Gino Kenny
Ceist:1. Deputy Gino Kenny asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on health will next meet. [30165/17]
Ceisteanna - Questions
Cabinet Committee Meetings
The Cabinet committee on health last met on 30 May. A date for the next meeting has not yet been confirmed. I have said that I intend to reconfigure the Cabinet committees into a smaller number. I expect to do this shortly.
The committee provides a basis for the political oversight of the development and delivery of key health service reforms in line with the commitments in A Programme for a Partnership Government.
The programme's priority is access to safe and timely care that is provided as close as possible to patients' homes. This will be achieved by making a decisive shift to primary care, guaranteeing the future sustainability of practice in rural and disadvantaged urban areas, creating a healthy Ireland, building capacity for our emergency and acute services, improving waiting times for hospital procedures, reforming the HSE into a more efficient and transparent health service for patients and staff and developing a new funding model for the health services.
I raised this issue with the Taoiseach last week. I am raising it again to make a point about the high cost of medicines in this country. I think the Taoiseach is aware of the case of a lady called Charlotte Connolly from his time as Minister for Health a few years ago. Charlotte suffers from Degos disease, which is extremely rare. She is the only person with it in Ireland at the moment. I spoke to her husband Declan approximately an hour ago. He is in a very precarious position as Charlotte's husband. He wants to see the best for Charlotte, who was diagnosed with this illness three and a half years ago. Somebody who is diagnosed with Degos disease usually has a four-year limitation on his or her lifespan. Declan is extremely worried about his situation.
The drug Charlotte is trying to access is called Soliris, made in Blanchardstown by Alexion, and it costs €400,000 per year, which is extraordinary. There was also a lot of publicity around Orkambi. Does the health committee review the price of drugs in this country? They are exorbitant. When the drugs are made in Ireland, those prices seem to be extortionate.
The Cabinet sub-committee on health, as is the case with all Cabinet sub-committees, has a very wide remit and there is no reason why it could not include in its remit an examination of the cost of medicines. However, one of the reasons some of these medicines cost so much is that they are produced for very rare diseases. There may be only a few dozen or a few hundred patients in the country or in all of Europe and America with a particular disease and the cost of developing medicines for rare diseases, known as orphan drugs, is very high for that reason. Any bespoke preparation of a product or service will cost more than a product for the mass population, say 20,000 or 30,000 people.
One thing that could be done, which would not be possible for a small country such as Ireland but which might be possible on a transcontinental or international level, is to have greater investment by governments in research and development, with governments producing and owning the patent for these medicines.
I support Deputy Gino Kenny in respect of this case. It is more than just costs, it also involves some engagement with the company on the application of the drug to this particular condition. People should knock heads together to find a solution.
In recent years there has been growing confusion as to what exactly constitutes Government policy on health. Since the enforced departure of Senator James Reilly from the Department and the mothballing of the compulsory insurance scheme, it has not been clear what the Government's policy on health is. During the Fine Gael leadership campaign, the Taoiseach said the implementation of the Oireachtas committee's report would be policy. Can he confirm that this report is now official Government policy? He also said he would take personal charge of, and a personal oversight role in, health policy. Can he outline to the House what he means by that? The Taoiseach's predecessor said the same and resiled fairly quickly from that commitment.
The Cabinet sub-committee on health has had a terrible record in recent years. It cleared the uncosted and abandoned White Paper on compulsory health insurance. It was supposed to be overseeing budget control. How does the Taoiseach intend to change this poor performance? He said he would change how committees would work and clearly the sub-committee on health has not worked. Can he give a commitment that there will be no repeat of the practice of amending the HSE's annual plan to promise the delivery of more services than the budget actually provides for?
What is the view of the Taoiseach on recent reports that up to nine hospitals have suffered outbreaks of the lethal superbug, carbapenemase-producing enterobacteriaceae, CPE? An unspecified number of deaths have resulted and Tallaght hospital was particularly affected, with wards closed and 700 operations cancelled. The increase in superbugs in hospitals is the result of too few staff, overcrowding and the especially high number of patients on trolleys. In Tallaght, much of the blame is being laid at the door of financial cuts to the cleaning budget. Clearly, short-sighted cuts to hospital budgets and an inadequate response by Government to overcrowding in our emergency departments have created a worsening crisis. Will the Taoiseach instruct the Minister for Health and his Department to provide an urgent report on this situation and to publish an emergency action plan to tackle this crisis?
The Health Service Executive was €31.5 million over budget in the first three months of this year. At the same time, there are continually high numbers of citizens waiting on appointments and on trolleys. According to the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation, INMO, last month there were new record levels of overcrowding in our emergency departments when compared with previous years. There were 8,154 admitted patients on trolleys during that period. It is clear that our service is in crisis and remains too small and unable to cope with the demands placed on it. Is the Taoiseach of the view that the HSE can deliver its planned services for the remainder of the year and remain within the €14 billion allocated by Government?
I have three brief questions. Where exactly stands Sláintecare? I have been trying to get a clear view from the Department of Health. Is the Sláintecare accepted by Government and has the process of implementation begun? Who is going to drive that implementation? Will it be the Taoiseach, through the cabinet sub-committee, or is there another implementation mechanism?
My second question relates to capital investment and we are currently in the middle of a capital review. How are the health care requirements to be prioritised? Will there be a debate about that? Will it be determined by the Cabinet sub-committee in advance of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform reaching its conclusions?
My final question is on the outstanding moneys due to consultants under an agreement concluded with a previous Minister for Health, Mary Harney, which will now crystallise into a bill of some €300 million. Where stand the negotiations on that and how will it fit into the budgetary arithmetic?
I wish to raise the issue of hospices throughout the country, including our own area on the north side of Dublin and in Cork and Donegal, which are section 39 organisations. Their nursing staff, who are highly prized and highly efficient, have to be paid the restoration increases in recognition of the pay cuts they voluntarily took at the time of the financial crisis. The Departments of Public Expenditure and Reform and the Taoiseach have been pulling their punches on whether the hospices' budgets will be recompensed in respect of the increases they have to give to these fabulous staff who are caring for our families. The home care services of the hospice movement have expanded in recent times to provide end-of-life care and home care visits to people in long-stay institutions. It has been incredibly successful and is reducing some of the accident and emergency pressure on hospitals. I know the Taoiseach has personal experience of this issue and is sympathetic. We have a mutual interest in our local hospices. Can he address the issue for hospices in general? I know he has been made aware of it.
I spoke about Charlotte Connolly's situation and I ask the Government to intervene. Charlotte is looking for a three-month trial of the drug in question. Other people with the same condition have taken it in the United States and have experienced huge health benefits. Charlotte was diagnosed three and a half years ago. If it was the Taoiseach's loved one in this scenario, he would do absolutely anything to extend his or her life and Charlotte just wants to have a go at life, which she deserves. As somebody who lives out in Blanchardstown, where this drug is made, can the Taoiseach make an exception so that Charlotte Connolly can have the chance she deserves?
The Government policy on health is as detailed on a significant number of pages in the programme for Government. In regard to the Sláintecare report-----
What about the report of the Committee on the Future of Healthcare?
I am getting to that. There were many questions on this topic and it may take more than 30 seconds to answer all of them. I will start again.
The Government policy on health is as outlined in the programme for Government. That is where Government policies are detailed unless an alternative policy is subsequently produced by the Government. The Sláintecare report was discussed at Cabinet last week and the Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, has undertaken to consider it in full and develop a reasoned response to it on behalf of the Government and decide whether to accept it in full or in part. Several issues need to be teased out, not least that the initial view of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is that the costings in the report are not accurate and do not adequately provide------
Was that not in the Taoiseach's manifesto?
I will get to that issue but I can only answer questions if I am allowed to do so. A number of issues need to be teased out, not least the costings, and also other matters. I did not produce a manifesto; I produced a policy ideas paper, on the front of which it is stated that it is a policy ideas paper. It is not a manifesto, it is an ideas paper-----
Better to have the exit door.
-----and says specifically in its introductory section that it does not supersede the programme for Government or the confidence and supply agreement made with Fianna Fáil.
Excellent. It is meaningless.
The Taoiseach thinks out loud.
I did not say I would take personal responsibility for or charge of health; I said I would take an interest in it and I will do so. Tomorrow I will meet the Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, and the Secretary General of his Department in order that they might give me a better overview of what is happening in the health service and to consider how I can bring the support of the Department of the Taoiseach behind the great effort that is needed to turn our health service around. We have demonstrated in recent years what can be done to turn around the economy and the employment situation and to put our public finances back in order. I would like to be able to use the Department of the Taoiseach to lead in that way and improve our health service considerably. We will never have a perfect health service. No country does. However, Ireland is an outlier in terms of the charges people have to pay and the time they have to wait to access either elective or emergency services. I would like it to become a normal country in the context of such matters. I appreciate that will not be done overnight but will take several years of reform.
I do not have any specific information regarding CPE. Deputy McDonald may wish to raise the issue with the Minister for Health. There are many reasons why hospital-acquired infections or superbugs become more or less prevalent. Notwithstanding the factors mentioned by the Deputy, another superbug, methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, MRSA, is much less prevalent now than it was several years ago. The reasons for any infection being more prevalent in a hospital or community setting are multi-factorial and influenced by many issues. Overcrowding and staffing levels are only two of the many factors that affect the prevalence of any infection in either a hospital or community setting.
I am not party to any negotiations with consultants regarding their legal claim and it would not be normal for a Taoiseach or Cabinet committee to be involved in such.
Would the Taoiseach not be aware of it given the potential cost of €300 million, which would have a significant impact on the budget?
I am aware of estimates in that regard, as is Deputy Howlin because we spoke about the issue when he was Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. I am aware of the potential cost of the case being decided against the State. However, if one was to add up the potential cost of all legal cases being taken against the State, it would be many billions of euros, not just hundreds of millions.
Is the Taoiseach not negotiating a settlement?
Not that I am aware of.
In regard to section 39 organisations, I refer Deputy Burton to the answer I gave to Deputy Micheál Martin on this exact issue during today's Leader's Questions. I reiterate that the Government will take a very dim view of any body that tries to reduce services when it has had its budget increased and that will be-----
That is a twist of the truth.
That is not the case.
That is outrageous. The Taoiseach said the same thing previously. He is wrong on that point.
He is wrong.
The Taoiseach to conclude.
He is being disingenuous. Hospices are being bled dry.
The Taoiseach to conclude, without interruption.
They are not suggesting that services be reduced.
Can the Taoiseach clarify that issue?
The Taoiseach to conclude, without interruption.
The Deputy was suggesting that services might be reduced at a time when budgets have increased and obviously we would need to understand that-----
We have met representatives from the hospices. The Taoiseach should not be disingenuous.
Deputy Micheál Martin did not say that.
That is not what he said.
The hospices are not being given any money for the pay increases and they are screwed as a result. That is the reality.
I cannot allow another round of questions. We will move on to Questions Nos. 2 to 5.
The staff voluntarily took those pay cuts and deserve pay restoration.
Money has been provided to all other public service employees.
Deputy Howlin is correct. It is unfair.
The Taoiseach is avoiding the answer.
Departmental Staff
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:2. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach the changes he plans to implement in his Department. [29819/17]
Brendan Howlin
Ceist:3. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach the number of advisers he will employ; the number employed to date in 2017; and the responsibilities of each. [29823/17]
Brendan Howlin
Ceist:4. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach the number of Ministers of State assigned to his Department; the responsibilities of each; the payments they will receive; and the staff they have been assigned or allowed recruit. [29824/17]
Gerry Adams
Ceist:5. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the number of advisers he plans to appoint; and the areas in which they will be working. [29835/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, together.
Having appointed Ministers and Ministers of State to their various portfolios across Government, I will reflect on how my Department can best support the important work ahead. I will continue to meet officials in the Department and decide over the coming weeks what changes might be required.
Four Ministers of State hold portfolios in my Department: Deputy Joe McHugh is Government Chief Whip; Deputy Helen McEntee has responsibility for European affairs; Deputy Paul Kehoe has responsibility for defence; and Deputy Pat Breen has responsibility for data protection. The payments these Ministers of State will receive are sanctioned by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and their staffing entitlements are those set out in that Department's instructions on ministerial appointments for the 32nd Dáil.
I am also considering the advisory supports that I might need in my role as Taoiseach and Head of Government. While I have not as yet finalised the make-up of my team, I intend to recruit a number of special advisers, including a chief of staff. All such appointments will be subject to Government approval.
While I am aware that he ran out of time, he did not answer Deputy Gino Kenny's question regarding Charlotte Connolly. Given the life-threatening nature of her condition, she and her family deserve a response from the Government.
In terms of changes in the Department of the Taoiseach and sub-committees that will be established, under the previous Taoiseach there was no education sub-committee. Will the Taoiseach have an education sub-committee? I ask that he does so for many reasons which I will not enumerate. I ask that he consider as a matter of urgency the issue of school lands being sold off by religious orders and the consequent degradation of schools' facilities and amenities. On several occasions I have raised the case of Clonkeen College, a non-fee paying school in my constituency that is to have effectively all of its playing pitches sold to developers, which is a massive blow to the school. There are still hopes that the Government will intervene and prevent that from happening by securing those facilities and amenities. This issue does not solely concern a school in my area as there is a vast number of playing fields that are being sold or will potentially be sold. Ironically, in some cases that is being done to finance a redress scheme, which means that, as a consequence of one group of people being abused, the facilities of another group are now being attacked. Will the Department of the Taoiseach examine this matter and consider securing these school lands into State ownership?
The Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Bruton, answered this question yesterday in a very straightforward way. He said that the Department of Education and Skills acquires lands as it sees fit. It has a capital budget which it can use to buy land and build schools and it has to prioritise how it spends that money.
On the matter raised earlier by Deputy Gino Kenny, I am always loath to answer queries about individual cases because I am not a decision maker on any individual case in the health service or beyond. I have read a little about the case in newspapers and I understand that a request has been made to use the drug for an unlicensed purpose as an experiment or trial. The Government would never intervene in order to get a person onto a trial. It is for doctors to set up a trial to use a drug for an experimental purpose and the pharmaceutical company would then generally provide the medicine at no cost if it is to be used as part of a clinical trial.
I note from media reports that Dr. Patrick Geoghegan, a noted historian, has joined the Taoiseach's team.
His influence is self-evident from all of the references to history in recent times, which is to be welcomed. I would like to get an idea of the Taoiseach's thinking. It is clear that he has not recruited everybody he requires as of yet, but what are the component parts of the advisory team that he is seeking to recruit? I take it that he will seek to recruit an economic adviser. His predecessor had quite an influential economic adviser. The norm is that the Taoiseach would have oversight of the economic performance of each Department and I would be interested to know the totality of the support team that he envisages having around him.
On the issue of the Ministers of State, we are now in the unprecedented position of having four Ministers of State with the right to attend at Cabinet. I raised the issue of payments to be made to those Ministers of State. I understand that a statutory instrument will be required to pay any additional allowance over the basic Minister of State rate. Is it the intention of the Taoiseach or the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to bring such an instrument to the House or are the four Ministers of State simply to be paid the normal Minister of State rate? If there is to be a statutory instrument, is it envisaged that the Taoiseach will select two of the four Ministers of State in order to comply with the law?
I have not figured out the composition of my advisory team yet. I want to have a working understanding of my new role before I form a full working team and I also want to have a better understanding of what good expertise exists in the Department already and which I will avail of fully. Where there are gaps I will try to fill those with my advisory team. I will of course endeavour to ensure that the total cost of my team is no greater than that of my forebear and much less than that of Taoisigh from previous Administrations.
I have Deputy Howlin's letter on the matter of payments to Ministers of State at Cabinet. The issue is being examined at present and we should understand within a few weeks exactly what is legal and what is not. The law will of course be complied with. I do not have any plans to bring forward a statutory instrument to provide any additional payments.
There was considerable commentary on the Taoiseach's choices for Ministers of State, particularly with regard to gross gender imbalance. In the media coverage the Taoiseach or someone from his camp was reported as saying that the advisers appointed would make up for this gender imbalance. Not alone that, it seemed to be a formula for the lovely girls entering the fray. Can the Taoiseach clear that up? The manner in which this was reported in the press was quite odd.
Who advises the Taoiseach most directly on Brexit? What is the capacity around him on that issue? He has taken a very particular whole-of-Government approach and has vested in the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney and the Minister for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, in particular responsibility on these issues, but what capacity does the Taoiseach, as Head of Government, have available?
Who advises the Taoiseach on the North and issues such as the Good Friday Agreement and the propositions around a White Paper on reunification that have emerged in the course of the Fine Gael leadership contest? What is the advisory capacity there?
I cannot clear up that particular issue because I am not sure what it refers to. It may refer to a story I saw in the Irish Mail on Sunday, which certainly was not quoting me and did not claim to quote me. It claimed to quote some anonymous source, and as is always the case from things I see from anonymous sources in the newspapers, I may have my suspicions as to who said it. These things are rarely said in one's interests. I do not know who it was. I cannot clarify it because it is something that I did not say and is attributed to nobody.
The Taoiseach might clarify that it is not his thinking.
It is absolutely not my thinking. On the issue of gender balance within my ministerial team, as the Deputy knows we select our Ministers from Parliament. It is different in other countries, where Ministers may be selected from outside Parliament. Of the 12 female Deputies who support this Government, seven are Ministers, including the Tánaiste and five women who sit at the Cabinet table, and two are committee chairs. Nine of the 12 hold promotional paid positions within the Government. I would like that figure to be much higher because I believe that diversity leads to better decision making but the best way that I can do that is to increase the number of female Deputies who support the Government. If I could increase the number of female Deputies supporting the Government from 12 to 24, I could have 14 or 18 female Ministers, and that is much closer to the position that I would like to be in. What I would like, of course, is total gender equality, but even if I appointed all female Deputies to ministerial office, including those only elected last year, it would still only amount to one third. The real problem we have in this House is that there are not enough female Deputies. My party has more female Deputies than any other party but it is still far fewer that we should have.
In anticipation that this question might come up, I had a look at the gender composition of the Sinn Féin Front Bench, which has four female members from 18 positions. That is slightly worse than what we have around the Cabinet table, in case the Deputy had not noticed.
The most basic fact on which no one is clear is exactly what the situation is on the Department's role in staffing for the Brexit process. While the position of the second Secretary General and the head of the international division is clear, very little else is. The overall European co-ordination role was returned to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade last year and a fortnight ago, the Taoiseach placed the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, in charge of co-ordinating the Government's Brexit response, which was a significant change from the position of his predecessor, who placed the Department of the Taoiseach in the lead role in this co-ordination. Can the Taoiseach explain the exact responsibilities of the two Departments on Brexit, and when the long-delayed studies on Brexit staffing needs will be finalised and published?
In the Taoiseach's six years in government, no one has ever doubted the ability of his staff to promote him in the media. What is less obvious is an engagement with the hard substance of policy. It was interesting to hear that the Taoiseach has not yet identified what advisers he will be selecting. Is he in a position to outline the policy-related roles he will assign to advisers or where he might take on advice?
Following on from Deputy Howlin's question on the Ministers of State, is the Taoiseach in a position to say which two Ministers of State will get the allowance and which two will not? Why will it take three or four weeks to get legal clarity on this? Surely this is a straightforward issue one way or the other. Could the Taoiseach indicate to us what advices he has received on this issue already?
On the issue of Brexit, as Taoiseach I will be attending the European Council. The treaties and the rules are clear as to who can attend the European Council and who cannot. I will be attending the European Council and dealing with European affairs and Brexit at that level, that is, at the level of Prime Minister, the Commission and the Council. I am ably supported by a team led by Mr. John Callinan, the second Secretary General, who is also the sherpa in that regard. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, will report to me, but aside from that fact he will co-ordinate the more general response to Brexit. That is the work done by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade - alongside the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee - namely, attending GAC engagements with other foreign ministers but also pulling together the responses from different Departments, for example the response of Deputy Fitzgerald's Department and the response from the Department of Justice and Equality that may be required to deal with visas and other matters. All of that will be done under the leadership of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, but he will of course report to me as Taoiseach. It will be my responsibility to attend the European Council and to engage with Heads of State and Government and the Presidents of the European institutions.
I have not assigned policy roles to different advisers yet and I am still trying to figure out what the best way is to employ the people that I have working around me. The previous Taoiseach had two assigned to policy roles, one of which pertained to economics.
The position was not subsequently refilled and there were a number on press and other matters. I need to figure that out.
In terms of policy substance, over the past six years there have been 20 Bills brought from initiation to full enactment, which is a reasonably good record for legislation produced in three Departments in that time. On the allowances, we are trying to work out what the law provides for and whether the Chief Whip's allowance can be treated separately from the allowances paid to the other Ministers of State. I hope to get solid legal advice on that within a couple of weeks.
European Council Meetings
Micheál Martin
Ceist:6. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the issues that were discussed and, in particular, if he requested the need for special status for Northern Ireland in the context of the Brexit negotiations in his meeting with President Tusk; and if he invited him to address the Houses of the Oireachtas on Brexit. [29801/17]
Micheál Martin
Ceist:7. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the bilaterals he had at the European Council meeting. [29806/17]
Seán Haughey
Ceist:8. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach the bilaterals he had at the June 2017 European Council meeting; and the issues that were discussed. [29807/17]
Seán Haughey
Ceist:9. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the European Council meeting on 22 June 2017. [29808/17]
Joan Burton
Ceist:10. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach if he has had contact with President Macron of France. [29838/17]
Joan Burton
Ceist:11. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach if he has had contact with Chancellor Merkel of Germany. [29966/17]
Joan Burton
Ceist:12. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach the main issues he will be hoping to address at the European Council meeting in June 2017. [29968/17]
Brendan Howlin
Ceist:13. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his telephone conversation and other engagements with President Macron of France. [29973/17]
Gerry Adams
Ceist:14. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he had any engagement with the British Prime Minister, Ms Theresa May, during the European Council meeting on 22 and 23 June 2017. [29981/17]
Micheál Martin
Ceist:15. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on bilateral meetings held at the European Council meeting in June 2017; and the issues that were discussed. [30192/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 15, inclusive, together.
I travelled to Brussels on 22 and 23 June to attend a meeting of the European Council. As I reported to the House last week, the agenda dealt with security and defence; external relations; the Paris Agreement on climate change; jobs, growth and competitiveness; digital Europe; and migration. There was also a presentation by Prime Minister May following the launch of negotiations between the UK and EU last week, followed by a separate meeting of the European Council in its Article 50 format, of 27. As I will cover the substance of the European Council in my statement to the House later this afternoon, I will focus here on a number of contacts I had before and in the margins of the meeting.
Over the course of last week’s meeting I spoke to most of the other leaders. In my conversations, I reiterated to them my strong commitment to keeping Ireland at the heart of the Union and highlighted the unique difficulties the departure of the UK presents for Ireland. I can assure the House that there is broad sympathy for our situation and a commitment to work together to find workable solutions.
Following my election as Taoiseach, I spoke by phone to both Chancellor Merkel and President Macron. I updated both leaders on developments in Northern Ireland, and we agreed to work closely together to address the challenges facing the Union, including Brexit.
On Monday 19 June, I met Prime Minister May in London. We discussed Northern Ireland and the need to re-establish devolved government there, as well as Brexit, particularly the need to avoid any adverse impact on the rights and freedoms of our citizens, on trade and on the economy.
I took the opportunity of being in Brussels for the European Council on Thursday and Friday to have bilateral meetings with President Tusk, President Juncker, Chancellor Merkel and Estonian Prime Minister Ratas. These meetings dealt with a range of issues, with a particular focus on Brexit. I expressed my thanks for the engagement and support of our European partners in prioritising Ireland's particular concerns, and I stressed the need to make as much progress as possible on these in the first phase of the negotiations.
There was general agreement that the talks got off to a relatively positive start last Monday, and we look forward to staying in close contact as they proceed. I also updated my interlocutors on recent developments in Northern Ireland and my meeting with Prime Minister May in London the previous week.
In my meeting with Prime Minister Ratas of Estonia, representing the incoming Presidency, I offered Ireland's best wishes and support to that country as it begins its term in office next week, the first time it will do so. As a fellow small member state, we know what a significant undertaking that represents.
On the broader agenda for the European Council, I expressed strong support for EU efforts on jobs, growth and competitiveness, including the emphasis on free and open trade, and said that progress here could have real and positive impacts on the lives of our citizens. I highlighted a letter to President Tusk calling for greater ambition in relation to the digital Single Market that I co-signed with other leaders, and I welcomed the focus of the incoming Estonian Presidency on digital issues.
The European Council also agreed to renew our commitment to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. As I stated previously, I am determined that the Government should show new ambition on tackling climate change, and this will be the subject of a half-day strategic meeting of the Cabinet.
I did not invite anyone to address the Oireachtas, as such invitations are a matter for the Ceann Comhairle.
If there is to be any form of special status for Northern Ireland, Dublin will have to propose it, especially in the absence of working institutions in the North. It is unacceptable that such a long period has passed without any Executive or assembly in the North given the urgency of the Brexit debate. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade said last week that we are in favour of a special status and, without deflecting that by talking about the UK staying in the European Union, will the Taoiseach say whether seeking special status is official Government policy? Nothing has been published so far outlining any proposals on this. My understanding is that models such as a cross-Border special economic zone have received official attention. Will the Taoiseach confirm that? Will he explain how much work is being carried out on this? Have any external experts been commissioned to advise on models of special status which could be pursued?
The Taoiseach said he thought the talks got off to a good start. I would have to qualify that. The proposal for a partial offer of long-term security to EU citizens in the United Kingdom is a poor start. The answer is simple. Both sides should agree to recognise the full rights in place today for UK citizens in Europe and vice versa. Negotiations can deal with the rights of new migrants, but it is disgraceful that there is ongoing uncertainty about the treatment of millions of people who are now bargaining chips in a negotiation that has not got off to a great start. There are 130-odd individual treaties that have to be renegotiated. We are still stuck on this issue which in some respects should be easier to resolve than the other issues.
As this was the Taoiseach's first European Council meeting, it was an opportunity for him to build up new friendships and establish coalitions and alliances on his own part and on behalf of the country. I note he has spoken to most EU leaders since his election. In his discussions with them, has he given any consideration to the future of Europe? The White Paper on the Future of Europe was published on 1 March by the European Commission outlining several scenarios for how Europe might develop in the coming years: one, carrying on; two, nothing but the Single Market; three, those who want more do more; four, doing less more efficiently; and five, doing much more together. These are big issues for the Irish people. I am sure the Taoiseach will be able to establish how other EU leaders feel about these issues in the coming months. Ireland needs to be at the forefront of this debate as a country and the citizens need to be consulted about this as well. The European Commission has said it is going to organise a series of debates and publish reflection papers. The Government needs to do a lot to engage the citizens on this in order that the Taoiseach knows what the people of Ireland want and can convey that to the other EU leaders as these discussions and negotiations take place.
I note that the European Council dealt with the relocation of the European Medicines Agency and the European Banking Authority and that the decision will be taken by the autumn of 2017. How do Ireland's bids stand? Will they be successful?
I agree with the views expressed by Deputy Micheál Martin about citizenship. One would imagine that it would have been a very easy win at the beginning and have established a pattern of goodwill on both sides simply to acknowledge and accommodate fully UK citizens who have been resident for many years in other EU countries and vice versa. That should have been an easy open concession. I am concerned that Ireland seems to have no view on that because our citizens will be covered separately.
My question was about the Taoiseach's discussions with President Macron and especially on his proposals for the eurozone.
In his own campaign and subsequently, he has set out a programme of proposals, including the establishment of a eurozone parliament, a eurozone finance minister and a eurozone common fiscal policy. My concern is that a great deal is happening which is not being communicated to us or perhaps even debated within the broader European family. Were these matters discussed between the Taoiseach and President Macron?
Is special designated status an official Government policy and supported by everyone around the Cabinet table? What has the Taoiseach done to advance that proposition? I share concerns that there might be a tendency to rely on others to do the work which rightfully falls to the Government, State and Taoiseach in particular.
I refer to the Taoiseach's conversations with President Macron and Chancellor Merkel. They have put forward a renewed leadership of the Franco-German alliance concentrating on issues such as the development of a eurozone government with a finance minister and the capacity to levy taxes on citizens directly. What really concerns me is the following. Can the Taoiseach indicate whether he explained to them that Ireland is a neutral country and that neutrality is much valued here? Did he make it clear whether he backed their proposals and those of the eurogroup around a bolstered defence capacity for what are called by them "core EU eurozone members"? Will the Taoiseach recommit to Irish neutrality or does he favour changes on Irish neutrality on the lines they have been suggesting? It is suggested countries might provide for a eurogroup military presence. Where does the Taoiseach stand on that?
As we are speaking about engagements with foreign leaders, I take the opportunity to inform the House that the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Justin Trudeau, will visit Ireland next Tuesday with his family. I look forward very much to his visit and to renewing the long-standing bonds of friendship that exist between Canada and Ireland. As countries, we have a great deal in common given our commitment to free trade, multilateralism, personal freedom and liberty.
I share Deputy Micheál Martin's view that we need to have the Executive and assembly up and running in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. People voted for devolved government in Northern Ireland and they should have it. It is important that Northern Ireland has a unique voice when it comes to Brexit. It should not just rely on Dublin and London to deal with these matters. A joint letter on Brexit was issued by the late Mr. Martin McGuinness and Ms Arlene Foster and it contains the basis of a position the Northern Ireland Executive could take on the future of Northern Ireland. It behoves the parties now to form that Executive and to adopt a common position in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
Our primary interest in respect of EU citizens' rights relates to the rights of Irish citizens in Britain and maintaining the effective common citizenship which exists between our two islands. Irish and British citizens can reside, work and access social security, pensions, welfare and housing in either country as if they were citizens of both. I am glad Prime Minister May feels the same way as I about that and that Irish citizens will continue to be treated not as foreign in the United Kingdom. I do not differ from the sentiments expressed by others here in that EU citizens who live in Britain should not lose the rights they currently have but then I do not think Britain should leave the EU in the first place. I have no say in that, nor does any other Member of the House.
During my talks on the phone with Prime Minister May last night, we discussed the negotiations under way in Belfast and I impressed on her the need to ensure that the outcome is balanced, that there is parity of esteem and that the Irish language Act agreed is sufficient. She mentioned that of course there are language Acts in Scotland and Wales and if there are language Acts in Scotland and Wales, why should there not be one in Northern Ireland? What we are trying to do on the Border is secure an outcome which reflects Ireland's unique position because of the land border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. However, a great deal of what happens will depend on the final arrangements between the EU and the UK. For example, if the UK were to negotiate a free trade agreement with the European Union which is not dissimilar to the customs union and the Single Market, very little will have to be done. However, if the UK does not negotiate a free trade agreement with the European Union, we will then be in a very different space. What we are working towards at the moment is the best possible outcome, which is Britain staying in the customs union and Single Market. If we are unable to achieve that, it will be the United Kingdom having a free trade agreement or transition agreement which would be as good as staying in the EU. If we cannot achieve that, we will be in a lesser position. We have to think about the options in all scenarios. Officials have done a great deal of work on this already. I do not know if outside expertise has been hired. I would have to check on that.
On the agencies, we have agreed at the European Council a mechanism by which the different agencies will be decided on. It will not be decided at European Council level but rather at ministerial level. We have put in very good and attractive bids for both agencies but approximately 20 countries are bidding for the two. Most countries will be disappointed. The decision will be made later in the year.
I have met President Macron three times so far and had the opportunity to discuss different things. I am aware of his vision for the future of Europe albeit of all the things we discussed on the three occasions, that was not one. It was not something he tabled or raised at the European Council meeting on Thursday and Friday last. I imagine there will come a time when we have to talk about the future of Europe and what may happen beyond the existing treaty arrangements. Everyone is of the view that the time is not now given that we are in the middle of negotiations with the United Kingdom and must focus on much more practical issues.