Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 31 May 2017

Vol. 953 No. 1

Ceisteanna - Questions

Departmental Strategy Statements

Seán Haughey

Ceist:

1. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach the details of the core activity of support for Independent Ministers in Government outlined in his Department's statement of strategy. [24360/17]

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

2. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the support provided by his Department to Independent Cabinet Ministers as listed as a core departmental function in its strategy statement 2016 to 2019. [25567/17]

Brendan Howlin

Ceist:

3. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the arrangements in place in his Department for supporting Independent Ministers. [25623/17]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.

My Department, as outlined in the strategy statement, provides support services for the Taoiseach and the Government. As part of this service, the parliamentary liaison unit was established to perform a liaison function to help ensure that Ministers and Departments are properly and fully informed of new responsibilities and procedures in the Thirty-second Dáil. The unit provides support to Ministers and their Departments on Oireachtas matters with a particular emphasis on assisting Departments with Private Members' business. It provides Departments with detailed information on the rules and procedures with regard to Private Members' business.

In performing this function, the unit liaises on a regular basis with advisers to the Independent members of Government, including the chief strategist for the Independent Alliance and the political co-ordinator for the Independent Ministers in Government, to ensure that they are informed of Oireachtas issues and to assist them in engaging with the new processes arising from the Dáil reform changes. In this regard, the parliamentary liaison unit provides detailed information on upcoming matters in the Dáil and Seanad and highlights any new Oireachtas reform issues for their information.

There is a commitment in the programme for Government that arrangements with Independent Ministers and Deputies would be fully transparent, open and accountable, and certainly that such deals that are in place would be published. A sceptical public would expect this course of action. Therefore, I ask what deals have been done, particularly with various Independent Ministers and Deputies. Many of these Ministers and Deputies are claiming success in various projects in their constituencies arising out of the negotiations establishing the Government last year and the public needs more information in this regard. We need to be open, transparent and accountable. There is much secrecy about this. In regard to staff, for example, are special staff being seconded for these Independent Ministers and Deputies in order to shore up the Government? In the interests of openness, transparency and accountability, the public needs to know.

I also raise the issue of the deal done with the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, in regard to Beaumont Hospital. There is a commitment in the programme for Government for a new emergency department and a dedicated cystic fibrosis unit in Beaumont. I asked the Taoiseach about this previously and got a note from the Minister for Health, but it does not look encouraging. It does not look like it will be in the capital plan for 2017. There is much discussion and negotiation, committees are looking at it, etc. We need to add some impetus to that project because it is in the programme for Government. I hope the Taoiseach can update me on the situation.

For the information of Deputy Haughey who asked this question previously, arrangements have been made by the Government, which has a different structure of government than any previously in a situation where there is a supply and confidence agreement with the Deputy's party, with Deputy Micheál Martin as leader, and which is set out to be followed. The same applies in the case of the Independent Alliance and any others who support the Government. All of these have been published.

This liaison unit does not have anything to do with that. It is staffed by a principal officer, a higher executive officer and a clerical officer. As I said, it provides support for Ministers and their Departments on Oireachtas matters with particular emphasis on helping with Private Members' business. As the Deputy will be aware, amendments can be quite complex and detailed and the structures of that are explained to Ministers and their Departments as to what particular amendments might mean. The unit does not have any political function, for example, in dealing with Beaumont Hospital or a new emergency department there. That is an arrangement that has been agreed, between, in this case, the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, and the Government, and to fulfil that it must be able to be the subject of discussion by the Minister for Health and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, and be in compliance with best practice. However, they all have been published.

When Deputy Haughey states there is a need for transparency, openness and accountability, I share that view. The Deputy is long enough in the game to understand that people will jump at the first sign of seeking credit for issues that might just happen. Of course, anybody in politics who looks for credit anyway is a fool because the public will move on to the next item very quickly indeed-----

The Taoiseach should have realised that a good few years ago.

-----not that Deputy Haughey ever sought that kind of shallow outcome for his politics.

All these aspect are published and the staff involved comprises, as I stated, a principal officer, a higher executive officer and clerical officer. They do not have a political policy function. They explain the workings of the new changed Dáil, including Private Members' time and Private Members' legislation, and explain to Ministers the detailed rules and procedures that now surround Private Members' business.

The Department of the Taoiseach's strategy statement for 2016 to 2019 contains one line which refers to support for Independent Ministers in Government. The Government exists by the gift of Fianna Fáil and the involvement of some Independent Deputies in the Cabinet. The deal with the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, has already been referred to. In recent weeks, we have also seen how the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, has been able to step outside of his ministerial brief and pressurise the Government into adopting new procedures for the appointment of judges. On other occasions, the support of individual Deputies has been dependent on the Government meeting their demands for specific investments in their own constituencies. Last autumn, the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills, Deputy John Halligan, threatened to resign if services were not increased in his local hospital. All of this is reminiscent of times past when Fianna Fáil was in a Government supported by Independents and Fine Gael was criticising such arrangements.

The Taoiseach's Department has responsibility for managing the Ministers of the Independent Alliance. Given that the Dáil will vote on a new Taoiseach shortly and that a transition will take place in the make-up of the Cabinet, has the Taoiseach been involved in any conversations with his soon-to-be former Cabinet and ministerial colleagues about their support for the next Taoiseach?

In respect of the issue that the Deputy raises, it is important when an election is over that the judgment given by the people is then considered carefully to see is it possible to put a government together. It took some time to put this one together last year. It is a Government of the Fine Gael Party supported by the Independent Alliance, a number of Independents in Cabinet and some others outside, and of course, the main Opposition party, Fianna Fáil, in respect of a confidence and supply agreement.

Part of the discussions that took place at the outset was about a change in the way that members of the Judiciary are appointed. Deputy Nolan will appreciate that the Constitution is clear in that the Government makes the appointments and the Cabinet must have choices when making those appointments.

Part of the discussions with the Independent Alliance was about the nature of that structure. As the Deputies are aware, the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board, JAAB, has been around for quite a number of years. That board assesses the credentials, legal experience and the kinds of cases that candidates may have heard to determine their suitability for appointment to the District Court, Circuit Court, High Court, Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court. What was approved yesterday by Government was the Judicial Appointments Bill which will now proceed through the Houses and hopefully become law this year. The other Bill in respect of the conduct and the oversight of conduct by members of the Judiciary is the Judicial Council Bill.

This does not represent a Minister stepping outside his brief. In this case, the Minister, Deputy Ross, working with his group of Deputies, said that this was an issue that they considered to be very important. It became a focus of discussion between the parties in terms of including it in the programme for Government. That is why it is there in the published document. In the case of Waterford, this was not an issue that came out of the blue suddenly. There was a very particular letter issued by the Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, which had been considered very carefully by the medical personnel in Waterford. The Minister has responded with a mobile unit providing cardiac facilities in Waterford.

It is not there yet.

Not yet, no. There are other issues which were also discussed, all of which were published.

I think mobile is the operative word. It is in permanent transit.

It is not that there were any secret deals done here. We had a situation, before Deputy Carol Nolan came into this House, where a deal was done with a particular Independent Deputy who used to say that it was worth "milluns" but nobody ever saw what was in it. That meant that whatever arrived in tír na ríthe down in the south could be claimed as being part of the agreement and the deal.

All these points have been published and the unit just provides the procedural, detailed information for Deputies, Ministers and their Departments.

I will pursue those two points again and hopefully we will get a little more clarity from the Taoiseach on them. I have no difficulty with any member of the Government pursuing areas outside his or her own direct purview. The Cabinet acts as a collective and that is quite proper. I am more concerned about the reports in last week's Sunday Business Post that after a year of lecturing us all on the probity and unacceptability of political interference or political selection of judges, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport said that not only did he hand pick them, he went through each application with a fine-tooth comb. Is that proper? Does the Taoiseach think it is proper that before judges are appointed, an individual member of the Cabinet would do that? I can only imagine the high dudgeon if any member of the Fine Gael Party or a member of any party in a previous Government made that assertion when the current Minister was sitting in the back row of the Opposition benches. He would have gone into high indignation at the notion that such political, improper interference in judicial appointments was occurring and yet he used a "fine-tooth comb" on each individual application and if they met his personal assessment, they were deemed appropriate. Apparently that is not political interference because the Minister, Deputy Ross, is, as I said yesterday, like Donald Trump - he is not a politician. He is to be seen in some different light. He is not contaminated like the rest of us who were elected to this House, apparently.

His judgment and discernment, therefore, are of such a pure quality that the accusation of political interference could not possibly apply.

Absolutely not.

I would be interested to hear the Taoiseach's view on that.

Regarding the Taoiseach's assertion that there is a mobile catheterisation laboratory in Waterford, I spoke on local radio this morning on this very subject. A bilateral arrangement was committed to, subsequent to the Herity report. That report, which was a sop to the Minister of State, Deputy Halligan, had terms of reference which led to a conclusion that did not please the Minister of State or the people of Waterford and the south east. The conclusion was that there would be a mobile unit in the first quarter of this year. We are well beyond that now and still there is no comprehensive, 24/7 catheterisation laboratory facility in the south east.

As the Taoiseach said, for nearly two decades the principle of the Department of An Taoiseach having specific procedures for contacts with Independent Deputies supporting the Government has been accepted. The current arrangement is a little unusual in that one such Independent, Deputy Lowry, keeps telling his constituents that he has an arrangement with the Government and that he is getting preferential treatment but the Government keeps denying this. The questions posed to the Taoiseach address a more novel innovation, namely, special support measures for Independent Deputies who are Ministers. Every one of them has political staff of their own so it is unclear as to why extra staff would need to be paid for from the public purse. The liaison unit to which the Taoiseach referred has three staff members. At Cabinet level none of the three Independent Ministers is part of the same electoral or even Dáil grouping so it cannot be argued that this is similar to any past arrangement for smaller parties. Is it not true that the extra staff have been put in place specifically for the Minister, Deputy Ross, and his group? What is quite interesting is that the extra staff were hired after he got a run of very bad publicity. It is a bit like the Donald Trump situation. He did not like all the negative headlines and wanted something to be done about it.

How would Shane Ross, the tireless campaigner against political costs and expenditure, have reacted to the costs that he has now imposed on the State for supporting his political grouping and for making sure that he is politically squared off on every occasion? Does the Taoiseach think that Shane Ross, the great campaigner on cronyism, political costs and so on, bears any relation to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport who now needs extra political staff to shield him and to help him out when he is going through difficult and choppy waters? I ask the Taoiseach to comment on that. Does he think that some major transformation has occurred in the Minister, Deputy Ross, since he has moved from the Opposition benches to the protection of the Taoiseach's shield and umbrella?

We are out of time but far be it from me to deprive the Taoiseach of the opportunity to respond to Deputy Martin's question.

Dare I ask, will that be one of the Taoiseach's finest legacies?

Well, his name is Shane Ross, not Walter Mitty. I must say that his brief carries him into stormy as well as calm waters. As someone who has been a national journalist for many years, he has learned a good deal about the responsibilities of politics at ministerial level. I am very happy with the way that he goes about his business.

In respect of what Deputy Howlin said, he will be aware from his own experience that Cabinet operates on the basis of collective responsibility. All the candidates whose names came to Cabinet were deemed to be experienced, professionally competent and suitable to be nominated to the particular bench to which they applied. It is not a case of somebody going through the file and the experience of each nominee-----

That is what the Minister, Deputy Ross, said he did.

These have been assessed and cleared by the JAAB.

He blocked them up until last week.

I can confirm to Deputy Howlin that when the nominees were presented by the Minister for Justice and Equality, they were accepted in the normal way by the Cabinet, unanimously and without any comment. I do not want to say anything about newspaper reports and analysis. All the nominees were cleared by the JAAB as being competent and professional. The new Bill, when it is passed, will reduce the number of nominees for each position but it will still be the responsibility of Cabinet, under the Constitution, to make the choices.

I acknowledge the mobile unit is not yet in place. Obviously, the Minister for Health is conscious of that fact and is working on the matter. That was the outcome of the discussions that were held with the Minister of State, Deputy Halligan, at the time.

Brexit Issues

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

4. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the number of staff in his Department and the positions they hold specifically dealing with implementing the Government's approach to Ireland and the negotiations on the UK's withdrawal from the European Union. [24362/17]

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

5. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the number of special advisers in his Department. [24640/17]

Brendan Howlin

Ceist:

6. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach the number of staff in his Department dealing with Brexit. [25621/17]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, together.

I have restructured my Department to ensure that Brexit is treated as a crucial cross-cutting issue by creating an amalgamated international, EU and Northern Ireland division under a second Secretary General who also acts as the Government's Sherpa for EU business, including Brexit. The work of this division includes supporting the Cabinet committee on Brexit and the Cabinet committee on European affairs. There are 32 staff assigned to this division.

The international, EU and Northern Ireland division comprises three sections.

The international section advises me on international policy and supports me in my international engagements with a particular focus on driving economic growth, trade, investment and job creation, as well as protecting and strengthening Ireland’s strategic relationships, interests and reputation overseas. The EU section supports me in my role as a member of the European Council and provides a coherent, whole-of-Government strategic direction on priority EU policies, including on Brexit. The Britain and Northern Ireland affairs section supports my work and the work of the Government in helping to maintain peace and to develop new relationships on the island of Ireland and between Britain and Ireland. This section supports me and the Government in ensuring there is a whole-of-Government response to the UK’s decision to leave the EU and the implications of that decision for Northern Ireland and the British-Irish relationship. Staff in other divisions also contribute to the work on Brexit. For example, the economic policy division advises me on economic policy aimed at supporting sustainable economic growth, with a particular focus on jobs and competitiveness, including possible economic impacts of Brexit.

I have three special advisers, including my chief of staff. The Government Chief Whip has two special advisers. The Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, the EU digital single market and data protection has one special adviser, whose salary is paid by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Minister of State with responsibility for defence has two special advisers, both of whom are paid by the Department of Defence. The Minister of State with responsibility for the diaspora has no special adviser. Although they are not special advisers, the chief strategist for the Independent Alliance and the political co-ordinator for Independent Ministers are also based in my Department.

It seems from the references in the Taoiseach's response to the work of various sections that everybody is in charge. This leads me to wonder who is actually in charge. I do not doubt that the Taoiseach will have the seen the reports that a senior, although not very well informed, CDU spokesperson has said he cannot see how a hard Border can be avoided. His argument is that the achievement of a soft Border will not be conceivable unless the four freedoms are recognised. As the Taoiseach knows, the UK Government has already ruled out membership of the Single Market and the customs union. It has not made a commitment to the free movement of people. It is apparent that the four freedoms will not even be discussed, let alone delivered.

There is an avalanche of evidence that we need to step up our work on the specifics of what exactly we are looking for and how it might work in practice. We have to be prepared for the negotiations with the UK and the EU and for the major staffing implications of Brexit. An audit of the staffing implications of the negotiations and the ongoing management of our relationship with the UK was promised some time ago. Where is this audit? Deputy Donnelly has done some very good work in this regard recently. Yesterday, he highlighted that Enterprise Ireland has filled just 12 of the 39 additional posts it was sanctioned. Ten additional posts were sanctioned for IDA Ireland, but just one of those positions has been filled. Science Foundation Ireland and the Health and Safety Authority both received sanction for two extra posts, but none of those positions has been filled. There is no sense of people looking forward to the negotiations and, beyond the negotiations, to the future strategic direction of this country. There needs to be an assessment of where we need to deploy our strengths, our staff and our supports.

I suggest there are inherent dangers in the approach that has been taken so far. It is somewhat similar to the approach that was taken before last year's referendum in the UK, when there seemed to be a hope that everything would be all right on the night. I believe people in Irish officialdom did not anticipate that the Brexit referendum would have a negative result and that people would vote to leave. I think most of them believed that everything would work out and the "Remain" side would win. I think there was a lack of preparation in advance of the Brexit vote and in the early days following the referendum. I acknowledge that there has been a great deal of activity since then. It seems from the Taoiseach's reply that we have yet to get our act together from a structural or staffing perspective in terms of our diplomatic postings, market diversification, Enterprise Ireland and foreign direct investment. The Taoiseach might indicate the status of the audit he promised.

I will bring in Deputies Nolan and Howlin to ask supplementary questions on foot of Questions Nos. 5 and 6.

The Taoiseach will become a backbencher in the coming weeks. I believe the Brexit legacy he will leave behind will create significant economic difficulties for the two economies on this island.

The British people voted for Brexit.

According to a report in this morning's The Irish Times, a close ally of the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has dismissed as "illusory" Prime Minister Theresa May's claim that there will be no hard Border. His comments could equally apply to the stance of the Irish Government. Dr. Pfeiffer has raised doubts about the guarantee given by EU leaders last month that following Brexit, the North could rejoin the EU as part of a united Ireland. Has the Taoiseach read this report? Dr. Pfeiffer's comments draw attention again to the Taoiseach's insistence that the North must leave the EU as part of the Brexit negotiations. This is a deeply flawed strategy. The British are locked in a course of action that threatens the Good Friday Agreement. All of this could be prevented if the North were to be designated as having special status within the EU. This suggestion has been rejected by the Taoiseach even though he constantly tells us how special the North is and how he hopes Mrs. May will agree some mitigating measures in the Brexit negotiations. This is gambling with the future of citizens in the North and along the Border corridor in the North and the South.

While I wish the Taoiseach well personally for the future, I believe his approach to Brexit has been gravely mistaken. It is lacking in vision. The British Government has recruited hundreds of additional staff to cope with the Brexit negotiations. The EU has also allocated significant staffing and other resources to the negotiations. Is the Taoiseach concerned that the Government has failed to recruit the relatively small number of additional staff that it said would be required by IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland? Will he confirm the staff numbers required by the two agencies? When will those posts will be sanctioned?

I take it that all three questions are being followed up together. When we took the previous group of questions, the Taoiseach was allowed to respond separately to each Deputy's supplementary questions.

I take a different view from that of my Sinn Féin colleague. I commend the Taoiseach on the work he has done on Brexit. We all have views on what could have been done differently. I believe we will miss the extraordinary level of experience and, more importantly, real personal contact at the highest levels of government across the EU that the Taoiseach has brought to this State's negotiating capacity and its influence. The Taoiseach might have a view on that. Does he see any role for himself when he stands down as Taoiseach? Maybe that will be a matter for his successor. Having worked for several years with most of those who will be the key decision-makers as the negotiations unfold, the Taoiseach has a capacity to know their thinking. What role does he see for himself in that regard? I presume he will make himself available in the interests of the State to hold onto those contacts. Perhaps this will be as an ambassador who brokers deals and talks to people to make sure the Irish point of view is heard, if not as a Minister with Brexit responsibility.

Like others, I have been listening in great detail to some of the rhetoric and all of the discussion during the current UK election campaign. I find it very worrying. There is an extraordinary lack of detail on any level about how this is going to unfold. There is an extraordinary confidence that somehow it is going to work out right. This is in the absence of any knowledge of what the endgame - the desirable conclusion - should be. The British Prime Minister, Theresa May, has been repeating the mantra that no deal is better than a bad deal. Bluntly, no deal would be a catastrophe for this country and for her country. We need to ensure our views and analyses continue to be heard strongly within the UK and EU negotiating teams.

I can supply Deputy Martin with the audit he mentioned. I will forward him the numbers we have in terms of the appointments of diplomats and other staff who are working in different places. The Deputy made the point previously that it may become necessary to recruit or appoint people with particular experience, for instance, in trade and in the complex issues involved in that area. There is a willingness that when it becomes necessary, we can and will do that. When the issue was raised about Enterprise Ireland and IDA Ireland, as I said, they look for particular types of people, but these negotiations have not started. Deputy Howlin is right on this. We still have a great deal of information to get from those with whom we will negotiate.

Deputy Howlin made the point about knowing the thinking of people at a European level. From his experience and from that of Deputy Martin as a former Minister, it is about the building of relationships that last over a long period.

Personal relationships are hugely important.

At the end of the day, this Brexit business will have to be decided by the European Council and every country represented on it has a veto. If issues arise that are not acceptable, as I have no doubt they will-----

We do not have a veto.

It has got to be agreed at the European Council.

The Council has to vote by qualified majority voting, QMV, on the basis of a majority vote.

Yes, but if somebody at the European Council will not accept the outcome of the deal, we will have a real problem.

Deputy Howlin made a point about knowing the thinking of other European colleagues, and it takes time to build those relationships, but, as he is aware, it comes down to the European Council's decision, it is the Heads of Government who will make the ultimate decision. I take the Deputy's comments in the spirit that he made them.

The presentation of our priorities, as we see them, without having all of the information in so far as what the British Government's thinking is on this, have been reflected in the Commission, Parliament and Council. However, as the Deputy pointed out, in terms of having as close as possible a working relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom, which is what we have now as a member of the European Union, that will be changed by virtue of the fact that the Single Market will be gone and the trading status will be changed. Therefore, when we go around that loop and come back to where we started we will be in a different position. Even if no tariffs will apply in terms of trade, we will still have two different jurisdictions and the complications that would involve are obvious. An Open Skies arrangement will have to be drawn up between the European Union and the United Kingdom, otherwise, aircraft will not be able to take off from here and land in London and go on to collect other passengers. That is an issue that needs to be dealt with and it is being worked upon now. We cannot wait for divorce to be concluded to do that.

The three issues identified by Michael Barnier here and agreed by Europe are the border, modalities and liabilities in terms of what the bill might be and the question of citizen's rights and reciprocal rights. All these matters, as was rightly said, were never put to the people in a way that they would have had a real discussion about understanding them. That is why our common travel area, which has been in place for 90 years covering travel, residence and the right to work and to draw social benefits, is a bilateral arrangement between Ireland and the UK and it is different with respect to rights of the Polish people or Lithuanians or Latvians who live in Great Britain. The European position is that if we want to have a parallel discussion begun, where we get into the meat of trade, we will have to make substantial progress in respect of the first three issues. I hear comments from some people across the water to the effect that progress will not be made on this, which clearly will lead to other complications.

It could be a dead duck before we start.

I take the Deputy's point. A no deal situation would be catastrophic for Ireland in, for example, the beef and agrifood sectors. Deputy Nolan spoke about the Brexit position. We did not cause this, we were not responsible for it and we did not want it but we have to deal with it. In respecting the vote of the British electorate, clearly, the issues that are priority have been set out for us.

Dr. Pfeiffer is perfectly entitled to his opinion but this is decided at the European Council from a European point of view. One can have all the opinions, all the ideas and all the propositions one wants but at the end of the day, political leaders have to make decisions and the choices sometimes are not very palatable. That is why we were happy to get unanimous support from all the other 26 member states to say that Ireland's priorities are understood and Ireland's unique position is understood. We should remember that Brexit does not interfere with the Good Friday Agreement and we will not let it interfere with it. The Agreement was signed 19 years before Brexit ever became a reality.

We will have to move on as we are four minutes over time.

Thank you. In recognising the visionaries of the Good Friday Agreement, we have had support from Europe, in that, if the Agreement is ever implemented in full, that is, with a vote for consent by the democratic decision of people to join the Republic, the entire Island would be recognised as an entity of the European Union in full without having to reapply for membership.

Ten minutes remain and Questions Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, are in the names of Deputies Donnelly and Boyd Barrett.

Brexit Issues

Stephen Donnelly

Ceist:

7. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Taoiseach the rationale underpinning the decision not to seek a veto on any aspect of Brexit separation negotiations. [25445/17]

Stephen Donnelly

Ceist:

8. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Taoiseach the rationale underpinning the decision not to seek a veto on any aspect of future relationship talks with the UK. [25446/17]

Richard Boyd Barrett

Ceist:

9. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will ensure that Ireland has a veto on agreements with regard to the island of Ireland in relation to Brexit. [25983/17]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, together.

We are confident that the European Council’s adoption of the EU’s negotiating guidelines on 29 April gives Ireland its strongest hand going into these complex negotiations. The unique circumstances of Ireland have been recognised as part of the negotiations from the outset.

The Government’s priority here has been to ensure that the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, including the Good Friday Agreement which already exists, are recognised and protected within the context of the Article 50 negotiations leading to a withdrawal agreement. The Good Friday Agreement is an internationally recognised treaty, legally binding and registered with the UN. This is a key distinguishing factor regarding what is a unique political and constitutional framework on the island of Ireland.

As the Government has consistently said, the only way for us to influence this process and protect our national interests, including with regard to Northern Ireland and the common travel area, is to win the understanding and support of EU partners for Ireland’s unique concerns. From the outset, these concerns have been recognised as part of the negotiation guidelines, and we have achieved this understanding through the extensive programme of outreach and engagement undertaken with our EU partners.

There will be a separate agreement on the UK’s future relationship with the EU, which is likely to cover a broad range of policy areas, including trade, and which is likely to take longer to conclude than the EU-UK exit agreement. Depending on the nature of this agreement, which is subject to negotiations, approval by each member state may be required in accordance with their own domestic procedures.

It is also important to remember that the future relationship agreement will require ratification by all 27 member states, including Ireland. An EU-UK exit agreement will be approved by a majority in the European Council, therefore no one member state will be in a position to block or veto a deal. Even if it were possible to veto a deal, it would not mean that the UK would not leave because under Article 50, it would simply mean that the UK would depart without appropriate arrangements in place.

This may or may not be my last interaction in the Chamber directly with the Deputy as Taoiseach and in case it is I want to acknowledge the work he has done over the last few years. I may not always have agreed with it but I certainly want to acknowledge that he has worked very hard over the last few years.

Article 50 stipulates that this requires an enhanced qualified majority, which is a vote of 20 of the 27 member states and those member states representing more than 65% of the EU population. That is the existing article but there is no reason, given Ireland's not only unique circumstances but unique exposure to Brexit, we could not have sought, by agreement, a veto on that only as it pertains to Ireland and specifically on the separation of the Border with Northern Ireland and what will happen there.

With respect to the future relations, the reality is that Spain did achieve a veto. The Government's line to date has been that everybody has a veto and, therefore, Spain's veto is just a restatement of what it has, Ireland has a veto and every member state has a veto. However, on 16 May the European Court of Justice made a ruling on the new free trade agreement with Singapore and it states that the European Commission has competence. In other words, no member state can exercise a veto on a wide range of areas, including market access, investment protection, intellectual property protection, competition, sustainable development, transport, road transport, rail transport, waterways transport, public procurement, non-direct investment, institutional provisions, notification, verification, mediation and so forth.

The European Court of Justice ruling only found two specific areas where member states have competence. None of us knows but it is possible that the separation agreement could be bundled into areas where the European Commission has competence; they are wide-ranging and directly affect our relationship with the United Kingdom and jobs in Ireland. If they are bundled, it is possible we would have no veto. If that were done, Spain would still have a veto as it has a veto on the agreement in totality as it pertains to Gibraltar.

Given the exposure we have and that words are just words - we had words in July 2012 on bondholder burden sharing but nothing happened - why did the Government not at least seek a veto? We all understand we may not have got one. Why, given that Spain sought and got one did the Irish Government not at least seek a veto on any aspect of the Brexit talks as they pertain either to the separation or any aspect of the future relationship?

I am a bit concerned about the strength Ireland will have at the end of this. Yesterday, and in responses earlier today, the Taoiseach spoke about every country having a veto but every country does not have a veto once we have accepted the negotiating mandate, which would have to be by unanimous decision of the Council. Once the negotiating mandate has been given and the negotiator, in this case it is Mr. Michel Barnier who has been appointed, under the treaty the final agreement comes back to the Council. The negotiated agreement must be adopted by a qualified majority of 72% of the remaining 27 member states, representing 65% of the population. It is under three quarters of the member states, representing almost two thirds of the population of the member states that will carry the day. No individual country has a veto. So it is not true to say, necessarily, that at the end of the day Ireland can say "No". We need to make sure we get the deal well in advance of being faced with a very difficult situation at the end.

I take the Taoiseach's point that it would be a hollow right to veto the deal as all that could be vetoed at that stage would be whatever is negotiated. The exit is already determined and it would simply otherwise be an exit on no terms, and I presume with respect to trade it would be the World Trade Organization terms that would be used. We need to do the work now and not have any notion that at the end of the day we are going to have any big stick to veto any final agreement. Legally, we do not have that and even if we did it would be a hollow victory to exercise it.

Only yesterday, Teachta Adams raised with the Taoiseach the publication of two documents by Mr. Barnier relating to the Brexit negotiations. Teachta Adams asked the Taoiseach about the rights of EU and British citizens following Brexit and it is disappointing that he has not made any specific reference to the rights of these citizens in earlier comments. The British Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, Mr. David Davis, is reported last night to have described the EU demands to protect its citizens' rights as ridiculously high.

The battle lines are drawn on this issue. Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, citizens in the North enjoy the right to Irish citizenship and, consequently, European Union citizenship. Has the Government discussed this with the European Commission, Mr. Barnier and the British Government? What has been the outcome of these discussions? Will the rights of citizens in the North be protected in any Brexit outcome?

I will answer the last question first and the answer is "Yes". As the Deputy is aware from sitting very close to where Mr. Barnier spoke, this is one of the three priorities that needs to be dealt with. The first priority is the question of modalities and liabilities and the charge on the United Kingdom for leaving the European Union. This refers to a range of issues where contracts are in place or moneys are paid out of the European budget. There will be a difficulty in that if there is a €12 billion hole in the budget on a yearly basis, who is going to pay the extra or what programmes will be cut? Mr. Barnier stated that no country currently contributing to the European Union budget wants to pay any more and all of those in receipt of capital, grants and so on from the European Union do not want to receive any less. There will be a real problem if that is the scale of what is involved.

The Deputy asked if the matter was discussed and it was. Mr. Barnier is a negotiator for Ireland and the Border is one of the first priorities. One of the second priorities relates to the rights of citizens and reciprocal rights for people from the UK living in the EU and vice versa. The Deputy mentioned the Good Friday Agreement and when people voted on that in the beginning, they did so with the expectation of being able to continue as European citizens with European rights. Every person in Northern Ireland is entitled to Irish citizenship and, therefore, European citizenship. We want to see that retained and the common travel area between here and the UK is a matter for bilateral discussion. It is not a case of not referring to this as it is very much the focus of our attention. We want this dealt with very early on, and Mr. Barnier made this point himself publicly on many occasions. The Border issue should not become a bargaining point in respect of Ireland at some later time during more detailed discussions on trade etc. That is why it is one of the three priorities.

Deputy Howlin set out the position about the majority, equating to 72% of member states and 65% of the population. He is correct in that it would be a hollow victory. We do not want to have the case of negotiations coming to a finality at the European Council and finding ourselves stranded. That is why we have people on the negotiating task force who are in very close contact with our committee of permanent representatives to the EU, COREPER, and sherpa people in Brussels, so we know what is going on at all times in respect of the negotiating stances. I take the point of Deputies Howlin and Donnelly that it is very important for us in building those relationships to have our position cleared very early on. In fairness, most of the other European countries may not have as much interest as we do in Brexit because we are so close to Britain and for so many other reasons but they will become very interested if the hole in the budget will have an impact on programmes and structures in their countries. They might not have associated that with Brexit but if scheme X or Y is cut back or abolished altogether, people could become very interested politically.

I agree with the sentiments that we need to do the work now and this will absorb so much political time from so many leaders over the next number of years. It need never have happened but it has happened.

Perhaps I should repeat in the presence of the Minister for Social Protection my view that the Taoiseach will still have a valuable role to play in the future of this.

I made a very clear decision that we should not appoint a Brexit Minister as the European Council leaders are the ones who make the decision. The European Parliament must pass the outcome and the Singapore agreement also has an impact. These mixed agreements mean the European Union has competence in some areas but individual and regional parliaments must ratify the matters at the end of the day.

We have some really good people operating in London, Brussels and throughout Europe generally. They are very competent and fully focused. Whoever is the new leader of the Fine Gael Party - I hope he will become Taoiseach, with whatever structure of Government is involved - will have at his disposal all that expertise on a constant basis and be really fully informed. It will be up to that person to build relationships with the individual leaders, who seem to change on a pretty regular basis at a European level. In my experience anyway, every second or third European Council meeting has another two or three people I might not have seen before because elections take place on a very regular and irregular basis throughout Europe. I wish the best to whomever the party selects as leader. I hope it will be a focus in putting together a Government.

I will finish by saying-----

Go raibh maith agat.

-----the agenda for the European Union goes beyond Brexit. It also includes the Single Market, the digital single market, Economic and Monetary Union, opportunities to create jobs and for investment and very effective trade negotiations with other countries, including the United States and Canada and others towards the east, leading to the creation of millions of jobs. Brexit is not the be-all and end-all, but it is a real problem. While we must deal with it, we must also think beyond it

The Taoiseach is abusing my generosity.

Gabh mo leithscéal. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle will not have me to deal with for too long more.

I know. I could be dealing with worse.

Thank you for your generosity and flexibility.

The Taoiseach is very welcome.

Barr
Roinn