seek it. I hope that will be the case, even in some cases that are not part of the Stormont House Agreement.

The implementation and reconciliation group will be established to oversee themes, archives and information recovery. It will have 11 members and publicly elected representatives will not be eligible for appointment to that body. The chair, who will be independent and of international standing, will be nominated by the First and Deputy First Ministers. After five years, the group will report on those themes that are emerging. These are important issues which involve a lot of work and this Government will continue to work closely and effectively with the Executive and the members.

Tá seacht gceist agam, but before I deal with the substance of what are very important questions, caithfidh mé a rá go dtarlaíonn sé uaireanta sa Teach seo go mbíonn muid ag caint faoi rudaí i rith Ceisteanna chun an Taoisigh a tharla cúpla mí níos luaithe. Inniu, mar shampla, baineann cuid de na ceisteanna le rudaí a tharla i mí Dheireadh Fómhair. We are now talking about matters which happened before the Stormont House Agreement was signed. Once again, there is a problem in terms of trying to resolve that.

I also wish to take the opportunity to congratulate my friend and comrade, Mr. Mitchel McLaughlin and his wife, Mary Lou, on Mitchel's appointment as Speaker of the Assembly. Mitchel was one of those who marched in the 1960s for civil rights. He was in Derry on Bloody Sunday. He has been an outstanding servant to people of all political persuasions and none and I am sure the Taoiseach will enjoy working with him. I also want to extend my best wishes to Mr. Willie Hay, who was an outstanding Speaker; he was very fair and a decent man.

I always try to figure out the best way to come at certain issues but Jonathan Powell, who was Tony Blair's chief of staff for much of the peace process recently acknowledged the contribution that British Government inattention made to the failure of politics and the emergence of conflict in the North. He said: "In the 1960s and for decades before, the British Government paid absolutely no attention to what was happening in Northern Ireland". He said that Catholic complainants were referred back to the Protestant authorities in Stormont and were pushed to one side. Powell argues that if the British had been sensible they would have insisted on fair access to housing, "which was what caused the civil rights movement", on fair employment laws, on power sharing and on an end to Unionist gerrymandering. The same things could be written about an Irish Government, including Fianna Fáil-led Governments, and I believe that we are still at that danger point.

I listened to the Fianna Fáil leader previously. I do not want to say anything that is offensive but a man was killed in this city the other evening. I do not know the man. God help him and his family; he was shot to death in his home. There is no talk about a vow of omerta across the entire community in the place where that man was killed, but it is okay to say that about people in south Armagh - that the entire community has taken a vow of omerta. The Fianna Fáil leader talks about the killing of Paul Quinn---

I was referring to Deputy Adams's community.

My community is Ireland.

Sorry, Deputy Martin, please.

Deputy Adams should look at what his people said at the time of Paul Quinn's death. It was deeply offensive to his parents - deeply offensive.

Please, this is question time. Thank you Deputy.

They were undermining the man.

I never interrupted the Deputy.

Please proceed.

That is what happened.

I spoke just a fortnight ago about the killing of Paul Quinn. He was killed by criminals who should be subject to due process. I appealed to anyone who has any information whatsoever to bring it forward. I also said that if anyone wanted to give information to me, I would pass it on to An Garda Síochána or the PSNI. I bring this up as an illustration of my point.

I also want to remind the House that while there is a different political jurisdiction in the North, there is no bar on Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or the Labour Party organising there. I listened to the crocodile tears about the people in west and east Belfast. The fact is that there is an election on 7 May and if Micheál Martin wants to put his name forward in Newry and Armagh or in west Belfast, that would be very good and very useful. If that is too soon, there is an Assembly election in 2016. It would be great to have Fianna Fáil people on the Executive, negotiating with the British and Irish Governments on various issues.

Regarding the Stormont House Agreement, myself, Martin McGuinness and others spent two years privately trying to get the Irish and British Governments to focus on the ongoing peace process. We did it privately and quietly; we picked up old contacts and talked to a range of people here and in the USA. While the Stormont House Agreement is not a comprehensive agreement, it was a positive outcome. However, for me, it is a defensive agreement. We were defending what had been gained for people and stopping the erosion of those gains. That is what our focus had to be.

On the issue of cuts, the British Government has cut £1.5 billion from the block grant, aside from what happened at Stormont and the recent discussions. Has the Irish Government or Fianna Fáil raised this? I understand that the Fianna Fáil leader met the British Secretary of State recently. Has he railed against the British Government's block grant cut? Has he put forward suggestions as to how these issues could be ameliorated for those citizens living in that part of the country? It is important to remember that the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade are all broadly in support of austerity.

When the talks commenced, the British Government only came in for one day. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Charles Flanagan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Sean Sherlock, did their work over a long period. The total of what we negotiated with the British Government amounted to almost £2 billion, double what had been offered at the beginning of talks. We did not get it for 11 long days. It includes £650 million of new and additional funding, including £500 million over ten years to support shared and integrated education. There will be no reductions in welfare payments under the control of the Northern Ireland Executive. The new welfare protections are unique to the North and in sharp contrast to what happened in this State and in Britain. Anti-poverty measures will be retained in the North. In the previous budget, £64 million additional funding was provided for schools, early years provision and youth services. Perhaps Deputy Micheál Martin did not know this.

On the other issue, dealing with the past, parades and identity, the proposal is broadly in line with what was proposed by Richard Haass and Meghan O'Sullivan. It took us a year to get the other parties to agree. I welcome the publication of proposals for Acht na Gaeilge, which have been published recently by an tAire cultúir, Carál Ní Chuilín.

I did not mean to say all of that but I had to respond to the false accusations, which are not new to this Chamber. The Government needs to keep focused and needs to be working with the British Government. We should be working with the parties in the North. When Deputy Micheál Martin was Minister, and when Bertie Ahern or John Bruton was Taoiseach, I said that Ministers should be seen across the North as naturally as breathing. They will be welcomed in loyalist and Unionist and other communities. That is not being done enough. I welcome the periodic excursions of the leader of Fianna Fáil into that region but the task of this Government is to hold the British Government to account. The Government is not good at doing that. The Good Friday Agreement was voted on by citizens across the island and the Government is a co-equal guarantor. The mobile phone causing interference is not mine.

It is not just when it is a crisis, or when it comes to hothouse or crunch talks but it is a matter of diligently making good relationships with those who are in power in the Civil Service and who have responsibility for these issues. In the most fraternal way possible, I appeal to the Taoiseach to do that. The Stormont House agreement was agreed despite the Irish Government and despite the British Government. It was a result of the diligent work done by all the parties represented during those talks. When does the Taoiseach plan to meet the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister? The delivery of the agreement will be the proof of it. When can the Taoiseach give us an example of the British Government being held to account by this Government in delivering its responsibilities and obligations under the agreement?

I wish Mitchel McLaughlin well in his appointment as Speaker, which is an important position in the Assembly. I am sure he will do a very good job. The Ceann Comhairle had considerable association with Speaker Hay and they are responsible for the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. I hope this body will gain in influence, authority and respect. This is an important legacy that Deputy Sean Barrett and Mr. Hay, as Ceann Comhairle and as Speaker respectively, will leave behind.

It is always interesting to read the comments years later by those centrally involved in many of the issues. Time seems to have a way of bringing them around to reflecting on what they did or did not do when they were central to these issues. The former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, showed great diligence in office in attending Northern Ireland on a regular basis. He seemed to have a passionate belief that he could make serious progress. Out of this came the Good Friday Agreement.

The role of the British Government and the Irish Government in this matter was to respond to the calls of the Northern Ireland Executive and the parties in Northern Ireland to assist in the process of getting agreement on a range of areas where agreement did not appear possible. Dr. Richard Haass and Meghan O'Sullivan did their utmost in making a genuine attempt but it did not succeed in the way that might have been envisaged. That is why, if we did not have the involvement and engagement of the two Governments, we could have had a collapse of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive, which nobody wanted. Principally, this was a case of the parties elected in Northern Ireland setting out to do their duty and fulfil their responsibilities. They were given support and encouragement by both Governments in that regard. It was not a case of the Stormont agreement being implemented despite the Governments here and in Britain. We engaged directly with the parties and sat around a table with them. The parties said that there were certain areas where they could make progress and have an agreement. Obviously, the implications of the budget and the block grant were discussed directly between the Prime Minister, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister as was, to a lesser extent, the original offer made at the plenary session, which was not accepted and was the subject of further discussion. That is what politicians do, engage and eventually come to an agreement.

Acht na Gaeilge is a case for further discussion and it will not be easy. It does not seem to have attracted the attention or support one might have expected. The position here for a number of years was predominantly taken up by the catastrophic economic consequences and putting together a plan, a strategy and negotiating position to move the country out of that economic swamp. It took up practically all the time of the Government. It is a situation where one would like to travel to Northern Ireland on a far more regular basis. I intend to go there in the near future. This will be welcomed by Deputy Adams, which he said before, no more than he said to Deputy Martin.

I have attended three years in a row at the remembrance ceremonies in Enniskillen. After going to a place on a number of occasions, one gets to know people and there is a deeper understanding of the job we have to do. The people who feel offended and are still hurt as a consequence of what happened in Enniskillen, to name one location, is one reason there is an agreement in respect of the past and the legacy issues, information retrieval and these areas. It was not a case of the agreement going through despite the attention of Government but, with the full support of the Government, the politicians accepted their responsibility and put together the agreement. Our job is to monitor it and the Ministers are engaged with one another. The North-South Ministerial Council will take place in early summer and I expect to meet the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, in the near future. There is an electoral process in Britain and he is rather rushed in the time he can spend.

We will do everything we can on these benches to see to it that the agreements are implemented. Everybody wants to see this. The points at issue are ones that are fragile and clearly demand attention from the political process. They will get it. I hope to visit Northern Ireland again shortly and will help in any way I can to encourage people to proceed with implementation of the agreement. At the end of the day it is all about peace, prosperity and opportunity and the branding of the island. That is an issue on which no one would disagree.

Deputy Micheál Martin spoke about the possibility of having a single enterprise unit for the country. We share a brand when I have the opportunity to work abroad with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. One area that is clearly without rancour is the tourism and hospitality sector and it seems to have worked reasonably well. I am not sure about getting into business because there may be different elements, although it is still a matter of exporting from the island. These matters can be examined in the future.

Deputy Gerry Adams raised a number of relevant issues which we will continue to address in the best way we can. I hope implementation of the Stormont House Agreement will make life a little better for those who feel the past has passed them by and are hurt. The institutions now being put in place will, I hope, bring some sense of relief to them. Let us see how the retrieval of information works. When somebody, be they a member of the Finucane family or whoever else, goes to seek information, under the terms of the agreement, all of the information will be provided. That might be important in a number of these cases and I hope the words mean what they say. We will have to monitor it, test it and see that it works properly.

Is it not the truth, when one strips away the make-up applied by the parties, the Irish Government and the British Government, that the so-called Stormont House Agreement is a savage austerity attack on the public sector in Northern Ireland, a state which traditionally suffered from high unemployment and low wages? Is it not also the truth that the Taoiseach went to Belfast and supported Prime Minister Cameron in insisting on the Tory cuts agenda for the working class people of Northern Ireland, an approach that would have received the approval of Mrs. Margaret Thatcher herself? Does the Taoiseach acknowledge that 20,000 public sector jobs will be closed down in the North in the next few years as a result of this agreement and that the biggest single amount of money mentioned is for the purpose of paying for the redundancies of public sector workers? The North has relied on public sector jobs because of the ongoing failure of private capitalism to deliver significant jobs and investment.

Is it not extraordinary that there was united support for one of the centrepieces of the agreement, namely, cuts in corporation tax? Scandalously, these cuts which may be implemented by 2017 are linked with so-called welfare reforms which attack the poorest in the North. How could the Taoiseach connive in misleading the people of Northern Ireland that the same over-reliance on multinational investment in which successive Irish Governments indulged will solve the problems of unemployment and low pay? The main story we have heard regarding the multinationals for several months is about their scandalous involvement in tax scams. They robbed tens of billions of euro that should have been spent on social services and job creation measures from the tax budgets of many countries. Luxembourg, Switzerland and the Irish Republic were outed as tax havens, yet this is put forward as a major advance and a promise of massive job creation. That is a cruel hoax.

Is the Taoiseach aware that the official trade union movement is deeply angry about this? It believes thousands of jobs and millions of pounds will be taken from the public, never to be returned, and that thousands of sacked public servants will face the lowest wages in the United Kingdom or else the everyday humiliation built into the cruel Tory vision of welfare. The inefficient private sector cannot provide enough decent jobs for school leavers and graduates. The North cannot afford to waste the talents of teachers, tourism and transport workers through these redundancies. The trade union movement regards this as a bad deal fit only for a land of pound shops and food shops, rather than the society for which people voted at the last election. Is it any wonder a major public sector strike is being called for 13 March? Private sector workers will also strike and they will be joined by students and community organisations.

The Deputy First Minister rounded on critics of the agreement to accuse them of living in fantasy land, but does the Taoiseach agree that anybody who sells this as anything other than a major austerity attack with serious downsides for working class people, whether Protestant or Catholic, is actually the one living in fantasy land? Working class people need to unite across the existing divide, shake off the sectarian parties on both sides which sell this type of false agreement and fight for real measures to protect the public sector and provide for major public sector investment that can lead to the creation of tens of thousands of jobs, as well as homes and public services. As has happened here under the Taoiseach, these areas have been under attack for several years.

The Deputy asked about a savage austerity attack in Northern Ireland, an area of high unemployment. Since the Troubles, the public sector has pumped money into Northern Ireland because of the high rates of unemployment arising from the Troubles. The best answer to that problem is the creation of jobs, which means investing to make the place attractive to foreign direct investment and give business the opportunity to thrive. Exports can add value, create jobs and promote prosperity in Northern Ireland. That is why a number of personnel from Northern Ireland were based in Brussels during the Irish Presidency in order to become fully acquainted with the issues being discussed and bring them to the attention of officials and the Executive in Northern Ireland. The reason the Irish and British Governments were asked to assist in Northern Ireland was the parties were having difficulties in agreeing a range of measures to deal with the past, including flags, parades and other legacy issues.

The budgetary situation, on the other hand, was one for the Executive and the parties elected to the Assembly to make decisions on. In accepting the budgetary allocation from the British Government, difficult choices sometimes had to be made as to how it should be spent. For our part, we continued to say we would provide Stg£50 million in two tranches for the A5 to the north west. I understand there are some legal challenges in that context, but the money is in place from our point of view. We also made provision for radiotherapy facilities at Altnagelvin and a range of other cross-Border activities in the areas of tourism, education, business and so on.

Our State has had a corporation tax rate of 12.5% for many years and it is not changing. It will not go up and it will not go down. Corporation tax and taxes in general are matters of national competence under the treaties of the European Union and any country is entitled to change its tax rates. An issue was raised by political representatives in Northern Ireland who said they should be allowed to decide to reduce the level of corporate tax applying there. The Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed and a commitment was given by the British Government which is being implemented. If it applies from 2017, there will be a loss to the Northern Ireland economy depending on the rate that is struck and a question will arise as to how it will be made up. That is a matter for the elected representatives in Northern Ireland. I have said on many occasions that I would welcome whatever decision they make. If it approaches closer to the 12.5% tax rate we have here, it will make it easier to promote the country as being a lower tax area from a corporate tax point of view for foreign direct investment. I hope that we can continue to promote the island of Ireland in that sense. Deputy Joe Higgins links that to welfare reform. The answer has to be that when one makes the structural changes, one makes one's economy and country more attractive to business and investment from outside. One also makes it easier to set up businesses, create added value and export it where possible and create jobs and opportunities. That is beginning to happen, which is why I like to see the strong promotion of Northern Ireland that is taking place.

Many of these issues cross all political divides. I was able to attend with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister at the Royal School in Armagh to make the island of Ireland bid to host the 2023 Rugby World Cup, which I believe we will win. There will be a very strong national response to it. The First and Deputy First Ministers and people from across the divides were very amenable to that in terms of what it can bring and in terms of the reputation of the country. The Gaelic Athletic Association here made the decision in less than two minutes to provide appropriate stadia around the country if Ireland succeeds in its bid. With the world's No. 1 golfer being from Northern Ireland, the Irish Open this year in County Down will attract enormous worldwide attention. We will be very strong in promoting the country as a place to visit and invest in.

The Deputy mentioned Switzerland, Luxembourg and tax positions. We are very clear where we stand on this. We defend our position very strongly. The European Commission is examining all countries at the moment. I hope that its analysis and decisions are arrived at expeditiously. We have a very clear view that there has been no State aid involvement or special deals done for any company. We will defend that record very strongly going back over many Governments and years. Switzerland's central bank made a decision to revalue by 20%, which had an immediate impact in terms of business and attractiveness for continued investment. That is a matter for the Government in Switzerland to deal with. Clearly, the situation is one in which we participate. We got rid of the stateless concept and the double Irish concept. We are very supportive of the OECD in the BEPS analysis that is ongoing. We want to be able to stand out in front and say that we are introducing our information box and a competitive rate. We will be very fair and hard and play to win for our country because jobs are the opportunity to get away from welfare dependency. Jobs allow people to have the benefits of an economy that is thriving in which prosperity can happen.

In a peculiar way, we are going to achieve the unity of this island that we have long strived for. It will not be a unity achieved in prosperity; it will be a unity achieved by making ordinary working people North and South the victims of the austerity agenda. Is it not the case that the Stormont House Agreement which the Taoiseach, the Tory Government and now, sadly, Sinn Féin are championing is the Northern Ireland version of the troika's austerity programme inflicted on working people and the poor down here over the last six years?

Anyone, including the Taoiseach and Deputy Gerry Adams, who looks at the language of the agreement must be struck by the incredible similarity to that of the troika programme inflicted on the people of this country. It is full of all the same euphemisms such as this: "Public Sector Reform and Restructuring which will encompass a wide range of strategies, including measures to address structural differences in relation to the cost of managing a divided society, reduce pay bill costs, such as a reduction in the size of the NICS and the wider public sector". Those are lovely euphemisms and the same sort of language we had in the troika programme. They translate in reality and on the ground into pay cuts, jobs losses, fewer job opportunities for young graduates in the North and a massive hit for the domestic Northern Ireland economy which, contrary to what Deputy Adams said, is directly comparable proportionately with the axe that was taken to the public sector down here. Does the Taoiseach agree? In a region with a population of 2 million, 20,000 jobs are to go whereas with a population of just a bit over 4 million, we lost 45,000 jobs from the public sector. Does the Taoiseach acknowledge that the same level of axing is going to be unleashed in the Northern Ireland Civil Service and public sector as we saw down here with the same devastating consequences in terms of a lack of job opportunities and negative knock-on effects in the Northern Ireland domestic economy?

The following phrase is in the agreement: "Executive Departments should also consider how to best realise the value of their capital assets through reform or restructuring to realise income and longer term savings". Is not that just another euphemism for the sale of state assets, be it Ulsterbus, Northern Ireland Railways, the Belfast Harbour estate, forests, office buildings or the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's 80,000 housing units? All of these assets are potentially going to come under the hammer of privatisation in the same way we saw them come under the hammer of the troika agreement. The defence that all of this is not so bad because redundancies under the Stormont House Agreement will be voluntary is ridiculous. All of the redundancies in the public sector down here were described as "voluntary". There were no compulsory redundancies in the South, yet the public sector was slashed to the point that in many cases public services are falling apart. The same axe is now to be taken to the public service in the North.

The only upside to all this is that there is the possibility that the Border may be overcome in an unexpected way. On 13 March, we will have a massive mobilisation of the Northern Ireland trade union, labour and working class movement against the austerity programme and a week later we will have a massive demonstration in Dublin against water charges and austerity. Are we not achieving unity? It is the unity of the political establishment, North and South, to impose vicious austerity and the unity from below of working people North and South standing together against a political establishment that wishes to sacrifice them and their livelihoods, jobs and public services for a failed and cruel austerity agenda.

That is very impressive. Surely Deputy Gerry Adams has something to say about it.

It is proposed in the Stormont House Agreement that the number of Members in the Northern Assembly be reduced at some stage. To what degree was the Northern Ireland budget considered in the talks? I do not know whether the Taoiseach saw BBC's "Spotlight" programme on the very significant number of fictitious front organisations which were receiving publicly funded rent payments from Sinn Féin and drawing down millions of pounds in expenses over recent years. It could be argued that if fewer fictitious front organisations were receiving publicly funded rents from Sinn Féin, there might be fewer teachers cut in the Stormont House Agreement. Would the Taoiseach accept that it is essential that both Governments be involved in the ongoing implementation of this? Deputy Adams said the agreement was achieved despite the Governments. It is typical of Sinn Féin's approach, begging the Governments to get involved for 12 to 15 months and, when they do, Sinn Féin says it did it all itself and did not need them. In some instances, Sinn Féin almost wants a crisis to happen on occasion so that it can gain the resulting profile to advance its electoral ambitions. I regret to say it. It will have a negative impact on future engagements. The lesson of the past two years is that both Governments must stay involved, given that one will not get agreements, progress or implementation otherwise.

I do not want a crisis to emerge. My family home is there. I was there yesterday. I spend most Mondays at Stormont trying to work these issues out with our friends in the Unionist section. In his remarks earlier, the Taoiseach acknowledged that the first offer was not accepted. Deputy Martin said this is how negotiations happen and what politicians do. If the Deputy compares the first and final drafts of the Stormont House Agreement, he will see why I made the remark I made. Our focus was not on helping the parties in the North but getting the Irish Government to focus on the British Government and to fulfil its responsibilities in that regard. On a lighter note, we should applaud the emergence of the united popular front against Sinn Féin led by Deputies Micheál Martin, Joe Higgins and Richard Boyd Barrett.

We are not against Deputy Gerry Adams.

We are not against Deputy Gerry Adams but against the agreement.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett mentioned peculiar ways of reaching unity. The seven and a half minute rant he had was about promoting marches around the country, one following the other a week later.

It was about Roman Catholics and Protestants marching together against austerity.

When he talks about ordinary working people, here in the South unemployment has fallen from 15.2% to 10.5% and continues to drop. Some 80,000 new jobs have been created and 40,000 more will be created this year.

Send some to Kerry, please.

It is an opportunity to get out of social welfare dependency and deals with ordinary working people. The difference between the Stormont House Agreement and the troika was that we were under the diktat of the troika, given the economic circumstances. The Northern Ireland Assembly is elected freely by the people and makes its decisions in terms of its legislative programme. The public service in the South has had its difficulties regarding pay cuts. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, will begin the process of engaging with the public sector unions on a successor to the Haddington Road agreement and continued reform and has published a series of reform documents in order that the sector here can be more effective and professional and deliver a better service at a leaner cost. Everybody has accepted this.

The Government is not delivering better services.

Interest rates have fallen from 15% to less than 2% and the country was recently able to borrow 30-year money at 2% and raise more than €4 billion, which puts us in a very different position. If the situation reported in the programme Deputy Martin mentioned was true, if his party, my party or the Labour Party did the same, we would never hear the end of it from one end of the month to the other. I do not know whether it is true.

It has not been denied. There was radio silence on it in the North.

Perhaps the president of Sinn Féin would say whether it is true and whether he has taken any action to deny it.

I take both Deputies' points, that the Government should stay focused on the implementation of the agreement, and I give my word that I will do so. On the tangling over the first offer, I recall the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, talking about being present at the fair in Glynn. One makes an offer and all kinds of hagglers come together before an agreement is put in place. A first offer is always a first offer and it takes a political process and negotiations to come to a final agreement. I am glad agreement was reached. We will work with the British Government, within our responsibilities, to see that the agreement is monitored and implemented in the interest of the peoples of Northern Ireland.

Written Answers follow Adjournment.
Top
Share