Vol. 916 No. 2
1. Deputy Alan Kelly asked the Taoiseach if he will publish on the record of Dáil Éireann the full detail of all agreements made between the Government and all Independent Teachtaí Dála, political groupings and political parties, as he has previously stated he would. [16880/16]
The programme for a partnership Government is the agreement between members of the new minority Government setting out the specific commitments which will be delivered by the Government over its lifetime. This programme, which was published on 11 May, was the outcome of many hours of discussion which took place between my party and Independent Deputies and groupings. During these discussions agreement was reached with the now Minister of State, Deputy Halligan, to undertake an independent clinical review of services at University Hospital Waterford. This agreement was set out in the programme for a partnership Government and a letter on the matter from the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, to the Minister of State, Deputy Halligan, was published on the merrionstreet.ie website.
Central to the approach for delivering on this ambitious programme is the concept of good faith and no surprises. The programme for Government sets out a new and collaborative approach in doing business, not only in including the partners of Government but in being inclusive of the Oireachtas and wider society.
Implementation of the programme for a partnership Government will require a new relationship between the Government and the Oireachtas. This is reflected in significant Dáil reforms that have been agreed and are being implemented in the House and will provide a significantly greater role for Members of the Dáil. These arrangements will require greater collaboration and sharing of information by the Government with the Oireachtas, and a new process to support this is being put in place and will be co-ordinated by my Department. It will pose a challenge to all Members of the Oireachtas to ensure this new relationship works effectively in the long-term interest of the people we represent.
I thank the Taoiseach for his short reply. Two months ago on 6 May as the Government was being announced, I asked the Taoiseach to put on record, as he stated on numerous occasions inside and outside this House he would do, all the deals done with political parties, political groupings and each Independent Deputy. I presume the Taoiseach remembers that.
It would appear from the Taoiseach's reply today that the only deal made with any Independent, individual or grouping is the deal with the Minister of State, Deputy Halligan, on University Hospital Waterford in the south east. I am trying to ensure we do not end up in a situation in the future of my having to accuse the Taoiseach of having misled the Dáil. There is much talk about new politics. Ironically, the Taoiseach's adviser was appointed without public analysis to a €275,000 per annum job.
I want the Taoiseach to guarantee to this House that neither I nor any other Member of this House will come into the possession of any documentation referring to other deals, understandings or agreements, despite that certain Members of this House are stating publicly that agreements or understandings have been reached. Will the Taoiseach guarantee this House that outside of what he has just read into the record, there are no agreements between any political entity, individual or otherwise and the Government, which is led by the Taoiseach? Should I or anyone in this House subsequently come into the possession of documentation that refers to such deals, obviously we will have to come into this House and ask the Taoiseach some serious questions.
I am not sure what the Deputy is getting at. Is he speaking of agreements with people who are Members of the House, of different parties or who are Independents?
Members of the Government. Members supporting the Government.
The programme published on 11 May, which contains in excess of 600 commitments, was drawn up between the Fine Gael Party and members of the Rural Alliance, the Independent Alliance and other Independents. It is available for everybody to see. I have no knowledge of understandings, written agreements or commitments other than those published. No Minister or Minister of State in government has indicated to me that he or she has an agreement with any Member or Members of the House.
As I said, the programme for Government has been published and was debated here for many hours. In that regard a specific issue arose in respect of Waterford hospital. The Minister of State, Deputy Halligan, wrote a letter about that, which was published on the merrionstreet.ie website. As Deputy Kelly is well aware from his experience in government, regardless of how much one tries to put into a programme for Government, other issues arise day to day or over time that are never contemplated by a programme for Government. As happened during the years in office of the previous Government, of which Deputy Kelly, former Tánaiste, Deputy Joan Burton, and Deputy Howlin were members, there were many issues that were never referred to in the programme for Government that had to be dealt with.
In so far as the Deputy's question is concerned, the programme has been published; that is it. There was one other letter in respect of Waterford hospital and the Minister of State, Deputy Halligan. As new challenges and problems arise, the Government will have to make decisions about them. In so far as written documentation on understandings are concerned, I do not know of any.
I thank the Taoiseach. I am well aware of the programme for Government and what is in it. Members of this House who support the Government are referring to understandings or deals they have done with the Taoiseach, the Government or individual Ministers. I have read the programme for Government and other documentation in this regard on which I could lay my hands and saw no reference in it to any such deals with the Taoiseach or the Government. There appears to be at play here some form of political manoeuvring in that certain Deputies are implying they have done deals with the Government or have agreements with Ministers, individually or collectively, on certain issues pertaining to their constituencies, be that in regard to hospitals, schools, roads, railway lines and so on. Given that the Taoiseach stated on the record of the House that he would publish everything, what are we to believe when we hear these Deputies refer to such deals? I take it from the Taoiseach's response today that all utterances from such Deputies are untrue. They are not included in the programme for Government or in any published documents and have not been in any way objectively assessed to be appropriate in the context of Government spending.
Am I to take it from what the Taoiseach said today, despite his get-out-jail clause to the effect that other issues arise and things change - they cannot have changed in the past two months - that no such deals exist in writing, that as such there is no such documentation and that what is being stated in the public domain is untrue? If that is the case, if I or any Member of this House were to come into the possession of documentation that would demonstrate that any of said deals do exist, which some Ministers or Ministers of State are confirming, what am I to do and how will the Taoiseach respond? In such a scenario, unfortunately, I or another Member would have to come into this House and say that the Taoiseach had misled the House. We do not want to end up in that scenario.
To be specific, Deputy Michael Lowry gives the indication in an article on page 4 in the Tipperary Star of 30 June that a deal has been done - without reference to the word "deal" - on a pilot scheme in South Tipperary General Hospital. It is a half page article. Obviously, somebody is on some inside track. Deputy Lowry states in that article that he is the only Deputy in the county in a position to work on this because he is supporting the Government. He also refers to his having cited health as an election issue and in that regard that he has had extensive meetings with HSE officials and senior management and the Minister on how best to progress the case of South Tipperary General Hospital. Not only is this pilot scheme of a modular unit of 40 beds en suite going to happen but Deputy Lowry has persuaded the Minister to revisit the capital plan. It seems that in one fell swoop the other four Deputies representing Tipperary would as a result of this deal appear to be redundant. That said, this could have been something in the offing already and perhaps Deputy Lowry is claiming credit for it. I do not know.
Maybe it is not true.
I do not know. I am pointing out to the Taoiseach that Deputy Lowry, in terms of how that article is couched and articulated, is saying he has access to the Minister because he is supporting the Government, that he is on the inside track while other Deputies are not.
In the context of the question tabled by Deputy Kelly, could the Taoiseach tell us whether he has done a deal with Deputy Lowry in return for his support for the Government and are the Ministers under some inside track? There are all sorts of rumours that a Lowry will be the next Fine Gael Deputy in Tipperary. It might not be the current Deputy. It is very interesting reading in terms of the language, content and the clear indication emanating from the entire article and the treatment of the story.
I want to bring in the other Deputies if I can.
I thank Deputy Kelly for putting this question down. I was not sure whether to ask Deputy Micheál Martin or the Taoiseach given that there are two of them in it. We have seen the Joe O'Toole controversy bringing secret deals in sharp focus. Joe O'Toole was appointed chairperson of the expert commission on water and I am reliably informed that Fianna Fáil agreed to this appointment.
On a point of order. Deputy Adams cannot utter untruths like that. It is absolutely untrue.
I am reliably informed that Fianna Fáil agreed to this appointment. Is this the case? Did the Taoiseach inform Fianna Fáil about this appointment or in any way give it notice of the appointment of the committee? The Taoiseach alluded to the lengthy negotiations that took place before the Government reconvened as a minority Government. I recall the remarks of the leader of Fianna Fáil at that time. He said "the election represented an overwhelming rejection of the Fine Gael-Labour Party Government, its policies and its hyper-political behaviour." He was then moved to put Fine Gael back into Government. The appointment of the Seanad is another issue. Clearly, some deal was done between the Taoiseach and Deputy Micheál Martin. It would be in the interests of everyone if there was transparency about what was going on. We saw it with the Government decision to repeal the High Court judgment on the national monument at the iconic 1916 site. Was Fianna Fáil consulted about that? We see Fianna Fáil correctly describing the Government's-----
Deputy Adams is straying beyond the terms of the question and we are running out of time. If we run out of time, we can ask questions but we will not get an answer.
I will rest at this. Deputy Micheál Martin correctly described the Government's position on refusing to have a commission of investigation into the sale of NAMA's loan book yet he failed to act or support the establishment of such a commission. Did the Taoiseach consult with the Deputy on that issue?
If Deputy Burton asks a question, there will not be a chance for an answer.
During the last general election, the Taoiseach assured me on a number of occasions that Deputy Lowry would not be part of any support for a Government that he would form with the Labour Party. Obviously, he did not form a Government with the Labour Party so was another deal done with Deputy Lowry in the context of the current Government of the new politics? Has Deputy Lowry privileged access to the Taoiseach, as the Tipperary Star story would appear to indicate, or to people who command the Taoiseach's attention and decisions from the Taoiseach?
I do not think the Taoiseach will be able to answer the questions because the time has elapsed and we need to move on to Question No. 2. He might wish to correspond with the Deputies.
I will but it is the first time I have heard Deputy Kelly not being clear. He has full privilege in here. I do not know what he is talking about. He should say what is on his mind.
In response to Deputy Micheál Martin, every Deputy has access to Ministers. There is no deal, written or otherwise, with Deputy Lowry. In any event, the people of Tipperary will elect whoever they want at the next election.
In response to Deputy Adams, I did discuss the Seanad position with Deputy Micheál Martin. While constitutionally it is up to the Taoiseach of the day to make 11 nominations, I was happy to say to Deputy Micheál Martin, who is supporting a partnership Government in a minority position, that he could nominate three sectoral positions and that I would appoint them. Could anybody object to those? They are good people who will contribute to the political life of the country.
We need to move on to Question No. 2.
In response to Deputy Burton's question, I have already made it perfectly clear that I have no arrangement with Deputy Lowry. He was elected by the people of Tipperary and is quite entitled to contact and make representations to any Minister.
Is the Taoiseach denying the Tipperary Star story?
This is not a question about the Tipperary Star.
I do not know anything about the Tipperary Star story.
I ask Deputy Burton to resume her seat. We need to move on. We do not ask questions about newspapers in here.
Deputy Lowry is getting good publicity here. He will be pleased with the publicity he gets here today.
2. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach to implement the outstanding recommendations of the Convention on the Constitution; and to hold referendums in respect of its reports and recommendations. [17117/16]
The last Government responded in the Dáil to all nine of the convention on the Constitution's reports. The reports contained 38 recommendations, 18 of which would involve change in the text of the Constitution. I will summarise the convention's main recommendations and the response to them.
In its first report, the convention voted against reducing the presidential term of office but recommended that the age threshold for candidacy in presidential elections be reduced from 35 years. A referendum on this was defeated on 22 May 2015. The convention's recommendation to reduce the voting age to 16 was accepted but a referendum was not held on this matter. There are currently no proposals to proceed with such a referendum.
In the convention's second report, the reference in Article 41.2 of the Constitution to "a woman's life within the home" was considered. A Programme for a Partnership Government commits the Government to holding a referendum on this issue.
In its third report, the convention recommended an amendment to the Constitution to provide for same-sex marriage. A referendum on marriage equality was held on 22 May 2015 and was passed by a majority of 62.1%.
The convention's fourth report made recommendations on the electoral system. The recommendation that the proportional representation-single transferable vote electoral system be retained was accepted, while the recommendation to increase constituency sizes was not.
The recommendation to establish an electoral commission was accepted and work on this is continuing. The recommendation that there should be a referendum to permit the appointment of non-Oireachtas members as Ministers was not accepted as the Constitution already allows the Taoiseach to nominate as Ministers two persons who have not been elected to the Oireachtas but who have been nominated to the Seanad.
In respect of the fifth report on amending the Constitution to give citizens resident outside the State the right to vote in presidential elections, the last Government indicated that it was necessary to analyse the full range of practical and policy issues that would arise in any significant extension of the franchise before a decision could be made on holding of referendum. That analysis is ongoing and will be considered by Government in due course. I have asked the Minister of State with responsibility for the diaspora to make this a real priority.
As regards the sixth report on the offence of blasphemy, the programme for a partnership Government says that a referendum will be held on removing the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution.
The seventh report made recommendations relating to Dáil reform. The House will be aware that Standing Orders were amended in January of this year to provide for election of the Ceann Comhairle by secret ballot. Standing Orders were also amended to introduce a system whereby I, as Taoiseach, will appear before the working group of committees twice a year. Provision has also been made for the proportionate allocation of committee chairs using the d'Hondt system. In addition, a sub-committee on Dáil reform chaired by the Ceann Comhairle was established. Also, A Programme for a Partnership Government commits the Government to a referendum on enhancing the reference to the Ceann Comhairle in the Constitution.
As regards the convention's eighth report, A Programme for a Partnership Government states that this report on economic, social and cultural rights will be referred to the new Oireachtas committee on housing for consideration of the substantial questions it raises on the balance of rights, proper governance and resources.
Finally, the ninth report deals mainly with the convention's conclusions and recommendations on the convention process and says there was unanimous support for a second convention. The House will be aware that the Government is committed to establishing a citizens' assembly with a mandate to look at a limited number of key issues.
There are no plans otherwise to implement convention recommendations that were not accepted by the last Government other than as set out in A Programme for a Partnership Government.
I begin by commending the work of the convention on the Constitution and the delegates, citizens, politicians, expert witnesses, Chair and secretariat. I hope I do not misremember but Tom Arnold and Art O'Leary played a very good leadership role in all of that and it worked well, although the Fine Gael-Labour Party Government's choice of issues for subsequent referendums left a lot to be desired. I suppose the biggest success was the marriage equality referendum.
We have since been told that a citizens' assembly is to be put in place. We have not been given an explanation of why elements that worked well - the participation of Members of the Oireachtas and the Northern Assembly - have been stripped away. It would be useful to get some sense of that. We in Sinn Féin have a very strong view that political representatives should be included in those deliberations. We are told that the first meeting of the new assembly will take place in November. Can the Taoiseach indicate when the polling company will be appointed to identify the citizens? When does he expect to appoint a chairperson for the assembly? We also want to know who will be responsible for referring issues for discussion to the assembly. Can the assembly determine these, or will they come from the Government?
As the Taoiseach has outlined, the nine reports from the assembly contained 38 recommendations. The Government accepted six out of 18 that would have meant constitutional change. We have been given no explanation. These citizens spent an awful lot of time, briefed themselves, and felt really proud to be part of that democratic process, but the recommendations they made have been rejected without, as far as I can ascertain, any explanation.
The programme for Government proposes that referendums be held on a further two of the outstanding issues - to amend the Constitution to remove the offence of blasphemy, and to give the office of Ceann Comhairle constitutional standing - yet we have no date for either. There is a proposal for a referendum on the article in the Constitution that refers to a woman's life within the home. We have no date for that. One can see as we go into a new, revised and different shape for a citizens' assembly that there is still outstanding work from the last grouping, which gave us an awful lot of their time and some very thoughtful recommendations. The very least they and we deserve is a response to their recommendations and some sense of when they will be implemented.
I thank Deputy Adams for his comments. It is fair to say that Tom Arnold and all of those people who were chosen and participated in the Constitutional Convention were proud of the fact that they were responsible in many ways for changes to the Constitution. They felt very pleased to be a part of the democratic process by contributing to questions that people were asked in a referendum and to the answers they gave, with particular reference to the marriage equality referendum.
We have learned some lessons. I had thought originally that it might be possible to run four or five referendums on the one day and people could tick the boxes. That is not the way it works, because when there is a referendum people begin to ask what the issues are on the "Yes" and "No" side. If one imagines knocking on the door of a constituent's house and saying "I am here about the referendums; there are four or five next Wednesday, and these are the issues," one does not have the opportunity to explain that in the 30 seconds or 90 seconds one might get on a doorway. I have come back from that view. One or two might be the most we could have because, if multiple referendums were held on the same day, citizens would lose interest and say "I cannot take all this in," because of the "Yes" and "No" side and the way things are conducted.
The assembly will be 100 citizens. That is not to decry in any way the contribution made by the political representatives on the last occasion. I have authorisation from the Cabinet to set up the assembly. We got authorisation to use the electoral register, which has to apply. I will now proceed to go through the process of nominating an appropriate polling company, which will be able to use the information on the electoral register to select the 100 citizens. I will take advice from anybody on potential candidates for chairperson. The first issue they will look at is the eighth amendment. The implications of that are very serious and sensitive for many people.
Tom Arnold was not appointed until later on in the day. It might have been better if he had been appointed a little earlier. That is not to decry his merits or value at all, but perhaps if the chairperson were to be appointed earlier he or she might be in a position to give out information about what the work of the assembly will be. We will consider that. I hope to have the polling company up and doing its work pretty soon. I would like to think it would be ready to go as an assembly by the end of September so we can have the first meeting in October, not November. I have committed to bring that forward because of the importance and interest in looking at the question of the eighth amendment.
Will the assembly be able to do things itself? Yes, it will. The Government has given it a few things to do - to look, first of all, at the question of the eighth amendment and aging in Ireland, on which there are a number of issues. The assembly itself could decide to look at X or Y as well. The remit of the assembly is for 12 months unless otherwise decided. The first issue it will reflect on is the eighth amendment, and when it makes its recommendations or propositions it can send them back to the Oireachtas. I do not know how long that will take. I assume it will want some reasonable time to reflect on those issues and call in people who might advise it on the range of activities. The items the assembly is to consider, including the eighth amendment, are set out in the programme for Government. The chairperson will be completely independent. I hope that those who are selected by the polling company will do their job well.
I am not in a position to say here that we can have referendums on X or Y. We need to get agreement from everybody on the referendums the previous Government agreed to hold but was not in a position to hold and whatever might arise from the reflections of the assembly with regard to the eighth amendment. We need to get agreement from everybody as to the timing or the number of referendums to be held. My original thought of having a super-referendum day is one I cannot see working in reality because people get overloaded with information from the for and against sides, depending on what the issue is.
The Taoiseach did not answer the question about why he changed the composition to exclude Oireachtas Members and members of the Northern Assembly. We will now not have anyone from the Six Counties, either a citizen delegate or political representative. He also did not give any clarity about the unfinished business of the Constitutional Convention and the series of recommendations it made. Neither did he show any interest in explaining what happened if the Government, for whatever reason, decided not to go with a recommendation. People deserve an explanation of why that was the case.
Many of the questions or recommendations from the Constitutional Convention were ones we would have difficulty with in terms of the issues or the lack of depth of what was proposed. We would not necessarily say we would follow through on every recommendation the Constitutional Convention made on referendums or that they should automatically be referred to the people on the basis that they were recommended by the convention. While the last Constitutional Convention held informative debate and produced thoughtful recommendations, it was hamstrung from the beginning. It covered a significant range of issues rather than being focused on one major topic such as political reform. It jumped from issue to issue. It also suffered from the fact that its agenda was, in some instances, set to delay the then Government from having to take a stand on a number of issues. The rejection by the people of the proposal on the minimum age for candidates for the presidency showed what happens when marginal issues are elevated over more urgent ones. We need a more comprehensive approach to holding referendums and the Oireachtas should be centrally involved in that process.
I take the Taoiseach's point that one cannot have four or five referendums in one day. I would never have subscribed to that idea because most referendums are about weighty subjects that demand much consideration in advance, as we have learnt from Brexit. The point is that we should, as an Oireachtas, either agree on a number during the lifetime of a particular Oireachtas or whether, at least, there are issues that we can get consensus on. There are some hanging around since a previous Oireachtas committee, for example, regarding reform of the Constitution, and some from the Constitutional Convention that might have merit. It might be worth considering whether the Oireachtas can agree to hold one or two a year over the coming years.
The idea of the Constitutional Convention, which originally came from the former Tánaiste, Eamon Gilmore, proved to be a very good one. It is a disappointment and a mistake to move away from the inclusive political involvement in that, because the interaction of professional politicians and general citizens was good for both sides. People came with an open mind.
I do not agree that we should have two or three referendums, as though we have just lined up a list of things to do, and I ask the Taoiseach's view on it. What all of us who have been knocking on doors in referendums know, and if the experience of Brexit for the past few weeks indicates anything, is that we should be careful about what questions we put to people. They should be issues of moment and substance, and if we are going to make changes, particularly to the Constitution, we should have a good and convincing reason.
Finally, it is clear that when there is a major event such as a presidential election taking place in conjunction with a referendum, as was the case with the first referendum we held on parliamentary inquiries, it overshadows the referendum to the extent that there is no real engagement with the issue. In addition, where an important referendum is in the public mind together with a less important one, there is no real debate about the less important one. We must be very careful in how we proceed on referendums, and I would not be in favour of simply saying, "Let us have a plethora of them. Let us list them every three months." Unless there is a convincing and compelling reason to undertake a democratic process of this nature, we should not be embarking upon it.
I ask the Taoiseach to be brief.
I share Deputy Howlin's view and, indeed, Deputy Martin's view. I have no intention of setting out dates for referendums without consultation with everybody. I agree with that. There is no point in saying that we will have a referendum in October on some issue unless we have buy-in from all of the political parties here and agreement to set aside day X in month X for a referendum on a major issue.
I suppose, when one reflects on the Constitutional Convention, one must conclude that while it did good work, perhaps we gave it too much work to do. If one gets 18 recommendations for referendums, obviously, that is four or five years' work. These are expensive issues to handle and a Minister of the day must contend with that. I also agree that it is difficult to motivate people about many of the issues that might arise in terms of changes to the Constitution and we should, perhaps, consider more carefully the major issues, societal or otherwise, that need to be dealt with by way of referendum.
We decided on this occasion to have as broad a citizen representation as possible and that is why the recommendations from the assembly will come back to the Oireachtas, where all the Members will be involved in any event.
3. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach the preparations and contingency plans he has put in place in the event of a British exit from the European Union; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17524/16]
4. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach to report on contact he has had with the British Prime Minister, Mr. David Cameron, since the referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union. [18069/16]
5. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the responsibility of his Department to co-ordinate the contingency framework response following the Brexit referendum result, particularly in relation to United Kingdom European Union negotiations, British-Irish relations, Northern Ireland trade and North-South Border impacts. [19357/16]
6. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he has considered setting up a Cabinet sub-committee to deal with the potential impact of Brexit on the economy. [19376/16]
7. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach his plans to meet the British Prime Minister to discuss post-Brexit relations between Ireland and the United Kingdom; if he has also met the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland on the same matter; and his plans to meet the Scottish First Minister. [19377/16]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 7, inclusive, together.
On the morning of 24 June, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, telephoned to inform me personally of the result and of his intention to resign. He thanked the Irish Government for its support all through the process. He committed to ensuring that there would be early bilateral engagement at senior official level on key issues then arising. These include Northern Ireland, the Border and the common travel area.
I subsequently met Mr. Cameron at last week's European Council. I took the opportunity at the meeting to speak of our long history with the UK and our strong and unique relationship, including the fact we share a number of specific interests and concerns, including Northern Ireland, the common travel area and the interconnectedness of our trade. The wish of the Irish Government is for Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom to remain part of the Single Market in order to avoid any borders between people, goods and services on these islands. In that context, I also passed on the concerns of the Scottish First Minister, whom I had spoken to on the phone and met at the British-Irish Council summit in Glasgow recently. I met the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland at the North-South Ministerial Council yesterday, having spoken to them the week before by telephone. Yesterday we agreed a range of actions to work together to ensure that Northern Ireland's interests are protected and the benefits of North-South co-operation are fully recognised in any new arrangements that emerge in terms of United Kingdom's future relationship with the European Union.
On 24 June, the Government adopted a contingency framework identifying key policy issues to be managed by Departments arising from the referendum vote for the UK to leave the EU. The framework maps out the key issues that will be of most importance to Ireland in the coming weeks and months. This will be a process, as important issues that emerge and recede in the course of negotiations will be reflected upon.
The contingency framework is being co-ordinated by my Department. It is based on preparations over many months, including inputs by Departments to identify the key strategic and sectoral issues arising from the UK's disengagement with the EU. The framework will ensure that the Government and its constituent Departments are able to focus on key policy issues to be addressed in any exit negotiations with a view to minimising potential operational risks likely to arise. Using the contingency framework, Ministers, Departments and agencies will track and adapt the detail of risk management strategies arising in each of the policy and operational areas identified. Substantial work has been undertaken across Government to identify those key strategic, policy and operational risks. This work will be intensified and prioritised across all Departments and agencies.
Priority issues identified include UK-EU negotiations, British-Irish relations, Northern Ireland, trade, investment, North-South Border impact, competitiveness and macroeconomic issues, research and innovation funding, and energy. More will be added as the terms and conditions of the new UK-EU relationship evolve.
A number of existing structures will he strengthened as necessary. These include the Cabinet committee on EU affairs, the North-South Ministerial Council, and the British-Irish Council; and at official level, the joint Ireland-UK Secretaries General-permanent secretaries process, the EU senior officials' group, the interdepartmental group on the UK EU referendum, and external stakeholders and interested bodies.
We must conclude in six minutes and four Deputies are offering. If they take a minute each, we will get everyone in.
The fallout from Brexit has cast a long shadow over the budget plans because of the international uncertainty caused by the UK's decision to part company with the EU. If the British economy goes into recession, would the Taoiseach agree that it will make matters difficult for us here - difficult for Irish businesses and farmers whose main market is the UK, and difficult for the tourism industry because of the weak pound? We will have a mighty job, and they will have a mighty job in the UK as well, to avoid a recession both in Europe and in the UK.
In that context, Deputy Kenny's status as Taoiseach has been badly damaged and diminished in recent days. First, a number of his Ministers are in open revolt over a stated policy by the Taoiseach. Second, the cack-handed way in which the Taoiseach approached the issue of the North-South Ministerial Council, where he had his proposals trailed in the media over the weekend before discussing them with the First Minister, was a mistake, because we will need all-island forums to discuss this. Lastly, at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly this weekend there was fairly unanimous agreement that there should not be a hard land border between the North of Ireland and the Republic. Would the Taoiseach agree with that? Some weeks ago, when I said I had some doubts that the Remain side would prevail, I asked the Taoiseach whether he had a plan B. I did not hear a plan B in the long list the Taoiseach read out.
I think I heard a tone of panic though.
It is clear the implications of Brexit are profound in many different spheres and one, in particular, where we have seen it clearly in the events of the past week and a half, is British politics. It could clearly have an impact in politics across Europe. Many people feared the right could be strengthened after the Leave vote, but the right is in disarray. Mr. Cameron and Mr. Johnson are gone and Mr. Farage is following them. On the left, Mr. Corbyn remains. The key question now is the attempted coup by the Blairites against Mr. Jeremy Corbyn in order to remove him and put a Blairite back in charge of the Labour Party. There is a battle of two parties in one Labour Party, that of the pro-war, neo-liberal Blairites and that of the socialists of Mr. Corbyn and, for example, many of the 60,000 people who have joined the Labour Party over the past week. That battle inside the Labour Party is vital and I send the solidarity of the Anti-Austerity Alliance to Mr. Corbyn. We hope he and those coming around the Labour Party prevail-----
They will be strengthened by that.
-----in that battle and they have a Labour Party worthy of the name, unlike the Labour Party in this country. There should be a call to a conference of the broad labour movement to defend his leadership and therefore have a socialist-led Labour Party engaging in a general election campaign, fighting for a government position that can be won in Britain. That will create a completely different picture in terms of the nature of exit that will take place, as well as the debate right across Europe putting on the agenda the question of fighting for a Europe that serves the interests of people; it would be a socialist Europe, as opposed to the neo-liberal, militarised Europe that has been rejected.
Of course it was the neo-liberals who won the day in terms of Brexit, including Mr. Michael Gove.
What about David Cameron?
Are they allies?
They are now going to proceed with policies that are the very antithesis of what Deputy Murphy proposed.
From Syriza to Farage.
They go from xenophobia to the economy to the corporation tax being brought down in the United Kingdom. When will the Deputy give up the pretence as this Leave campaign was fronted by right-wing people?
Look at British politics now.
That gives the completely opposite result of what the Deputy sought. It is an extraordinary state of denial he has put himself in. I do not want to get involved with internal British politics but to suggest the maintenance of the status quo in the British Labour Party is somehow going to advance the issue is beyond my comprehension.
That is not surprising.
I put it to the Taoiseach that there is a process in place for co-ordinating activity relating to our response but I question if it is large enough or has enough resources. This is one of the biggest ever diplomatic and administrative challenges we have faced as a country and it needs senior people working full-time on it. I am particularly concerned about the need for us to have a whole-of-government approach. I suggest there needs to be a series of a temporary secondments from other Departments to the unit in the Taoiseach's Department responsible for co-ordinating and managing the Government's response to Brexit.
After yesterday, it is clear something must happen in terms of the decision by the Northern Ireland First Minister, Ms Arlene Foster, who will not support the sort of inclusive and open North-South action we need. That process was wrongly and badly handled, as I stated already, but the key point is we cannot let that be the end of the matter. We need an all-island Brexit-specific session of each North-South body before the start of September. Will the Taoiseach put that in place?
The Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Féin together colluded in getting rid of the civil dialogue as part of the Good Friday Agreement. They never wanted it to get off the ground. Now people are screaming for it to get together-----
We must conclude.
-----to allow proper dialogue between trade unions and business interests. As Deputy Brendan Smith has said, hospitality, tourism, agrifood and small and medium enterprises across the Border are really anxious now and very worried about the impact of Brexit. We need a framework that the civil dialogue would have facilitated in the North with the Republic.
It is clear that the ultra-left and the ultra-right stood as one to bring about a disastrous result in Britain as the Trots stood with Farage, Johnson and Gove to do untold damage to our prospects as the people of Ireland, North and South. My focus, however, is not on the plans that those on the ultra-left see, with no amount of chaos being too much for them in order to see themselves thriving. We must now put this country first.
I ask the Taoiseach for specifics. The front runner in the Tory leadership election seems to be Ms Theresa May and she has indicated she will not invoke Article 50 of the treaties of the European Union until, at the earliest, next year. We should give the space for that. There is a very divided view coming from Europe, with a very strong negative view coming from the Commission and, bluntly, my socialist colleague in the Parliament. There is a more measured response from President Tusk. What is the Taoiseach's view on the timing of the invocation of Article 50 and what we should be doing bilaterally with Britain and trilaterally with Britain and the European Union to shape our position? We are the most affected nation, other than the UK itself, by all of this so we should have a very clear strategy for what we want to emerge at the end of negotiations, even before those negotiations begin.
I must ask the Taoiseach to correspond with the Deputies as the time has elapsed and we have eaten badly into time for other business. Will he correspond with Members?
I will do so.
That is a "No".
Go on, briefly.
I reject Deputy Burton's assertion that there are Ministers in open revolt.
What about the vote?
We went through 36 or 37 items today and all were done properly, as the Deputy would be aware from her experience.
We have not had a Bill enacted since January.
It is a relief for the Labour Party.
Everything is going swimmingly.
Allow the Taoiseach to answer.
Just because people have strong views about particular issues does not mean there is open revolt.
How will they vote on the Bill?
Let the Taoiseach answer.
Plan B has already been set out, dealing with trade, investment, Northern Ireland, British-Irish issues, social welfare, foreign affairs, justice, tourism, the economy, trade and investment, research, innovation and energy. All these items are specific and they are dealt with in considerable detail.
I further point out that we have already had senior officials from Britain over here in the Department of the Taoiseach and vice versa. In so far as he is still there, Prime Minister Cameron has committed to dealing with us with respect to the common travel area, the peace process and the open Border. I do not want to see a hard Border, customs or checkpoints. I have said that 20 times already. We will continue to work rigorously with our colleagues in the North-South Ministerial Council, with agreement on ten particular issues yesterday. We need to expand that and consider many other issues. I will develop that in correspondence with Deputies who raised the questions.
