Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 31 Jan 2017

Vol. 936 No. 3

Ceisteanna - Questions

Brexit Issues

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

1. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his telephone conversation with the British Prime Minister, Ms Theresa May, on 16 January 2017; the issues that were discussed; if no special status for any devolved Administration in Northern Ireland was mentioned; if there was discussion on immigrant screening or Border control before her speech on 17 January 2017; and if there are plans to meet her to discuss Brexit issues and the way they apply to the island of Ireland. [2732/17]

Joan Burton

Ceist:

2. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach the outcome of his discussion with the British Prime Minister, Ms Theresa May, regarding her 12-point plan for the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. [2739/17]

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

3. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his engagement with the British Prime Minister, Ms Theresa May, on 16 January 2017. [2762/17]

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

4. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if Ireland will be part of the direct negotiations on Brexit, particularly in regard to the Border with Northern Ireland, the impact of exiting the European Union and the possible exit from the customs and trade agreement, which will automatically result in a return to borders on this island. [3071/17]

Brendan Howlin

Ceist:

5. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach his discussions with EU leaders and the British Prime Minister, Ms Theresa May, on the possibility of a hard Border between Ireland and Northern Ireland; and his plans to avoid this outcome. [3238/17]

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

6. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his engagement with the British Prime Minister, Ms Theresa May, during her recent visit to Dublin. [4070/17]

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

7. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Prime Minister May on 30 January 2017. [4116/17]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, together.

My meeting with Prime Minister May yesterday covered a wide range of issues. We discussed the recent political developments in Northern Ireland and the implications that Brexit will have for the North and for relationships across these islands. We reiterated our joint and continuing commitment to the Good Friday Agreement and its institutions and our shared desire to see a fully functioning Executive back in place as soon as possible. We agreed on the importance of our two Governments working together to ensure that the frameworks of the Good Friday and successor agreements are fully preserved in the upcoming Brexit negotiations and outcomes. We discussed the necessity of ensuring the continued free flow of trade on the island and the need to avoid a hard Border. I made clear to the Prime Minister that, in my view, any manifestation of a hard Border would have very negative consequences.

We agreed that we both want to see a close, friction-free economic and trading relationship between the UK and the EU, including Ireland. Prime Minister May and I also reaffirmed our commitment to maintaining the common travel area and agreed to continue working together to this end. I emphasised to the Prime Minister the importance of finding a way forward on outstanding commitments, particularly on issues such the legacy institutions under the Stormont House Agreement, and the Irish language. Our discussions also covered the importance of our future co-operation in key areas, such as agriculture and food, energy, security and criminal justice, education and culture. Our two Governments are agreed that a close, trouble-free, economic and trading relationship between the UK and the EU, including Ireland, is in our best interests.

I had previously spoken with Prime Minister May on the evening of Monday, 16 January, when we discussed the situation in Northern Ireland and repeated our desire to see the institutions established under the Good Friday Agreement operating effectively, and in particular to have a fully functioning Executive in place as soon as possible following the election. We also discussed her speech on Brexit, scheduled for the following day. In that speech, the Prime Minister provided some important clarity on the proposed approach of the British Government to the Brexit negotiation process. I note, however, that there is still a lot of detail that remains to be set out as we move towards those negotiations commencing.

From our perspective, our overall negotiation priorities remain unchanged. These are our economy and trade; Northern Ireland, including the peace process and Border issues; the common travel area; and the future of the European Union. I am under no illusion about the challenges that remain to be addressed. Ministers and I will continue to meet and engage with our EU counterparts over coming weeks to emphasise Ireland’s concerns and to ensure they are fully reflected in the EU position once negotiations commence. This activity is reinforced by extensive engagement at diplomatic and official levels. The Government is acutely aware of the potential risks and challenges for the Irish economy and will remain fully engaged on this aspect as the negotiations proceed. I believe that, from my discussions with other members of the European Council and the EU institutions, there is a good understanding of the significant implications for Ireland arising from Brexit. While this does not, of course, guarantee that it will be possible to mitigate against all the negative consequences of the UK's eventual departure from the EU, it is vital that we continue to engage with our EU partners and the EU institutions in order to defend our interests to the greatest extent possible.

It is seven months since the Brexit referendum. The failure to go beyond generalities has now gone from being frustrating to causing widespread concern. In past negotiations, such as those on the fiscal treaty and EU debt terms, the Taoiseach perfected a strategy of refusing to say what he was looking for until the negotiations were over, after which he would declare the negotiations as a major triumph for Ireland. The worst example of this was, of course, when he said we were about to get billions for bank recapitalisation. We both asked for this and received exactly nothing. The Taoiseach will remember that famous meeting. This cannot go on.

The Taoiseach keeps on saying everybody is in favour of maintaining the common travel area and protecting the Good Friday Agreement but nobody has spelled out what that means. The common travel area has always been about more than just presenting passports at the border; it is about an automatic right to work, claim social protection payments, use the health service, vote and gain access to the education system on the same terms as citizens of the relevant jurisdiction.

There are three major urgent matters requiring clarification. Has the Taoiseach said to Prime Minister May that we will not agree to diluting the role of the European Convention on Human Rights in Northern Ireland's peace settlement? Second, has he said to her that any amendment to the role of the European Union in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 must be subject to previous negotiation? Finally, has he said to her and the European Union negotiators that Northern Ireland residents must retain their core rights as EU citizens? Northern Ireland will have the largest bloc of EU citizens living outside the European Union after Brexit. These are very basic questions. These are fundamental points that should not be open to negotiation. Could the Taoiseach indicate whether he asked those three specific questions of the British Prime Minister?

Yes, I discussed the question of human rights with the Prime Minister and made the very point that we do not want to see any diminution of human rights in any changes contemplated by the British Government or in the Human Rights Act. I understand that is not the immediate focus of the British Government at present.

If there is any change to the role of the European Union in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 or any change contemplated, we will obviously be on the side of the 27. Any change signalled would, of course, have to come before us, including the Barnier task force and, eventually, the European Council directly. That has not been raised directly with me.

With regard to Northern Ireland, obviously when people voted for the Good Friday Agreement in the North and South, they did so with the expectation of their being able to enjoy the rights, privileges and benefits of EU citizens. We want to see that maintained. We will work very hard in that regard. I do not want to see any change from what the people voted for and what was confirmed North and South.

The Deputy referred to generalities. Of course, this has gone on now for quite some time but we agree that there should be very good working relationships and that we want no change to the common travel area, which gives people a right of movement north, south, east and west for social purposes, residency and work. The Prime Minister is very committed to that, as are we.

We understood from Prime Minister May yesterday and reports in the British media that the Brexit legislation is likely to come before the UK Houses of Parliament for voting in or around 7 March and that at that point she will be readying herself for the EU summit meeting of Heads of Government in Malta. The timelines are getting very much shorter. Thus far, the Taoiseach has been giving us general outlines of his wish list but he has not told us in any detail Ireland's list of "must do's" regarding Brexit. While there has been much focus, understandably, on the implications for cross-Border activity between the North and South and for the island of Ireland, the fact remains, nonetheless, that in the Republic alone Brexit has implications for tens of thousands of jobs.

Has the Taoiseach proposed to the British Government that the Brexit legislation should include a clause relating to Northern Ireland and the fact that people there have not voted for Brexit and, under the Belfast Agreement, have a special relationship with the rest of the island?

We also want to know about simple matters-----

No, Deputy. We are out of time and will have none for-----

-----like the recognition of teaching qualifications in the South, the North and various parts of the UK. There are complex and simple issues that we need to know about.

I discussed this with the Prime Minister last night. I understand that the legislation is starting today in the House of Commons. It should be finished there by around 7 February. She might be in a position on 9 March to have that matter completed and to move Article 50 before the end of March. I asked that perhaps we might have a clearer view as to when Article 50 would actually be moved so as to be more acquainted with what might be in the letter that is going to accompany it from the British Government to the European Commission.

What did she say?

How did she respond to that?

I had contact with Mr. Mark Durkan, MP, the other day in respect of Committee Stage of the Bill in the House of Commons. He made the point that we needed to look at the implementation bodies that were set up under the Good Friday Agreement because they were predicated on the dispensing and disbursal of European funding under various headings - INTERREG, PEACE funds and so on. There is €3 billion there out to 2020, as the Deputy is aware. Mr. Durkan intends to table amendments on Committee Stage of the Bill in the House of Commons reflecting that.

We have to devise a new structure here in respect of what is going to happen when CAP dries up. Who will deal with the subsidies there? When Britain stops payments into the European Union budget, are these subsidies to be reduced? How do we regulate the payments through INTERREG and PEACE funding? These are subject to many of the sectoral committees that we are now engaged in, which will come to a head again on 17 February when we have another all-island forum dealing with a whole range of sectoral issues where options have been put forward by voices from business and different sectors that are very useful for us as we prepare.

There will be another question, I am sure, a Cheann Comhairle.

I listened intently to the Taoiseach's report and to what he and the British Prime Minister stated yesterday. I saw no mention of the Taoiseach defending the vote of the people in the North to stay within the EU. If he will be straight about this issue, I want to know whether he argued for the North to be given a specially designated status within the EU. As I have often told him, there is a logic behind this. It is the only way to ensure that there is no land border on this island between the EU and the British state. Did the Taoiseach make this proposal to the British Prime Minister?

A report of the policy department of the citizens' rights and constitutional affairs of the European Parliament published a report that specifically warned that Brexit would affect the Good Friday Agreement. It claims: "The impact (of Brexit) will be political, in particular since the Good Friday Agreement - an international agreement - will require alteration". It also warns about "the re-establishment of a hard border between the north and the south" and the "reversal of improvements in cross-border trade." While it acknowledges the positive impact of EU funding streams in the past, it states that will not be the case in future and there will be a negative financial impact.

The weekend saw the British Secretary of State deciding, on the anniversary of Bloody Sunday, that investigations by the PSNI and others into past events were too greatly focused on the actions of the British Army and other state forces. That followed a whole series of attacks on the Public Prosecution Service and the Lord Chief Justice. None of these claims is true. What is true is a desire on the part of the British state and some Unionist parties to provide immunity to British soldiers and others.

I thank the Deputy.

Did the Taoiseach challenge the Prime Minister on this?

Before I call the Taoiseach, we have just a little over a minute left, so can we take ten minutes from the remaining groups of questions?

Will we take ten minutes from the second group?

From the third group.

Sorry. Is it the second group?

Why the third group? The second only has two questions.

The second group.

We have to make a decision-----

Yes. The second group.

-----on whether to take ten minutes from the next groups.

Can we take it from the second group because there are fewer Deputies in it?

Can we take ten minutes from the second group?

We can or we cannot.

On a point of order, I do not mind co-operating, but that last intervention took the biscuit.

Why? It made perfect sense.

If it happens to come from a certain quarter, we dispense with the rules. No 15 minutes. I have been very gracious every week. I do not mind giving up time and so forth.

The Deputy is very good.

Is he not great?

Last week, the same thing happened and Deputy Howlin lost time.

We will influence-----

We are going to lose out. Basically, it means that there will be just two question slots. It is calling for a review of this process. That is the point that I was going to make.

This is happening every week. We are taking ten minutes from subsequent questions. There are three 15-minute slots. If ten minutes are taken, we are de facto talking about two slots. We can take five minutes from each slot. I do not mind.

What is the agreement?

Ten minutes from the second slot. That is the consensus.

No, that is not what Deputy Martin said.

Everyone else has a different view, so here we are.

More Deputies have indicated to speak in the third slot-----

Tyranny of the minority.

-----which is why I suggested that it be taken from the-----

There are four-----

May I debate the point-----

How many Deputies does Deputy Coppinger represent?

-----or does Deputy Martin want to talk over me?

I represent 44 Deputies.

We should all go home, so.

Deputy Martin resents anyone else speaking in the Dáil-----

Deputy Martin is right.

-----but the Trump issue, if the House does not mind me saying, trumps the second slot's issue on many grounds. No. 1, there are more Deputies involved.

No. 2, it is more important.

These are the procedures, are they not?

We will proceed with this item. My apologies, Taoiseach.

The murder in Aleppo trumps an awful lot of issues in the House, but there was silence from the other side. Double standards.

The Deputy did not care when there were loads of massacres.

I discussed the fact of the vote of the people of Northern Ireland with the British Prime Minister.

I asked whether the Taoiseach defended it.

I also noted the fact that she was in Cardiff yesterday meeting with the devolved assemblies. I noted in particular that she received a plan for the future from the First Minister of Scotland and from the First Minister of Wales, Ms Nicola Sturgeon and Mr. Carwyn Jones. Unfortunately, because the Executive was deliberately collapsed by Sinn Féin, there is now no leadership to present a plan to the Prime Minister from Northern Ireland.

The Taoiseach is our leader.

We did have generally the same direction and objectives with the former First Minister, Ms Foster, and former deputy First Minister, Mr. Martin McGuinness, which was to be welcomed, at the North-South Ministerial Council. It is important to say that I discussed with the Prime Minister the particular, special and unique circumstances that apply in Northern Ireland that do not apply anywhere else in Europe, which de facto makes this a special case.

Deputy Adams asked me about having a situation where there is no land border between the Republic and Northern Ireland. I am not sure that we are going to achieve that.

I did not ask about that.

I have made the point very strongly that we will not have a return to a hard Border or, as they say, the borders of the past.

How is the Government going to achieve that?

I made the point to the Prime Minister that this would be very controversial, would bring with it serious implications, and we are not going back there.

I am sure she was impressed.

I think-----

I thank the Taoiseach.

Let me just make this point, a Cheann Comhairle. There might be another question when I might return to answer this.

No, we are moving on to the second group of questions.

In that case-----

On a point of order,-----

No. Resume your seat. We are moving on to the second group.

I asked the Taoiseach a question-----

It is grossly unfair to exclude-----

-----about the remarks made by the Secretary of State, but he did not answer.

I am sorry, but there was no agreement on what the alternative arrangement would be.

There was not agreement, Deputy Howlin.

That means that, if I stand, I can use up ten minutes arguing about procedure to exclude Deputies.

There was time, Deputy.

We are moving on to the second group of questions.

I tabled questions. The Labour Party has a voice in this and I would like to be able to ask the question. This is grossly unfair.

We have heard Deputy Burton on this particular matter.

What does Deputy Howlin mean? The Labour Party has asked two questions.

I sat on the reform committee with the Ceann Comhairle-----

-----for very many meetings. I understood that all Deputies were to be treated equally in the House.

You were not, but we do not have agreement-----

Why am I the only Deputy with a question in this group of questions who is to be excluded?

The time ran out and there was not-----

A Cheann Comhairle-----

I have no difficulty with giving five minutes to Deputy Howlin.

Just wait a minute, Deputy, please.

We would have asked and answered-----

Time ran out and there was no agreement.

-----the questions. Deputy Micheál Martin invited a procedural debate and got it from the Deputy opposite. He used up the time in which I could have properly put a question.

These are important issues for our people.

No, just to be clear.

A Cheann Comhairle, could I make a proposal?

It is grossly unfair.

The clock stopped while we considered the procedure we would adopt. We did not have agreement. Deputy Martin proposed one thing. Deputy Howlin and Deputy Adams proposed something entirely different.

Then you should have looked for consensus.

In the absence of an agreement, therefore, I suggest we proceed to the next group of questions.

If I could make a very brief proposal, could we provide an extra five minutes to allow Teachta Howlin to put his question but perhaps the Taoiseach would also answer my question which he refused to do? With the agreement of Teachta Martin will you, a Cheann Comhairle, allow his colleague five minutes?

Do Members agree to give another five minutes?

So we will not get the third-----

Yes. I am a very reasonable man, but the issue still needs to be reviewed because it cannot be done under the existing rule.

I welcome the statement made yesterday jointly by Prime Minister May and the Taoiseach that they wanted a seamless and friction-free Border. That sounded to me like a very good soundbite. Could I ask how they jointly agreed to achieve that because if the UK exits the Single Market and the customs union unilaterally that would change the legal definition of the Border between the Republic and Northern Ireland? I do not know whether the Taoiseach had an opportunity to see "Newsnight" last night but that is exactly the point that was made again by the appointed person from the European Parliament, Guy Verhofstadt. How is that objective to be achieved?

I have two brief supplementaries. Has the Taoiseach thought about the possibility of sectoral agreements to cover vital interests between Britain and Ireland in parallel to the negotiations. Finally, does the Taoiseach have legal advice on whether the final agreement will require ratification by a referendum in this State?

Deputy Howlin's first question is in respect of the seamless frictionless-----

Seamless and friction-free border.

The lycra option.

Friction-free, frictionless border.

The Sir Humphrey formula.

What I pointed out to Deputy Burton in response to her question is that if the legislation has gone through by 7 or 9 March, before the meeting in Malta, the Prime Minister will then at some stage move to trigger Article 50 by letter to the Commission. That letter is important because therein lies the key to what it is we are talking about. In her speech at Lancaster the Prime Minister referred to the fact that Britain is withdrawing from the Single Market. That brings its own implications. We want the common travel area retained. We also made the point that the UK has not defined exactly what it wants in respect of the customs union, whether it is full membership, associate membership or non-membership.

What did the Prime Minister say?

That question must be addressed by the British Government. I discussed it with the Prime Minister last night and it is not for me to pre-empt what it is the British Government will decide in that regard, but that is the area where the negotiation will be critical when the talks start. If we want a seamless, friction-free, trouble-free Border that is the crucial area to be negotiated. The Prime Minister is very much aware of that now.

Could we now move on to Questions Nos. 8 and 9?

What about the other two questions?

Legislative Programme

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

8. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the Bills in preparation in his Department. [2735/17]

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

9. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the status of Bills under preparation in his Department. [4071/17]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 9 together.

The only Bill in preparation in my Department is the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, Bill. The Bill will dissolve the National Economic and Social Development Office, NESDO, and place the NESC on a statutory footing. It is a short answer.

The Taoiseach's Department is also responsible for the entire legislative programme and through the Office of the Attorney General drafts the overwhelming majority of legislation. Due to his constitutional powers the Taoiseach also has the ability to block the Oireachtas from even voting on most legislation, including amendments. What he has never done is to outline his approach to using those powers or to discuss what reforms are required. As a minority Government which says that it understands that it cannot impose its will on the majority, the Taoiseach's actions concerning the legislative agenda have become increasingly unacceptable. The blocking of Deputy Jim O'Callaghan's Judicial Appointments Commission Bill on the grounds that it supposedly created a charge on the Exchequer was a very clear abuse and it involved the Taoiseach taking upon himself the right to effectively veto all legislation. It was an unprecedented manoeuvre which was mean and petty.

The simple question I put to the Taoiseach is if he intends honouring his commitment to allow non-governmental Bills to be voted on and enacted? There was significant discussion on the issue prior to the formation of the Government and the reform of Dáil Éireann, the balance between the Executive and the Legislature and it was accepted that there needed to be far more practical facilitation of legislation from the Opposition and that the issue of a charge on the Exchequer had been abused in the past, had been used excessively and that it would end and greater flexibility would be shown. Is the Oireachtas going to be allowed to act as a proper legislative body or does the Taoiseach intend to maintain his personal right to veto anything he does not like? There were clear political reasons why the Taoiseach tried to kill off the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill.

Deputy Martin's question is in respect of the Bills in preparation in the Department. I have answered that for the Deputy. The only Bill is the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, Bill. Deputy Martin is now asking me a different question about the management of the legislative process that is being followed. Deputy O'Callaghan never sent his Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny.

No, but the committee approved it.

He booked Report Stage before the Bill was even on Committee Stage. The Ceann Comhairle is well aware of the number of Bills that have been allowed to pass without being blocked and the challenge now is for the parties to say which ones we want to pursue.

The Taoiseach blocked it because the Minister, Deputy Ross, said so.

We will never be able to get through the 30 or 40 Bills that are lined up now in addition to the list published by the Government. I suggest that the Fianna Fáil Party would decide on the three or five Bills it regards as a priority. Deputy O'Callaghan's Judicial Appointments Commission Bill is now going through in conjunction with the Government Bill.

There is a way of doing this that should not cause controversy between us.

It most certainly is not.

Two can play at that game. Deputy O'Callaghan did not have pre-legislative scrutiny carried out on his Bill.

He did, but the Taoiseach's people did not turn up.

As I understand it, he did not bring it for pre-legislative scrutiny and he booked Report Stage before it reached Committee Stage.

It went through the parliamentary process but people did not show up.

In any event, I take the Deputy's point. I have not signed any money messages against any of the Bills that have come through the House. I have allowed them to go through.

The Taoiseach did on that Bill.

The new politics is to have backbenchers bring forward non-governmental Bills and to have them processed and now there is a big backlog of those. The parties sponsoring the Bills need to identify what are their priorities and we will try to facilitate them.

If I understand correctly, the one Bill sponsored by the Taoiseach's Department is to do with the National Economic and Social Council. An bhfuil sé sin ceart?

Tá sé sin ceart.

We discussed that recently. The purpose of the Bill is to abolish the National Economic and Social Development Office and to place the National Economic and Social Council on a statutory footing. The National Economic and Social Forum and the National Centre for Partnership and Performance were dissolved in 2010 and this piece of legislation has been talked about since the time Brian Cowen was Taoiseach. As far as I can ascertain the Bill has been on the Government's legislative programme since 2013. When will the amended Bill on the National Economic and Social Council be introduced?

The function of the National Economic and Social Council is to analyse and report to the Taoiseach on strategic issues relating to the proper development of the economy, the achievement of social justice and the development of a strategic framework for the conduct of relations and arrangements between the Government and the social partners. That function was set out in the 2006 NESDO Act and that context has changed significantly since then. There are other forms of dialogue and interaction with interest groups. There is no question that the process has gone on a long time. I do not have a specific timescale for the completion of the assessment process. Considerable work is being carried out in the Department of the Taoiseach and that work is still going on to ensure the best arrangements for the future composition of the council. Given the changes in recent years it is worth taking some time to make sure that we have the best and most appropriate arrangements in place. The council's term expired during the summer. It is important to invest time and effort now to make sure we have the best arrangements in place in addition to it being vital that the highest quality research and advice are available to the Government, particularly at a time of great change.

I expect and want the NESC to continue to provide this function. However, I must give consideration to that. I should add that the outgoing members of the council will be involved in the task as well. I will advise Deputy Adams and the House as to when we might be able to complete this work. I agree that it has gone on for a considerable period of time.

The NESC has undertaken a very useful function and has been out of existence since last summer. The Taoiseach said that it is doing a very useful job but it does not exist. Does it exist in some shadow form?

Perhaps I should have said that it did do a very useful job.

The Taoiseach spoke about its future role. Is it intended to appoint an interim NESC until the new legislation is published and enacted? I previously raised the issue of constitutional Bills. A number of constitutional amendments are referenced in the programme for Government while the constitutional convention is sitting at the moment. Is it the Government's intention to introduce any constitutional Bills in 2017?

The future role I envisaged for the NESC is for it to continue to be able to engage in dialogue with all Ministers and the relevant organisations. Formal structures in place include the national economic dialogue, the Labour Employer Economic Forum, the Climate Change Advisory Council and the social inclusion forum. The role of the NESC needs to be assessed in light of those arrangements. We now have the national risk assessment process and have just published the national risk assessment for 2016, which identified strategic risks in the economic, governmental, geopolitical, social and technological areas. The programme for Government points to the requirement for longer term planning, specifically, areas like housing, broadband, climate change, pensions and long-term funding models higher education and health. We need to find ways of bringing those together so there is a great deal of work to be done on that.

In respect of constitutional amendments, the Government has not considered what amendments, if any, should be decided by referendum in 2017. When the Government considers that it will make any announcement that is appropriate. As Deputy Howlin is aware, following the Constitutional Convention, the number of recommendations for referenda was quite significant. The Citizens' Assembly is deliberating at the moment in respect of the eighth amendment of the Constitution.

Official Engagements

Joan Burton

Ceist:

10. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach if he has had discussions with the Trump Administration in the United States of America regarding President Trump's stated support for Brexit and other member states leaving the European Union. [2740/17]

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

11. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he or his officials have had any engagement with the President of the United States, Mr. Donald Trump, or his officials since his inauguration on 20 January 2017. [2759/17]

Ruth Coppinger

Ceist:

12. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Taoiseach if he has had contact with the President and Vice President of the United States of America since their inauguration. [2787/17]

Brendan Howlin

Ceist:

13. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach his proposals for official trips abroad during the first six months of 2017. [3242/17]

Richard Boyd Barrett

Ceist:

14. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he has had any contact with President Trump and Vice President Pence since their inauguration. [4124/17]

Bríd Smith

Ceist:

15. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Taoiseach if he has had contact with President Trump since his inauguration. [4126/17]

Brendan Howlin

Ceist:

16. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he has confirmed a visit to the White House on St Patrick's Day; and if he has had any engagement with the new President or Vice President of the United States since their inauguration. [4129/17]

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

17. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the official visits abroad he has scheduled for 2017. [4583/17]

Joan Burton

Ceist:

18. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach the discussions he has had with the new US Administration concerning Brexit and a US and UK trade deal. [4577/17]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 to 18, inclusive, together.

I have not had any contact with either President Trump or Vice President Pence since their inauguration on 20 January. However, as I have previously reported to the House, I raised immigration reform and our economic and trading interests with both President Trump and Vice President Pence during my phone calls with them following the US elections. President Trump's office has made clear his intention to continue the St Patrick's Day tradition and this has since been confirmed by his office since his inauguration. I pIan to continue to protect and promote the strong links between the Irish and American people by visiting the US for a St. Patrick's Day programme. As in previous years, I will work to protect and advance the interests of the undocumented Irish and promote Ireland's political and economic values and interests.

Regarding other official trips abroad, there will be a summit of EU Heads of State in Malta on the future of the EU on Friday, 3 February. A meeting of EU Heads of State and Government is planned for 24 to 25 March to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome and there are scheduled meetings of the European Council on 9 to 10 March, 22 to 23 June, 19 to 20 October and 14 to 15 December.

In addition, an extensive programme of engagement with all other EU member states and the EU institutions has been under way for some time in the context of outlining Ireland's Brexit priorities. For my part, I recently visited Prime Minister Rajoy in Madrid. I plan to visit Warsaw in February to meet Prime Minister Szydlo. I will also take the opportunity while in Poland to participate in a number of trade promotion events. I will continue to engage with my EU counterparts, as will other Ministers, over the coming weeks to emphasise Ireland's concerns in this regard and to ensure that they are fully reflected in the EU position once the negotiations commence. Arrangements for other meetings with some of my European Council partners are being explored. I will be happy to report to the House in due course on all such engagements.

Has the Taoiseach had contact with President Trump since his announcement of the restrictions on immigration? This is the weekend of the anniversary and commemoration of the Holocaust. I think the Taoiseach knows that the implementation of the Holocaust began with people in Nazi Germany being required to carry papers and passports carrying the word "Jude" - Jew. I was chairperson of an EU Council of Ministers dealing with development and humanitarian aid in the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide. The basis of that genocide was a provision stating that people had to have their tribal affiliation set out on their documentation and passports. Has the Taoiseach or any of his senior civil servants had contact with the Trump Administration and does he support the view of the recently sacked US acting Attorney General that this is likely to be illegal under US law and the US Constitution and the US as we know and understand it?

The words of Donald Trump and now the decisions by President Trump have caused huge anger across the US and around the world, including in Ireland. His executive order halting the US refugee programme and the introduction of a travel ban on nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries is counterproductive and wrong. The Taoiseach has said as much in interviews and here in the Dáil but I work on the broad presumption that Donald Trump does not watch "Oireachtas Report".

You are right there.

How would he know of the feeling of people here? How would he know if our leader, the head of Government, has not contacted him through the appropriate channels and told him this? How would he know that we will not put up with this in terms of our controls here? It was very disappointing to hear during Leaders' Questions that the Taoiseach has not conveyed his view, as stated here, which I presume is also the view of the Government and which is clearly the view of the majority of people on this island and within this State. There is no point in business as usual here. The Taoiseach needs to send that very clear message to the Administration in Washington. It may have no effect but unless it is done the potential impact of sending that clear message from this small island will not be known.

The world has been rocked over the weekend by events in the US with President Trump throwing around executive orders like confetti - attacking women's rights one day, attacking Mexicans the next and, most notably, introducing what is effectively a Muslim ban. The response of the American people, particularly young people, has been tremendous, to use a Trump phrase. They have been protesting at airports and sending President Trump a message that this is not acceptable. What will be the Taoiseach's response and the response of this Government? They say you do not know history is being made while you are actually going through it but I can tell the Taoiseach that these are historic events that call for more than a strongly worded letter, which seems to be what is being advocated by some parties here today. It calls for much more.

Last summer, the Taoiseach said that President Trump was racist and dangerous. Now it is no longer theoretical or hypothetical. He has passed dangerous and racist laws. Ireland is a very small country in the scheme of things but we have one very powerful weapon at our disposal, which is the power to deprive President Trump of a huge public relations job on 17 March and to prevent the "greenwashing" of his racist actions. No other country has the chance to showcase and send him such a message. It would be rank hypocrisy for the Taoiseach to go to Washington on 17 March to celebrate migration to the US by Irish people when Irish people who are Muslims may not even be allowed entry to the US.

This will probably be Deputy Enda Kenny's last bowl of shamrock event as Taoiseach and I ask him to make it an historic one. The Taoiseach should do something more important than sending a strongly worded letter. Frankly, I do not believe that the Taoiseach will look Donald Trump in the eye and convey the anger of Irish people and most decent people in the world because he has not done it yet, despite saying that he would.

I join with others in appealing to the Taoiseach, as Leader of this House, to forge a common view on the outrageous actions of the Trump Administration in its first ten days of office. We await further actions. What he has done in regard to refugees, to travel, to international trade and in insulting the leader of the largest neighbouring country Mexico is a start. There are other issues, such as climate change and his views on woman and the disabled. It is a moment of enlightenment. We need to take a stand on these issues. I would ask the Taoiseach to acknowledge that it is not business as usual. This is a unique set of circumstances in that we have never had a Donald Trump figure in such a powerful office before. Can we seek to forge a common view within this House to make clear the values of the Irish people? The great majority of the Irish people find what Donald Trump has done and proposes to do anathema.

It is now clear that Donald Trump's extremist views were not some electoral ploy but that, in fact, a dangerous far-right extremist and racist is now the President of the United States. During questions to the Taoiseach a year ago, I asked was Trump dangerous and racist and the Taoiseach responded to me-----

No, Deputy Boyd Barrett asked me were his comments.

No, I asked the Taoiseach-----

No, check the record.

-----did he agree that he was dangerous and racist and the Taoiseach said that he was dangerous and racist.

What I want to ask the Taoiseach is, when somebody shows that he is dangerous and racist and is implementing racist attacks and policies on vulnerable people, at what point do we draw the line and say it is not acceptable to shake hands with such a person, to give him PR opportunities and to give him gifts on behalf of the Irish people. The policy of appeasement in the 1930s of Hitler and the fascists was a disaster. Anybody would recognise that. He should have been recognised for the dangerous threat he was back then. Trump is echoing those far-right and extremist policies and I put it to the Taoiseach there can be no appeasement of somebody like that. Such a person has to be challenged, not have his hands shaken or be in any way legitimised or endorsed by the Taoiseach, particularly on a national day of celebration. How can the Taoiseach possibly shake hands with somebody who, the Taoiseach said, was dangerous and racist? By the way, I put that question to others in this House who may also be invited to Washington that they also give a commitment they will not shake hands with this dangerous racist.

The answer to the question from Deputy Joan Burton is, "no." I have not been in contact directly with the American President. There has been official contact at diplomatic level. I pointed out today, in answer to questions on Leaders' Questions, that we have had confirmation and clarification given in regard to a number of matters arising from the executive order signed by the US President, specifically, in regard to the 5,000 people from the seven countries named in the executive order who have received Irish citizenship in the past five or six years and their right to be able to enter the United States on presentation of their Irish passport as distinct from the passport of their original country. This was not a matter that was clarified early on. It is now clarified. It has been clarified by official contact at Government level in the United States.

The Deputy asked me about the pro tem US Attorney General, Ms Sally Yates. Ms Yates is a woman of great courage. She stood up for what she believed in here. This is a matter of the interpretation of the United States legislation and constitution. I understand that Ms Yates considered the matter carefully over the weekend and wrote what she believed in. I understand that the letter was hand-delivered to her at 9 p.m., at 9.02 p.m. the White House issued its statement and at 9.15 p.m. the newly appointed interim US Attorney General signed the reversal order of her direction.

It speaks volumes.

The Deputy asked if I support Ms Yates. I recognise that here was a person of courage who was not afraid to stand up for her belief in respect of the laws and constitution of the United States.

Deputy Coppinger raised the populist question of migration. What did Deputy-----

The populist question of migration-----

The issue of going to the White House.

Yes. The populist question that I should not go to the White House.

It is a populist question.

Deputy Coppinger always follows that line and that is her right, if she wishes.

I intend to go to the United States, to speak directly to the American President in the White House and to speak directly to the Vice-President and to the Speaker of the House. If Deputy Coppinger thinks that Ireland, on St. Patrick's Day or in St. Patrick's week, should abandon those Irish-Americans, should abandon those 50,000 undocumented brothers and sisters of her own who are in the United States-----

What about Irish Muslims?

-----who want a path to legitimate citizenship to work in the United States, I for one will not leave them isolated and alone at a time of considerable concern for them. If Deputy Coppinger checks with the emigrant offices, she will note the increased activity and calls and visits from Irish people - the Deputy's brothers and sisters and mine - who are concerned about what might happen here. It is for that reason more than anything else that I want to be able to speak directly, eye-to-eye, to the American President and inform him of their passion for a path to legitimate citizenship of the United States to work for that economy and their families in the land of their choice.

Will the Taoiseach mention non-Irish people as well?

In respect of Deputy Howlin's remark, I agree it is not business as usual any more. It is not politics as usual anymore. Senior hurling has gone global. In that sense, we have got to stand up for what we believe in and politicians and leaders can differ.

What has hurling got to do with this?

We share great and traditional values with the United States-----

It is just an opportunity to have the last half-word on a serious issue.

It will be a hurley instead of a bowl of shamrock.

----over many presidencies and we want to maintain those values, that credibility and those traditional links.

Will the Taoiseach try to garner that support here?

Politicians differ. I differ because I disagree with the policy being outlined here by the American Administration.

If Deputy Boyd Barrett goes back and checks the record, unless my memory fails me-----

I will send the Taoiseach the transcript.

Unless my memory fails me, Deputy Boyd Barrett's question to me was about whether the comments of the then candidate were racist-----

The Taoiseach said, "yes."

My answer to that was that I considered that the comments at that time were racist and dangerous.

Does the Taoiseach consider the policy now racist and dangerous?

The Taoiseach, without interruption.

Deputy Boyd Barrett is now changing the question and attacking the personality. The Deputy's question to me was about the comments at that time.

In any event-----

Are these policies not dangerous or racist?

I intend to outline-----

In football or hurling parlance, the Taoiseach is in injury time.

It speaks volumes of the straight talking the Taoiseach will do to President Trump. The Taoiseach is already back-tracking on what he said.

I will always obey the referee.

Barr
Roinn