Gerry Adams
Question:1. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the key priorities in his Department to the end of 2017. [46926/17]
View answerDepartmental Priorities
Questions (1, 2)
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:2. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach the key priorities in his Department for the next three months. [44703/17]
View answerOral answers (12 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
My Department's primary role is to support me, as Taoiseach, and the Government in delivering on our programme. During the next three months, my Department will therefore support delivery of significant Government policy objectives, including the development of a ten-year capital investment plan alongside the national planning framework; ensuring that Ireland's Brexit priorities continue to be strongly represented in the ongoing negotiations between the EU and the United Kingdom; supporting the peace process and the restoration of power-sharing in Northern Ireland; developing the Action Plan for Jobs 2018, including specific responses to the challenge of Brexit; finalising a roadmap for pensions reform; implementing Rebuilding Ireland to increase housing supply and tackle homelessness and developing the Government's response to the Sláintecare report. These are just a few of the many policies which will be progressed over that period.
In most of these areas, the primary responsibility lies with the relevant line Department. The role of my Department is to help ensure that policies are developed and implemented in a coherent way across different Departments and to support me in my role as Head of Government. This includes my role as chair of Government meetings and Cabinet committees, attendance at the European Council, the North-South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council and other national and international engagements. My Department will also seek to ensure effective communication of Government policy in these and other areas.
My Department is also currently updating its statement of strategy to reflect some of the changes that have taken place in recent months following my election. This includes the establishment of a new configuration of Cabinet committees and some changes in the functions of Ministers of State and of Departments.
I thank the Taoiseach for his response. The key priorities facing the Taoiseach are numerous, as he acknowledges, but the key concerns for citizens are the housing crisis, the crisis in health and Brexit. All of these issues require a robust response from Government. One must ask, however, why a Government would act robustly when it fails to deal with basic facts and, indeed, peddles falsehoods. At the weekend, the Taoiseach made light of a serious problem affecting our society when he stated that Ireland had one of the lowest homelessness rates by international standards when compared with our peers. He was not, of course, comparing like with like in making this inaccurate claim. Other states across the OECD have broader definitions of homelessness. In addition, the OECD data for Ireland the Taoiseach's spin team used were out of date by two years. It is clear at page 1 of the report that different countries count homelessness in different ways. The figures published by the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government do not include women and children in Tusla-funded domestic violence accommodation, those who are sofa surfing or those who are involuntarily sharing unsuitable accommodation in overcrowded circumstances. I hope for the sake of those experiencing homelessness that this was just another embarrassing gaffe by the Taoiseach and not an honestly-held belief.
What is required is not the normalisation of the homelessness crisis but the building of homes and making them more affordable. Today's ESRI report, which shows that a 20% increase is likely over the next three years, and the daft.ie report, which shows rents increasing by over 11%, indicate that the problem is being compounded. I ask the Taoiseach to indicate what the Government is doing for people and to address the fact that he believes affordable housing is in the range of €315,000 to €395,000, which he says most people in his constituency could afford. Does he realise that households would have to have incomes of between €81,000 and €101,000 per year to afford that? There are many families and households who get up early in the morning but who could never aspire to that type of income.
It is difficult to credit the Taoiseach's claim that the Department is solving the homelessness and housing crisis as a priority given his comments at the weekend. Will he consider apologising and retracting the inaccurate and outrageous attempt to minimise and normalise a disastrous housing and homelessness crisis? I will remind him that he said "Ireland has one of the lowest homelessness [rates] by international standards compared with our peers - they're the stats, we can provide them for you". This comment coincides with a shocking and outrageous statement by Mr. Conor Skehan, the head of the Housing Agency, who says we need to stop using words like "homeless" and "crisis" and recognise that the crisis is "completely normal". That is shocking. One cannot take seriously the Taoiseach's claim that this is a priority for him or inject the sense of urgency necessary to deal with what is a catastrophic situation if that is the attitude. Will the Taoiseach withdraw those comments? Has he seen the statistics provided by Focus, which actually compare us with like comparators in Europe and which were compiled by Professor Eoin O'Sullivan in TCD? They were put out in the last few days and they show that Ireland actually compares badly and its position is much worse and worsening compared to countries where the data collected are comparable. I suggest the Taoiseach looks at them. They show that in comparison with Norway, Finland and Denmark, we have the worst proportion of homelessness by population and that homelessness has increased dramatically under Fine Gael. We have gone from a position of being better on homelessness in 2008 to being the worst of all of those countries. Those figures are actually comparable.
Last week, the Taoiseach told the Dáil his Department needed to provide a counter-balance to the media, which he believes do not cover enough good news. The Taoiseach said 80% of news was negative and that it should really be approximately 50% at most. There will be a new strategy, the third in two years, and I am interested in how that new commitment will be reflected in it. The Secretary General is supposed to be chairing an interdepartmental group to ensure that the new strategic communications unit will not be politicised. However, the unit has begun to spend money on advertising and branding before the oversight group has even started its work. After a lengthy delay, we have received replies to a number of freedom of information requests we submitted concerning the unit. It will surprise no one that the head of the unit is most frequently in contact with the Taoiseach's political staff. In fact, emails between the Taoiseach's chief of staff and the head of the unit have been withheld on the basis of a claim that they are part of the deliberative process. Can the Taoiseach explain why the head of a supposedly non-political unit seems to have more contact with political staff in the Department than with his Civil Service peers? My overarching concern is what I see as the creeping politicisation of the State service in pursuit of a party political goal, which is something that must be guarded against at all costs.
I echo what other Deputies have said on the housing crisis, which is a scandal, and what they have said about attempts to normalise it. I do not go for international comparisons or statistics because, every week, I meet people who are in appalling circumstances, from homelessness to the inability to get a house, having to stay with their parents and right along the continuum. It is everywhere and is a huge blight on our society and on our values as a country. We should not, in any shape or form, try to trivialise it or use language that understates the reality of the housing scandal for so many families and so many children in our community. We judge ourselves by our own standards and by what we believe to be best - nothing else. It is a very sad day when there are so many people in such dire circumstances in respect of housing, whether it is because of their rent or homelessness itself.
I agree with others that the major social issues facing the Taoiseach, the Government and all of us are housing, homelessness and the health crisis but I want to deal with another issue, namely, the approach of this Government to Brexit. Most of us were a little bit taken aback last week when the Taoiseach told the House that it was his view that sufficient progress would likely be made in advance of the December European Council meeting to allow matters to move on to the second phase of negotiations. The Taoiseach is the first prime minister of the EU27 to voice such a view and, in light of the ongoing and accelerating chaos of the British Government, that is a surprising view. What will the Taoiseach's approach be, strategically, to the next European Council meeting? Is what he said still his view and if he is still optimistic, can he let us know the cause of his optimism? If, as he said in Enniskillen, we must make preparations for the UK crashing out of the EU without a deal, what are the preparations he is making? Are contingency plans being made with Revenue? He stopped that happening earlier but is it now his view that we should recommence that process? Is it his strategic view that Ireland will not allow matters to proceed beyond phase 1 until such time as we have, in writing, a solution on the Irish Border question that meets Ireland's unique needs?
We spoke about housing and homelessness earlier on Leaders' Questions and I do not wish to repeat anything I said. I simply draw Deputies' attention to my remarks at the time. International statistics always come with a health warning and different countries collect statistics in different ways and have different definitions, whether for unemployment, GDP and pretty much everything. Some countries have a wider definition of homelessness and others have a lesser definition. The reason we have a body like the OECD is that it compares like with like, to the extent that it is possible. Deputies are very happy to use OECD statistics on other occasions and I am not going to be selective about it. I am willing to use OECD numbers whether they are good or bad. In a recent The Irish Times article I read of a person living in one of the family hubs with her family, who was so satisfied with the accommodation she did not now feel homeless yet our statistics regard her as homeless. On "Morning Ireland" this morning I heard that some people believe that children in their adult years and who are living at home with their parents while saving up for a deposit should be considered homeless but I would not agree that somebody living with his or her parents was in the same category as somebody sleeping rough, with both considered homeless. I was asked a definite question about Ireland being among the highest for homelessness, which it is not. Nobody is now making that assertion. It was not an attempt to do anything or to normalise anything or play it down but a simple answer to a straightforward question, something I am often accused of not doing. I am certainly not interested in debating statistics here with anyone. I have heard other people doing it in the past few days but I have not got involved.
It was the Taoiseach who mentioned statistics.
The question was about statistics. I am interested in talking about solutions.
The leader of the Opposition has been in correspondence with my Secretary General about communications and I believe the latter has written a reply on the matter. I have not been party to that correspondence, which is from a unit in the Department, but I am sure Mr. Fraser has replied in full. The unit will be covered by public sector rules and no political work will be done. As is the norm for heads of sections in all Government Departments, they talk to politicians and their staff regularly.
Contingency planning for Brexit is being carried out for all scenarios but it is just scenario planning. We are certainly not designing customs forms, nor would it be within our remit to do so as it is an exclusive competency of the European Union. We are not looking to hire Border staff or anything of that nature and any planning operates on a contingency basis. Deputy Howlin again made the assertion that I stopped Revenue making planning arrangements.
Is it not true?
It is not true. I have read this story in the newspapers but as is often the case, such as it was with the "bonkers" assertion of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, just because it is in the newspapers again and again does not mean it is factually correct. I made no such order.
Is the Taoiseach still optimistic about an outcome at the European Council meeting?
I am indeed. I may yet be Europe's last optimist. This might be a good thing as Deputy Howlin is so glum.
Taoiseach's Meetings and Engagements
Questions (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Gerry Adams
Question:3. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his conversation with the British Prime Minister, Ms Theresa May, on 16 October 2017. [44616/17]
View answerBrendan Howlin
Question:4. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his telephone conversation with the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Theresa May, on 16 October 2017. [44548/17]
View answerMicheál Martin
Question:5. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken to Prime Minister, Mrs. May, since the Secretary of State, Mr. Brokenshire, made his comments regarding possible direct rule of Northern Ireland on and after 30 October 2017. [45040/17]
View answerMicheál Martin
Question:6. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on contact made by the Prime Minister, Mrs. May, to discuss the Brexit impasse prior to the European Council meeting; and the issues that were discussed and his response to each. [44679/17]
View answerMicheál Martin
Question:7. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent discussion with the Prime Minister, Mrs. May, with regard to the unique circumstances regarding the Border with Northern Ireland. [44680/17]
View answerMicheál Martin
Question:8. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken to Prime Minister May since the October 2017 EU Council meeting or the latest deadline of 30 October 2017 regarding developments in Northern Ireland. [46345/17]
View answerMicheál Martin
Question:9. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken with Prime Minister May since the talks in Northern Ireland broke down on 1 November 2017; and his views on whether talks will recommence to avoid the possibility of direct rule under the mechanisms of the Good Friday Agreement. [47083/17]
View answerBrendan Howlin
Question:10. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his telephone call with the Prime Minister, Mrs. May, in relation to the political situation in Northern Ireland on 2 November 2017. [48127/17]
View answerOral answers (13 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 10, inclusive, together.
I had telephone calls with the UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, on 16 October and on 1 November. In our conversation on 16 October, we discussed the latest developments in Northern Ireland at that time and urged a rapid resumption of talks, with a view to restoration of the Northern Ireland institutions urgently in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. We also discussed Brexit, including the unique circumstances regarding the Border, and preparations for the upcoming meeting of the European Council in Brussels on 19 and 20 October. In our call on 16 October we also spoke about the damage from Storm Ophelia, the Bombardier case and the impact that may have on jobs in Belfast.
The Prime Minister and I spoke by telephone again on 1 November to review progress made by the political parties in Northern Ireland since our previous telephone conversation, including in light of the statement to the House of Commons by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, James Brokenshire, the previous day. We agreed that it is still possible to form an Executive, which would be in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. I underlined that there could be no return to direct rule as it existed prior to the Good Friday Agreement and that the various provisions of the Agreement would have to be honoured. The Prime Minister was clear that she did not want to see a return to direct rule and that moves to implement a budget for Northern Ireland should not be seen as a first step on the road to direct rule.
We agreed that there is still time to reach an agreement and that the parties should continue to work to this end, with the support of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Simon Coveney, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. James Brokenshire. The Prime Minister and I agreed to stay in close contact on the matter over the coming period.
I acknowledge that parties have a principled role in relation to the negotiations but there is also an obligation on the Taoiseach, his Government and the British Government. The Taoiseach and the Government are not spectators or commentators, nor is the British Prime Minister. They are all co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement, with all the responsibilities that entails. Over the past ten months the focus of the negotiations has been on the issue of rights which are the norm on the rest of this island and in Britain. Marriage equality, language rights, the bill of rights, rights to legacy inquests and such things are not only supported by Sinn Féin but by the majority of those in the Assembly and in wider society. These rights benefit all sections of society and should threaten no one. The only reason they are being denied is that the DUP has resisted a rights-based agenda and the British Government has acquiesced in this.
This is compounded by the fact the Tory-DUP pact is in place. It is completely unacceptable and I hope the Taoiseach has reflected this in his conversations with Theresa May. Sinn Féin did so in our conversation with her last week, and it is important that the Government does this on behalf of the Irish State. The issue of rights is not going away and it needs to be dealt with satisfactorily. For our part, we have done our best to be flexible and we did our best to stretch ourselves in the common good, and I believe the Taoiseach knows this. He also knows that in the context of an agreement on the delivery of rights, and these are rights which have already been agreed in previous agreements, Sinn Féin will enter government. In the absence of these rights the Executive is not sustainable. What is now needed is the two Governments to act urgently to deliver equality. This is their joint responsibility under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. This is to honour the outstanding commitments and deliver the rights enjoyed by everybody else on these islands to the people of the North who are being denied these rights. In the absence of doing this, perhaps the Taoiseach will enlighten us on which rights he believes we should forego.
We now have an imposed budget on Northern Ireland brought about by Secretary of State Brokenshire. In doing so he has, for now, ruled out direct rule, as the Taoiseach has in his answer to this question. What will happen in the absence of an agreement between the parties in Northern Ireland? If direct rule is ruled out by the British Government and the Taoiseach, and if no agreement is possible, and we have spent many months seeking such an agreement, between the parties democratically elected in Northern Ireland, what is the path the Taoiseach envisages out of this particular impasse? The British Labour Party Member of Parliament, Conor McGinn, has said there should not be direct rule from Westminster but that instead we should explore a new partnership arrangement between Dublin and London. Is there any out of the box thinking going on? Has the Taoiseach had a discussion in detail with Prime Minister May on what specifically they will do in the event of there being no direct rule and no Executive in Northern Ireland? How is the province is to be administered?
For the past six years we have been told relations with the British Government have been excellent, yet every bilateral issue falls into neglect or some form of crisis. It is fair to say that previous to 2011 it would have been inconceivable that any Taoiseach or Prime Minister of any party would have taken such a hands off approach to the vital issues, particularly on the Good Friday Agreement and the institutions contained in the Agreement, and particularly the institutional crisis in Northern Ireland where there has been drift for a number of years, culminating in what I genuinely believe was the contrived collapse of the Northern Ireland Executive and assembly, notwithstanding the greatest crisis that faces the North and the island of Ireland, which happens to be Brexit. If we are to devise any credible approach in terms of a special economic zone, or reflect the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland in any Brexit solution, then it has to involve a devolved administration, legislature and Executive, through which a special economic zone or something similar could be achieved while respecting the constitutional status of the United Kingdom as contained in the Good Friday Agreement. Sinn Féin and the DUP have not worked this out. On the rights issue, it seems a majority in the assembly is now in favour of marriage equality, for example, so if the assembly came back it is quite plausible there would be a vote in favour of marriage equality. Not having it back is a delay to getting marriage equality through. I do not believe there is any huge resistance now to an Irish language Act.
It is called a petition of concern.
I am aware of the petition of concern. Let it flow and let it happen. Times are changing. Let the assembly meet and adjudicate on the issue. Likewise, I do not see any great barrier to the language Act. I am not aware of any great impediment to the establishment of an Irish language Act at this particular stage. If we are to have special arrangements in the context of Brexit there would have to be regulatory convergence with Europe. The only way this can happen is through a devolved administration being given the leeway to legislate or maintain convergence with the European Union.
Has the Taoiseach raised with the British Government any proposals concerning a special economic zone or something similar for Northern Ireland? Last week, the Taoiseach indicated he felt a breakthrough was on the way. This was followed very quickly by indications that a breakdown might be on the way. Within the space of days this is what we were treated to. Fundamentally, there was an attitude from our Government that it was a matter for the British Government to sort out what special arrangements it may have. We have a role in thinking through scenarios that could be the solution, particularly for Michel Barnier and his team and the European Commission, who are very consistent in saying they want the rule of EU law to continue to apply. Therefore, we need to be creative in identifying the right potential solutions to what is a very grave issue for the citizens of this island and particularly for Northern Ireland.
Deputy Martin's analysis of the situation is largely accurate. In terms of our conversations with the UK Government, to the extent we have spoken about special arrangements they are in the context of the paper agreed by the EU 27. That paper attempts to make real the promises made to us. We have all heard the language of the past 18 months, that there should be no hard border, no return to the borders of the past and no physical infrastructure along the Border, and we, not as Ireland but as the European Union, and as a negotiating party of 27 with the strength of all of Europe behind us, have set down in writing how we think that can be best achieved. We are not demanding that the UK or any part of the UK should have to remain in the customs union or the Single Market. We are, however, saying that if we are to honour this promise and commitment we have been given of avoiding a hard border or a return to the borders of the past there must be regulatory equivalence, if not between the United Kingdom as a whole and the EU then between Northern Ireland and the EU. It is set out in the paper, which has been extensively leaked at this stage, that the same rulebooks must apply.
The Minister, Deputy Coveney, describes this very well. We cannot have a situation where a factory north of the Border making hair dryers could be given state aid by the UK Government while a factory south of the Border making hair dryers would be forbidden from receiving aid under state aid rules. We could not have a situation where the CAP in the Republic of Ireland as part of the European Union would require eight inspections a year whereas British or UK deregulation might only require four. This is what we mean by regulatory equivalence. It means the rules of the customs union and the Single Market continue to apply, even if the UK and Northern Ireland are not in the customs union.
There are many examples of bespoke arrangements throughout Europe. The Isle of Man is one small one. It has never been in the EU or part of the UK. It does not pay into the EU budget or get anything out of it, but under a protocol to the Treaty of Rome, it, by its own legislation in its own parliament, adopts the rules and regulations of the Single Market and the customs union. It is a sovereign decision for it to do so because it is its own parliament that does it. Deputy Martin has touched very accurately on how the role of the Northern Ireland Assembly could be to do something exactly like this.
Our preference, however, is that arrangements which would allow free trade to continue should not just be a special arrangement for Northern Ireland. We would like these arrangements to apply to the entire United Kingdom because that is what is most important for Irish jobs, the Irish economy, Irish businesses and Irish farmers. Let us not forget that most of the exports from business and farming in Ireland do not go to Northern Ireland but to England. A beef farmer's produce is probably going to go to England. The solution we want is one that protects free trade and free movement for the UK and Ireland and not a special arrangement just for Northern Ireland. That is a secondary outcome. It is not the preferred outcome. It may be better than the worst outcome, but our preferred outcome is an arrangement that allows us to continue to trade and travel freely with all of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland but not just Northern Ireland.
By definition, a special arrangement for Northern Ireland means we are accepting new barriers between Britain and Ireland. Of course, that is damaging for our farmers, agrifood industry and exporters and also for trade and jobs. Those who are advocating a special arrangement as a great outcome need to understand they are proposing something very damaging for agrifood, farmers and Irish jobs and businesses.
There are no great outcomes from Brexit.
Deputy Howlin asked what will happen if the DUP and Sinn Féin fail to form an Executive. I am loath to answer a hypothetical question.
I am afraid it is a long time coming.
The Government cannot support a return to the kind of direct rule that existed 20 years ago prior to the Good Friday Agreement. With the agreement of the UK Government, some of the provisions of the Agreement, such as those relating to the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and the North-South Ministerial Council, could be brought into operation or back into operation. However, that is not what I want to see happen.
Who would represent us on the North-South Ministerial Council?
I do not want Ministers from this Government meeting Northern Ireland Office Ministers. I would rather see Ministers from this Government meeting Ministers elected by the people of Northern Ireland to discuss these matters.
To respond to the first group of questions asked by Deputy Pearse Doherty, I absolutely agree that this Government is neither an observer nor a commentator. It is a co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement. The Minister, Deputy Coveney, has been unbelievably engaged with this issue on the Government's behalf. He must have spent at least two days a week in Northern Ireland over the past four months. When he is dealing with the parties in Northern Ireland and with the UK Government, he speaks for me and the whole of the Irish Government. I have been far from hands off in my approach. I have met all the parties. I have met the DUP and Sinn Féin twice. I met the leaders of the DUP and Sinn Féin on a one-to-one basis - without officials - so that we could speak honestly and off the record. I speak to the Prime Minister every two weeks and I will speak to her again on Friday. I have travelled to Northern Ireland on three occasions since my election as Taoiseach. I have been to Belfast and Derry and I was in Enniskillen just last weekend. My analysis of the difference between Sinn Féin and the DUP is much closer to that of Deputy Micheál Martin than that of Deputy Pearse Doherty. I do not think this is about rights any more; I am of the view that it is about trust and terminology. It is almost a Swiftian situation at this stage. If people knew how small the difference is, I think they would be quite shocked in some ways.
Taoiseach's Meetings and Engagements
Questions (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
Seán Haughey
Question:11. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with President Macron. [46342/17]
View answerMicheál Martin
Question:12. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with President Macron; the people who attended the meeting; the issues that were discussed; and if he met other groups while he was in Paris. [46343/17]
View answerMicheál Martin
Question:13. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with President Macron and if the President outlined the EU reforms that are his priority. [46344/17]
View answerMicheál Martin
Question:14. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach whether President Macron said he would support Ireland's priorities in the context of the Brexit negotiations. [46346/17]
View answerRichard Boyd Barrett
Question:15. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the French President, Mr. Emmanuel Macron. [46795/17]
View answerGerry Adams
Question:16. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his engagement with the President of the French Republic, Mr. Emmanuel Macron, on 24 October 2017. [46925/17]
View answerBrendan Howlin
Question:17. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his trip to France and his meeting with President Macron. [47834/17]
View answerOral answers (6 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 to 17, inclusive, together.
I had a constructive meeting with President Macron in Paris on 24 October last. Our exchanges covered bilateral relations, the Brexit negotiations and the future of Europe. We were each accompanied by a small team of officials and advisers. The meeting provided a welcome opportunity to review the strong bilateral relations between Ireland and France, which is an important economic partner for us. Bilateral trade in goods and services between Ireland and France is worth approximately €2 billion every month. This is a solid platform on which to build and strengthen into the future, especially as Ireland looks to grow and diversify its markets. We discussed our co-operation in other areas, including Ireland's contribution to the EU training mission in Mali. We expressed our joint commitment to the planned Celtic interconnector, which will link our electricity networks, improve our connectivity and support export-driven development of Ireland's renewable sector. This represents the future-oriented agenda we both want to deliver.
President Macron and I welcomed the progress achieved to date in the Brexit negotiations between the EU and the UK and the more constructive tone of Prime Minister May in light of her recent speech in Florence. We agreed that further work is required on the three withdrawal issues - the rights of EU citizens, the UK financial settlement and the Irish-specific issues - before the European Council can decide that sufficient progress has been made to move to the second phase of the negotiations, which will deal with the future relationship and the transition arrangements. I thanked President Macron for his understanding and strong support with regard to Irish-specific issues like the common travel area and all the rights associated with it, the Good Friday Agreement and the Border. I took the opportunity to update him on relevant developments. We agreed that the 27 member states must remain united. We expressed our shared hope that it will be possible to make further progress in the coming months.
France and Ireland are long-standing partners at EU level, particularly in the area of agriculture. We work together to protect rural communities and family farms. On Mercosur, we agreed on the need to protect our vital interests, especially in beef and agriculture, while opening up new export opportunities for our companies. President Macron and I agreed to stay in close contact on the situation in this regard as it evolves. As partners and friends, we are ready to discuss issues on which we do not necessarily agree, such as how best to tax Internet firms so that they pay their fair share. I outlined our view that this is a global issue which should be addressed at a global level and that the best way to achieve a successful outcome is to support the work that is under way at the OECD.
More generally, President Macron and I agreed on the enormous potential of the digital economy and the need to ensure Europe provides the right economic environment for it to flourish. We want to see a dynamic and innovative entrepreneurial climate, with vibrant European companies scaling successfully on international markets. President Macron has brought a renewed energy to the debate about the future of Europe. We agreed that Europe needs to demonstrate the capacity to adapt to meet the challenges of the future, such as the digital revolution, the banking union, climate change, migration and security and defence. As I outlined to the House in my statement after the October European Council, there is a clear willingness among the 27 EU leaders to increase the pace of discussions on this issue while maintaining unity. We will continue our discussions at the social summit in Gothenburg on Friday during a lunch organised by President Tusk.
In looking to the future, I outlined to President Macron my view that we need to focus on areas in which Europe can have a concrete and positive impact on the lives of citizens, including jobs, growth and investment in the digital Single Market and the Single Market itself. We discussed our respective plans to bring the debate on Europe to the public through the citizens' dialogue and other mechanisms. This is extremely important because other more extreme and divisive voices will gain traction unless we can offer an honest, positive and compelling agenda. My meeting with President Macron was followed by a business event organised by the Irish Embassy in partnership with Enterprise Ireland, IDA Ireland, Tourism Ireland and Bord Bia. This provided a useful opportunity to meet a range of Irish and French companies across a number of sectors and to discuss the opportunities and challenges that arise for business.
I thank the Taoiseach for his comprehensive reply. Obviously, the UK is leaving the EU. The way things are going, it seems it is about to crash out of the EU. As a result of the UK's impending departure, the Franco-German axis is moving to centre stage in the context of the future of the European Union. There are moves for further EU integration. I am sure the Taoiseach discussed the future of the EU with President Macron. Ireland should be at the heart of that debate and have a positive input in respect of it.
I note that the Taoiseach and President Macron agreed on many things, but I would like to ask specifically about defence. Yesterday, 23 member states signed up to the permanent structured co-operation project, which is known as PESCO. I understand that this new EU defence framework will be launched at next month's EU Council meeting. What is Ireland's position on this initiative? What effect will it have on Ireland's long-standing policy of military neutrality? Has the Cabinet approved PESCO? Will the matter come before the Dáil? To what aspects of PESCO might Ireland subscribe?
Arising from the Taoiseach's reply, it seems that he and President Macron also discussed digital taxation and corporate tax harmonisation. This was probably another issue of difference at last month's meeting. Did the Taoiseach impress on President Macron that if his vision for digital taxation and corporate tax harmonisation comes to pass, it will threaten Ireland's long-standing economic model and represent a real threat to jobs, growth and living standards in this country? Can the Taoiseach provide assurances that he impressed on President Macron the importance this country attaches to those issues?
It is good that the Taoiseach met the President of France.
We have had a strong relationship with France over the years, particularly in terms of the CAP, although France has always had an envious eye on our corporate tax rates and has made interventions that have periodically reached varying degrees of intensity. It seems we are now back in a phase where President Macron is focusing on the issue of taxation. The points raised by Deputy Haughey are important in terms of President Macron's ambitions for Europe and the set of proposals concerning EU reform and development. President Macron's position is clear, as is the position of many other countries. What is unclear is Ireland's position. The Taoiseach has welcomed some of the proposals. He has said warm things about the general idea of President Macron's moving forward agenda. However, the Taoiseach has done so in a very vague way and nobody really has any idea as to what is his or Ireland's position. It is time we had a debate in this House and a proper, detailed examination and, ultimately, articulation of Ireland's position on the agenda for the future of the EU, particularly in a post-Brexit scenario. I know that a public consultation process is ongoing but that has had very limited impact in more recent times and more innovative ways must be considered. Fundamentally, this Parliament has a role and we should be engaged with that agenda.
President Macron has made it clear that he supports, as do a number of other EU leaders, the move towards the creation of an EU army or military intervention force and a shared defence budget. The PESCO agreement, which they want to sign off on in December, is a step towards that. What President Macron and other European leaders think is clear. How does the suggestion that we may sign up to aspects of this agreement square with our tradition and position of military neutrality? The Taoiseach has made distinctions between a common foreign and security policy and involvement in a European military force or contributing to a defence budget. However, signing up to an agreement of this nature, a common foreign and security policy and pledges to progressively increase military expenditure hardly seem to be in line with protecting our neutrality, particularly when the architects and supporters of what is proposed are saying explicitly that it is a step towards the creation of a European army and a European common defence. Is talking about signing up to this not backdoor abandonment of our tradition of military neutrality?
I am interested in the conversation the Taoiseach had with President Macron about Brexit. It appears that there is a growing realisation across the EU that Brexit, particularly on the British Government's terms, is incompatible with the Good Friday Agreement. The Taoiseach knows that Sinn Féin has been saying this from the outset. We see from last week's leaked papers a recognition that cross-Border co-operation is underpinned by EU legislation. The papers also make it clear that it is essential for the British Government to commit to avoiding a hard border, protecting the Good Friday Agreement in all of its parts and ensuring that the rules of the Single Market and the customs union are met. In our view, the only credible way to achieve this is special status for Northern Ireland within the EU. In other words, it is for Northern Ireland to remain within the internal market, the customs union and the EU legal framework. That would be possible if the Government presses for it in the Brexit negotiations. Europe is coming around to that view. The Taoiseach has a responsibility to ensure that this view is progressed and the Government has a responsibility not to waver or deviate from that position.
The British Government needs to start coming up with the goods and putting meat on the bones in terms of what it is suggesting. It needs to bring forward explicit proposals to ensure that Northern Ireland remains within the Single Market and the customs union. Will the Taoiseach commit to using the Government's veto on progressing the talks to include the issue of trade if the British Government refuses to seriously deal with this issue? In our view, the best of way of doing so is special status for Northern Ireland within the EU. Were these issues raised with President Macron?
On PESCO, we have not yet made a decision, either as a Government and as a country, regarding whether we want to participate. We want to see the full details before we make that decision. It will require a decision at Cabinet followed by a decision of the Dáil, so there will certainly be consultation with the major Opposition parties before a decision is made. We are favourably disposed towards it. I strongly believe that countries need to work together to respond to the new security threats we face in the modern world. I refer to international terrorism; cyber attacks, which nearly brought down health IT systems just across the water; uncontrolled mass migration; and trafficking of drugs and people. All of these things require co-operation across the Continent. They are not something that any nation state, even a big one, can manage on its own.
We are not going to join a European army, however, or sign up to NATO and neither will we agree to a mutual defence pact, so we shall remain a neutral country. The triple-lock mechanism will remain in place. We think that is in our interests as a country. Ireland is never going to be a military power. The fact that we are not part of a military alliance gives us more influence in the world for a number of reasons. However, I do not agree with the assertion that increasing military spending necessarily conflicts with neutrality per se. Lots of other neutral countries spend far more on defence than we do. In the years ahead, we will need to upgrade our equipment and modernise our Defence Forces. This is something they very much want. The impact of pay restoration for members of the Defence Forces will require an increase in spending. As a result, I do not agree that increasing spending is a bad thing or that it undermines our neutrality.
We affirmed our very strong view that the setting of taxes is a sovereign matter. While there are a number of European taxes that fund the European budget, national taxes should fund national budgets and it is up to parliaments such as this one to set taxes. We also reaffirmed our commitment to tax transparency. Tomorrow, with the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, I will launch a public consultation on the future of Europe. This will be led by the Minister of State. I would particularly welcome a debate - either in the Dáil or at the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs - on what should be Ireland's position on the future of Europe debate. I will indicate my views on the matter in more detail tomorrow but I think I have already done so quite extensively in the House, if people wish to check the record.
It was asked whether I would commit to use or threaten to use the veto. No, I will not. I do not think that would be in our interests. To use the veto would be to set ourselves apart from other countries and to stand alone. At present, our strength is that we are one of 27 countries and have the support of 26 other countries. Negotiating as one of those 27 puts us in a much stronger position in our dealings with the UK. The Sinn Féin nationalist "ourselves alone" position whereby we should set ourselves apart from our European allies, stand alone and threaten to use the veto would be a really big mistake strategically. The best way to get the best outcome for Ireland is to continue to be part of the 27 to ensure the 27 incorporate out needs into Europe's negotiating position. If we chose to isolate ourselves, which is very much the Sinn Féin political philosophy, it would do us serious harm.