Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:1. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on justice reform last met. [15435/17]
Ceisteanna - Questions
Cabinet Committee Meetings
Michael Moynihan
Ceist:2. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on justice reform last met; and will next meet. [16396/17]
Brendan Howlin
Ceist:3. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on justice reform last met; and when it will next meet. [16424/17]
Ruth Coppinger
Ceist:4. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on justice reform last met. [16454/17]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:5. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on justice reform will next meet. [16464/17]
Gerry Adams
Ceist:6. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if a meeting of the Cabinet committee on justice reform was held on 7 March 2017; and when it will meet again. [16552/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.
The last meeting of the Cabinet committee on justice reform took place on 7 March 2017. The date for the next meeting has not been scheduled yet but it will be confirmed in due course and I will advise the House of that.
A number of Members are offering. I ask that we stick to the time allocation so that we can get through everyone.
I am amazed the last meeting took place on 7 March given everything that is happening.
There is an unprecedented storm going on in terms of the behaviour of An Garda Síochána, the scandals around the breath tests, wrongful convictions and the questions over the Commissioner, yet the Cabinet committee has not met since 7 March. It is absolutely extraordinary. Even more extraordinary, the Taoiseach does not know when the next meeting will be.
I want an answer to a very specific question. In my experience, it is unprecedented to table a parliamentary question and not get an answer within four or five days. I have raised this on several occasions. I tabled a parliamentary question on 23 February - I want to know if the Taoiseach's committee discussed this - asking how many people under the remit of the Department of Justice and Equality were suspended on full pay pending investigation. I received an answer stating it was 26. I asked a follow-up question, which was whether the Minister could give a breakdown of the agencies under the Department of Justice and Equality in which these suspensions took place, the grade involved and the length of time the suspensions were in play. The Minister told me that she could not answer me. I find it completely unacceptable that she refuses to give me information. I do not believe that she does not have the information. To be frank, I suspect the information is being withheld because it is relevant to the question of whether Nóirín O'Sullivan should remain in position when she is under investigation for very serious matters.
All right, Deputy.
I would like a response on this matter because that is not acceptable. Has the Taoiseach discussed it? Is he aware of these suspensions? Is there one law for Nóirín O'Sullivan and another for other employees under the remit of the Department of Justice and Equality?
I disagree with Deputy Boyd Barrett when he states it is extraordinary that this matter was not considered. The Government has responded to the issues that have arisen in recent times in respect of An Garda Síochána, particularly in terms of fixed charge notices and mandatory alcohol testing. The Government has responded and not just a Cabinet sub-committee, which is a feature of Government that allows for issues to be discussed and recommendations to be made for consideration by Cabinet. As I pointed out, the Government has decided that there should be a root and branch analysis of An Garda Síochána in terms of its structures and the policing role and responsibility. This will deal with the management and structures for all functions carried out by An Garda Síochána; the composition, recruitment and training of personnel; the culture and the ethos of policing; and the structures and the legislative basis for oversight and accountability. This is to be carried out completely independently of An Garda Síochána.
I assume the parliamentary question to which the Deputy refers is one that he tabled. The committee does not discuss questions submitted by Deputies to the relevant Minister which go through the Office of the Ceann Comhairle.
This was a question of particular relevance.
These are not matters for discussion by the Cabinet sub-committees.
This was not just any question.
The Minister will respond in whatever way she can to Deputy Boyd Barrett.
Or not. She has not-----
The answer to the Deputy's question is that the Deputy's parliamentary question was not discussed by the Cabinet sub-committee, nor should it be.
It should.
The fundamental issue is what is the function or role of the Cabinet committee on justice reform. It is clear that all reform efforts up to now have failed and the Garda Inspectorate reforms have not been implemented. I put it to the Taoiseach it is extraordinary given the revelations about the latest debacle of 146,000 being wrongly summonsed to court, 14,700 being wrongly convicted and close to 1 million breathalyser tests that never took place having been falsely recorded. The Garda Commissioner stated that they are organisationally shameful, were false and, at worst, there was deception and, at best, incompetence. Given the scale of the falsehoods involved and the disruption to the criminal justice system, does the Taoiseach consider it acceptable that the Garda Commissioner did not inform the Minister of it and did not inform the Policing Authority that such an audit was under way? Has the Taoiseach spoken to the Policing Authority about it? What is the Government's sense of the failure of the Commissioner to inform the Policing Authority? I do not want to be fobbed off with "an administrative oversight" because I do not buy it. Given the scale of the falsehoods and the undermining of the criminal justice system, why the Policing Authority was not informed about this matter is a very serious issue.
It is unacceptable and an apology has been issued by the Garda Commissioner. The Policing Authority should have been informed. The chairperson of the independent Policing Authority, Ms Feehily, is doing an exemplary job in independently and objectively dealing with the issues for which it has responsibility and in respect of which further powers may well be given to it. The Tánaiste only became aware of the figures in respect of the mandatory alcohol testing and the fixed charge notices on 23 March when the press conference was put together by An Garda Síochána.
Is that not extraordinary?
It is not acceptable-----
It is extraordinary.
It is certainly unprecedented and the situation is it is not acceptable and the Garda Commissioner apologised profusely for it.
It is truly astonishing that the Cabinet sub-committee on justice reform has not met in a month. In light of-----
The Government has met.
Let me deal with that. I was a member of the last justice reform committee. The Government does not have at its meetings the Garda Commissioner, the chairperson of the Policing Authority or the senior administrators in the Department of Justice and Equality, all of whom should have been there to answer questions of key Ministers in advance of any decisions being made at Cabinet. Did the Taoiseach not see it as appropriate to convene a meeting where all those principals would be present to answer questions such as the one just asked by Deputy Martin? Before the Cabinet could come to profound decisions such as whether to have a Patten-style root and branch commission, surely the precursor would have been to have at least one but probably a series of meetings of the Cabinet sub-committee asking the views of the Policing Authority, asking the Commissioner questions directly and asking the Department of Justice and Equality those questions. I welcome the Taoiseach's response this morning that he will shortly publish an implementation plan. However, does he agree that in the interim we also need amendments to the powers of the Policing Authority to make directions on reform to be implemented by An Garda Síochána?
The Garda Commissioner and the chairperson of the independent Policing Authority do not attend Cabinet sub-committee meetings.
That is not true.
They do. The Taoiseach knows they do.
No, to have meetings with the Garda Commissioner or the-----
We have been at them - both of us.
Yes, we have had them before and they were there to give information about security----
They do attend them then.
Yes, but the Cabinet sub-committee deals with questions about police, policing and issues of governance and so on. It is not a situation where the Garda Commissioner attends at every Cabinet sub-committee.
No, but the Taoiseach can bring them in and has done so.
As the Deputy knows, the Cabinet sub-committees deal with issues about the relevant Departments and so on for recommendation for decision by Government.
Does the Taoiseach not think this is relevant?
The Deputy was at many of them himself and is well aware, for instance, in dealing with matters of finance that he did not have all the chief executives of the banks there-----
We did-----
-----or the Governor of the Central Bank unless specifically requested. Government was dealing with this and Government has made its decision-----
Without talking to the principal players. Amazing.
-----in respect of the request from the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality to the independent Policing Authority to deal with the mandatory alcohol testing and the fixed charge notices matters and to have a root and branch reform of the structure of An Garda Síochána and the future role and responsibility in terms of policing.
Not exactly evidence-based decision making.
Does the Taoiseach not want to ask the question himself?
Deputies, please.
The point is that Government will not sign off on it until the parties opposite have their say in respect of the proposition from Government and the inclusion of whatever recommendations are contained in the Fennelly report are considered by every Member of the Oireachtas so that we can try to get this right in the interests of its future role, responsibility and independence and the nature of whether it be security and policing or security and policing separated in the future.
The views of Deputies, as public representatives, are very important in this regard.
I was not referring to publishing a plan on reform but to a progress report on a plan that has been published already. The Garda Inspectorate has made its views known and we considered those views at the Cabinet sub-committee. The question now is one of getting on with implementing those changes and that work is under way. The programme is for a couple of years, as the Deputy is aware. We discussed the issue of civilianisation, which means taking gardaí out of the system so they can be on the beat by replacing them with civilians. The Olson report is very comprehensive and is being followed through. I will provide everyone with an update on that.
It seems the seriousness of this issue had not permeated the Government. The reputation of the whole system of justice has never been so low, yet the Taoiseach has not bothered to convene a committee on which key players sit and is choosing not to use the forum in question. If the Government is looking after all of this, why is the Taoiseach persisting with the fallacy that it is possible to investigate the most senior garda in the land, while leaving her in situ, with all of her authority, to undermine the investigation?
We had the recent revelations, with Sergeant Maurice McCabe and others being blackguarded. Will the Taoiseach comment on the position of Garda Superintendent Dave Taylor who, having been arrested over leaking information about another Garda scandal four years ago, returned to work on 14 February last only to have a fresh disciplinary case brought against him on the very same matter by the same Commissioner?
It seems Fine Gael is doing its best to defend the Garda Commissioner and keep her in place, with Fianna Fáil seemingly happy to facilitate it in doing so. We are hearing disturbing reports of what gardaí are describing internally as a praetorian guard around the Commissioner. Two retired gardaí have been brought in to protect the Commissioner. Is the Taoiseach aware that a communication has been sent to every single garda who could testify to the Charleton investigation stating that he or she must liaise with the internal committee the Taoiseach was not even told about before testifying to the commission? Was the Taoiseach aware of this or did the Commissioner not bother telling him about it? The Commissioner hired two retired gardaí and did not bother informing the Government about it. She is clearly giving the proverbial two fingers to any idea that she will be neutral while this investigation takes place. I am surprised the Taoiseach has not convened the committee to ask her about this matter.
Deputy Adams may contribute now as the time for these questions is almost concluded.
This is all very strange because it is another case of déjà vu. The Labour Party is now proposing a root and branch review of An Garda Síochána, having voted against such a review in government when we made a similar proposal. Some of this goes back before my time. According to the 2015 report from the Garda Inspectorate, a significant number of the recommendations in its report had been made in one form or another over the past two decades. This takes us back to Fianna Fáil whose position is that it is unable to express confidence in the Commissioner and would remove her if it was in government. However, the party has also indicated it will not support a motion requiring the Government to do exactly that.
As a result of the Government's rejection of root and branch, Patten-style reform, the Commissioner is answerable to the Minister for Justice and Equality rather than an independent policing authority with real powers. The Government is not approaching this issue as it should, nor did it deal with the case of the previous Minister for Justice and Equality, Mr. Alan Shatter, and previous Garda Commissioner as it should have. I do not have any great confidence that it will approach this issue properly.
While we were told the Cabinet was briefed on the establishment of a commission to examine the future of policing, we were not told whether this came from the Cabinet committee on justice reform. Did the committee discuss this issue at its meeting of 7 March? The Taoiseach does not even have a date for the next meeting of the committee.
This is a case of "I told you so" because the previous Government dismissed our proposal in the most defensive, triumphalist and dismissive way when it had a large majority and did not have to listen to Sinn Féin or anyone else in opposition. Now the decent members of An Garda Síochána and those who depend on them to keep the peace and keep us safe have been let down.
In respect of Deputy Coppinger's comments, I believe that Mr. Justice Charleton is an exceptionally qualified person to conduct the commission of investigation, in respect of which he has been given the authority, terms of reference and facilities to do his job. I will not comment on the working method of his commission.
It is not about Mr. Justice Charleton but about the Garda Commissioner.
Please allow the Taoiseach to answer.
Mr. Justice Charleton is an exceptionally qualified person to do this job and he will be allowed to do his job. He expects to be able to report-----
This has nothing to do with the question the Taoiseach was asked.
The Taoiseach should stop talking down the clock and answer my question.
The Deputy is asking me to comment on structures associated with the commission or people who may have to attend in front of it.
I referred to the Garda, not the commission.
That is entirely a matter for the sole person in charge of the commission, Mr. Justice Charleton, who is exceptionally qualified to do a first class job.
The Ceann Comhairle must take up with the Taoiseach his avoidance of the question.
The Garda Commissioner is moving to subvert the commission of investigation.
In respect of Deputy Adams's point of view, the proposition for the setting up of a root and branch analysis of the future of the Garda came from the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality at Cabinet. As the Deputy knows, the Cabinet is the body which makes the ultimate decisions in respect of all Cabinet committees. That is why it was one of the many discussions that took place at Cabinet and the decision was to have a root and branch analysis of the future of policing, the structure, role and responsibility of An Garda Síochána and so on. The decision involved the Oireachtas which is the reason Opposition spokespersons and leaders, including Deputy Adams, will have their say. When the Attorney General advises publication of the second Fennelly report, they will be given copies and will be able to take the report into account. This is to ensure that we, as an Oireachtas, get the future structure, role, responsibility and work of An Garda Síochána right and citizens can have confidence and trust in the body.
That is not to say this is a whole new body of work. As I pointed out to Deputy Howlin, the recommendations of the independent inspectorate are now being implemented. The independent Policing Authority, with which Deputy Howlin had a very close association when it was being set up, came into effect last year under the supervision of its chairperson, Josephine Feehily, who is doing a first class job in its independence and oversight. The Tánaiste is not averse to giving the authority extra powers and she will take advice from Members on that matter.
Can we get some answers, please?
I am sorry. We have gone substantially over time and must move on to the next group of questions.
May I ask a supplementary question given that the Taoiseach went one minute over time?
Everyone went over time. We are three minutes over time at this stage.
Brexit Issues
Michael Moynihan
Ceist:7. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Taoiseach the key areas which need to be addressed to avoid a hard Brexit, in particular, to protect the island of Ireland. [16397/17]
Micheál Martin
Ceist:8. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken or written to the British Prime Minister, Ms Theresa May, since she wrote the letter to President Tusk on 29 March 2017 instigating Article 50; the details of the proposed statement he will make at the next EU Council following this instigation; and his main requests and concerns in this regard. [16400/17]
Gerry Adams
Ceist:9. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has had contact with the British Prime Minister, Ms Theresa May, since the triggering of Article 50 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on 29 March 2017. [16411/17]
Eamon Ryan
Ceist:10. Deputy Eamon Ryan asked the Taoiseach when he last spoke to or corresponded with the British Prime Minister, Ms Theresa May, to discuss Brexit arrangements; and the details of that conversation. [16458/17]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:11. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken to the British Prime Minister, Ms Theresa May, since she triggered Article 50 to commence Britain's withdrawal from the EU. [16463/17]
Brendan Howlin
Ceist:12. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will provide an update on the all-island civil dialogue on Brexit; and his plans for further meetings. [16728/17]
Gerry Adams
Ceist:13. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach when he will publish the promised consolidated paper providing details of the Government's priorities and approach to the Brexit negotiations. [16553/17]
Joan Burton
Ceist:14. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach the discussions he had with the British Government since its letter to EU Council President, Mr. Donald Tusk, invoking Article 50 of the European Union treaties. [16735/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 14, inclusive, together.
I spoke with Prime Minister May by telephone on the day Article 50 was triggered. I acknowledged the constructive tone of the Article 50 letter and the references to Ireland and Northern Ireland. We discussed the next steps in the Brexit process and agreed to maintain close contact at political and official level. We also discussed the political situation in Northern Ireland.
It has been clear from the start that the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union will have significant economic, political and social implications for Ireland. The Government has been working very hard for more than two years, even before the UK referendum, to engage with all sectors across the island of Ireland, fully analyse our main areas of concern and develop our negotiating priorities. These are to minimise the impact on our trade and the economy; protect the Northern Ireland peace process, including through maintaining an open Border; continue the common travel area with the United Kingdom; and work for a positive future for the European Union.
The Government and UK Government are agreed that a close and friction-free economic and trading relationship between the UK and the EU, including Ireland, is in our best interests. We note that our particular concerns, including in relation to the Good Friday Agreement, were acknowledged by Prime Minister May in her letter. They were also reflected in last week's resolution on Brexit by the European Parliament and they are set out in the draft guidelines circulated by President Tusk, which are to be finalised at a meeting of the 27 member states on 29 April. The consistent, strong acknowledgement of the Irish issues in each of these documents is evidence of the extensive engagement by Ireland with our partners at political, democratic and official level in recent months. As I stated the other day, now that Article 50 has been triggered, we will publish shortly before the European Council meeting on 29 April a consolidated paper providing more detail about our priorities and approach to the negotiations ahead.
A report on the civic dialogue process to date is available on merrionstreet.ie. Further all-island civic dialogue events and consultations will be held, as required, in the coming months.
I have two questions in this group. We spent some time on this yesterday and we had a debate on Brexit. Will the Taoiseach elaborate on a question I asked? Will he seek an explicit reference to the continued EU citizenship of Northern Ireland residents post-2019 in the Union's negotiation instructions? This has implications far beyond what would happen if there was reunification. The German unification which the Taoiseach referenced yesterday involved the creation of new EU citizens. In this case, we are talking about people who today are EU citizens and we want their continued rights to that citizenship protected. That has many practical implications for the negotiations, including freedom of residence in the Union and guaranteeing access to services. Will the Taoiseach propose an amendment in the draft negotiating guidelines to include an explicit reference to the continued EU citizenship of residents of Northern Ireland?
With regard to the consolidated paper, what are the key areas that need to be addressed? Has the Taoiseach pursued special status and a special trading zone on this island? Will the paper detail the Government's approach to key issues such as trade between the island of Ireland and the UK in a post-Brexit scenario where there could be tariffs and where Britain could be outside the customs union?
Under the constitutional framework of the Good Friday Agreement, citizens of Northern Ireland have the right to be British citizens, Irish citizens, or both and Brexit will not change that. Since the referendum outcome, our priority has been to ensure the terms of the Agreement are both recognised and accommodated in the final settlement between the UK and the EU. We have engaged extensively with the EU and its institutions about this and there is now a recognition at European level of the importance of the Agreement and its understanding. As co-guarantor of that, we will work to see that those provisions are protected.
The legal provisions governing citizenship and citizenship through naturalisation are set out in the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, as amended. Any person living on the island of Ireland, one of whose parents or grandparents was an Irish citizen, is entitled to Irish citizenship by descent and may make an application for a passport directly to the Passport Office. Similarly, any person born on the island of Ireland prior to 1 January 2005 has an entitlement to Irish citizenship and, therefore, European citizenship and may also make an application for a passport directly to the Passport Office. Post 1 January 2005, the entitlement to Irish citizenship of persons born on the island of Ireland to non-national parents is governed by sections 6A and 6B of the 1956 Act, as amended. The Act states: "A person born in the island of Ireland shall not be entitled to be an Irish citizen unless a parent of that person has, during the period of 4 years immediately preceding the person's birth, been resident in the island of Ireland for a period of not less than 3 years or periods the aggregate of which is not less than 3 years."
Citizenship through the naturalisation process, on the other hand, is based, among other factors, on the individual having the required lawful residence in the jurisdiction of the State. The Act requires a period of one year's continuous residency in the State immediately before the date of application for naturalisation and during the eight years immediately preceding that period to have a further total residence in the State amounting to four years. That relates to the technical issues.
We want to protect the common travel area arrangements. The point the Deputy raised will be followed through by me in these negotiations.
The Taoiseach may have said when he will publish the consolidated paper and I may have missed that. That has to be done in sufficient time to allow those of us who want to persuade the Government of the need to make amendments to the draft EU guidelines to do so because, as I said during Leaders' Questions, we are not satisfied that these guidelines are clear enough or that they go far enough. It remains my position - I do not mean this to be offensive - that the Taoiseach and the Government do not understand the huge shift in the relationships within the island and between the two islands since the Good Friday Agreement. The British Government is not just able to make declarations at this time without the Government having co-equal status to deal with it on that basis.
The Taoiseach earlier differentiated between the case of Gibraltar and that of the North. Of course, there is a difference. The difference is that the Spanish Government believes that Gibraltar is part of its sovereign territory. Whether it is or not is another issue but that is what the government believes. However, our Government has to believe, as many of the people of the island believe, that the island of Ireland should have territorial sovereignty and in the processes set out under the Good Friday Agreement, we have a responsibility - the Government specifically has a constitutional responsibility - to advance that objective. On Saturday last, on a radio programme with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, he reminded us that Fine Gael is The United Ireland Party. Let us see some evidence of that.
We need to have the time, the forum and the ability to look again at what the Government will bring forward and the space that will allow us to make specific amendments in order that we can influence the outcome. Will the Taoiseach give a commitment that he will do all of this in that spirit?
In respect of Deputy Martin's second question, the consolidated paper will refer to the question of trade both within the island of Ireland and between Ireland and the UK, which is fundamental to the future relationship. The point he made is central to the future negotiations and, therefore, that will be covered in the consolidated paper.
In response to Deputy Adams, there will be sufficient time to consider this when it is published. He has written to some Members of the European Parliament and has expressed his view that both the Irish and British Governments have reneged on their responsibilities in so far as the Good Friday Agreement is concerned. Obviously, I disagree fundamentally with him in that regard but I understand that he has to make a case politically to people-----
It is what I believe and I can prove it.
The Deputy may believe it but I disagree with him fundamentally. He has to do that anyway. His party voted against nine different referenda in respect of Europe-----
Quite rightly.
The Deputy cannot say "rightly".
------and the Deputy has a particular tradition of not being supportive of anything to do with Europe in this House and outside it.
Originally, when Fine Gael took its roots from Cumann an nGaedheal, it was known as The United Ireland Party.
A long time ago.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade is correct in that sense that the party goes back a long way. However, in respect of the potential for a united Ireland, the visionaries who put the Good Friday Agreement together foresaw a time when that may become a decision to be made by the people of the North and the people of the Republic. The answer to the Deputy's question is that there will be time to consider the consolidated paper, and rightly so, because these are the most important negotiations, both between Ireland and the UK and between the UK and the EU, of which we will continue to be a member, for many years. They will impact on all our citizens for many years to come and, therefore, everybody should have their say.
On the negotiating strategy, the point I made last night in our Brexit debate was that we should be looking to push the Commission and the Council to enter talks on areas where there can be co-operation into the future. Prime Minister May is in the Financial Times today saying a trade deal will not come until after the Brexit talks are finished and that is probably right. There is a whole range of other standards we will have to get co-operation on in energy, digital services, environmental rules and so on. It does not make sense for our strategy to be, first, to talk for six months about whether the UK will pay its exit bill and on the divorce terms and then to start talking about certain areas of co-operation. The Taoiseach should be proactive when it comes to the Council meeting. His officials should set up a safe space in advance in which to discuss some of the standards that are set by the European Union. They should not go into the sensitive area of tariffs or the detailed trade arrangements. There are certain key standards we need agreement on in how energy markets work and in how digital services, privacy and other rules are set and agreed. It is in our interests, with the greatest risk at play, to get those standards and a safe space in which to talk about them straight away in the negotiations rather than waiting six months in what is already a very tight timetable. Would the Taoiseach agree to such a negotiating approach? Will he push it at the Council?
Deputy Ryan's question is valid. Article 50 sets out the process for the so-called divorce proceedings over a two-year period. If they are not concluded within that period, an extension can only happen with the unanimous support of the European Council which I assume would be given. The article also clearly states the future framework of the future relationship must be taken into account. These two things confuse lots of people because on the one hand we say we will talk only about the exit strategy and wait until it is concluded before we start talking about the future strategy and yet, on the other hand, Article 50 itself says we must take into account what the future framework is. It may well be that when the European Council comes together on 29 April to sign off on the negotiating foundations there will be some discussion about whether we do this on the basis of a series of pillars that move forward together in respect of the divorce proceedings as distinct from the future trading relationship which is the fundamental issue that will follow. My view is if we focus exclusively on the question of what the assessment of charges might be for the British Government and these are principles and modalities to be followed it would be far better to talk about a range of issues in respect of the exit process by the United Kingdom before we run into any particular stone walls. The Deputy raised a question about common positions. Energy, water and animal health are issues that could be considered for an all-island situation here.
The European Union of 27 has its own agenda - the Single Market, the single digital market, the capital markets and how we continue to invest for prosperity and future job opportunities. It is the European Union agenda for the future. The question here is to negotiate what the future relationship of the United Kingdom will be with those 27, one of which will be Ireland. It is a common agenda of the 27. The future framework and that structure of negotiation between the UK and the European Union is one where the negotiations will obviously get into serious detail in the time ahead.
Our interest-----
The Deputy should be brief.
Our interests are aligned with the European Union agenda on a single digital market and an energy union. The Taoiseach should be establishing a pillar straight away, not waiting for the autumn. We should be leading co-operation in that area, not just from an Irish perspective although it will affect Ireland more than anyone else. We should be leading Europe in that approach. We have an interlocutory position and we should use it to lead the safe space talks on those sorts of regulations and standards. That is what we need to do straight away and not wait six months into the autumn as the Commission seems to be suggesting.
Given that time is elapsing, I will take Deputy Howlin and Deputy Burton before the Taoiseach responds.
We will bear with the Ceann Comhairle.
I thank the Deputy.
I want to follow through on the points made by the Taoiseach in his answer. Right now, the European Parliament is debating its comprehensive resolution. It is interesting to hear Deputy Ryan talk about bilateral discussions on key elements of what would be a new acquis. The European Parliament points out it would be contrary to European law for any individual country to have any such bilateral discussions and that it can only be done on a unilateral-multilateral basis through the 27. Michel Barnier, the chief negotiator, speaking in the European Parliament today, said very incisively of the trade agreement that the devil will be in the detail. There is no expectation that this will be done within the timeframe. The reality is if there is no deal and no withdrawal agreement there will be an automatic disorderly exit on 30 March 2019 which is now under two years away. Does the Taoiseach expect there to be a withdrawal agreement within the two-year timeframe? Does he expect that subsequent to that there will be a transition agreement? Is it his understanding it is what will currently be worked upon? What sort of a timeframe does he envisage for transitional arrangements before the complete exit from the European Union, the end of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the full severance of connections between the United Kingdom and the European Union?
Some time ago, Mrs May was at pains to announce on a number of occasions, as were many members of her Cabinet and many leading Brexiteers, that no deal is better than a bad deal. While the tone of her letter, which we discussed last week, is quite emollient, there is absolutely no sign from the British Government that the people who are pro-Brexit, who seem to be in the majority, have moved away from that position. In that context, it is very difficult to see at this point how the negotiations will be successfully concluded.
We now have a situation where Northern Ireland is not represented at all in the negotiations. It does not sound like it will become engaged any time soon as a result of the collapse of the power sharing institutions and with both parties seemingly determined to avoid, in practice, any recommencement of the institutions, notwithstanding the fact that they are talking. It is unfortunate but it seems to be a very dug-in position by both parties to the previous power sharing executives. How does the Taoiseach envisage Northern Ireland will be represented? The Taoiseach talked a number of minutes ago about negotiations between Britain and Ireland but, as the Taoiseach has been at pains to say to us, Ireland is very much in the EU 27.
Last week, Michael O'Leary said he saw a situation in which it was possible that air travel arrangements could be severely disrupted for a number of months in the event of a total British leaving. There was also an interesting comment by one of the Taoiseach's potential successors when the Minister for Social Protection said the Border would be a camera on a pole. I do not know if that was him acknowledging there was going to be a Border. For a lot of us, a camera on a pole could potentially be quite a hard Border and quite a difficult development. Was he speaking for the Government or was he just giving us the benefit of his thinking aloud?
In respect of Deputy Howlin's comments about the European Parliament discussing this at the moment and Michel Barnier responding and making comments there, it is true to say that one does not do deals with any individual country of the 27. It is with the Union that this happens. That is why I have explained to others internationally that it is important to understand what the European Union is, what it stands for, how it functions and how trade deals are put together.
Michel Barnier has commented on a few occasions that he thinks it would be possible to conclude the "divorce proceedings", as they are called, within the two-year framework. Whether that is possible or not is anybody's guess. When these negotiations start in earnest, both about the withdrawal and the future relationship, I expect them to become complicated. Article 50 is clear, however, in that, if it is not concluded, one either has the option of blunt removal with all that entails or an extension of time granted unanimously by the members of the European Council, which I would expect would be granted were that situation to arise. However, as the Deputy says, nobody can say exactly what the outcome there will be.
I expect that there has to be a transition period. As to putting a time on it, it could be quite extensive.
A decade.
CETA, the Canadian deal, took five years to put together and two years to get approval, and still has to go through a number of parliaments. The trading area has become quite complicated.
In response to Deputy Burton, I remain optimistic that the politicians in Northern Ireland will accept their responsibilities and that, in respect of the two main parties, the DUP and Sinn Féin, we will get out of that a functioning executive authority, which is very important for Northern Ireland. I assume that Secretary of State Brokenshire would be able to legislate for that retrospectively when the Commons returned after the Easter recess. I hope that the main parties can put this together and that we will have a functioning Executive. It may hold differences of opinion but at least it could have a common set of objectives for the people that it represents across the North.
In respect of the Border, the position is that, on behalf of the Irish Government and the British Government, we have a clear understanding of there being no return to a hard Border. By that I mean customs posts on the Border as traditionally applied. My reason for being so clear and so strong about this is that it brought with it sectarian violence and all of the issues that arose in the troubled past that we had in Northern Ireland and between Northern Ireland and the Republic. We are not going back there. That is the political groundwork. It is a political challenge to deal with that, not just a matter of mere technology.
Is a camera on a pole acceptable?
Cabinet Committee Meetings
Michael Moynihan
Ceist:15. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Taoiseach the number of Cabinet committees he has attended since 1 January 2017. [16398/17]
I have chaired 15 Cabinet committee meetings since the beginning of January. The Cabinet committees on housing and on health have met three times each, the committees on economy, trade and jobs and on Brexit twice each, and the committees on social policy and public service reform, on justice reform, on European affairs, on infrastructure, environment and climate action, and on arts, Irish and the Gaeltacht have each met once. A further round of Cabinet sub-committee meetings takes place next Monday.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply, but is there a case for a review of the existence of these committees? It was revealed that the justice reform committee had not met since March, but the extraordinary debacle concerning the drink driving tests and the undermining of the criminal justice system via 146,000 people being wrongfully summonsed to court happened under that committee's watch apparently without it or the Tánaiste knowing about it. We have been hearing about justice reform since the days of the former Minister, Alan Shatter. Clearly, the committee has not been working. Likewise with health. The health system has been experiencing significant issues and incredible pressures since 1 January and the full scale of last year's funding gap has been confirmed. The commitments on mental health that were made in the confidence and supply agreement have not been realised. Waiting times for children to access the child and adolescent units are growing. The shortage of staff is as high as 50% in some places.
In many respects, the efficacy of these Cabinet committees are highly questionable. For example, recent years are characterised by an underwhelming commitment to physical infrastructure, with many announcements but little in the way of delivery. The capital plan that was announced just before the general election was very much about that election, with everything backloaded to the last two years.
Broadband has been an issue. There have been many delays. The Minister, Deputy Naughten, or someone else should explain to the House how his announcement yesterday regarding eir tallies with the tender situation. When we met the officials with some of the Independents at the time of the Government's formation, ensuring that the tender was undertaken properly and carefully so that it would not be subject to legal action was a major issue. Unless I am reading the situation wrongly, and I would appreciate clarification, yesterday's announcement seemed to run counter to the advice that we were given at the time. It was strange, given that everyone had been waiting for the tender's announcement so that we could progress the wider issue of broadband access in rural Ireland. We have had too many false dawns and announcements. People's hopes have been raised but little has happened. There must be scrutiny of whether yesterday's announcement was in line with the Department's broadband tender operation.
I agree that there should be a review of these Cabinet sub-committees. I am trying to establish which sub-committee, if any, deals with international affairs. In particular, I am concerned about Ibrahim Halawa, who begins his 21st trial today. Where does the Government deal with that major miscarriage of justice? The family argues that the Government needs to consider other options now, for example, hiring an Egyptian lawyer to file a suit in the Egyptian administrative court, having Rule 140 applied or beginning an international legal challenge against Egypt on the grounds of human rights violations against an Irish citizen. Will the Taoiseach examine these options urgently and can he confirm if they would they be presented before a sub-committee and in which forum would they be addressed?
Cabinet committees are not the Government. Cabinet sub-committees have an important role in bringing in Ministers or agencies to progress matters through to a point where they can be sent to Cabinet for decision by Government. I will let nobody run away with the idea that Cabinet sub-committees make a stream of decisions. It is the Government that actually decides on recommendations or propositions that come through Cabinet sub-committees.
The Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality was not made aware of the figures referred to by Deputy Martin on the fixed charges and the mandatory alcohol testing until 23 March, which was very recent. The Government responded immediately in respect of these issues and the Government would have finalised its position except that I wanted Members to have access to the second Fennelly report when it could be published. I hope that will be in the near future once the Attorney General authorises me as the receiving Minister to do so. At that point everybody can include his or her reflections on that in the context of the overall analysis of what we have to do for policing and the structure and role of the Garda for the time ahead.
I take Deputy Micheál Martin's point about mental health. We did have a meeting about that with one of his spokespersons. I have asked the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, to respond. I will follow up on that for the Deputy.
In respect of broadband, there have been many hundreds of hours put together by officials from the Department with the companies involved in the drafting of the tender. Two years ago, the number of high-speed broadband connections stood at 566,000. It will be 300,000 higher than that.
In 2016, the figure represented only 52% of premises. Traditional private sector investment by end 2018 is expected to increase to 77%.
The Minister has agreed that the map for the State intervention should be revised to reflect the fact that he has accepted a commitment by Eir to build a high-speed broadband network to cover an additional 300,000 premises in rural Ireland by the end of 2018, with penalties built it should it not do so. This project will be undertaken on a fully commercial basis, with the commitment underpinned by a formal agreement. Also, 84,500 premises previously identified as being in the commercial area are being taken back into the State intervention area of the high-speed broadband map as plans by commercial operators to provide services to these premises did not materialise. It is intended to finalise the map at 542,000 premises for the remainder of the procurement process. In addition, Eir has signed an agreement with the Minister to provide access to high-speed broadband to 300,000 additional premises by the end of 2018. This is a binding contract with detailed quarterly milestones to be published. If Eir does not deliver fully, premises will be brought back into the intervention area and will be delivered under the Government contract with Eir compensating the Minister in respect of the costs involved.
The evidence suggests that the Government's commitment has acted as a catalyst in encouraging accelerated investment by commercial operators.
Will it affect the tender?
Yes, it will affect the tender. The groups that wish to tender will be made aware that 300,000 premises previously outside the tendered area are being taken back into the commercial zone. As such, they will understand the changed nature of the tender to be conducted now. Furthermore, Eir has committed to service provision for the additional 300,000 premises. There are penalties built into the agreement between Eir and the Minister which will come into play if Eir does not deliver. I will ask the Minister to circulate to everybody a detailed report on the changed position arising from the agreement which he has negotiated with the companies.