Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:1. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on infrastructure, environment and climate action last met. [36050/16]
Ceisteanna - Questions
Cabinet Committee Meetings
Gerry Adams
Ceist:2. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on infrastructure, environment and climate action last met. [37719/16]
Joan Burton
Ceist:3. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach the number of times the Cabinet committee on infrastructure, environment and climate action has met. [38302/16]
Eamon Ryan
Ceist:4. Deputy Eamon Ryan asked the Taoiseach when the next meeting of the Cabinet committee on infrastructure, environment and climate action will take place. [38634/16]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
The Cabinet committee on infrastructure, environment and climate action has met twice since it was reconstituted in June. It held its first meeting on 7 July and met again on Tuesday, 25 October. The committee addresses the climate change challenge in terms of domestic policy and in relation to Ireland's EU and international obligations. In addition, the committee drives the development and delivery of infrastructure in support of sustainable economic growth and decarbonisation. It will meet again next week on 12 December.
What discussions, if any, is the committee having on strategic development zones? I had a briefing yesterday at Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council on the Cherrywood strategic development zone and what is, in effect, the building of a new town in south Dublin in my own constituency. This morning I was at a meeting of the Irish Glass Bottle Site Housing Action Group, which was discussing the strategic development zone on the Poolbeg Peninsula with particular reference to the Irish Glass Bottle Company site. Is the Taoiseach looking at the detail of the strategic infrastructure project areas? In particular, does the Taoiseach have a plan to ensure that, out of these very significant strategic development areas, we are going to get for the public the public and affordable housing we need to meet the disastrous housing emergency we now face? The evidence suggests we are not.
The Irish Glass Bottle Site Housing Action Group tells me that NAMA will not meet its representatives even though it has asked it to do so several times. They want to meet the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, Deputy Simon Coveney, and they want the Irish Glass Bottle Company site handed over to Dublin City Council to ensure that we do not get a miserable 10% of so-called social housing, but rather get at least 75% public and affordable housing. Their fear is that NAMA is going to flog that site off to developers and all we will get is a miserable 10% when we are the ones who are putting in place all the infrastructure the private developers will gain from. Similarly, the local authority is looking for €100 million from the new infrastructure fund for Cherrywood so that we can get the 8,000 residential units there. Given that this was a site sold by NAMA to Hines, a US property fund, are we only going to get a miserable 10% of these 8,000 units for the public when we have paid and will pay hundreds of millions for infrastructure? They are going to make an absolute fortune.
Should the Taoiseach not insist that we get a bigger proportion than 10% of Cherrywood for public and affordable housing? That 10% is a miserable figure which means these developers are getting a free lunch. I want some commitment from the Taoiseach that they will not get a free lunch and that the public will get something back on these strategic development zones.
According to President-elect Donald Trump of the USA, global warming is a hoax. According to the experts, hard data shows that global climate change presents the gravest threat to the future of humanity. On this island where we live, sea levels in the Irish Sea are rising by 3 cm per decade. While that may not sound like an awful lot, it means we will see a 0.5 m rise in the next 50 years. As many of our major cities and towns are along the coast, the environmental, economic and human cost associated with rising sea levels and climatic change presents huge and life-changing challenges. We saw it along the Shannon catchment area with the impact on families. One thing that struck me in speaking to many of those families was the degree of local knowledge, craft and eolas about the river and its environs. In my own constituency, in particular in parts of Dundalk, we also suffered serious flooding. I spoke to some of the affected families recently and they are dreading the winter. They are living in a state of stress and anxiety. There are no provisions that I can establish to deal with flooding issues on the Ardee Road at Mounthamilton and Bellurgan, which is just outside the town. While the CFRAM plans when enacted will, of course, alleviate some of these difficulties, that is years down the line. I am asking what plans the Government has to deal with this winter. I walked the Flurry River with local people who say it needs to be desilted and that the sluice gates need to be fixed. The local authority says it does not have the money for any of that. Will the Taoiseach outline the Government's preventative plans for potential flooding risks this winter? Has additional funding been allocated to local authorities?
Can the Taoiseach speak to the recent EPA report on urban wastewater treatment which reveals that ten out of our 171 large urban areas do not meet EU requirements to provide secondary treatment to reduce the risk of pollution?
It also states untreated wastewater from 43 areas is routinely discharged into rivers, estuaries and coastal waters. It found that 45 wastewater works were linked with river pollution. Given the graveness of the issue, will the Taoiseach indicate the specific steps the Government plans to take?
In the context of infrastructural development, I draw the attention of the Taoiseach to the €200 million local infrastructure fund which was introduced when the Labour Party was in government. The amount sought is up to four times higher than the funding available. Housing is urgently needed in the Dublin area, in particular, as well as in other parts of the country, as the Taoiseach knows. He is in agreement that more houses need to be built for young people to buy, as social housing for renting and specific groups such as older people. There is a strategic development zone in Dublin West, Hansfield, for which there has been full planning permission for ten years to build an additional 3,000 houses on a very nice site which is very attractive and which will be well supported by purchasers and renters. It will not be possible, however, to develop the site unless Fingal County Council can access funding to develop roads into it. More than 12,000 houses have been built in the past 12 to 15 years in Hansfield, Littlepace and Onger and an additional 3,000 houses could be built, but the necessary funding is lacking. There was planning permission for the entire period of recession, but it will not be possible for the council to get private builders on site unless roads are built. Will the Taoiseach and the Government ensure additional loans will be taken out with the European Investment Bank, for example, or that other sources of funding will be made available? I note that the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, attended a meeting of Finance Ministers yesterday. He finally suggested the European Union should allow more budget flexibility to allow for more development in countries such as Ireland. Unless many more houses are built than the current targets allow for, we will face meltdown. In the same area to which I referred many people face rent increases of up to 40% once the two-year moratorium on rent increases introduced by the former Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, comes to an end. The Government is drifting towards a point where this will cause enormous difficulties.
I ask Deputies to be conscious that we want to allow the Taoiseach a few minutes in which to respond.
I will be brief. The reason I asked when the next meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee was due to take place was I was particularly interested to see whether there had been any progress on the proposed establishment of the national dialogue on climate change. A presentation was made to the last sub-committee by environmental groups and, to be honest, our sense is that nothing has happened since. There is a certain frustration that what is contained in A Programme for a Partnership Government will not be delivered. Progress is urgently needed because we are falling behind. The latest climate statistics are very dramatic in showing how we are going backwards rather than meeting any target. We need an extensive and creative dialogue on climate change. The underlying problem is that there is no political support in the House because there is no public support for action. I am very keen to know when the next meeting will take place. I would like to see a sub-group of the Cabinet sub-committee on the national economic dialogue established, with an independent chairperson and a budget to bring in groups involved in the agriculture, transport and energy sectors. The Government has stated it wants to do this. It has now been six months and there is no sense that it is happening. There is a certain sense of urgency at this stage because if we do not do this quickly, consultation on the national planning framework will have started, the capital review will have taken place and we will not have stitched in proper dialogue on how to start addressing climate change as one of our core visions for the future of the country.
I ask the Taoiseach to be conscious of the fact that there are only three and a half minutes remaining.
In response to Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett, strategic development zones are developed in the first instance by local representatives in city councils and other local authorities. They are not developed by the Minister acting alone. There is always a minimum figure of 10% for social housing. The Deputy can take it that the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government and the relevant Minister of State are focused on the fact that moneys spent by the Exchequer on infrastructure will have to show a very clear result in terms of social housing provision. The Deputy mentioned two sites. The draft plans will be developed and placed before the Minister in due course. There are no free dinners, nor should there be.
On the comment of Deputy Gerry Adams on President-elect Trump, he had a long and very constructive and meeting with the former Vice President, Mr. Al Gore, who is now dealing with the issue of climate change and carrying out global visits. I understand the meeting was quite constructive and informative for the President-elect. It may well have an impact on the actions he proposes to take from here on.
The Deputy is correct; everybody living along a river such the Shannon has local knowledge and experience. When I visited the area, people told me that many years ago during the summer they used to walk across the river at particular points at low water. A great deal of work is ongoing. Extensive work has been carried out in Athlone to attempt to prevent flooding this winter and I hope the rains will not be of the same order as last year.
I was in Craughwell, County Galway a week ago with Deputy Ciarán Cannon, the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Canney, and others. Work will take place there in the next three years. The first development in 50 years is taking place on the Dunkellin river and a diversionary channel with proper structures is being put in place. Work has been carried out by the Office of Public Works and engineering firms to undertake the work properly. I can have the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Canney, supply Deputy Gerry Adams with the details of all of the works taking place. They are extensive and will continue.
On urban waste, part of the reason we need a national public utility is to deal with the fact that, according to the EPA, raw sewage is still being discharged into lakes, rivers and seas. This is not acceptable in 2016. We will deal with the issue by having a national entity that will be able to seek savings in public procurement and provide real value for money which is happening to a great extent.
On the point made by Deputy Joan Burton, there have been many more applications received than the amout of money available. The Minister of State, Deputy Damien English, has pointed out on many occasions that there are increased levels of assistance and increased opportunities available under the programme for Government and the housing action plan to deal with the development of sites. A special unit in the Department will deal with the matter and the Minister of State will make the decision on what sites should be selected. We will not select sites to be opened and then find that no houses have been built for ten years. In cases in which people are ready to go, if supply is the issue, it should be given priority. Are we going to continue to carpet the entire Dublin region in the same manner for the next 20 years? Should we instead consider the structure and nature of developments we want to see in the next 20 years, given its burgeoning population?
On the point made by Deputy Eamon Ryan, following the meeting next week I expect ot have a response to his question. It is to be hoped progress will be made in the national dialogue. I enjoyed the conversations with and presentations made by the groups he brought before the Cabinet sub-committee. I will respond to him next week.
UK Referendum on EU Membership
Gerry Adams
Ceist:5. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the engagement his Department's officials have had with the European Commission's Brexit negotiating team led by Mr. Michel Barnier. [36336/16]
Brendan Howlin
Ceist:6. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his engagements with the European Commission negotiating team on Brexit and Mr. Michel Barnier. [37413/16]
As I previously reported to the House, I welcomed the European Commission's chief Brexit negotiator, Mr. Michel Barnier, to Government Buildings on 12 October. His visit to Dublin was one of a series of engagements in EU capitals in order to prepare for the forthcoming negotiations. During the visit he also met the Tánaiste, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs, as well as senior officials.
Under the political guidance of the European Council, that is, EU Heads of State or Government, Mr. Barnier will lead the Commission team in the withdrawal negotiations with the United Kingdom once Article 50 has been triggered.
During my discussions with him, I took the opportunity to explain in some detail Ireland’s unique set of concerns relating to Northern Ireland that arise from Brexit, including the peace process and citizenship issues, the common travel area and Border issues, and the depth of our economic and trade relationship with the United Kingdom. We also discussed Ireland’s strong commitment to EU membership and our intention to play a full and constructive part in the negotiations process. In this context, I briefed Mr. Barnier on the various strands of work that are advancing at political and official levels here to prepare Ireland to the maximum extent possible for the period ahead. Deputies will note Mr. Barnier's comments yesterday in respect of his support for the Good Friday Agreement and the conditions that apply to it.
Given the critical role of Mr. Barnier and the Commission, it was also useful to exchange views about the process and how negotiations might be handled. There was a commitment to continue to work closely with the Commission and its team in the period ahead and this has been proceeding, including the holding of further meetings between senior officials from Dublin and the task force in Brussels in November.
I am sure the Taoiseach welcomes, as do I, the statement this morning by the European Commission's chief negotiator, Mr. Michel Barnier, that he would do his utmost to preserve the success of the Good Friday process. Mr. Barnier also pointed out, as we all know, that Brexit will have consequences for the EU's external borders, including that on this island. The Government must redouble its efforts to ensure that this does not happen. We would argue strongly that this can best be achieved by a diplomatic offensive to build support for designated special status for the North within the European Union. Mr. Barnier also spoke of the possibility of a transitional period as a means of avoiding what is called a hard Brexit. There is sense in that possibility and I am interested to hear the Taoiseach's view on it.
Has the Government obtained any legal advice on the implications of the potential judgment by the British Supreme Court on Prime Minister May's decision to trigger Brexit by the end of May? We have seen the welcome decision of the people of Austria to reject the far right presidential candidate as well as the decision of the people in Italy to reject the proposed reforms by Prime Minister Renzi, which has refocused speculation on the future of the euro and the EU itself.
The Minister for Finance has stated that he does not believe there will be any financial crisis here because of his view that the Irish banks are very strong. This seems to be at odds with the summer stress test carried out by the European Banking Authority on Allied Irish Banks and Bank of Ireland. Both these banks were among the worst suffering of the 51 financial institutions. Does the Taoiseach agree with the Minister or does he agree with the European Banking Authority, which stated that more work was needed to put these Irish banks on a firmer footing? I remind the Taoiseach that only last week these banks were exposed as dragging their feet on restoring tracker mortgages for thousands of people, including some who have lost their homes.
What measures will the Government introduce to protect Irish households and businesses that are at risk from further exchange rate fluctuations? Will the Taoiseach outline the Government's strategy for engaging with other EU Governments at this critical time?
Every time I listen to either a spokesperson from any of the negotiating teams, whether it is that of the Commission or the Parliament, or any British commentator, there seems to be a complete misunderstanding of how this will work out. As Deputy Adams has stated, Michel Barnier, when asked today if he believed there would be a hard border on the island of Ireland, replied, "The UK's decisions to leave the European Union will have consequences, in particular, perhaps, for what are the EU external borders". That would imply that his understanding is that there will have to be some sort of border on the island of Ireland, although he did go on to say that he is personally very well versed in the Good Friday Agreement. As Commissioner with responsibility for regional affairs, he was involved in negotiating funding for the PEACE programmes. He also said that the four freedoms of the Single Market are indivisible and that cherry picking is not an option. However, as we have seen from the photograph taken of officials leaving Downing Street last week, cherry picking or, as Britain would put it, having one's cake and eating it, seems to be on someone's menu in the United Kingdom.
I have a number of questions. From speaking directly to Mr. Barnier, who is an astute and experienced European parliamentarian, Commissioner and politician, does the Taoiseach have any sense of where this will land? It cannot be that we will have free movement and a hard border, as both of these are incompatible. Has Mr. Barnier thought out or has the Taoiseach worked out some sort of mechanism that will achieve those two objectives which, on the face of it, are irreconcilable?
As we understand it, the triggering of the exit of the United Kingdom under the mechanism provided for in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is to happen by the end of March 2017. Mr. Barnier stated that the process should be completed by October 2018 in order to get the timeframe within the two years so that it is endorsed by the European Parliament. Most people who have examined the process, including all the leaks from Britain, would say that October 2018 is an impossible deadline given all the complications associated with the negotiations. There is also the prospect of an interim arrangement. How will the issues on the table, which are on the face of it irreconcilable, be addressed? What is the Taoiseach's view of the timing aspect? Will there be, if one likes, an interim solution? Is that now the preferred option? Does the Taoiseach have any thoughts on that possibility since, on the face of it, it is impossible to have the negotiation completed within two years?
On that very point, at the moment, shaping is going on on all sides, although it is difficult to discern what is going on within the British Government.
It is having its cake and eating it.
It is having its cake and eating it. For example, it seems to be unaware of the difference between the Single Market and the customs union. One Minister wants to be outside the customs union but inside the Single Market and so on. The point about a transitional arrangement is the one that interests me. There was a hint of it from the Prime Minister some weeks ago, although she came out strongly afterwards to dismiss it. I agree with Deputy Howlin in that the bottom line is that few people see this being concluded in two years given the enormity of what has to be negotiated. This begs the question of whether a transitional phase or arrangement could be entered into.
Has the Taoiseach considered taking an initiative to change the paradigm? At the moment, it seems as if Europe is ganging up to ensure it does not give Britain a soft exit because it does not want to jeopardise the overall integrity of the union. On the other side, Britain seems to be saying it wants to control everything while having access to the Single Market, etc., but not having freedom of movement. If the realpolitik is that a transitional arrangement is what emerges, which could stretch this out for a couple of years, there is an imperative on both the European and the British sides to start knocking heads together and to ensure that the best possible arrangement can be arrived at, which is one that guarantees the future of the European Union and puts it on a firm footing while at the same time minimising trade disruption.
There are enough shocks to the system globally now and we do not need the clearly damaging impact that Brexit represents. Brexit will damage the European, Irish and United Kingdom economies, of that there is no doubt. Every economist's analysis of its impact has been negative.
People need to change their mindsets about this issue and go about it in a different way. How can we minimise disruption and damage and inject a bit of common sense into the issue? While the recent by-election was in a London constituency, nevertheless the Liberal Democrats overturned a 25,000 vote majority the Conservatives had enjoyed just a short number of years ago. This is a straw in the wind which indicates that the reality that Brexit is not all it was cracked up to be is seeping into the British public. Europe would do well if it changed its approach. I ask the Taoiseach, as the leader of the country, to take an initiative to move people to that sort of a pathway, as opposed to the very negative stuff that is going on at the moment.
In respect of Deputy Adams's question, it is good the Commissioner said he supports the Good Friday Agreement. I have explained this to all the leaders at European level and it was reflected in the conversations between Chancellor Merkel, President Hollande and Prime Minister May in respect of the importance of the Border and Good Friday Agreement.
We have had an argument before about what Deputy Adams described as an alternative strategy or a special status. What I prefer to say is that we have a particular circumstance here in that we have a peace process, a Border and PEACE and INTERREG funds. This circumstance is special and different and does not apply anywhere else. We want to grow that in the time ahead. The Deputy can put whatever term he likes on it. We need to make everybody aware that the particular circumstances that apply are important in terms of the peace process supported by Europe and move on with that.
I do not want to comment on the outcome of the Supreme Court case in Britain. It is not my business. Obviously, the court will make a decision to back or overrule the High Court. In any event, I understand the Prime Minister intends to move Article 50 in due course.
The Deputy referred to Italy. The three parties involved in the Italian opposition cannot agree among themselves on most issues. The referendum was on institutional and constitutional issues within Italy, not on the future of the European Union.
Stress tests are carried out by the banks and changes have been made at European Central Bank level in regard to the collapse of banks and all that. These changes provide strengthened defences for taxpayers in Europe. While there is clearly an issue with some of the major banks in Italy, I hope the stability reflected in the markets following the decision of the Italian people and the announcement by Prime Minister Renzi of his resignation speak for an opportunity to move on.
The engagement with others is taking place today and it is continuous with all the different Ministers. For example, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, is at the ECOFIN meeting.
Deputy Howlin asked questions on whether there is a misunderstanding about how Brexit will work, a hard and soft Border, the Single Market and the four freedoms. All I can say is that the decision on Brexit has been made and the British Prime Minister has said she is moving on to implement it. At a European level, there have been no discussions or negotiations about this issue, other than a reflection on a strategy of the other 27 member states when they met in Bratislava. Leader after leader has made clear that when Article 50 is triggered, if Britain wants to control its borders and withdraw from the Single Market, it will not have access to particular sectors of the Single Market. While there are no formal negotiations, it has been made perfectly clear that if one wants access to the Single Market, one must allow freedom of movement of people. If one considers that Britain must build 1 million houses, proposes to build a nuclear power station, may build a third runway at Heathrow Airport and wants to restore and repair large segments of the motorway system, serious numbers of people will be required to build all of that.
Timing is an issue. I believe the matter cannot be addressed in the time that is set out in the European Union treaties. No country has ever left the European Union and we have had 50 years of directives, regulations and legislation. As Deputy Micheál Martin pointed out, Article 50 will be triggered by a letter to the Commission, after which we will have exit negotiations. My belief, however, is that a transition period extending beyond two years will be necessary because the issue is far too complicated.
Commissioner Barnier stated he would like the process to be completed within 18 months in order that we could have reflection before ratification by the European Parliament. My belief is that we will go well beyond that timeframe. The Commissioner made clear that he would not and cannot make any decisions without the imprimatur and oversight of the political Heads of State and Government of the European Council.
On changing attitudes, I agree that the European Union should focus on its future. People in the United Kingdom have made a decision and the Prime Minister has stated she will implement Brexit. Britain will leave and the letter will be written before the end of March 2017. The European Union should look to its own future. It cannot continue with 50% unemployment rates among young people. We must have infrastructure and the capacity to invest in it. I am glad to be able to say that we will open a European Investment Bank office in Dublin this week, which will, I hope, lead to the people's bank, which the EIB is, becoming far more active in supporting many pieces of infrastructure around the country, either as part of the Juncker plan or as a new development.
The State cannot spend under the rules.
I agree with Deputy Micheál Martin that there is no point in having a viciousness or very trenchant view from leaders at a European level because Britain is leaving the EU. On the other hand, it cannot be that when a country leaves the European Union it is seen to be advantaged by so doing. There is a balance to be struck. If we want to continue without a disruption of trade, the best outcome would be one which is as close as possible to what we have now. We could then deal with our political problems at a European level.
Taoiseach's Meetings and Engagements
Micheál Martin
Ceist:7. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he met Scotland's First Minister, Ms Nicola Sturgeon, when she was in Dublin; the issues discussed; and if Scottish unity was mentioned. [37348/16]
Brendan Howlin
Ceist:8. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach his plans for a bilateral meeting with the Scottish First Minister regarding Brexit. [37411/16]
Micheál Martin
Ceist:9. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he met Scotland's First Minister, Ms Nicola Sturgeon, when she was visiting Dublin on 29 November 2016; and the issues they discussed. [37699/16]
Gerry Adams
Ceist:10. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he met the First Minister of Scotland, Ms Nicola Sturgeon, during her recent visit to Dublin. [38638/16]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, together.
Diary constraints, including my visit to the Vatican and a meeting with Prime Minister Muscat of Malta as part of his pre-EU Presidency tour of capitals, meant that it was not possible for me to meet First Minister Sturgeon during her recent trip to Dublin. In recognition of these constraints, I arranged instead a bilateral meeting with the First Minister in Cardiff on 25 November, as we were both due to attend a summit of the British-Irish Council there.
The meeting was a useful opportunity to discuss the growing bilateral relations between Scotland and Ireland and our perspectives on the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union. We agreed that, whatever the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, we both wanted to maintain and develop bilateral relations between our two countries. While the First Minister was clear that she was contemplating options to keep Scotland in the Single Market, we did not discuss the prospect of Scottish independence.
While in Dublin, First Minister Sturgeon met my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Charles Flanagan, to continue those discussions.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. He stated he met Scotland's First Minister, Ms Nicola Sturgeon, at the British-Irish Council meeting in Cardiff, rather than in Dublin. I am glad the bilateral relationship is still strong and warm and that Ireland and Scotland share many common interests. Did the Taoiseach discuss with the First Minister the various scenarios in terms of Scotland remaining within the European Union? Is it the intention or desire of the First Minister that Scotland remain within the European Union? How does Scotland see itself in terms of the broader United Kingdom negotiations with the European Union?
I take it that First Minister Sturgeon was, as she has stated publicly, absolutely committed to Scotland retaining access to the Single Market because it is, to use her words, "the least worst outcome". Did the Taoiseach discuss with the First Minister her meeting with the British Prime Minister, Ms Theresa May, in October? What is instructive is that following that meeting, the First Minister said that from everything she had "heard today in Downing Street there isn't yet a UK Government negotiating position."
Does the Taoiseach agree with the First Minister's assessment of the British Government position being one that is devoid of a clear negotiating position? Given that the Taoiseach is on record as saying that there has to be some accommodation, understanding, reflection or acknowledgement of the majority vote in Scotland being to remain in the European Union, did he discuss with the First Minister the idea that at some time in the future Scotland will either remain or be part of the European Union? I accept the Taoiseach's assurance that the issue of independence was not discussed. Nonetheless in the overall mix, in terms of the interaction between the UK, the European Union and Scotland, what is his assessment of where Scotland will want to go in terms of the Brexit issue?
On the point made by Deputy Micheál Martin in regard to the clearly enunciated view of the Scottish First Minister that she wants a bespoke deal for the people of Scotland, in the same way as many have argued that a bespoke deal is required for the people of Northern Ireland, both of which by a significant majority voted to remain part of the European Union, has the Taoiseach, domestically or at European Union level, sought or received any legal advices on the feasibility, legally, of a special deal being done for Scotland or Northern Ireland? Has he had any discussions with the Scottish First Minister on her understanding of the legal possibility, within the architecture of the European Union, of part of the UK being permitted to remain in the European Union or to have a deal that pertains to it only and not the remainder of the United Kingdom at the time when the remainder of the UK exits the European Union?
Some of us had the privilege of meeting the First Minister of Scotland in Dublin. It would not be unfair to characterise her view of the British negotiating position as opaque. Would that be the Taoiseach's understanding based on his direct discussions with the Scottish First Minister? As I understand it, in terms of all of her interactions with the British negotiators, she did not come away with clarity as to what the UK position would be.
Most people I spoke to were very pleased with the tone of the visit of the First Minister, Ms Nicola Sturgeon. As the Taoiseach is aware, she has been forthright in indicating her preference that Scotland remain in the European Single Market. She has also said that a referendum on Scottish independence is on the cards. I believe people here are impressed by that type of leadership.
In regard to Ireland, there is a recognition at EU level of the special circumstances that pertain to the island of Ireland and so it is entirely rational to argue for the North to be designated special status within the EU, which is what the people voted there for. There are precedents for doing that. It is also logical, rational and compulsory for a Taoiseach to argue for Irish unity. In her address to the Seanad, the First Minister, Ms Nicola Sturgeon, said that we are living in unprecedented times and these unprecedented times require imagination, open minds and fresh thinking. We need to ensure political stability, economic prosperity, trade relationships and jobs on the island of Ireland if we are enhance all sections of our community. I ask the Taoiseach to reflect on the First Minister's statement to the Seanad that we are living in unprecedented times in response to which we need imagination, open minds and fresh thinking. In my view, as a member of the European Union we have an obligation, and the right to do so, to bring forward a proposal, under Article 48 of the treaty of the European Union, for Northern Ireland to be given the special status for which Sinn Féin and others have been advocating and for the people of the North voted.
I had a very good meeting with the First Minister, Ms Nicola Sturgeon, in Cardiff, at which we discussed a wide range of issues. I welcome that she was invited to address Seanad Éireann, where I understand she gave a very good account of herself. We did discuss the offices that have been opened in Dublin and Scotland in respect of Irish-Scottish business and we both agreed that we should develop the opportunities for trade both ways. I expect that trade to be enhanced in the time ahead.
The First Minister was very clear about what she wants. The vote of Scotland being one to remain, the real priority for her is access to the Single Market. As stated by Deputies Micheál Martin, Howlin and Adams, if the European Council was asked to make a decision on the Brexit situation it could not do so because as the British Government has not yet triggered Article 50, there is no clarity as to what the ask is or in regard to the position being put forward. In other words the question remains if Britain proposes to withdraw from the Single Market and the customs union, or if it proposes to withdraw from the Single Market and remain within the customs union. All of these are issues that have an impact. As Mr. Barnier pointed out, whatever the decision there will be an impact.
As I said, I have spoken to the First Minister, Ms Sturgeon. She fully understands and respects the position of Ireland as a country that will be remaining as a member of the European Union and she does not want to interfere in any way in that regard. She also appreciates that we do understand Scotland's real priority in this matter. I note that the First Minister has confirmed to her party that the Independence Referendum Bill will be published for consultation. That process is under way. I have not sought legal advice on behalf of Scotland in respect of special status. It is not my place to do so.
What about Northern Ireland?
That is a matter for the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish people.
On Deputy Adams's point about Northern Ireland and a united Ireland, as I have said on many occasions I defend the principles that are contained in the Good Friday Agreement and successive agreements that allow for that opportunity to be dealt with were it to present itself. As Deputy Adams is only too well aware, the Good Friday Agreement allows for that. I have made the point publicly before that whatever negotiations take place, the language should reflect that the co-guarantor aspect should be continued. The Good Friday Agreement is an internationally legally binding agreement that holds out that principle and opportunity at some point if the will of the people were such.
On the issue of special status, we already have it. We should not be seeking to commence a process of seeking new special status. We are in a position whereby Europe recognises and supports the peace process, in respect of which it provides benefits and has done so for many years. The next programme runs until 2020. This does not apply anywhere else within the European Union. There is no other peace process. There will be no other land borders when Britain exits the EU. There are no other INTERREG or PEACE funds. That is a particular circumstance that does not apply anywhere else. If the suggestion is that we should allow that to peter out and should then ask for something else we are into a different kind of argument.
It is really important that we understand very clearly that what Europe has supported to date, along with the United States and elsewhere, needs to be kept in situ.
One may call that whatever one wants: I call it a particular set of circumstances that apply here in regard to Northern Ireland. I would much prefer it if we had greater clarity, which we will not have until the Prime Minister decides, within her rights, to move Article 50. Within the party in the House of Commons, there are those who express frustration over a lack of clarity on the position being put forward by Britain. I hope that comes reasonably quickly.