Vol. 952 No. 3
1. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Taoiseach when the most recent meeting of the national security committee took place; the current members of the committee; the number of times the committee meets each year; and the role of the committee. [23329/17]
2. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the role of the national security committee. [24641/17]
3. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the role and functions of the national security committee. [25619/17]
4. Deputy Eamon Ryan asked the Taoiseach when the last meeting of the national security committee took place; and the primary role and responsibilities of the committee. [25652/17]
5. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the details of the meeting he held on 25 May 2017 on national security. [25942/17]
6. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach when the national security committee last met. [25977/17]
I propose to take Questions No. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.
Having regard to the confidential nature of the work of the national security committee, it would not be appropriate to disclose information about the dates of individual meetings or about its proceedings.
The committee is chaired by the Secretary General to the Government and comprises representatives at the highest level of the Departments of Justice and Equality, Defence and Foreign Affairs and Trade, and of the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces.
It is concerned with ensuring the Government and I are advised of high level security issues and the responses to them, but not with operational security matters.
The committee meets as required and will continue to do so. In addition to the meetings, the members liaise on an ongoing basis to monitor developments that might have national security implications, in particular in the international arena.
As regards the meeting of 25 May, its purpose was to review the State's arrangements and level of preparedness in the event of a major terrorist attack.
As well as the Tánaiste and me, the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, the Minister for Health, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Minister of State at the Department of Defence and the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment attended, with the Garda Commissioner, the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces and senior officials. The meeting was briefed on the current threat assessment by the security authorities. It was noted that while a terrorist attack was possible, it was unlikely and that there was no specific information on any threat to Ireland from international terrorism. This assessment will remain under continuous review. The authorities remain in daily contact with their counterparts in the United Kingdom, the European Union and beyond. The Garda authorities, supported by the Defence Forces, are engaged in ongoing work aimed at preventing an attack taking place. Detailed preparations have also been made in the event of an attack. Other agencies also have plans in place to deal with the outcome of major incidents.
Ministers were also briefed on the overall national emergency management arrangements, involving all of the agencies of the State, and how the arrangements would operate in the event of a major incident. The meeting was advised that the Garda authorities were working closely with event organisers to ensure appropriate safety and security measures were in place at major events. The Garda is asking the public to remain vigilant and report immediately any issue which gives rise to concern.
Of equal importance is ongoing work to ensure people do not become alienated from our society and radicalised. Terrorism is caused not by particular religions or peoples but by hatred. The aim of international terrorism is to change our way of life through creating fear. We cannot and will not allow that to happen. It is important that we abide by our values and continue to live our lives to the full in a free society.
As six Members have tabled these questions, is it agreed that we take their supplementary questions together and then call on the Taoiseach for a response? Agreed.
Accountability and transparency are essential ingredients of a well functioning democracy. National security issues, however, allow governments that are basically democratic to opt out of these responsibilities and justify actions which often constitute gross infringements of human rights under the guise of protecting citizens. Ireland's national security committee, NSC, by its nature, deals with sensitive information and intelligence on both dissident and international threats, some of which must be kept confidential for obvious reasons. However, the secrecy surrounding this organ of the State is unparalleled. Although operational matters regarding State security fall to various units within An Garda Síochána, the NSC dictates the State's response to issues of defence, intelligence and national security and advises the Government on them. All information on meetings of the NSC, including the dates of past meetings, is kept secret and the NSC answers to nobody but itself. The equivalent UK body reports directly to the Intelligence and Security Committee of the Westminster Parliament which was set up in 1994 and is responsible for the management and oversight of the policy on, administration and expenditure of all security services, including the Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, and provides for oversight of defence intelligence in the Ministry of Defence and the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism in the Home Office.
In June 2015 the Taoiseach admitted to the House that Ireland could not consider itself to be immune from international terrorist threats. However, at the same time he is happy to continue Ireland's complicity with the US military machine by allowing US aircraft operating in theatres of war to land at Shannon Airport and overfly Irish airspace. Some of these aircraft are even thought to have stopped at Shannon Airport while on rendition flights. Permitting US aircraft to use Shannon Airport unchecked is a tacit declaration of support for the United States' murderous policies in the Middle East. This breach of our neutrality is surely a prime reason Ireland might be seen as a target for international terrorism. Does the Taoiseach think we should re-think allowing Shannon Airport to be used as a US military base?
My question is about the mechanisms for oversight of the national security committee because while there is an understandable need for confidentiality, it must be balanced with proper accountability mechanisms. Will the Taoiseach outline the accountability and scrutiny mechanisms in place for overseeing the role of the national security committee? Does the committee share or authorise the sharing of intelligence information with other governments? Is anybody politically responsible for clearing it? There has been some speculation about the possibility of establishing an overarching, more structured agency with responsibility for security. Willl the Taoiseach give us an update?
I wish to focus on the security of the State in the light of some of the comments made last week after the horrific bombing in Manchester. It would be extremely naive to think this country could not possibly be the site of an attack. We must have a proper debate about these matters. To put it bluntly, the notion that there is a secret committee examining and hearing about threats to the State is fine, but there must be some democratic exchange about these matters, either through a committee of the House or the briefing of leaders. Some mechanism must be found. We have moved into a new space. For example, have efforts been made to assess the number of people moving from conflict zones back to Ireland? How do we identify such persons? Are they monitored in Ireland?
During my period in government I recall that when I introduced Estimates, there was always a Secret Service Vote. It was a matter of conjecture what that Vote was. It was always for a token sum of €1 million, a relatively small sum of money. Do we have a Vote for a proper intelligence service? To pick up on the last question asked by Deputy Gerry Adams, the last time we held this discussion in the House, I raised the need for a separate intelligence security unit. There are two reasons, one of which is that we are now in a different space or paradigm. Second, cyber security is an area into which we must put effort and resources. We saw what happened - I am not saying it was a cyber attack -- when there was a breakdown in a computer system at British Airways which crippled that enormous company worldwide. Are we protected against cyber attacks? We must have such capacity, but I am not sure we have. Will the Taoiseach give his views on the matter?
I agree that there is a need for greater democratic involvement in, and oversight of, what we are doing in this area. There is an immediate question that requires an answer. How will we co-operate with the UK Government in the post-Brexit era if we are to have a common travel area? It was reported, although it is only conjecture at this stage, that one of the people detained after the bombing in Manchester last week had spent some time in Ireland. That will continue post-Brexit. I also recall reading in some of the British media last weekend that one of the concerns post-Brexit was that the sharing of intelligence information with European colleagues would be increasingly difficult. What is the mechanism post-Brexit for us to share security information with the British Government, especially given that we have a common travel area and such strong connections? I also call on the Taoiseach to provide for the wider involvement of Members of the House in overseeing what our security officials are doing in this regard. It is important that it not be done in secret. Obviously, one understands the need for secrecy, but there is a requirement for democratic oversight, as occurs at Westminster but not here.
The most important matter is the narrative for how we describe acts of terrorism. There can never be any justification - I do not quite agree with Deputy Mick Wallace's perspective - for slaughtering innocents and civilians in the manner in which they were slaughtered in Manchester. We have had experience of this in the past. The IRA campaign of bombing civilians was no different from what we witnessed in Manchester last week, including the bombings in Birmingham, Enniskillen and at La Mon. There can be no moral equivocation about which is worse. The fundamental difference between the two is that, in the case of the IRA, in motst cases the perpetrators made sure that they got away before many civilians were brutally slain for no justifiable reason.
I agree with Deputy Brendan Howlin that we cannot be complacent. We are a soft target, like many others. The raison d'être of ISIS operators is to hit where they can and to hit the softest target they possibly can. In the past, owing to what happened in Northern Ireland because of the IRA's campaign, we had much stronger security capacity.
That is my sense of it. Since the peace process, we have lost a lot of corporate intelligence and so on. We really need to recreate it in the context of the ISIS threat.
On the issue of having a separate crime and security agency, the Kathleen O'Toole commission should be asked to ascertain the optimal approach for us to intelligence and security. The battle against ISIS and others is about trying to counter extremism on the ground and in communities, which is very important, and also about having deep and good intelligence to avert atrocities. Are Irish citizens who return having fought in Iraq or Syria on behalf of ISIS tracked? Is there any penalty for those who participate with ISIS overseas? Are they just allowed back into the country? The Minister for Justice and Equality said in answering questions that it was known that up to 30 people had participated in Syria and Iraq. Can they just fly back in with no penalties? Do our laws need to be overhauled in that regard? We have to have zero tolerance of anybody who participates in such activity overseas and who has the freedom to come back and carry on as if life were normal.
In the aftermath of the dreadful events in Manchester, are there plans for a national intelligence agency? What would be the cost of such an agency? We are all aware that many reports are being produced and that many commissions are working on various elements of An Garda Síochána. Is this one of the issues that will be examined?
Deputy Enda Kenny, as the outgoing Taoiseach, may be very well placed to offer some insights, in the context of his experience as Taoiseach, into what would be the optimum. We hear a lot of dissatisfaction being expressed about how protected Ireland is. We hear suggestions of inadequate resources at various points at ports and airports. In my constituency and most of the Leinster region there is a very high number of people from other countries, which is very good. We also know that we have a very significant Libyan population living in Ireland. There should be more focus on integration, particularly of young people, in schools and colleges and, in particular, our efforts to ensure they do as well as possible in the school system and will also have opportunities to engage in further education and employment. Otherwise, we could end up with people with great hopes but who are left outside our systems, as happens in other countries. Therein lies the danger.
This is probably one of the most serious matters that can ever be considered here. There are some things one can say and some things one cannot say. Facilities at Shannon Airport have been used for many years by members of the US Air Force, but I have no evidence of rendition flights through it. Deputy Mick Wallace has been there on a number of occasions.
Deputy Gerry Adams has stated we cannot consider ourselves to be immune. That is true and there is no complacency. The weapons of bombers have changed and are changing. Clearly, the incidents in France, Belgium, Berlin and Sweden lead us to believe this. There is now the capacity to take remote control of a vehicle and drive it at speed into a crowd of people, with or without a driver. More primitive weapons are being used to carry out the same destruction, leading to international incidents.
The question of having a separate security group or force has been raised. I am not sure we want an MI5 or an MI6 here, but the O'Toole commission which is examining the structure, policing and security matters, as raised by Deputies Mícheál Martin, Brendan Howlin and Joan Burton, can consider the matter in a way which allows us to reflect a very dangerous and changing world.
As Deputy Mícheál Martin is aware, the Defence Forces obviously have intelligence available to them on small numbers of people who might be in the country for purposes other than peaceful living. They are under review on a constant basis. That intelligence is made available to the Garda and shared on a very regular basis. Clearly, the Garda and the security forces generally are in constant touch, or daily contact, with Britain, the rest of Europe and beyond, where necessary.
Deputy Mícheál Martin referred to the slaughter of innocent victims. While all cases are tragic, one of the differences is that suicide bombers want to be blown up. The Provisional IRA did not want that to happen. It caused the same destruction and no warnings were given and people suffered tragic consequences.
The preparations for a serious incident here have covered and do cover a range of options, about which I cannot speak. No matter where one puts the cordon of security, however, people have to gather outside it to get in and these are always issues of grave concern. I expect the O'Toole commission to examine the issue of security or a security element-----
Does the Taoiseach have a view?
As the Deputy is aware, we have had enough discussion here about the structure of the Garda to get it right. If there is to be a second element, which may well be worthwhile, that is another matter. I do not want to prejudge the expertise available to the O'Toole commission. The evolution through the independent Policing Authority and the changes with GSOC and the Garda Inspectorate will all lead to a change in culture in the Garda over a number of years. Whether it would be right to have a second intelligence and security element is a matter I do not want to prejudge, but it is working well in other countries. We have had our own system. Obviously, there have been inadequacies that we are trying to rectify.
Radicalisation has been mentioned. It is not a religious issue. The Garda has the capacity to engage with different and diverse communities to understand what is happening and what is likely to be of interest to us. There is a lot of activity in that area.
Deputy Mícheál Martin mentioned people coming back to Ireland having fought with ISIS. As I said, there is a small number of people in the country who are certainly under scrutiny.
Deputy Joan Burton raised the question of having an intelligence agency. It will certainly be an element of the focus of the O'Toole commission. I do not want to prejudge it. Let us get the system we have in place right. I assure Members that at the meeting I attended with representatives of the Garda, the Defence Forces and the health, transport and aviation sectors they informed me that they were all very active in looking out for potential incidents that might occur here. The sharing of information is important. It is quite complex and very complicated in terms of the information stored on servers here with major companies. Privacy and the protection of data are very strongly valued by them, yet we have to share information with our UK colleagues who might see potential terrorists passing through Britain, including to case a place with the intention of carrying out an incident later. That is a matter we have to deal with through legislation, which is very complicated. At the same time, we have to and do share information on potential terrorists with our colleagues across the water. That is an issue that is being focused on by the Department of Justice and Equality.
7. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the group being formed to reform Seanad Éireann. [24017/17]
8. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the status of the implementation group on Seanad reform. [24639/17]
9. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the establishment of an implementation group on Seanad reform. [25620/17]
I met with Mr. Michel Barnier, the EU's chief negotiator for Brexit in Government Buildings on 11 May. I was accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Minister for Finance-----
On a point of order, we are on Question No. 7.
We are Questions Nos. 7 to 9 about the Seanad.
I am sorry. I am jumping the gun. Gabh mo leithscéal. A major mistake.
It is not the first time the Taoiseach forgot about Seanad reform.
Go easy on me now. I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, together.
In A Programme for a Partnership Government, the Government stated its intention to reform Seanad Éireann and committed to pursuing implementation of the report of the working group on Seanad reform, the Manning report. That report was published in 2015 and is available on the Department's website. One of the recommendations of the report was the establishment of an implementation group to oversee implementation of the reforms contained in the report.
As I said previously, I agreed with a suggestion made here some time ago by Deputy Micheál Martin that this group should be based in the Oireachtas and should comprise members of the Dáil and Seanad from all parties and groups, with access to independent expert advice as required. I wrote to party leaders in September last year seeking their agreement to this approach and their intention to participate. Contacts are still continuing with parties to finalise nominations with a view to having the group up and running as soon as possible.
Would I be right in suspecting that of all things, the Taoiseach will forget most quickly and with the least amount of regret the different questions about Seanad Éireann? I know that Mr. Maurice Manning chaired of the implementation group. The group carried out a very detailed report and everything like that. Now we apparently have an implementation plan. From a human point of view, I think we all understand the Taoiseach's reluctance. I am sure that whoever his successor is will go at the Seanad with great gusto. In the meantime, could the Taoiseach possibly update us on where matters stand at this point in time? Is there anything else that he would like to see Seanad Éireann do now that it is available as part of the democratic process, notwithstanding the fact that the Taoiseach once had some ideas to the contrary?
As the Taoiseach has said, it is almost ten months since he wrote to the party leaders on the make-up of the implementation group. He also went on to say, if I got it right, that contact continues with the party leaders about the chair. That is news to me and, by the response of the other leaders in the House, it must be news to them as well. Therefore, it is two years since the Manning report on Seanad reform was published. The Taoiseach has not even agreed who the chair of the implementation group will be. At the time, we welcomed the Government's commitment to the Manning recommendations. It was also about the right to vote in Seanad elections for citizens in the North and the diaspora. That reflects, as the Taoiseach knows, the views of the Constitutional Convention of September 2013. However, like other issues, this is a mark of the paralysis of this Government. Before the Taoiseach leaves office, perhaps he could appoint someone to chair the implementation group on Seanad reform.
In a bout of complete honesty, perhaps the Taoiseach will admit that nothing has happened with this set of proposals and nothing is intended to happen with them. I would like to ask a few very direct questions. Is it the fixed Government position that the Manning proposals are the blueprint for what should happen into the future? If the answer to that question is "Yes", why has no action been taken to begin the process of implementation? Will there be any changes in the structure of the Seanad or in the electoral process to elect the next Seanad before the next general election?
It is fair to say that the Seanad reform issue has been extraordinary and somewhat of a debacle. I wrote back on 2 December with our three nominees. Yet, we received a reply last week saying that there was still ongoing contact with the parties on the nominees for this implementation group.
To see if the nominees were still alive.
Which political party has not sent in its names? Could the Taoiseach identify who has not responded to his request? We wrote back on 2 December with three names. Has the Fine Gael party finalised its nominees? There has been a kind of silence for the last couple of months. I note from previous meetings that we had during the last Government that the Taoiseach was, to be fair, decidedly unenthusiastic about the whole project. I heard recently that the former Senator, Mr. Maurice Manning, is a good cordial friend of the Taoiseach's and has had the occasional pint with the Taoiseach. He never mentioned anything to do with politics when he had the odd pint with the Taoiseach but one would have thought that the old matter of the implementation of the Manning report might have surfaced as one pint turned to two or maybe even three. I thought it might have been slipped in at some stage. In a serious vein, we are all committed to it. We have compromised. Our position was for a stronger mass electorate but we accepted the Manning compromise. It can be facilitated through legislation. Everyone in the House wants it to happen. As one of the Taoiseach's final acts before he hands on to his successor, perhaps he might get it up and running and get it formed.
I admit that I am guilty of not having put this together. We had questions in the House on 22 February. At that time, I said that there was a dispute over who would chair the group. I think Deputy Martin had one nominee and I had another. Let me renew my activities to see if we can get a chair and get it set up. I would like to do that.
Deputy Howlin asked me when the next election is going to be and whether anything will happen before then. I am not sure when that is going to happen actually.
Has the Taoiseach no insight?
Simon should have been-----
There is a confidence and supply agreement and all the rest of it. Politics has a peculiar way of moving things along. I would not like to hazard a guess on it, but hopefully it will be a long time away for those who are continuing on in Government. I will try to sort this in the next couple of days.
10. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Mr. Michel Barnier on 11 May 2017. [24018/17]
11. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his engagement with European chief negotiator, Mr. Michel Barnier, on 11 May 2017. [24271/17]
12. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Mr. Michel Barnier. [24370/17]
13. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Taoiseach the number of meetings that have taken place between his Department and sherpas of other member states since the triggering of Article 50; and the issues discussed in these meetings. [24372/17]
14. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the commitment in his own Department's strategy statement regarding focus on cross-divisional and cross-departmental working; the way this applies to Brexit and the way his own Department officials interact with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in view of the fact it has responsibility for diplomatic exchanges with diplomats of Ireland's EU partners. [24719/17]
15. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Mr. Michel Barnier when he was in Dublin. [25676/17]
16. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if his Department’s officials have held meetings with national government representatives in Brussels since the triggering of Article 50 on 29 April 2017; and, if so, the issues discussed at these meetings and the number of meetings held. [25890/17]
17. Deputy Eamon Ryan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meetings with Mr. Michel Barnier. [25981/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 to 17, inclusive, together.
I met with Mr. Michel Barnier, the EU's chief negotiator for Brexit, in Government Buildings on Thursday 11 May. I was accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and the Minister of State for European affairs. The meeting provided an opportunity, following the European Council's adoption of the EU negotiating guidelines and in advance of agreement on the more detailed negotiating directives, to thank Mr. Barnier for his openness to Ireland in relation to our particular concerns arising from Brexit and to highlight our thoughts about the process ahead.
We discussed the serious implications in relation to peace and stability in Northern Ireland and the Border, and for the Irish economy, particularly the fisheries and agrifood sector. I commended Mr. Barnier on his address to the Oireachtas that morning and expressed confidence in his ability to negotiate on behalf of the EU 27 and to take account of Ireland's particular concerns.
Mr. Barnier stressed the complexities of the issues involved in the negotiations and outlined his intention to be firm but fair. He committed to ensuring that the task force remains accessible to all Member States and especially to Ireland, given our unique concerns.
There is ongoing daily engagement on Brexit and on other EU issues between the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and, indeed, with the permanent representation in Brussels and our network of missions across the EU, with a view to ensuring a comprehensive approach to EU affairs. There is also of course ongoing interaction across all Government Departments on the range of EU issues, including through regular meetings of the senior officials group on the EU and the inter-departmental group on Brexit, which is chaired by the second Secretary General in my Department.
This is consistent with the approach set out in my Department's statement of strategy, which identified the need for a whole-of-government approach to the Brexit negotiations.
The second Secretary General also acts as Ireland's sherpa and, in this capacity, meets and engages regularly with his EU counterparts. Since the triggering of Article 50 on 29 March, there have been two formal sherpa meetings under the Article 50 format, one on 11 April and another on 24 April. Ireland participated fully in both of these.
The discussions focused on the EU negotiating guidelines, which were subsequently agreed by the European Council on 29 April.
The negotiations on Brexit, which will be conducted by the Commission, will be guided by the European Council in its Article 50 format, that is, the heads of state and government of the 27 member states.
In addition, Ministers at the General Affairs Council now also discuss issues relating to Brexit in the Article 50 format.
At official level, the Committee of Permanent Representatives in the European Union, COREPER, and the new working party are also meeting at 27 to discuss issues relating to Brexit. COREPER meets on a weekly basis. The new working party first met on 23 May and it is expected to meet twice a week from now on. Of course, there are also daily meetings of working groups on the full range of EU issues and these groups include representatives of all member states, including Ireland.
There are eight Deputies in this cluster. If we could limit contributions to one minute each, we would get through everyone.
Will we go around first-----
We will go around first and come back.
The British Prime Minister, Theresa May, is again referencing a hard Brexit or indeed no deal if the British fail to get a deal from their discussions. This makes the decision of the Government, if the Taoiseach can confirm it, to sell off a significant portion of AIB for something like €3 billion and apply that €3 billion under the un-amended fiscal rules to the writing down of something like a point on the national debt all the more extraordinary. This is an entirely futile exercise in the context of the economy growing and the debt reducing. In his discussions with Michel Barnier, did the Taoiseach look for special arrangements relating to Ireland in the case of no deal or a very difficult Brexit whereby we would get additional resources and a specific change in the fiscal rules? The Government has put forward the barmy idea of using the AIB money to unnecessarily pay down the national debt instead of investing in our roads, public transport, schools, housing and hospitals. The Government's decision is mind boggling and a disgraceful use of resources the Irish people paid for at great cost.
Yesterday, Michel Barnier published two documents relating to Brexit negotiations. The first deals with essential principles on citizens' rights and covers the protection of EU citizens' rights and British nationals following Brexit. This is the one on which I will concentrate. The paper on citizens' rights sets out the protections EU wants to secure for nearly 5 million people who will be affected by Brexit, including Irish citizens in Northern Ireland. The document stresses that the European Court of Justice must have full jurisdiction for ruling on disputes about citizens' rights while the European Commission ought to have full powers for monitoring whether the British Government is upholding that part of the bargain. The British Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, David Davis, has already railed against this. Can the Taoiseach confirm when the Irish Government will discuss these papers with our EU partners and whether the Government has any amendments or proposed amendments to these papers? According to the EU, further policy papers are expected in the next few days. Will the Government agree to distribute all such papers? Colum Eastwood, the leader of the SDLP, has called for a referendum on a united Ireland following Brexit. Will the Taoiseach join me in welcoming this?
The Government promised to publish a new paper on economic and tax issues relating to Brexit. When will we see this publication? I have a brief question relating to the very worrying position that was repeated last night in the British general election debate that the likely outcome of the hard line taken by the UK will be no deal. Have our officials produced any scoping of what the consequences of this scenario will be? In respect of the UK declaration that it also wants to hold on to the EU agencies currently sited in the UK, is this a possibility? What is the formal view of this Government and the EU in that regard?
My question was not about Michel Barnier but the level of meetings that have been held between Irish officials and their counterparts in other member states. Since I posed that question, new information has emerged from the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation on the number of officials. It turns out that when we look at the number of officials who have been hired, we can see that we have hired less than one quarter of the allocation. The allocation was not enough to begin with. IDA Ireland was allocated ten Brexit staff but it turns out that it has hired one. Enterprise Ireland was allocated 39 Brexit staff but has hired just 12. Science Foundation Ireland was allocated three but has yet to hire a single person. The Health and Safety Authority was allocated two but has yet to hire a single person. Of the 54 Brexit officials the Government has given sanction to hire, only 13 have been hired. This is less than one quarter. As Deputy Howlin pointed out, we are moving closer and closer to no deal and need to start scenario planning around what a cliff would look like. Can the Taoiseach tell the House why, given the severity of Brexit and the mounting materiality of Ireland hitting a cliff, the State agencies tasked with dealing with this have hired less than one quarter of the already insufficient allocation they were given?
I appreciate that the Government has published the document entitled "Ireland and the negotiations on the UK's withdrawal from the European Union - The Government's Approach". This document sets out the sectoral consequences of Brexit. The list is endless with regard to agriculture; fishing rights; trade issues generally; transport and aviation; tourism; health, including treatment abroad; education, including the recognition of qualifications; financial services; data protection; global security; the common travel area, including social welfare and pension rights; the single electricity market; used car imports; cross-Border crime; and research and development. On and on it goes. Is the Taoiseach satisfied that there is co-ordination between Departments? Even at this late stage, does he not think we need a Brexit Minister to co-ordinate the response across Government Departments and among the different sectors affected by Brexit?
We all know Theresa May is an absolute horror and is trying to use the exit vote to pursue her little Englander, anti-immigrant-----
Is the microphone on?
Is it on?
We can hear the Deputy.
I would like to be heard. We all know Theresa May is an absolute horror who is trying to use the exit vote to pursue her little Englander, anti-immigrant, hard-line austerity agenda. However, when Monsieur Barnier was here, he gave fairly strong indications that the EU is also going to play political games on the issue of exit - talking about how there must be consequences for exiting the EU. I put it to the Taoiseach that between the horror of Theresa May and the politicking of the EU, this country is piggy in the middle in a political game between these two blocs. The question is whether the Taoiseach is going to stand up to this politicking and demand that we have a say in whatever deal or arrangement they come up with. It is clear that neither Theresa May nor the EU gives a damn, or are cavalier, about the consequences of their approach to the exit negotiations on this country. They clearly do not give a hoot about the Border or the common travel area and are playing politics. Are we going to demand a referendum on the final deal? I ask this question very seriously. Are we going to demand a veto on any deal they hatch or that impacts on us and does not suit us in respect of the issues on which there is consensus North and South?
Monsieur Barnier made it very clear when he was here that while there would be flexibility on the issue of the movement of people on this island and indeed between Ireland and the rest of the UK, there would be no movement or even talks in the first stage of talks about the issue of trade in services and goods between ourselves, Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
Does the Taoiseach agree that there are no negotiations in the first phase about how we deal with trade of goods and services? Given that the British Prime Minister again last night went back to the "no deal is better than a bad deal" scenario, will the Taoiseach or his successor insist that this issue - that the UK Secretary of State, Mr. David Davis says is going to be the row of the summer - should be raised at the June council on 22 June so that we can have our Irish interests represented immediately rather than waiting for events to unfold? Will the Taoiseach put trade issues with regard to the Border on the June council agenda, or would he recommend his successor do so, to ensure that they are not ignored?
Deputy Burton raised the question of AIB. The Minister for Finance has taken a lead role on this. Under EU fiscal rules, the proceeds of any sale may not be used to fund increased expenditure irrespective of whether such expenditure is classified as current or as capital. On the accounting treatment of any proceeds from such a transaction, the position is that the sale of such financial assets does not result in a beneficial impact to the general Government balance under EUROSTAT rules. This is because it is classified as a financial transaction whereby it is essentially the exchange of one form of assets, such as shares, for another kind, such as cash. Consequently, the sale of any share-holding in a bank would not count as general Government revenue, and would not create any scope for increased spending on the basis of the proceeds that are realised. There will be no increased capacity for spending following any sale of bank shares. The Minister for Finance will make his decision on this matter in the next 48 hours.
Was it decided by Government today?
The Minister informed the Government of his process to this point. He expects he will keep Government informed and that he expects to make a decision in the next 48 hours.
So that will be a payday for bankers?
While not improving the deficit-----
That is the sad part. I have not even heard how much those in AIB have compared to the Irish people.
-----cash proceeds from the sale of bank shares would result in a reduced requirement for Exchequer borrowing, which ultimately results in lower debt. A lower debt level is not only beneficial for the fiscal sustainability of the State, but will also lead to reduced interest payments in future years. It is crucial that increases in funding for public investment are based on sustainable economic growth, and the Government is well aware of the challenges that arose in the past when one-off amounts of money were used to fund ongoing commitments to the State.
This is not a once-off matter.
Deputy Gerry Adams raised the question of papers produced by Mr. Barnier in respect of citizens' rights. We are engaged with Brussels and London on a daily basis about all of these matters. The Government will respond to the papers and they can be debated here. I note the Deputy's comment about Mr. Colum Eastwood, MLA, and the united Ireland referendum. I do not believe that the conditions are right for it at the moment but I was happy that the European Council reflected carefully on the visionaries who put their words together on the Good Friday Agreement such that, if that process ever happens and people decide to have a democratic vote by consent to join the Republic, the entire island becomes a full member of the European Union, irrespective of the decision to leave as part of Britain under the Brexit negotiations.
Deputy Brendan Howlin raised the question of the EU agencies here. Clearly, Ireland has applied for both of them, as other countries have. These are European agencies that will be based in a European country. We are competing with Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Luxembourg for the financial one and with other countries for the medical agency and we will compete strongly for those. We tick many of the relevant boxes. That will eventually be decided by the European Council, probably in the autumn.
Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly raised the level of meetings in the negotiations. These negotiations have not begun at all yet. All we are doing is setting out the strategy and groundwork, and we have those principles established. When the Deputy says that the IDA and Enterprise Ireland have not taken up all of the approved numbers, they will be employed as needs be, and outside expertise will be employed if necessary. The negotiations have not begun in detail yet. The Deputy also spoke about what he termed "mounting materiality", which is not a common phrase used down in the country, I have to say. In any event, there is a daily contact going on about all of these issues. As needs be, the staff and personnel will be recruited, and if expertise is needed, that will also be recruited.
Deputy Seán Haughey mentioned co-ordination between Departments. There is co-ordination on a daily basis. On having a Minister with responsibility for Brexit, I made the point before that the decisions are made by the European Council. If a Brexit Minister was appointed, he or she could not even attend the General Affairs Council, which makes the initial preparatory decisions before they go to the European Council. Let us say that Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett becomes the Brexit Minister, he cannot attend the General Affairs Council, he cannot attend at the European Council-----
He would not want to.
-----so what is he doing? One puts the responsibility on those who make the decision. At the end of the day, it is the European Council.
Deputy Boyd Barrett raised the matter of the veto. We have a veto because it has to be approved eventually by the entire European Council. Ireland has a veto, along with every other country if they so wish, and that is contained clearly within the rules and regulations. If at the end of the day, when it is all over and done with, and a proposition comes - the European Parliament will have its say - to the European Council, if Ireland is not in agreement, Ireland has a veto, the same as everybody else-----
No, it does not.
Of all the countries-----
No, it does not.
Is the Taoiseach sure about that?
Yes, our priorities are set out, very clearly, and backed unanimously by the other 26, which I think is important.
Will we exercise it?
Let us see what happens. There is a British election on at the moment-----
It would help if Mr. Jeremy Corbyn won. The Taoiseach should say that.
-----and there is much talk about hard Brexits and cliffs and all the rest of it-----
Unless the Council has decided otherwise-----
-----but what the British Government wants is the closest possible relationship with the European Union, which includes us. If one is going to have the closest possible relationship, one has to be able to deal with the question of the British Government leaving the Single Market and the changed status-----
Would it not be better if Mr. Jeremy Corbyn got in?
-----of its trading relationship. That is what the negotiations are about.
We will have to have another session. We are moving on to foreign affairs.
I will finally address what Deputy Eamon Ryan said-----
He is coming up on Ms Theresa May. That will put the cat among the pigeons.
-----about why we cannot move on to discuss these things as needs be. We have inserted a clause that if substantial progress is being made on the principal issues here-----
But Deputy Boyd Barrett is in favour of Brexit.
-----on the modalities, principals and liabilities, the question of reciprocal rights for citizens and the question of the Border-----
I am in favour of Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, not the Blairites.
The Deputy is in favour of-----
Not the Blairites.
If these matters are making substantial progress, people would be inclined to talk about the issues the Deputy mentioned.
