Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 17 Jan 2019

Vol. 977 No. 6

Government's Brexit Preparedness: Statements

I am sharing time with the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Helen McEntee, and Deputy Fergus O'Dowd.

This has been a critical week for the Brexit process in the UK. The Government regrets the outcome of the vote in the House of Commons on the withdrawal agreement, though it was not unexpected. A no-deal Brexit would be deeply damaging for the UK, Ireland and the EU. This is increasingly recognised within the United Kingdom, including in Parliament. However, it is important that we do not assume that it will inevitably be avoided.

As President Juncker stated after the vote, what we need from the UK is clarity on how it proposes to move forward and, ultimately, what it wants to achieve. The EU will then consider how to respond. The EU has addressed the issues raised by Prime Minister May in the aftermath of the postponed vote in December. The European Council in December and the joint letter from Presidents Tusk and Juncker earlier this week provided important clarifications and reassurances, including with regard to the backstop. The EU will continue to seek to be as helpful as it possibly can but, as the European Council made clear in December, the withdrawal agreement is not up for renegotiation.

The backstop is an essential part of the withdrawal agreement. It acts as an insurance policy, to ensure that there is no hard border on this island following Brexit. It is essential. Throughout the negotiations, there has been a strong understanding by our EU partners of the need to address the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland. Their support remains firm and unequivocal. The EU has repeatedly said - Michel Barnier was crystal clear on this in the European Parliament yesterday - that there can be no withdrawal agreement without the backstop. This has also been repeatedly recognised by the UK Government, which has also recognised its own obligations under the Good Friday Agreement, to its credit.

For Ireland and the EU, a close and deep future relationship with the United Kingdom is key. This remains our preferred means of ensuring we never get to use the backstop. It will also allow us to continue our broad and multifaceted relationship with the UK in the new environment post-Brexit. While the withdrawal agreement is not for renegotiation, in the context of the future relationship, the EU has consistently said that if the UK chooses to shift its red lines on leaving the customs union and the Single Market, and opts for a more ambitious relationship beyond a basic free trade agreement, the EU would be happy to evolve its position too.

While our focus remains on securing an orderly and agreed Brexit, given the uncertainty in London and the increased risks of a no-deal Brexit, the Government will continue to intensify our preparations for such an outcome. Our number one protection from whatever Brexit brings will be our status as an EU member state, with all the stability, predictability and solidarity that brings. On 19 December, the Government published its contingency action plan, which outlines our approach to no-deal Brexit planning. However, there is still plenty of work to do there. Brexit of any kind will mean change. Managing a no-deal Brexit would be an exercise in damage limitation. It would be impossible in a no-deal scenario to maintain the current seamless arrangements between the EU and UK across a full range of sectors, which are currently facilitated by our common EU membership.

The Government has been planning for Brexit since before the UK referendum and we have taken a number of key decisions to accelerate our Brexit preparations. These plans have been developed on a whole-of-Government basis, co-ordinated by my Department in close co-operation with the Department of the Taoiseach. We outlined our approach to legislative changes required in the no-deal contingency action plan on 19 December. Considerable work has continued to refine and develop this work. On Tuesday, the Cabinet approved the drafting of the heads of one omnibus Bill which will contain the legislative measures necessary to prepare domestically for the immediate impacts of Brexit. This week's decision follows from a series of Government decisions since July to advance various preparations for Brexit.

One of our main priorities is to ensure that east-west trade flows continue to function in both directions. To support this, we have sanctioned staffing, ICT and infrastructural measures for our ports and airports. Ultimately, we estimate that we will need just over 1,000 staff to implement additional customs and sanitary and phytosanitary, SPS, checks in both a central case scenario and in a no-deal scenario. Phase 1 of this recruitment has been sanctioned and is well under way. Emergency measures including redeployment and the use of internal panels will be actioned in a no-deal scenario to ensure that the necessary human resources are in place to implement checks.

I look forward to the comments and questions from colleagues from other parties and will try to be as exact in my answers as I can be. The conversation between political parties will, of course, continue after this debate.

I will update the House on the work that is being progressed to protect the continuity of the supply of medicines and transport connectivity between Ireland and both the UK and continental Europe.

First, as Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, I will focus on the EU's preparedness and contingency planning, which has provided the basis for much of our own domestic planning. Our biggest contingency measure is that we will still be a member of the European Union. We will still benefit from the protections and privileges that this gives to our nation and our people. The Commission's contingency planning has been developed in consultation with all member states, and with particularly close co-operation both on Irish-specific issues, and on other issues which will impact Ireland most particularly. The Commission has published more than 80 technical notes covering a range of sectors to support businesses and citizens in preparing for Brexit. These are all available online at dfa.ie/Brexit. In its contingency communications which issued on 13 November and 19 December, the Commission outlined details of measures in a range of areas. These included financial services, aviation, road haulage, customs, climate policy, citizens' rights and data security.

Ireland has received support and solidarity from the EU and our fellow member states throughout the entire Brexit process and the negotiations. EU solidarity has been absolute from our fellow member states, for which we thank them. Many of my colleagues have come from Europe to visit Ireland and the Border region to gain a better understanding of the issues we face on this island. We have had their full and unwavering support every step of the way. We are also working very closely in particular with member states that face similar challenges to Ireland such as France, the Netherlands and Belgium, including on the use of the UK as a landbridge for goods moving to and from Ireland and continental Europe, and on how Irish goods can be processed as quickly as possible on arrival in EU ports after transiting through the UK.

The Minister for Health, Deputy Simon Harris, earlier this week outlined to Government a comprehensive and co-ordinated set of preparations to ensure the continuity of supply of medicines and medical products in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Significant work has been under way in the Department of Health, the HSE, and the Health Products Regulatory Authority, HPRA, together with industry, to minimise and address any risks to continuity of supply. The HSE and HPRA have advised that the supply of a small number of medicines may be vulnerable for reasons such as their short shelf life, special storage and transportation requirements, and single supplier reliance. Plans are being made, progressed and implemented to protect the supply of critical medicines. The Department of Health, HSE and HPRA do not anticipate an immediate impact on medicine supplies should there be a no-deal Brexit on 29 March. There is no need for hospitals, pharmacists or patients to order additional quantities of medicines. By doing so, they could disrupt existing stock levels and hamper the supply of medicines for other patients, thereby unintentionally causing shortages.

On Tuesday the Government also received an update from the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, on the potential implications for east-west transport connectivity with the UK and our wider EU and international trading partners in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Our key focus at this time is on connectivity with the UK and on Ireland’s reliance on the UK landbridge for some €21 billion of trade with the EU. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport has examined the maritime capacity for direct sailings between Ireland and continental EU ports as a potential alternative for trade that currently takes place using the UK landbridge. Based on consultations with the shipping sector and wider stakeholders, the Minister’s preliminary assessment is that sufficient capacity will be available on direct routes to continental ports from the end of March 2019, and should demand for further capacity arise, the shipping sector can respond quickly to meet such demands.

It is welcome that as part of its own contingency planning, the European Commission has proposed temporary mitigation measures to ensure basic connectivity for flights between the EU and UK, as well as its proposals to facilitate the continuation of international road haulage between the EU and UK, in a no-deal scenario.

While our focus remains on securing the withdrawal agreement, it is only prudent that in parallel we are advancing our no-deal preparations for 29 March. We are under no illusions that a no-deal Brexit is a bad outcome for the UK, bad for the EU and certainly bad for Ireland. Our planning is focused on limiting the damage from that outcome as far as it is possible to do so by taking prudent, measured and practical steps on a range of key areas.

The potential impact of Brexit and the importance of avoiding a hard border to everyone on this island, but in particular those such as me living in Border counties, cannot be underestimated. I welcome that the Government, including the Ministers present, are acutely conscious of this.

We can all agree that the invisible border is the most tangible symbol and gain of the peace process, allowing relationships and communities to be rebuilt and flourish following years of conflict. For 30 or 40 years I have lived in County Louth where there was civil strife and trouble. One could not go North without being stopped by police or soldiers. There was loss of life, civil unrest and violence all around us. Thankfully, the human and economic devastation caused by that violence ended with the Good Friday Agreement, with the co-operation North and South and with the absence of a hard border. That is why our countries and our counties have flourished. Dundalk in County Louth and Newry in County Down were both devastated economically and politically as a result of the violence. Since then they have flourished and they are now boom towns in a boom economy.

The invisible border facilitates frictionless cross-border trade. Some 7,000 firms trade across the Border from North to South, supporting over 160,000 jobs. This trade is particularly crucial for SMEs in Northern Ireland, almost three quarters of which rely on Ireland as their first export market.

It is very significant that many in the business community in Northern Ireland, including the Ulster Farmers’ Union, have spoken out publicly in support of the withdrawal agreement and the protocol reached between the EU and UK, recognising that it provides the certainty required for them as operators as well the clarity needed to allow the peace process to move forward.

North-South co-operation, both formal and informal, is also a very practical outworking of the peace process which allows for the normalisation of relationships between people across the island, to our mutual benefit. Businesses and communities, lives and livelihoods have developed and prospered, with people crossing the Border unimpeded every day to work, study, visit family, and connect with their local communities.

It is extraordinary just how ordinary is has become to cross what was once a heavily securitised border. Over the past 20 years or so it has become a routine part of life and every month there are almost 2 million car crossings both North and South. The sheer normality of all these simple and mundane contacts and connections are integral to communities in Border regions and to harnessing the opportunities of peace. I often point to the interconnected and symbiotic relationship between peace and prosperity. We have had peace and prosperity on both sides of the Border. That is what the Government wants and what the people will continue to support. For these reasons - for peace, prosperity and partnership - the Government has maintained the policy that the invisible border on this island must remain just that, and be open and free of any physical infrastructure or associated checks and controls.

We have a new generation of young people, North and South, who are highly educated and motivated. They have never known violence. They have enjoyed free movement to move North and South for study, work, play or whatever. It is very important that that opportunity continues and the dark and dismal years which so many of us faced for many decades particularly in the Border counties will never come again.

This week's events in Westminster are a cause of great concern for the Irish people. We are all a little Brexit fatigued after more than two years of intense discussions but we seem further away than ever from a workable solution to the problem we face.

There are many predictions for what might happen next: fresh elections in the UK; a second referendum; an extension of Article 50; perhaps all of these. However, the EU has made clear that the deal on the table will not be reopened, a position strongly endorsed by the Irish Government. While the UK Parliament clearly rejected the Brexit withdrawal deal on Tuesday by a staggering margin of 432 votes to 202, with 118 Members of Theresa May's party voting against her deal, the UK Government has not officially rejected the deal. The UK Government negotiated the deal and has endorsed it. Irrespective of how dead it may seem, it is still technically on the table.

The ball is firmly in the UK's court and the UK Government must make the next move. It must tell us what it wants to do next. It is not for Ireland to bend and weave simply because Westminster cannot make up its mind. We have done our part and the UK must now honour its own commitments in this process. We must reflect on the outcome of Tuesday's vote and assess whatever subsequent plan Theresa May brings before her Parliament on Monday.

The chaos in Westminster provides a stark contrast to the political stability and united front we have displayed here in Ireland. Fianna Fáil's decision to extend confidence and supply has provided that stability in our country's interest and has given Government the space to see Brexit through. Our approach always has been and will continue to be constructive with the sole objective of getting the best possible deal for Ireland and buffering Ireland from the worst possible impact of whatever Brexit we may get.

It is incredible to think that if Sinn Féin had got its way, we would be in the middle of a general election campaign right now. This comes from a party that has allowed the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive to remain dormant and inactive for two years at a most crucial time for Northern Ireland. Thankfully Sinn Féin did not get its way.

The UK Government now needs to get its act together for all our sakes. People's livelihoods, their jobs and futures, and potential opportunities are on the line, both here in the Republic and in the UK, with Northern Ireland being particularly vulnerable. No one will benefit from a hard Brexit, but simply because something is so terrible and no one wants it to happen, it does not mean it will not happen. We all sincerely hope a deal is done and done sooner rather than later because the uncertainty is already having an impact. It is impacting on businesses, farming and education, with people adapting their choices and investments because of Brexit and the great unknown post-Brexit world we are facing into.

In 2017, the Central Bank estimated that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, Ireland's GDP could be 3% lower than would be the case in a no-Brexit scenario. That could mean the loss of up to 40,000 jobs in Ireland. The agrifood sector is particularly exposed. Some 250,000 jobs are supported by that sector - 80% of which are outside Dublin - and these, in turn, support many rural communities. Several reports have highlighted that Brexit would decimate our agrifood industry. We are still very unclear as to what supports will be available to the sector in the aftermath of Brexit.

While we cannot control what happens at Westminster, we can control how prepared we are for Brexit. I have consistently raised the issue of Ireland's domestic preparedness because I am of the view that we are nowhere near as prepared as we should be. Just how prepared are we for a no-deal Brexit? My fear is that the Government has put all its eggs into the getting-a-deal basket and has been reluctant to face the fact that some of those eggs should be in the no-deal basket. We must accept that the potential for a no-deal Brexit is very real. This belief was echoed by the EU's chief negotiator, Mr. Michel Barnier, following Tuesday's vote in the House of Commons, when he said that the risk of a no-deal Brexit is higher than ever before. I hope this warning has resonated with Cabinet and has prompted an appropriate, urgent response from Government.

In fairness, I speak to Mr. Barnier more or less every day.

We will be extremely exposed if the UK crashes out of the EU without a deal and we need evidence from Government that sufficient measures will be in place by 29 March. Simple assurances are not enough.

The haulage industry still has no clarity on the situation regarding non-Irish drivers needing to cross the land bridge. Approximately 70% of those who drive Irish trucks are eastern European and the industry needs to know what their status will be in the event of a no-deal Brexit. This will affect time-sensitive products such as those in the agrifood sector, our most exposed sector. The estimated volume of goods transported across the land bridge is over 3 million tonnes annually. These goods are transported by approximately 150,000 trucks. The reintroduction of any customs or border checks because of Brexit will increase transit times and costs and will negatively impact on our competitiveness.

Despite consistent questioning in the Dáil, in face-to-face briefings and at stakeholder meetings, we still do not know what the solution will be to the inevitable delays at Dover port. If there are delays at Dover, Irish trucks will be caught up in them and that is a simple fact. We have been told that initial conversations are taking place with France to try to facilitate Irish trucks exiting in Calais, potentially in a separate lane, but these plans have not progressed beyond the talking stage. At this point, I would have expected detailed plans, backed up by financial support from the EU. Everything is being left until quite late in the day.

Similarly, there are serious concerns regarding aviation. While UK planes will be able to fly in and out of the EU, they will not be able to fly between member states. Even this arrangement will only last for 12 months. What will happen thereafter? In terms of business supports, the take-up has been quite low. It is concerning that of the €300 million available through the Brexit loan scheme, only €13.44 million has been drawn down to date. Furthermore, only 3% of Enterprise Ireland, EI, firms have availed of the EI support grant and AIB estimated in the third quarter of last year that only 5% of SMEs had a Brexit plan in place.

In the context of the EU support package we may need following Brexit, it is my understanding that the Government has not even asked the EU for support. We have no idea, to put it bluntly, what, if any, money will be available to us in the event of a no-deal Brexit. I find this remarkable and an explanation must be provided to this House as to why this has not yet been done. We will need financial support even in the event of a soft, orderly Brexit and clearly if there is a crash-out, no-deal Brexit, we will need funds immediately for infrastructure and to assist Irish industry, particularly export businesses, our farmers and those in the agrifood sector. We cannot wait for a crash out to happen before we seek help. We need to know what support package is in place now as a precautionary measure, in case we need it.

I am quite concerned that only 200 of the 600 customs staff who are due to be hired will be in place by the end of March. The Tánaiste has stated that hiring can be ramped up but, with respect, we need more detail than that. Only 58 veterinary officials have been hired, which seems like a very low number by any measure. Can the Tánaiste confirm that these numbers will be sufficient? The Government has been sluggish in its approach to planning for Brexit and that must change now. We need to see an immediate intensification of contingency planning.

We are unsure of the Government's plan regarding medicines, particularly those that have a narrow therapeutic index and those that are not interchangeable with generic or biosimilar drugs. Has the Government started to put in place sufficient measures to ensure a continuity of supply in all Brexit scenarios? This is a reasonable question that is being asked by patients. I have asked for the date on which the new traffic management plan for Dublin Port will be put in place but am still awaiting a reply. Parliamentary questions to the Tánaiste's office and to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport remain unanswered. When it comes to details of infrastructure at our ports and airports, information is vague and often conflicting. Again, I cannot get a reply to a simple parliamentary question as to whether planning permission is needed and what exactly will be in place at the end of March.

In the short time left, I will refer to a very important issue, namely, the way in which the Tánaiste and the Government has treated this House in respect of Brexit. I take issue with the way in which members of the Opposition have been treated. The Government has consistently asked Opposition parties to pull on the green jersey. It asks us for our support when we put it under pressure by asking legitimate, albeit difficult, questions. It is worth reminding the Government that the role of the Opposition is to ask questions and that wearing the green jersey goes in both directions. One can say what one likes about Theresa May and the chaos at Westminster, but she at least takes questions regularly and all MPs in the British Parliament have been given the opportunity to express their views. By contrast, this Dáil seems to play second fiddle to the media at all times. I say this because getting information has, at times, been like pulling teeth. We are being drip fed information all of the time, very often getting key information from the press.

On 19 December, the Government published its contingency action plan, ten minutes before the House rose for the Christmas recess. I know for a fact that members of the media were provided with that plan before the Opposition. That is wrong and it is accepted by all Members that the House should be informed before the media. It is now 17 January and this is the first opportunity Members have been given to discuss the contingency action plan that was published on 19 December. I wrote to the Business Committee before Christmas to ask for this debate and I specifically asked for a question-and-answer session. Instead, we have statements, with only five minutes at the end for questions. That is wholly inadequate. There should be more of an opportunity for Deputies to ask legitimate questions of the Government.

On Tuesday last, the Cabinet met to discuss contingency plans across four key areas, namely, transport, medicines, welfare and professions. However, no details of what was discussed have been published. I was promised a briefing note but am still waiting for it. Why have we waited until today to have this conversation? Why did we not have this debate on Tuesday or Wednesday? Why did the Taoiseach not come before the House on Tuesday to update us on what was discussed at Cabinet? The Government needs to trust our citizens more and to provide evidence of preparation and planning. It also needs to be honest with Members of this House as to what has actually been done. It should not be such a battle for us to get basic information. We have lots of meetings, granted, although we do not get much out of them. That said, the stakeholder meetings have been valuable. It has been really useful to interact with stakeholders such as Enterprise Ireland, IDA Ireland, the trade unions, Bord Bia, Dublin Port and so on. However, the information that we get at those meetings can be read in The Irish Times on the previous day. I have raised this with the Tánaiste privately but it is important to put on record how we feel about the way this House is being treated in terms of debating time and the opportunity to ask questions. I take serious issue with the media getting advance notice of key Brexit issues before we get it.

For the record, anything the Deputy has asked for-----

There will be a question-and-answer session later.

For the record-----

I am still on my feet.

Any time the Deputy asked for something, she got it.

There will be questions and answers later.

The question-and-answer session will be five minutes in duration and I have already made my point on that. It is insufficient in my view and I am entitled to make that view known to the House.

The final point is that there are concerns about our relationship with the United Kingdom, which is our closest neighbour, nearest partner and biggest market. There is no doubt that this whole process has, understandably, put strain on our relationship.

It is important to bear that in mind. Once we get past this and resolve the issue of Brexit, which I hope we will once a solution is found that will work for all of us, we need to bear in mind that we must mend those relations and do our best to ensure that interactions with the UK Government and its Ministers continue on a regular basis post Brexit.

It is also understandable that the Brexit process has put considerable pressure on our relationship with the unionist community in Northern Ireland. We all share this island, live on it together and have an all-island economy. We need to ensure, therefore, that those relationships are maintained and that we immediately seek to address whatever damage or potential resentment there might be. It is important that we acknowledge that this process has been stressful, not only for us in Ireland but also for the UK, and that it has put understandable pressure on those relationships.

I appreciate the call for support across the House. The Government will continue to have our support on Brexit but we will continue to ask questions. Our support is always for obtaining the best deal for the people and the country. Whatever measures are required, whether they be emergency legislation or assistance in keeping to the same message as a country, Fianna Fáil will not be found wanting. We will always support our country and ensure there is stability here to navigate Brexit and achieve the best possible outcome. The Government can be assured of our support in that regard but it should also be assured that we will continue to press for answers and details to hold it to account.

I am deeply saddened to learn there are tensions between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, partners in government, and I am happy to take to my feet as a leader of the Opposition. Táim fíor-bhuíoch agus an deis labhartha seo a ghlacadh ar an ábhar tábhachtach um thráthnóna.

Since June 2016, when the Brexit referendum result became clear, we have been steadfast, as an all-Ireland party and the lead party of Northern nationalism and republicanism, in stating that Brexit represents the most serious social, economic and political threat to our island in a generation. Throughout the referendum debate in Britain, no attention was paid to the Irish question or Irish interests, and it has been that way since. So it was in Westminster on Tuesday night when the withdrawal agreement, negotiated between the British Government and the European Union, was overwhelmingly rejected. As a consequence, the Brexit threat to our island remains and, arguably, has intensified.

The so-called backstop remains the only guarantee and our only insurance policy that there will be no hard border on the island and that the interests of citizens in the North, the majority of whom voted against Brexit, will be protected. That backstop must be defended, therefore, and it cannot be watered down under any circumstances because opposition to the backstop is not grounded in fact. It is being used as a Trojan horse by those in Britain who oppose any co-operation with the European Union as a means of vetoing any withdrawal agreement. Unless there is a backstop, there is no way of guaranteeing there will be no hard border, that the Good Friday Agreement will be protected and upheld, and that citizens will continue to enjoy rights that we take for granted today. In fairness to the British Prime Minister, she finally got that after much argument. There are many in her Tory Party, however, and its partners in the Democratic Unionist Party, DUP, who do not. They have adopted a reckless and ludicrous position but that is hardly surprising.

The level of delusion among ardent Brexiteers is best summed up by the commentary of the DUP leader earlier in the week, who enlightened us all that there had never been a hard border on the island of Ireland and that it was a figment of our collective imagination. This is patently untrue and illustrates clearly that Brexiteers are not in the realm of reality. I am sure the Tánaiste does not need me to point out how worrying that is because as each day passes, we lurch closer to the possibility of a no-deal scenario, and that cannot happen.

In case it does, however, we need to plan. I reiterate the case I have made in the House on previous occasions that in the event of a no-deal scenario, which I do not wish to see, it is incumbent on the British Government to put to a referendum on Irish unity the constitutional future of the people of the North. I will speak to Mrs May tomorrow and I will again advance that case to her. If the people of the North are to be disregarded and have their future toyed with by the British establishment, which does not care about their future, they deserve to have their say and their consent sought.

In a series of polls, a majority in the North have indicated that in a no-deal scenario, they would support the notion of Irish unity. It is now time for the Government in Dublin to articulate that it, too, wishes to see a referendum held in the event of a no-deal scenario. It is a more than reasonable position, and I believe it is one that parties here should hold. I also believe it is a position that is understood implicitly and explicitly by leaders across the European Union. We need not forget that in April 2017, the European Council agreed that our whole island would be afforded membership of the European Union in the event of national reunification. None of us in the Chamber wants a no-deal scenario to transpire but if it does, and if Westminster insists on driving towards a no-deal crash, a referendum on Irish unity - as provided for in the Good Friday Agreement - must be called because it is the only sensible, logical, democratic and rational response that will provide a pathway for the North to retain membership of the European Union. Let us bear in mind that people in the North voted to remain.

In the interim, let us hope a deal can be reached. As I said, however, that cannot involve any resiling from the backstop and protections on the table. If Britain insists on Brexit, that is a matter for Britain, but any agreement needs to recognise, understand and protect the people of this island, our economy and, crucially, our peace process. That means the Government in Dublin and leaders at a European level need to stand firm and not move away from, or attempt to dilute, the backstop.

In the short term, we need to be prepared for the immediate impact of a no-deal scenario. A few nights ago, the Tánaiste briefed us on contingency planning in that regard and I thank him for that engagement. As I noted yesterday in the Chamber, however, the Government's contingency planning focuses almost exclusively on east-west matters, which are important. I acknowledge that we need to protect trade and commerce between our islands but we also need an adequate contingency plan for North-South issues.

On Tuesday night, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, were seen to be at odds over checks and goods crossing the Border in the event of a no-deal Brexit. In reality, Deputy Ross was right in what he said because if there is a crash, in the absence of a backstop, there will be a hard border and, as a result, checks. The Tánaiste and the Taoiseach have evaded the issue time and again. I appreciate the Government does not wish to be seen as even countenancing a hard border on the island but that is what will happen because that is what the EU's rule book dictates.

Is it not time to say out loud there will be a hard border in the absence of a deal, and to reassert that this would be unacceptable and unconscionable for everyone in the Oireachtas and the people? That fact cannot be media-managed. It is the reality of what would happen.

That is exactly what would happen.

Contingency planning must also include provision for emergency EU funding for vulnerable sectors and regions in the event of a crash. Since the Brexit referendum result, Sinn Féin has argued for the establishment of such a fund and has called on the Government and the European Commission to facilitate it. While the Government has belatedly begun speaking of such a fund, there has yet to be a formal proposition to the EU. It needs to happen as a matter of urgency because Brexit is not an abstraction; rather, it is very real. Although much of the debate has naturally focused on the possible or the probable, with much hypothesising, Brexit will happen sooner rather than later and it will have a real impact on people's daily lives.

Reports today that in the event of a hard Brexit motorists who cross the Border will need a so-called green card is clear evidence of this. Apart from that being absurd and frankly annoying, that is, the concept that one would need a green card to traverse the island, this is also the type of time-consuming and costly impact that Brexit will have, particularly on Border communities and on businesses and anybody whose work or personal life brings them regularly across the Border.
This morning the Minister for Education and Skills could not give a straight answer as to what would happen to students who study in different parts of the island in the event of a hard Brexit. Over the coming weeks more and more examples of the direct damage of Brexit will come to the fore. Brexit is as much an issue for those in Derry and Fermanagh as it is for those in Dublin or Cork. It will adversely affect our entire island if we let it, and it is vital that we deal with the challenges on that basis.
The Taoiseach during Taoiseach's Questions yesterday, in a very flippant remark, challenged me to lay out Sinn Féin's position on Europe which I am more than happy to do in a very abbreviated way. It is an important consideration in the aftermath of Brexit because lessons have to be learned. As a result of Brexit, the European Union is at a defining point. As part of the future of Europe debate, the battle of ideas for the European Union is well under way. While Brexit is the product of a particularly English set of circumstances, we must accept and acknowledge that disillusionment with the European project is widespread. Rather than accept or even contemplate that EU policy is fundamentally flawed and alienating citizens, the European political establishment seems determined to plough on regardless with more of the same. I want to say on the record of the House, on so many dimensions, be it foreign policy, neutrality or the issues of sovereignty, that this is entirely the wrong approach. I challenge the Taoiseach to lay out his position on the future of Europe. He has been very quiet on the issue. Where does he stand on Irish neutrality, on greater fiscal co-operation, as it is called, and on sovereignty and tax sovereignty? Once again we have a report that the European Commission is back on the game and pushing for an end to tax vetoes at European Council level. Once again Ireland must say "No" to this. We have to make it clear that Brexit changes nothing as far as the importance of democratic decision-making and national economic sovereignty are concerned. The emergence of Brexit should illuminate all the more clearly that these matters are sacrosanct and must be respected.
In summary, whatever transpires in Westminster in the coming days and weeks, it is essential that Irish interests, our economy and our peace process are protected. I urge all political leaders here, in Britain and in Europe to act in the interests of workers and the working class, of communities, of society and of real political stability. The basic protections agreed for Ireland are not to be reopened or renegotiated. If they are, this Government will not be forgiven. If a no-deal situation transpires - let me repeat I do not wish for that - then we need a referendum on Irish unity. That must happen.

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this today because I represent a Border constituency which stretches right around the Border. One of the main areas is the central Border area region. A couple of weeks ago I visited the Irish Central Border Area Network, ICBAN, in Enniskillen and spoke to the CEO there about the difficulties it has at present with the funds available to try to do a reasonable job for economic development, never mind in the context of Brexit, and particularly a no-deal Brexit. It is talking about the need for investment and infrastructure. There is a significant area stretching from Lifford to Newry with no big cities or towns. It is primarily a rural area. The Border has made people face away rather than towards each other. In that context, they need investment now and to see that something will be put in place for them and their communities so they to be able to survive the impact of Brexit. Many of these people work on the other side of the Border and must cross it to go to work. They need to know what will happen with their taxation situation with a no-deal Brexit. They have assurances in respect of health at the moment. People who live in the South but work in the North have an entitlement to a medical card because they are, in effect, frontier workers under EU legislation. That will no longer be the case.

There is also the issue of exports and insurance on vehicles crossing the Border was mentioned earlier. There are also insured products crossing the Border. Will that insurance extend into a non-EU state? If people are transporting product across the landbridge - as Britain is so described - will that insurance no longer be in place when it crosses that landbridge? People have questions like these but they do not see that Government is stepping up to the mark to answer them.

One of the main things we all believe should be in place by now is an absolute assurance that state aid rules be set to one side. Europe must recognise that we are going to be in a very precarious position. On the table in Europe at this point, we should be seeing proposals on the millions of euros that we will need to invest in our ports, roads and infrastructure. We should see proposals to get that money into Ireland to try to negate the worst possible impacts of Brexit.

Many people understand that they will have huge problems in processing the customs duties, VAT and all of these matters, for which there is no expertise at present, in the event of a no-deal Brexit situation. EU trade and state rules need to be set to one side and that needs to happen as quickly as possible.

The old chestnuts, many of which have been around for the last 40 or 50 years, as to why Irish unity is not possible and the problems with it have been put to bed recently. Certainly, the economic benefits are there for all to see. Everyone on this island recognises the possibility of a 32-county economy and of a new Ireland emerging from this as being something that would be very positive. It would be something positive even without Brexit. We need to focus and work on that. The old sectarian divisions that were used as excuses in the past are no longer there in the modern era, which is a good thing. We need to see that the Government is going to step up to the mark and put investment into these communities because that is exactly what is needed.

The British Parliament has voted overwhelmingly against the withdrawal agreement. We are now in a period of acute uncertainty. Many of the possible options require time to develop, time that we do not have. There is little over two months to go until the end of March. It is not possible for Westminster to legislate and prepare for a second referendum in that time. It is not plausible for a substantive renegotiation of an agreement that took two years to bring to fruition in the first instance. The EU 27 might permit an extension of Article 50, but that is not guaranteed. The UK may not ask for such an extension, if its Government decides to negotiate a future relationship from outside the EU, while simultaneously pursuing other international trade deals. In short, nothing can be taken for granted.

That is the context within which we have to judge the success or failure of the current Fine Gael-Fianna Fáil Government arrangement. It is not the only context. The EU is important to us for reasons of trade but it is also important for the higher social and environmental standards it has brought us. The current international situation is precarious in terms of both trade and social conditions.

The UK’s vote to leave the European Union was not an isolated event. It is part of a series of unprecedented and dangerous developments around the world. The United States now has the most controversial President in living memory - a man who has undermined the normal functioning of the American political system and worsened already polarised politics there. Much-needed healthcare reform has been reversed under this US administration, leaving tens of millions of people without health insurance cover.

Meanwhile, several member states of the European Union are being led by right-wing nationalists who are xenophobic, homophobic and anti-liberal. They are also anti-socialist. Their policies have undermined workers' rights and protections.

Populists have risen to the fore in several countries, making wholly unrealistic promises and advancing a tyranny of the majority that ignores minority rights and democratic dialogue.

On the trade side of the equation, the US has engaged in protectionism unlike anything seen in decades. The Chinese economy is slowing down, which is affecting the whole world economy. The German economy is slipping into a second quarter of technical recession. Germany is the engine of the European economy and if it falters that will impinge upon the Irish economy all too soon. The whole European economy still has enormous challenges, including underemployment, especially in southern Europe, migration, climate change emissions, inequality between the different regions of the European Union and a failure to complete the euro currency union in a way that supports rather than punishes weaker euro countries.

In this wide ocean of events, there is a common metaphor that Ireland's small open economy is like a ship which must inevitably rise and fall on the tide of world events and the ups and downs of the global economy. This perception of Ireland's geopolitical position is often used as an excuse. Laissez-faire – do nothing – is too often the Government's policy and that is wholly inadequate and wholly inappropriate as a response to the waves that are now crashing upon Ireland's shores. It is true that Ireland's population and economic output are only a tiny fraction of that of the European Union or the wider world, but size is not a reason for inactivity. I will continue with the ship analogy. Is Ireland shipshape? Is our infrastructure in top repair and working as well as it should? Are we steering in the right direction? Does the captain of the ship even have a clear map or destination in mind? I am afraid the answer is "No".

Just last week I returned to Rosslare Europort to see what preparations are under way and how prepared the port will be to handle trade in the event that transport of goods across Britain to the Continent becomes blocked or prohibitively expensive. There is preparation for the introduction of customs, new agriculture inspections and Garda facilities, but the current timeline is for those to be delivered between three and five years from now. They are still at design stage. No application has been submitted to the planning authorities. That is wholly inadequate when the storm may hit in little over two months' time. It seems that the risk of a no-deal Brexit has not been taken seriously. I heard the Tánaiste say again today that it is highly unlikely to happen. Let us hope that he is right, but nobody operates a Government or even a company on that basis that something will never happen.

Some people have scoffed at the surprise shown by the UK's Brexit Secretary when he discovered the volume of goods that cross between Dover and Calais, between Britain and France, and the importance of that link to the UK economy. In November last year, the Financial Times reported various scenarios concerning capacity on that route and it determined that capacity could drop to quarter of its current level, in the best case, or an eighth of its capacity in the worst case. Does anyone in this House think that sealed containers of Irish freight are going to be given free access, to skip the queue at Dover and make their way to Calais without delay? On the contrary, the most likely scenario is that Irish goods vehicles using the so-called landbridge through Britain will be put to the back of the queue, of least priority to the United Kingdom, which will be struggling to keep its shops and pharmacies stocked in many plausible Brexit scenarios.

Recently, I engaged with the pharmaceutical industry about the availability of short-life medicines in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Companies tell me they have spent months seeking clarity from the HSE but it is only in recent days that there has been a flurry of activity. It is another example of too little, too late. There is a real sense of complacency and lack of initiative at the heart of the Fine Gael Government preparations. One could ask if there a reason for this inactivity. I have tried to think about it and the only plausible answer is that there is an ideological aversion to a strong state being used as a strategic influence on the economy. The Government's inaction displays a profound lack of understanding of industry and commerce. Business owners know that sometimes one has to make investments just in case of a bad turn of events. The cost has to be absorbed, so where possible such investments should be ones that will benefit businesses in any future scenario. The bottom line is that Fine Gael has not committed to major investment and will not unless and until the crisis is upon us.

All around Europe, there is a compelling case for investment in ageing and inadequate infrastructure. Ireland needs investment in the electricity grid to increase capacity for smaller towns, to make it possible for larger industries to be situated there. We need investment in renewable electricity generation to avert climate change and the fines this country will receive for failing to meet future emissions targets. We need investment in our roads, rail and ports to allow greater volumes of trade from our ports that link us directly to France and other continental destinations. Even if Brexit never happens, all of this investment would pay dividends in terms of quality jobs, sustainable regional development and environmental sustainability, but in the context where Brexit poses a risk to tens of thousands of jobs and people's livelihoods, it is irresponsible not to have made major investments to reinforce the economy in those areas. The investment in Rosslare Europort has been an afterthought. I see the Tánaiste raise his eyebrows.

Capital investment this year is up 24% on last year.

When the national development plan-----

What has gone up?

Capital investment has gone up by 24%.

Members can ask questions afterwards. When the national development plan was launched last year, I asked why there was not a cent for Rosslare Europort. There was no mention of it. The Taoiseach said in the Dáil that Irish Rail did not ask for investment, and therefore the matter was not taken any further. If one wants to take that particular issue, when we were in government we commissioned Indecon to examine a proper development strategy for Rosslare Europort but nothing has been done on that since we left office. It is no surprise that there are higher levels of unemployment outside of Dublin. A laissez-faire economy does not deliver a fair economy or equal opportunity for every worker - far from it. Many of the best industrial jobs have been in State enterprises such as the ESB or Bord na Móna, or in private enterprises such as the dairy co-ops that have benefited from close co-operation with the State in the development of the agricultural economy, something the Tánaiste knows well. A laissez-faire economic policy will never deliver quality jobs for all, because this Government is not truly motivated to do so.

What is also worrying for the Labour Party and for working people is the disregard of the Government for social rights and workers' rights. Given the pictures that are now on social media, the Government is happy to associate itself with the far right nationalist government of Viktor Orbán, the Hungarian premier. Orbán has refused European consensus on migration. He has made homophobic and misogynistic speeches. He has proposed slavery laws that would require hundreds of hours of unpaid overtime from Hungarian workers. Increasingly, we see Orbán's government taking a heavy-handed response to protestors, with pepper spray used indiscriminately against crowds of young people. Security guards have dragged opposition members of parliament out of TV studios when they protested against government censorship of the news. In the latest twist, Orbán has now called for a far right rival party to run against the European People's Party, EPP, of which it is a member. It has encouraged Italian populists, Polish ultra-nationalists and others in the creation of such a political grouping so that "anti-migration politicians" can take over the institutions of the European Union.

How can Fine Gael or any other member party of the EPP tolerate a situation where one of its own members is calling for a rival to undermine themselves and the very values that underpin the EU? Brexit is about far more than just trade. It is about the kind of country we are able to build because of the supporting framework of rights and protections that are a mandatory part of membership of the EU. Our position in Europe is about upholding democracy, upholding worker’s rights and upholding social and environmental protections in order for them to be the shining light that they are.

The Government has been exposed as woefully unprepared for the trade dimension of Brexit by the lack of a serious economic investment plan to address the country’s post-Brexit needs. We can look at the UK and ask what it has been doing in the time since the Brexit vote but we can ask the same question of the Taoiseach. To take one example, I have no confidence that the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport has an adequate grip on his portfolio. In truth, I think most members of the Government feel as I do on that matter, even more so since his performance this week.

Ministers are not supposed to smile at that.

I have no confidence that a strategic view has been taken on Ireland’s infrastructural needs in terms of Cork, Shannon and Rosslare. The strategy on Brexit was published on 19 December and stated the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport was engaging with ferry companies to maintain, develop and enhance strategic links to continental Europe. The day before it was published, Irish Ferries announced it was ceasing its direct link. When I told the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, it came as a surprise to him. That is the level of engagement, to take just one example of preparation.

All the Government's eggs have been put in the basket of getting the deal, and I accept it was a good negotiation. My only question now, and a simple one, is this. After putting all of Ireland's eggs in the basket of negotiating the withdrawal agreement, what is Ireland's plan B, or are we to be mere spectators as a potential disaster unfolds?

I call Deputy Boyd Barrett, who is sharing time with Deputy Barry.

It is with a sort of grim fascination that we look on at the mess, the shambles and the manoeuvring that is going on in Westminster. It is with utter horror that we look at some of the characters in this drama, most notably, obviously, the Tory right, and the manner in which Theresa May has to deal with these rather obnoxious forces on the Tory right or, for that matter, in the DUP. However, one would have thought, and I still think, that at some point reason will prevail because it is not really in anybody's interest that there would be massive disruption between Britain and Europe, Britain and Ireland or any of the territories, countries or players in regard to people, trade and services. One would think, therefore, and I still think it the most likely outcome - that there would be some kind of no-deal deal. Although I would not give credence to anything he says, even the obnoxious, politically bankrupt Boris Johnson, on the hard right, Brexiteer wing of the Brexit movement, was saying when he was here in Dublin that he would not countenance a crash out and that there would have to be some continuation of existing arrangements, in whatever guise, if some sort of deal was not done.

In that regard, I do not entirely buy into the Fianna Fáil or Labour narrative that the Government is not doing anything behind the scenes. It is probably doing quite a lot, as it happens, to prepare because it is not in its interest either for there to be massive disruption. Regardless of whether one is on the right or the left, I fail to see why anybody would not be preparing as best they can in a very uncertain situation to try to minimise the level of disruption, whether North-South, east-west or otherwise. That is not to say there are not other things the Government might not be doing, and Deputy Howlin is absolutely right about ferry services, which are caught up in the Fine Gael aversion to state intervention.

That is more of a left-right issue and, indeed, there is a debate we have to have with the EU about the need, if there is massive disruption, for substantial state intervention and, if necessary, state aid, something the EU does not like. I would like the Tánaiste to give us as much detail on that as possible. Is there going to be money available? Is European solidarity going to extend to putting funds in place to safeguard sectors of our society and economy that could be in serious trouble if the crash out happens and major disruption occurs? In some areas, EU state aid rules could certainly be a problem for us in regard to doing that. From a very different perspective to that of Boris Johnson, this is one of the reasons the left has a problem with the EU's economic rules. It does not like state aid whereas we think state aid is sometimes necessary to maintain key infrastructure and key industries in a situation where the vagaries of the market and geopolitics put those things and people's jobs under threat.

I appeal to the Government to desist from using Brexit as a whip over the nurses. There were shocking references by the Taoiseach to the nurses being irresponsible in demanding decent levels of pay in the health service and to not doing that because of Brexit. Brexit should not be used as the new austerity stick so people do not fight for just and legitimate demands on pay, services or anything else.

While one would think reason will prevail, of course, there were theorists of the Second International, which is Deputy Howlin's political tradition of socialism, who argued before the First World War that there would never be another global war because it did not make sense from a trading point of view in an integrated global economy for people to go to war. Of course, shortly after that theory was put out, the greatest war in human history occurred between big powers which were ruthlessly fighting over control of resources and markets. Although one would think reason will prevail, it does not mean it will.

This is where the point about the far right is important. It is easy enough for the EU because, God almighty, it is easy for it to point at the Tory right and ask, "What sort of obnoxious people are these?" It is not so easy to look to its own back yard, as alluded to by Deputy Howlin, when we look at what is going on with Hungary, Austria and the rise of the far right, and given the degree to which Europe has to take responsibility because of its failures for the growth of very dangerous political forces across Europe that mirror and, in some cases, are far worse even than the Tory Brexiteers and the threat they pose.

I have several questions. First, what discussions has the Government had with Europe about funds and money to support us if there is a difficult situation and about waiving state aid rules, if necessary, to maintain, develop and protect key infrastructure, services and the various sectors of our society? The second question concerns the Border.

I am surprised at Sinn Féin's line that a no-deal Brexit means there will be a border. Can the Tánaiste answer that question? The only people who can put up a border are the Irish and British Governments. Is the Government going to put up a border in the event of a no-deal Brexit. In my view, it should not do so. Has the Government talked to the British Government about whether it is going to put up a border? What discussions have taken place with the European Union on its intention to put pressure on us to insist on a border in the case of a no-deal Brexit? Finally, I note my view that if there is a no-deal Brexit, the Government should support the call for a referendum on a united Ireland. Democratically, the people of the North have the right to decide whether they want to go along with a British Government with which they do not agreed.

It has been said that the issue of Brexit will dominate Irish politics in the weeks and months ahead. While that may be the case and while Solidarity and the Socialist Party intend to give it the time and attention it deserves, I make the following point in the first week of the new Dáil term. We will not allow the Government to use Brexit to push issues like housing and nurses' pay to the back of the queue. There is a housing crisis and a nursing pay strike is on the way. These are issues which cannot wait. Any attempt by the Government to push them to the back of the queue will be resisted by those on these benches. We note the fact that yesterday the Taoiseach attempted to use the Brexit crisis to make a case against the nurses in the Dáil. We note also that the alliance between the Fine Gael-led Government and Fianna Fáil has not only been extended, it has been strengthened. Those two parties should not presume to think something approximating to a national unity Government can succeed in putting the fight for workers' rights on the back burner for the duration of an emergency. If nurses are forced to strike for pay justice, they will have our full support and that of a majority of the population, Brexit crisis or no.

While we are interested in discussing the Government's preparedness for Brexit, we wish also to make some points about the preparedness for Brexit of the labour movement. History shows that Ireland's capitalist establishment, like the capitalist establishments of all nations, will always and everywhere use a national emergency to its own advantage and against the interests of working people. We saw that in Ireland during the Emergency of 1939 to 1945 when wages were frozen and strikes were banned for a full five years. These measures were introduced by the supposedly great Seán Lemass who was never a friend of the working class. I am not in any sense comparing the seriousness of the war years to Brexit, but a crisis is a crisis and the capitalist establishment is a leopard which has not changed its spots. Just before Christmas, we heard from Mr. Brendan McGinty, formerly of IBEC, that for those sectors most at risk, the imposition of pay freezes as an emergency measure may have to be considered or allowed for. We have also heard talk of mass redundancies, price increases and increases in the cost of rent. For these reasons and more, we repeat our call on the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to convene an emergency conference of workers' representatives on the island of Ireland from workplaces, unions and communities to prepare urgently to defend the interests of working people in the crisis ahead. We call also on individual unions to take the lead if congress fails to act or to act in time.

The particular issue we wish to highlight tonight in respect of the Government's preparedness is the position in which Aer Lingus may find itself in the event of a no-deal Brexit. On pages 37 and 38 of the Government's Preparing for the Withdrawal of the UK from the EU on 29 March 2019, it is stated:

Regarding the requirement in EU law that air carriers must be majority-owned and controlled by EU legal or natural persons, the Commission has underlined that it is essential for companies that wish to be recognised as EU air carriers to take all the necessary measures to ensure that they meet this requirement on 29 March 2019.

Can the Minister inform the House as to the measures Aer Lingus is taking to meet this requirement? Aer Lingus would have had no difficulty meeting it before 2006 when it was majority-owned and controlled by the Irish State. However, privatisation was introduced by Fianna Fáil and supported by Fine Gael in 2006. By 2015, the process was complete and Aer Lingus was no longer majority-owned and controlled by the people of Ireland. It is now majority-owned and controlled by a capitalist concern, the International Aviation Group, the headquarters of which are in London. What does this mean for Aer Lingus if the UK crashes out? What steps is Aer Lingus taking to deal with the problem? We are not being told and commercial sensitivity is being used as the reason. While the people of Ireland no longer own Aer Lingus, we continue to rely on it greatly and we deserve to have these questions answered. Rather than to allow any doubts on the position of Aer Lingus to remain, we propose the Government take it back into 100% public ownership, paying compensation only on the basis of proven need. We will be asking questions on this later as well as some questions on the position of Ryanair in the event of a crash-out Brexit.

I turn to the political crisis in the UK. The Government of Theresa May may have survived the motion of no confidence, but I suspect it has lost the confidence of its people. With 14 million people in Britain living below the poverty line and May's failure to win support for her neoliberal Brexit, the time has come for her to go. The time has come for a general election. We support those in the working-class movement in Britain who are calling for a general election. We want to see the Tories out and a Corbyn government with socialist policies in. That would mean a very different type of Brexit to Theresa May's bargain-basement Brexit which is based on privatisation and a race to the bottom for working people. Instead, it would be one based on a rejection of the EU's neoliberal rules, a defence of workers' rights and human rights and a step towards a socialist Europe. We will judge each piece of Brexit legislation on the basis of whether it improves the interests of working class people, harms them or is neutral in that respect. We will look at each Bill on a case-by-case basis. Our principles and viewpoints have been set out broadly speaking in my speech. That is our position.

Deputy Thomas Pringle wishes to share time with Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is ten minutes for me and five for Deputy O'Sullivan. I may not take the full ten in any event. The recent meeting we had with the Tánaiste and his officials on Brexit planning was very useful. It was good to hear about the steps being taken to ensure things keep functioning in the event of a no-deal Brexit. That is very important. It is reassuring for the people of Donegal that medical care and such matters are being dealt with. It is vitally important to people's lives in my county that we are preparing to continue on with these things. It is clear from the Tánaiste's officials that provision can continue regardless of whether Britain leaves the EU. That is vital for everyone living in Border areas. From what has been said in previous contributions, it is clear that work remains to be done around cross-Border workers. It is vital that they can continue to cross the Border to work. People really need to know what the position is. There are many thousands of people in Donegal and across the Border region who live on one side of the Border - whether in the North or the South - and work on the other. The position in this regard must be clarified. In any event, I welcome the fact that work is taking place on cross-Border medical care. It is positive.

It is interesting that there has been no discussion thus far in the debate of fishing and the fishing industry generally. I heard the Tánaiste state during Leaders' Questions that fishing is being protected at European level. Is it all going to happen at European level or will anything happen relating to fishing at an Irish level? It was not included in the discussion we had on preparations the last day. Indeed, operational fishing was not mentioned in the contingency action plan published last December either. There is a need to provide some reassurance in this regard. I acknowledge that fishing is a difficult issue in that while the marketing end of it is well taken care of here by way of supports for the marketing of fish products, the catching of the fish, particularly mackerel and nephrops, or prawns, takes place in EU waters. I would like to hear more from the Government on what is being done in that regard. If it is being done at European level, the Government should say so in order to clarify the matter. Our officials treat Irish waters as European waters.

It is probably a European issue rather than an Irish issue. That, in itself, says a lot about the fishing industry. I think this needs to be clarified for the fishermen. According to a statement issued by the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation in recent days, it is clear that fishing has been left behind because it is not being mentioned during the negotiations process or during all the talks that are happening. That needs to be clarified. The Minister, Deputy Creed, seems surprised that I am saying it could be clarified. Clarification is needed to ensure the message is out there.

The main thing I want to talk about is the importance of the backstop proposals. I think the backstop is under threat. Maybe the Government has identified this and is looking at it. Many statements have been made over the past week, but I would like to focus on the remarks of the German Minister for Foreign Affairs, Heiko Maas. He told the broadcaster Deutschlandfunk that new talks between Britain and the EU are needed. Reuters reported in the last couple of days that Mr. Maas said that the backstop solution to the issue of the Border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland needed to be discussed. That is a signal that the backstop is up for agreement on the European side. That does not surprise me, on a personal level, given that Ireland makes up just 1% of the EU. German and French industry will ultimately dictate what happens. If there is going to be an English crash out of the Union over the backstop, they will drop the backstop. That is the reality of the difficult situation the Government and Ireland as a country are in.

The one problem I have had with this all along has been the extent to which we have been trusting Europe to look after us. We should know that they will not look after us. We know how they dealt with us during the banking crisis. We know how they looked after us in the case of the bailout. They forced €50 billion worth of debt on top of the citizens of Ireland. That is still working out today as people's houses are coming under threat and being repossessed. There has been a move away from State debt to personal debt as part of the outworkings of the crash. This is being forced on us by Europe. I do not see Europe as our friend. Ultimately, this will come down to the national interests of member states. How do we protect ourselves in that regard? I know it is a difficult situation. We are between a rock and a hard place. That is the reality. If we put too much trust in Europe to deal with this issue, we will leave ourselves open. That is a real problem.

We need to be careful. I know the French Government has said it is fully supportive of the backstop, but we can see that some of these messages are starting to break up. It was interesting to hear the Brits saying on the radio during the week that everything comes down to the wire in European negotiations. Maybe they are playing a long game and bringing it down to the wire. If Europe and the Brits blink at the end, the backstop agreement could be dropped in the interests of trade. That will benefit us in terms of east-west trade, but it will shaft the people of the North. That is what I think might happen, unfortunately. For these reasons, I think we should look for a vote in the North on reunification regardless of whether there is a deal. Ultimately, that is the only solution. If Ireland is reunified, the Brits can do whatever they want. That would ultimately be the best solution for us in the long run. I think it is something that must come onto the Government's radar. This may be a way of making it happen.

This week, which culminated in the House of Commons vote on Tuesday night, has been described as extraordinary. It is fair to say it has been an extraordinary two and a half years. The resounding defeat on Tuesday night came from those who want to leave the EU, those who do not want to leave the EU, those who are undoubtedly using this issue to further their own political agendas or careers, those who want a second referendum and those who want a general election. Given that Britain it is a democracy, it is a disgrace that we have seen so much political jostling and so many internal party skirmishes, not to mention the various resignations of the past year or so.

As I listened to some of the speeches and comments that were made inside and outside the UK Parliament this week, it struck me that words like "vitriolic", "nasty" and "ignorant" could be used to describe them. The lack of knowledge and concern for the Good Friday Agreement has been obvious. Many speakers have no insight into Irish history. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that there is just one Irish voice - I hesitate to call it an Irish voice - in Westminster. I refer to the DUP group, which used to be very much on the sidelines but is now in a very dominant position as a result of the 2017 UK general election. Its position does not reflect the fact that it accounts for less than 2% of the membership of the House of Commons. It is ironic that all of this week's events have happened at a time when a new Laurel and Hardy film has arrived into Dublin cinemas. I cannot help being reminded of their film "Another Fine Mess", because that is exactly what this is.

I have acknowledged on other occasions the tremendous work that has been done over several months to prepare for various possible scenarios, including the work that was done to arrive at the withdrawal agreement that was resoundingly defeated in the British Parliament this week. The ball in now in the court of the English Parliament. I have read reports and heard so-called "evidence" that Prime Minister May is now engaging with senior parliamentarians and reaching across the parties. Why was that not done before now? It can be quite confusing at times to understand what exactly Britain wants, apart from having its cake and eating it. I have to wonder whether it is under the illusion that the EU will wake up and agree to everything that the Brexiteers want, or that the EU will give up Ireland and the backstop and do the bidding of Britain. While I note what has been said by my colleague, Deputy Pringle, I am an eternal optimist. I hope enough work has been done at EU level to ensure the backstop is firm and is guaranteed.

The withdrawal agreement provided for an orderly exit. Unless something changes, there will be a disorderly exit at the end of March. I think that would be very difficult, and possibly disastrous, for both Britain and Ireland from an economic and social perspective. While we respect the democratic vote that took place in Britain in 2016, I think there are questions around the reason for that vote which need to be addressed. Many questions need to be asked about the campaign leading to the vote, the conflict between elements of the Conservative Party and UKIP and the air of complacency around those who wanted to remain in the EU. On a lighter note, I read an article in The Guardian this week in which Jonathan Freedland looked at the historical background to the vote. He suggested that its genesis could be seen in Henry VIII's decision to break away from the Catholic Church in Rome so that he could divorce and marry and will and take over the wealth of the monasteries. I think he has a point when he suggests that this may have been the first Brexit. I think there are elements of truth in his contention that "for the Brexiteers, Britain remains a global Gulliver tied down for too long by the Lilliputians of Little Europe". We know from our own history that the arrogance we are seeing has always been there. I would have thought we would have seen an end to that type of arrogance by now.

What is to come? We know there is a variety of possibilities. I agree with what has been said about the importance of holding firm. It is important that the EU does not yield on the backstop and that there is an adherence to the Good Friday Agreement. There is also a need for contingency plans for a no-deal Brexit. There must be a focus on matters within our control, rather than those outside our control. As a representative of Dublin Central, I am familiar with the extent of the work of Dublin Port. I understand its importance for trade between Ireland and Britain. I am aware that two thirds of our exports to continental Europe use the UK landbridge. Much of that produce goes through Dublin Port. I think the focus has to be on what is within our control and on preparing for a no-deal Brexit.

When we talk about a hard border, there seems to be a particular focus on the passage of goods and customs. While that is important, we must measure the impact of a hard border in societal terms as well as in economic terms. We must be conscious of its impact on people in communities who have lived through the worst of the Troubles and who know what it is like to travel on unapproved roads and pass through British army checkpoints. None of that has been experienced in such communities for the past 20 years. We sometimes have to get away from the economy and look at the social impact of a hard border.

I acknowledge that there have been two and a half years of hard work and negotiations. I am conscious of the travel, expense and the finances involved in that process. This matter has yet to be sorted. When we look at what is going on in our world and in Ireland, we can reflect on where all of that expertise, work and finance could have gone. Matters like climate change, conflict, war, displacement and the refugee issue come to mind from an international perspective, as do the housing and health sectors in Ireland. It is clear from our history that we have been over-reliant on Britain. It is time to come out from under that shadow. We should not be totally reliant on Britain in all of our trade and all of our relations, or indeed as a landbridge. There are alternatives to Britain. In one way, it is good that we have to look at that now.

I thank the Tánaiste for taking this debate and for giving us this opportunity to express our views. It is difficult to see how Ireland can prepare for a Brexit when the UK, which has voted to leave the EU, does not know the terms on which it wishes to leave. Defining Brexit is also difficult because it means many things to different people. There is no clarity on the issue and, thus, we are in a vacuum, and we find ourselves in a vacuum even today in trying to clarify what we want from this process.

Five possibilities or scenarios arise. The first of these is a no-deal Brexit, which is a chaotic disorderly exit that would be the worst-case scenario for everyone, particularly ourselves. A no-deal Brexit increasingly appears to be the outcome as 29 March approaches, but we hope it will not happen. The second scenario is no Brexit at all. In other words, the UK would decide to leave the issue behind and would not exit the EU. That would solve all our problems. The third scenario is a negotiated withdrawal agreement. This would be the best worst option and it is the one we have at present. It would allow for an orderly withdrawal and for a transition period to negotiate the trading relationship the UK would have with the EU. It would ensure that there would not be a hard border between the North and the Republic and it would also support the Good Friday Agreement. The fourth option is an extension of the deadline for completing the withdrawal beyond 29 March. That appears to be an increasingly likely outcome. However, a prolonged extension of the withdrawal would lead to particular problems, especially regarding the European Parliament elections at the end of May and whether these would be contested in the UK. The fifth option is if there could be a new withdrawal agreement, some alteration to the agreement that has been agreed so far and that would accommodate the wishes of the UK Parliament.

We have been presented with those five scenarios and planning for each is substantially different. Prudently, one would plan for the worst and hope for the best. Ireland will be the most vulnerable of all EU states but the Netherlands and Denmark will be substantially affected by Brexit. We should link with those countries to examine what they are doing regarding their preparedness for Brexit. Brexit will undoubtedly affect our welfare and our standard of living.

Refusing to openly discuss the possibility or probability of a border on this island is no longer an option. Nobody wants a return to a border of any type - neither in this arrangement nor any other - but we must face the fact that this it is a distinct possibility.

We must consider how dependent we are on Britain as being part of the EU and consider what it would mean to us if Britain were to leave. We must consider our energy security, food security, medical products - particularly in the context of the way we will deal with importing them - and financial services. We must consider the issue of transport not only in terms of our ports but also our airports and, significantly, our roads. The haulage industry faces significant administrative and logistical challenges. These have yet to be worked out. How would they affect the way we export our goods? It would make some exports virtually impossible if there were to be long delays at our ports. We must consider border controls and there may be such controls, whether they would be virtual or real. We must consider regulatory alignment. We must also plan for what tariffs would be applied to Irish exports, particularly Irish agricultural exports. Effectively, it will be economic considerations that will dictate what arrangements are arrived at rather than party-political considerations.

We have learned three things during the past week about how the British Government views Brexit. The UK Parliament does not want the deal that has been negotiated over the past two years. It also does not want a no-deal Brexit. There appears to be no deal whatsoever which will satisfy the hard Brexiteers. Therefore, how does one arrive at a deal while accommodating those three items?

EU cohesion is very important, even if the UK leaves the EU, and we must maintain it. We cannot allow a member state to pick and choose form a menu of articles of association and memorandums of agreement, keeping those which they like and disregarding those which they dislike. One cannot be a member of a club and then pick and choose the rules, as one sees fit. One can be an associate member of a club but that means one has some privileges but one does not have any part to play in decision-making processes. That is the dilemma in which the UK now finds itself. It needs to decide what it wants and to negotiate the best deal it can get for itself. However, Ireland must be proactive in planning for every scenario no matter how difficult those scenarios might be.

One cannot be like Schrödinger's cat and be alive and dead at the same time. One cannot be both within the EU and outside it at the same time. However, there is an intermediate state which has been outlined in the withdrawal agreement that allows for a pragmatic arrangement which requires compromise from both sides. The EU has compromised substantially regarding the withdrawal agreement by granting Northern Ireland the golden card of being within the EU and within the UK at the same time and being allowed to trade within the UK and within the EU. However, the Republic of Ireland has the backing of the EU and we would expect it to support us in our time of need if the worst comes to the worst.

Ireland will have plan legislatively to accommodate a no-deal Brexit. We need to see that legislation as soon possible. I understand that between 40 and 70 items of legislation will have to be passed. Ireland will have to make painful budgetary adjustments if there is a no-deal Brexit. We need to know what those budgetary adjustments are going to be. Ireland will have to get financial support from the EU to blunt the economic shocks both nationally and at an individual company level. We must define what we require from the EU and ensure we do get that support.

Undoubtedly, there will be bottlenecks in supplies of raw materials for manufacturing and also for finished products, particularly medication. We need to define what those are. There will also bottlenecks at our ports and at border crossings in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Companies are already making decisions based on a no-deal Brexit. This is before Brexit actually comes to pass and it has been going on for the past number of years. Brexit is having an effect before it comes to pass.

Openly planning for a no-deal Brexit is not a sign of weakness on the part of the Government or of acceptance that such a scenario will come to pass. Doing so makes common sense. The Government has done everything possible to accommodate the UK in delivering its version of Brexit, but we now need to be pragmatic and look to our ourselves and how we will deal with that scenario. We must make plans which openly mitigate every scenario, particularly that of a no-deal Brexit.

The Good Friday Agreement will be at risk if there is a no-deal Brexit. It is predicated on Northern Ireland and the Republic both being part of the EU. If Brexit were to interfere with that joint membership, it would put the Good Friday Agreement at risk. In effect, the EU is a third-party custodian of the Good Friday Agreement. The imposition of a border would effectively put the Good Friday Agreement at risk. Northern Ireland leaving the customs union and the Single Market means that a border to protect the integrity of both would have to be put in place in some form of other. There is a warning that breaking the Good Friday Agreement would be contrary to international law and would nullify the past 50 years of Anglo-Irish relations. Those relations have been built up steadily during that period and breaking the agreement could lead to a return to violence. It will be impossible to prepare satisfactorily for every scenario but we must confront the issue of a no-deal Brexit.

It is of the utmost importance that EU remains united. It is also of the utmost importance that the EU does not lose sight of its long-term strategic interests which are also Irish interests.

As with many people in this House and country, I was engrossed in the issue of Brexit. I find myself reading The Spectator, New Statesman, The Daily Telegraph, The Sun, The Mirror and The Guardian, listening to Radio 4 and Radio 5 Live, and watching the House of Commons non-stop to try to see what will happen next. I have a sense that there is not a big swell of anti-Englishness in this country. It is a slightly sad and very uncertain feeling but our position on this issue is neutral. We are not taking a nationalistic position.

I read an article by Newton Emerson in The Irish Times today, stating a number of things about the role of the Good Friday Agreement in this process, influencing our need for a backstop and so on. It is true that the Good Friday Agreement does not go into fine details about customs arrangements or border control systems. It was more of a constitutional arrangement. Later on this morning, as part of my constant feed of Brexit material, I listened to Conor McGinn, the Labour Party MP for St. Helens, who I think chairs the House of Commons' Irish committee. He is originally from the Border area, just north of Newry. In a sense, he answered Newton Emerson for me by saying that the issue we are dealing with is not just about the technicalities of trade and what sort of documents, tariffs or technical arrangements are required, or even fishing quotas or airline rules. It is a broader, deeper, fundamental question of the relationships on this island and between this island and the neighbouring island.

I keep asking this worthy question of whether we have been right and if the Government has been right in taking such a firm position with regard to the backstop. There will rightly be questions asked about whether there should be a no-deal, crash-out Brexit, where we end up with the worst of all arrangements with no backstop and all the difficulties that the Minister, Deputy Ross, seems to be grappling with about what we would have to do with the Border. It is right for us to ask if we are right in this insistence. Newton Emerson stated that we did not seem to trust the UK Government. I do not think that is where our relatively united position on the backstop is coming from. I voted for the Good Friday Agreement. That vote was a fundamental, substantial change in this Parliament, which has been here for 100 years, and as a people, saying that we ceded our national claim on the territory but we gained recognition that Northern Ireland is different. If, at some time in the future, although we will not do it by coercion, force or a majority of numbers, but in a consensual, soft way, the North is to come back to join the South, that is also a possibility. That is a subtlety, not a tariff or customs arrangement rule. It is a subtle but significant constitutional issue that we agreed to.

I sense a nearly uniform agreement in this House on the position the Government has taken. That is where this comes from, not distrust or a nationalist position. It is adhering to what we voted for in the Good Friday Agreement, that we abhor the use of violence in Northern Ireland or relating to an Irish claim on the North, but at the same time we will not abandon those Irish citizens in the North who, because of the commitment we made, will be of the European Union no matter what happens in the next three months. It is interesting to watch the House of Commons and these daily amazing scenes. Does that subtle position of acceptance and agreement sometimes relate to such things as the shape of this Chamber? I sit in a strange position here at the edge of the bend, not on the left or right. I think it is one of the nicest places to speak from because one can see different sides. I am sure people have sat in different locations in this House to compare seats. The Government is in some of the toughest seats.

Deputy Ryan used to sit down here.

I used to. It is nice in some ways but it has its own disadvantages.

Deputy Ryan would be welcome back.

It was tough when Deputy Ryan was sitting there.

It is sometimes lovely being up here in the gods. The gods have certainty. With the lovely railings set behind us, we can have a perch and be slightly above it all. What I have sometimes seen and would stand up for is the ability here to come together, which we have shown in the Brexit approach and which I think has been right. We should hold to it even in this difficult, uncertain moment where our position may end up costing us dearly.

No one knows what the House of Commons will do. It seems to me that a lot now depends on what the Labour Party decides to do because the Conservative Party is clearly completely divided and does not have a majority to be able to act as a Government ordinarily would. I read an article by Stephen Collins. I hope he does not object to me saying this but he is old enough with enough grey hairs to be able to go back to that history. I had forgotten that Harold Wilson had called a referendum in the 1970s. As Stephen Collins argued, the tradition in the Labour Party that Harold Wilson and Jeremy Corbyn represent comes from a position which is very critical of the European Union. They seem to think that the socialist revolution that they seek is being impeded by that Union. I heard another lady who writes for the New Statesman describe the European Union as the antithesis of what they want because it represents the status quo. I was thinking that it was a status quo which has brought peace compared to what went before and I quite like it compared to the European history of ongoing murder and mayhem. That is still part of the British Labour Party tradition.

For the last two and a half years, we have been asking where the real heart of the Conservative Party is, and it is clearly pro-European. Everyone is focusing on the 118 who voted against their own Government but ignores that the majority of the Tory Party voted for it and is still very much of a European tradition. Even some of those 118 are probably similarly inclined but perhaps voted out of a desire to get a remain option back by voting against the Government. That does not seem to be the issue now. The key issue is which way the Labour Party goes and whether it has the ability to do what we sometimes do here, and meet at the bend, if there is a bend at the House of Commons at which an arrangement might be formed. I am sceptical that that will be possible. I do not think we should have significant involvement in it because if we did we would disturb the process and we do not want to interfere. I am sceptical.

Any softer Brexit option that would replace the withdrawal agreement might have the advantage that the compromise within the withdrawal agreement that came from the customs arrangement being extended from the North to the whole of the UK, which was slightly duplicitous, and would have to be more explicit, whatever arrangement, whether the Canadian or Norway plus type, it was. It would have to have acceptance from a sufficient number of Tories about Theresa May's red lines being crossed, agreement from the Government to recognise that majority and implement it in European negotiations, which would not be easy, and it would have to have a mechanism where the Labour Party was able to help co-ordinate and organise that. That is not a likely prospect. The other option is for a second referendum, which our party espouses in Westminster. We have supported it and called for it in the North and here because we want to see the United Kingdom remain in the European Union.

It is, however, difficult to see how this can command a majority. It is true what people have said, that clearly the majority of members of the House of Commons were initially remainers. However, is there now a majority in the House of Commons to push through, organise and co-ordinate a second referendum, which would be incredibly difficult at the best of times? I do not know. It depends to a certain extent, it seems to me, on what the numbers are within the Labour Party. Both these prospects now seem so precarious, particularly in the difficult political situation the UK has got itself into. We all know how sometimes set narratives have arisen because of what has gone on in the UK for several months such that it becomes difficult for people to take a truly rational, step-back assessment of matters. I fear that the no-deal scenario is still a real prospect. The British Government cannot co-ordinate. We read in The Daily Telegraph this morning that even the Treasury might want a guarantee against no deal. I am not certain that the Government might not inadvertently allow the country to fall over the edge. In this case my real concern - I go back to my initial point - is not just the immediate, although we must legislate extensively for all the immediate technical aspects of it; it is also the cost to our political and societal relations with the UK of the smashing of those relations that would occur in such a no-deal scenario. Whatever happens, we must be careful to ensure that if real difficulties come with this, we maintain our calm and cool, we do not get into antagonistic spats in any way, we maintain those good relations and we welcome back the English rugby team here in February, although perhaps not like in 1973, when it bravely came at a very dark hour.

I have one last small thought. I would be interested to hear the Tánaiste's response to this suggestion if it is possible. The Tánaiste deserves credit for the way in which the Opposition has been kept informed. This is part of this bend-in-the-road form of politics, which serves us well, the way in which the stakeholders of the group have kept in touch with our unions, our businesses and our universities and we have held together in that position. I hope I am not breaching confidence in saying this, but we had a meeting the other night at which the leader of Sinn Féin asked a valid question about the rights of our citizens, Irish and European, in Northern Ireland in the event of a no-deal, crash-out scenario. I have one question in response as to how we manage this if it does happen. As well as all the legislation here, in those circumstances, in two or three months' time, we would need more than ever an assembly in Northern Ireland to help manage whatever must be done because it would be bloody difficult. We should not leave this to British civil servants who have no democratic accountability, or indeed the House of Commons. That will not help. Would our preparations in an emergency require new assembly elections? I do not know. It seems to be an intractable problem. From the Tánaiste's perspective, is there any way we might see a restoration of the assembly in order that, should the worst crash-out option come to pass, it could help manage it and in that process we could hope to restore a good relationship with our unionist neighbours in order to help us manage these difficulties and try to ensure we do not lose all that has been gained since the Good Friday Agreement has been in place? There should be no recriminations, we should not point fingers, there should be no I-told-you-sos, there should be no retribution in any way. We should just try to manage the thing, and part of managing it might be an assembly in the North. I do not know if the Tánaiste sees any way for the Irish Government to make this a possibility.

We now proceed to the second round, which is limited to speeches from the Government, Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin. Each has 25 minutes. The first speaker is the Minister, Deputy Creed.

As the Tánaiste said in his opening statement, a close and deep future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom post Brexit is key to continuing the profound and fruitful relationship we have had with the UK until now. Nowhere is this relationship more evident than in the way in which the agrifood and fisheries sectors interact. From a trading point of view, the United Kingdom is our most important export destination, with the most recent full-year CSO figures showing that some 38%, or €5.2 billion worth, of total exports in 2017 went to the United Kingdom. When we examine the situation at subsectoral level, we see that 48% of our beef exports go to the United Kingdom; 21% of our dairy exports, including 46% of cheddar cheese exports; more than 60% of prepared consumer foods exports; and almost 100% in the case of mushrooms. Ireland was also the UK's largest export destination in 2017 for agrifood, with approximately €4.1 billion, or almost 48%, of our imports across a wide range of product categories coming from the United Kingdom. The close correlation between the export and import figures serves as a reminder of the very tightly integrated nature of the Irish and UK agrifood sectors. It also reminds us of the uniquely supportive trading environment we enjoy courtesy of the European Union's customs union and Single Market, which facilitates tariff- and friction-free trade. It is clear, therefore, that the best interests of the agrifood sectors in Ireland and indeed in the United Kingdom lie in trading arrangements post Brexit that are as close as possible to those that prevail currently. This is what Ireland wants from the negotiations and it is also what the European Union wants.

It is also clear, however, that the trading relationship cannot be the same outside of the Single Market and the customs union and that it will inevitably give rise to greater friction and higher costs along the supply chain than is currently the case. We must bear in mind, therefore, that regardless of the kind of future relationship the European Union has with the United Kingdom post Brexit, things are going to change. There will be new customs procedures and regulatory requirements along the agrifood and fisheries supply chains, but the Government will work to keep the impact of these to a minimum. There may also be additional export certification requirements in some areas.

As the Tánaiste mentioned earlier, while the focus remains on achieving an orderly Brexit, we are continuing to intensify our preparations for a disorderly outcome at the end of March. My Department is participating very actively in the whole-of-Government approach to preparedness and contingency planning. We have fed into the overall Government contingency action plan, which was published on 19 December, and have been working very closely with colleagues in other Departments and agencies to address in particular the requirements that will arise in respect of the implementation at ports and airports of import controls on agrifood products coming from the United Kingdom. These requirements are significant and arise from the carrying out of documentary, identity and physical checks on imports of animals, plants and products of animal and plant origin, as set out in European Union legislation. The Department has carried out an extensive analysis exercise based on examination of trade and container movement data, together with close consultation with stakeholder organisations and individual companies, to establish as best we can the likely volumes of controls that will be needed to carry out this exercise. This has been a difficult exercise, given the lack of detailed data as a result of the United Kingdom's participation in the Single Market up to this point, but we have based our assumptions and planning on what we believe are reasonable estimates of the likely volumes. Work in this regard has been focused on three key areas, namely, infrastructure, staffing and information technology, and in three key locations, namely, Dublin Port, Rosslare Europort and Dublin Airport.

On infrastructure, we have been engaging very closely with the Office of Public Works, the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and the Department of Health and the Revenue Commissioners on the physical facilities that will be required to carry out import controls at the three locations.

Areas being addressed here include inspection facilities, staff accommodation, parking, and logistics and traffic management. This work had been proceeding in any event in the context of dealing with the central case scenario, and has been adapted in order to meet the requirements in the event of a disorderly Brexit.

On staffing, we have also used the data analysis exercise to guide our planning in relation to putting in place the staff that will be required to carry out the range of controls needed. These controls are carried out by a combination of portal inspectorate staff and, where necessary, the appropriate veterinary and technical supervision. The Department is working very effectively with customs and others to provide the resources needed to apply the necessary controls and I am confident that the State will be in a position to apply controls at the appropriate time.

On information technology, my Department has established a project to co-ordinate the identification and delivery of ICT infrastructure and systems to support the additional requirements of staff engaged in control processes in Dublin Port, Rosslare and Dublin Airport. This team is in the process of sourcing and configuring additional ICT equipment and enhancing existing software systems to support new requirements. My Department is also working closely with the Office of Public Works, OPW, Government Networks and a number of Telecom providers to ensure that there is adequate network connectivity in place. The delivery timelines in the event of a disorderly Brexit are extremely challenging, but officials are working with the greatest urgency to ensure the required ICT services are in place by 29 March. Throughout all of this work, the focus has been on the need to discharge the Department's legal responsibilities while ensuring the minimum possible disruption to trade.

Returning to the potential trade impacts, it has been clear from the beginning that a hard Brexit would be very damaging for the agrifood sector given the potential impact of World Trade Organization, WTO, tariffs on trade. We have been working very hard for quite some time to sensitise other member states and the European Commission to these potential impacts, and to the likelihood of specific supports being required for the sector. The institutions of the European Union are well aware of the likelihood of a significant impact of a disorderly Brexit on Ireland's economy because this has been part of the discussion from the beginning, and indeed this is explicitly recognised in the Commission's own communication on contingency planning.

In the case of agriculture, there is of course a toolbox available to assist with severe market disruption in the Common Market Organisation Regulation put in place during Ireland's Presidency in 2013, and this will be part of the discussion. I am in regular and ongoing contact with Commissioner Hogan on these issues. This is also an issue that will be required to be progressed in a whole-of-Government context.

For men and women of my generation who grew up in communities along the 300-mile stretch of border between North and South, a hard border was a hard reality. In my younger years living along that border it was customs checkpoints dotted along country roads to tackle simple items such as butter, eggs or sugar smuggling. Those were the days of false bottoms on prams, cattle often swimming across lakes or up sheughs and children cramming food into bicycle handlebars. These were ordinary families struggling to make ends meet who would always do whatever they had to in order to buy the essentials for a few pounds less and leave a few extra bob to feed those families. When the Troubles erupted those innocent barriers were replaced by heavily armed roadblocks. A wall of intimidation stretched from Derry to Newry, brick by brick, by violence. That was taken down brick by brick by a belief in a shared future, a shared peace and all-Ireland economy.

Today that shared future, peace and economy stands in jeopardy, whether we like it or not. It is with sheer disbelief and horror that the people who remember those days look on at this week's Brexit chaos. The idea of sliding over the cliff into a hard Brexit is difficult for any of us to fully comprehend. The impact of the recreation of a hard border on our island would be devastating on many levels, and many have been mentioned here today. We should not cod ourselves. For motorists long delays along the main routes would become the norm. Many farmers would be cut off from their main markets. The flow of goods between North and South and east and west would be blocked by a dam of regulations. We can only scratch the surface of what it would mean for ordinary working families because it is such a leap in the dark.

Donald Rumsfeld once spoke about known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns. I think that a hard Brexit falls in all three categories. We know it would be a disaster, we know we do not know just how bad it will be and we do not know just what other consequences it could have. We do not know what is going to happen. We do not even know what the British want and they do not know. A hard Brexit is an effort to unscramble an egg that was cooked 40 years ago. Members of this House have a special duty in times of national peril to put aside our various differences to work for the national interest. We need unity of purpose to ensure we avoid a hard border on our island. That does not mean abandoning legitimate criticism but it does mean keeping a firm sense of perspective and priority. The Government must ramp up its contingency planning to reduce our vulnerability. We should support an extension to Article 50 if the UK requests it. Buying time is better than building borders.

When the UK voted to leave the EU in June 2016. I believed and hoped that it would never happen. The sheer complexity of withdrawing and the consequences of it would have for our country seemed insurmountable. There is too much at stake, too much time and effort has gone into building something positive to throw it all away. I still hope that this is the case. Let us hold firm on avoiding a hard border, and help the UK to draw back from the cliff edge. The memories of coffins filled up with eggs and butter or mothers trundling prams full of sugar around customs officers looking the other way should stay that way: memories. I fully support the efforts of both sides of this House and all to ensure we do not go over that cliff edge.

We welcome the opportunity to express solidarity with everybody else in this House in trying to ensure there is a united voice in defending Ireland's integrity in this process. Government and Parliament have a key role to keep united in that focus. We are however as entitled as anybody else to highlight a deficiency or inadequacy in preparedness when we believe there is a need to do so. At the least this House has been supportive of the approach taken by the Government's effort and the Parliament in general. The European Union has expressed absolute solidarity with us in respect of the backstop and the need to ensure that we do not have any form of physical infrastructure for a border with customs inspections, lack of movement of people, goods and services on the island. While expressing solidarity and ensuring the backstop is part of the policy, we have to ask how we get to a stage where the United Kingdom can accept its importance on the island of Ireland. Having seen the debate over the past few days in Westminster and the fact that the majority of the people have said they want to avoid a no-deal Brexit we need them to be firm in their approach and to publish their views on how best to proceed while avoiding a hard Brexit.

It will need leadership, not only from Prime Minister May but from all leaders of political parties and the body politic of Westminster. We need the middle ground in Westminster to take ownership of this, otherwise they will lead their own people collectively over the cliff and in doing so they will have chain-balled us with them. It could have a very damaging impact on the social, cultural and political landscape of the island.

I have listened to the views of some of the Conservative MPs on the backstop, their dismissal of the issue and the importance of there being no physical infrastructure on the Border. It has to be re-emphasised on a continual basis. We need to ensure there is no physical infrastructure whatsoever because it would have a very damning impact on the island of Ireland from a commercial, cultural and social point of view. Most importantly, from a political perspective, it would impact on what we have achieved in the Good Friday Agreement and what has flowed from it in terms of peace and normalisation and on where we have come since the difficulties of the Troubles and the carnage in the North over many years. It is important to put it on the record and to explain to the many MPs who seem to dismiss it that it is very significant. They have an obligation as a people and a parliament to uphold the Good Friday Agreement. It is an agreement signed by two sovereigns to bring about a lasting peace. Anything that diminishes it undermines that particular agreement. They should be reminded of their obligations on it.

I understand the difficulties Theresa May is in and the dependence she has on the DUP but, as Deputy Breathnach highlighted, it is not too long ago we had people dying on the island of Ireland, particularly in the northern part of the island, over political views. Some of the people who are now indicating they do not view the backstop as an essential component are people whose party and supporters in previous times were protagonists in the political impasse and violence that flowed in the North. They are realities. It was not so long ago, as Deputy Breathnach outlined. That is the importance.

In terms of trade, we need to very quickly address the issue of logistics in the event of a logjam in the south of England in terms of ports and their capacity. We need to ensure we have roll-on, roll-off and that we can access additional ferry capacity for roll-on, roll-off in the event of there being a hard Brexit and huge difficulties in logistics in using the south of England as a landbridge. I urge the Government to use Enterprise Ireland and all the other agencies to be as prepared as possible and to have additional capacity identified in terms of roll-on, roll-off ferries. What we have there will not be able to transport all the trucks from Rosslare, Dublin and elsewhere directly to the Continent if the issue of the south of England landbridge becomes an impasse. I urge the Government to use all available information and the agencies that compile it to see where they can locate additional shipping if it is required.

The Government’s initial response to Brexit under a different Taoiseach, like that of the Fianna Fáil leader, was pathetic. The Government’s response improved when the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste came into office. They presented a better all-island position but they avoided challenging the British Government or the EU to accept the democratic vote of the North to remain within the European Union. The Government has also acquiesced on the fundamental issue of the entitlement of Irish citizens in the North to European Union rights and the issue of rights generally.

In December 2017 in the joint report produced by the negotiators for the EU and the British Government, paragraph 52 specifically stated the people of the North, "who are Irish citizens will continue to enjoy rights as EU citizens, including where they reside in Northern Ireland." The Taoiseach stated everyone born in the North "will continue to have the right to Irish and therefore EU citizenship." He also stated the joint report was rock solid, cast iron and politically bullet proof. In response to a letter signed by representatives of civic nationalism, the Taoiseach assured them the Government had protected their interests. He stated "Your birth right as Irish citizens, and therefore as EU citizens, will be protected". He added "You will never again be left behind by an Irish Government." It was a very welcome and positive commitment. However, many nationalists and republicans in the North now believe this promise by the Taoiseach and Government has been broken. The specific commitment to citizens who reside in the North is missing from the withdrawal agreement. I have raised this a number of times in the Chamber. The Government has yet to explain why the "rock-solid, cast iron" and "politically bullet proof" joint report commitment of December 2017 on the rights of Irish citizens in the North to enjoy rights as European Union citizens is missing from the withdrawal agreement. The additional seats allocated by the EU to this State could have been allocated to the North but the Government said "No." Why? In a letter to the Taoiseach last November, 1,000 civic nationalists from across the island of Ireland expressed their deep concerns at the Government’s commitment to uphold its promises and responsibilities under the Good Friday Agreement. They identified the denial of access to free healthcare in EU states and the prohibitive costs of students from the North studying at any university in the South. They said there is a real potential that partition could be reinforced and our country and our people further divided. The Irish Government and its lobby of EU neighbours on Brexit rightly stressed the centrality of the Good Friday Agreement to the outcome of the Brexit negotiations. Yet we have the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach repeatedly dismissing a part of the agreement, which is a referendum on Irish unity. That too is a key provision and an integral part of the Good Friday Agreement.

At Queen's University last week, the Tánaiste chose to claim that any debate on Irish unity would be like pouring petrol into a furnace that is already pretty hot. Once again, the Irish Government is limiting the rights of citizens to what is tolerable to a section of unionism. Has this led to unionist leaders being more friendly toward the Taoiseach and Tánaiste? No. The Tánaiste met the DUP recently. To the best of my recollection it is the first formal meeting the DUP leadership had with him since February last year despite numerous and appropriate efforts by the Government to meet them.

The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste cannot cherry-pick from the Good Friday Agreement. There is a responsibility and a constitutional obligation to promote the goal of Irish unity and to work to achieve it through democratic dialogue and negotiation. The Taoiseach and Tánaiste also persist in blaming the impasse in the North on what they refer to as the problem parties of Sinn Féin and the DUP. While this may be popular with sections of Fine Gael support, it serves no purpose in the North, except to annoy nationalists and republicans. They will be even more annoyed when they hear the Tánaiste's ridiculous claim today that the British Government has always recognised its obligations under the Good Friday Agreement. It is stuff and nonsense and the Tánaiste knows that. For the record - the Tánaiste knows this also - the party that has set its face against rights for citizens that exist in every other jurisdiction on these islands is the DUP.

I will finish now. A few years ago, Fine Gael, under the leadership of Deputy Enda Kenny, got itself in a mess over the issue of customs posts on the Border. There were claims and counter claims of Revenue planning for and preparing sites for customs posts on the Border. Last week, the Minister, Deputy Ross, suggested Border checks are inevitable in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The Minister, Deputy Ross, is right unless the Government refuses to establish these checks. The Government has a responsibility to spell out its position. I ask the Tánaiste to state clearly and unequivocally that the Government will not erect customs posts on the Border and to take the opportunity to confirm the Government will not reintroduce a physical border on the island.

Since the June 2016 decision of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, my Department and its agencies have been actively working to put in place an extensive range of Brexit-related measures to support businesses.

The measures and supports introduced have been closely informed by our direct engagement with firms and by a number of reports commissioned by Government, in particular the study by Copenhagen Economics which I published last year. Our analysis points to the fact that the macroeconomic and trade implications of a no-deal Brexit are more significant for Ireland than for any other member state. It also shows that the impacts on individual sectors and firms vary depending on their particular level of exposure to the UK market for both exports and imports, the impact of potential tariffs and the potential for significant divergence of regulatory standards.

As the Tánaiste indicated in his opening statement, it continues to be the firm position of Government and our EU partners that the withdrawal agreement remains best solution for the UK's exit from the Union. I sincerely hope that we can agree an orderly outcome and that clarity as to the basis for such an outcome will emerge from the current deliberations in the UK Parliament, as the impacts on the business community of a hard Brexit will be very considerable.

Brexit, in whatever shape it takes, will be difficult for businesses. In the event of a hard Brexit, the immediate enterprise impacts could include significant sterling volatility and the imposition of WTO tariffs both on Irish goods exported to the UK and on UK goods which we import. In addition to these cost factors, VAT and excise duty payments at point of entry for imports from the UK will create cashflow issues for Irish businesses. The increased time to market arising from necessary customs and food, animal and plant health checks, and the possible need to hold more inventory of inputs and finished goods, will further add to business costs.

Clearly, I am speaking now of the more immediate impacts only. In fact, over time, were UK regulatory standards to diverge significantly from those of the EU, this would give rise to significant non-tariff barriers to trade. I am also acutely aware that regionally based companies are highly exposed to Brexit, spanning a number of important sectors such as agrifood and beverages, engineering, construction and retail-wholesale, and that Government's responses need to be sectorally and regionally appropriate. Given that we have listened to firms through, for example, the enterprise forum of all major business groups and the retail forum, both of which I chair, and because we have rigorously assessed the various scenarios, we have already taken important steps to prepare our economy at a strategic level. Measures being undertaken under Building Stronger Business, the Action Plan for Jobs 2018, our trade and investment strategy and Project Ireland 2040 have all been designed to help to Brexit-proof Ireland, as best we can by investing in the future of our firms. As part of our whole-of-Government response, my Department is working with Brexit-exposed firms, in particular with clients of Enterprise Ireland, IDA Ireland, InterTrade Ireland and the local enterprise offices, LEOs. The package of Brexit supports that I have introduced through the enterprise agencies under my remit focuses first on helping firms to improve their competitiveness through cost reduction programmes and utilising new technologies and supply chains. Second, they support increased levels of product and service research and innovation within firms and between firms and the research institutions. Third, our supports help firms to diversify into new markets away from any over-reliance on the UK which, for many companies, has been a traditional and accessible market.

Since the UK decision in 2016, my Department's budget in 2017, 2018 and 2019 has been increased to ensure that we are adequately resourced across the enterprise and regulatory agencies to support firms in their preparations. The suite of enterprise supports in place covers a range of potential Brexit impacts. These supports range from liquidity support through short-term and long-term loans to restructuring aid for businesses in severe operating difficulties. Specifically, these measures include the €300 million Brexit loan scheme launched in March 2018, providing loans of up to three years to businesses impacted by Brexit. As of this month, under this scheme 325 firms have been approved by the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland, SBCI, in the agrifood, retail and distribution, manufacturing, hospitality and transport sectors, and €14.8 million in loans to 63 businesses has been sanctioned at bank level. The supports also include a €300 million longer-term loan scheme approved in budget 2019. Legislation was passed in December 2018 to provide for loans of eight to ten years for investments in fixed assets. This scheme will be launched before the end of March and I would like to encourage businesses to start preparing to avail of this facility. Enterprise Ireland is working closely with regionally important larger companies in exposed sectors such as food to support strategic investments to build resilience. Enterprise Ireland invested €74 million in these businesses in 2018. An EU state aid approved rescue and restructure scheme is in place to deal with events such as sudden shocks. A further support is an expanded network of overseas offices and in-market supports to help firms diversify markets and to consolidate market share in the UK where appropriate.

In the context of the omnibus Brexit legislation referred to earlier by the Tánaiste, which is to be brought forward in the event of a no-deal Brexit, it is proposed to improve the range of Enterprise Ireland investment interventions. In particular, I propose to increase powers for Enterprise Ireland to provide lending supports to businesses, thereby also helping to preserve the value of the State's investments in these businesses and in assisting companies through restructuring or redevelopment programmes. I should emphasise that the majority of the schemes that I have referred to are open to all companies, including SMEs, and are not just targeted at the client base of the enterprise agencies under my Department.

In budget 2019, I also included additional funding of €3 million for Enterprise Ireland and €2 million for IDA Ireland to increase their global footprint; an additional €1 million for InterTrade Ireland; and €5 million for the LEOs, including for customs training and Brexit business advisers. Customs training is a key aspect of building company preparedness to deal with Brexit as the UK will become a third country. While I am satisfied with the take-up so far of customs training and tools that are readily available through Enterprise Ireland and InterTrade Ireland for companies throughout the country, there remains a need to increase the scale and range of customs training options available. Later this month, the LEOs will also launch their customs training and awareness programme which will be available to all businesses and delivered through the 31 LEOs countrywide.

In respect of the Border, in budget 2019 I allocated an additional €10 million to the IDA regional property fund to provide advanced facilities in Athlone, Monaghan, Sligo and Dundalk. In respect of InterTrade Ireland, the cross-Border body that supports businesses on both sides of the Border to trade, I allocated an additional €1 million, an increase of 17% to its budget. I did this in the knowledge that it would get no additional support from the Northern Ireland Executive to allow it to provide much-needed support to businesses on both sides of the Border. That is in addition to the strong focus on the Border in the recently announced regional enterprise development funds.

I would like to mention a further important aspect of supporting businesses in the face of a hard Brexit and this relates to a range of regulatory functions undertaken by regulatory agencies within my Department. The agencies involved are the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, the Health and Safety Authority, the National Standards Authority of Ireland, the Irish National Accreditation Board and the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority. These agencies play a vital role in supporting businesses to operate effectively, especially in the areas of certification and standardisation. In budget 2019, I allocated additional funding of €3 million to these regulatory bodies to enhance their existing capacity through additional specialised recruitment in the context of Brexit and to assist the businesses they support on a day-to-day basis. I am currently working with these bodies to assess what further investment may be required in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

It is important to say that while Government can assist in supporting businesses in the face of a hard Brexit, businesses must of course also prepare for such an eventuality and I know that they have been doing so. Notwithstanding the uncertainty we face, there are several areas where firms can take immediate action to prepare. I am asking businesses to take heed and to take action now. They must be alert to their supply chains and any possible disruption that might arise. Firms should consider how they plan to move goods into and out of the country, especially if they are relying on ports and hauliers. The use of alternative sea routes might be explored, while the potential impact of any delays should be factored into business planning. Firms should be alert to new customs procedures that might be required. Under almost all scenarios, new procedures will apply on trade with the UK, while tariff and quota issues may arise, particularly in the agrifood sector. Firms should consider what training or systems might be needed to deal with these new arrangements. Our new online customs training tool, which is provided through Enterprise Ireland, is freely available to all companies. Firms should be alert to certification, standards and licensing issues. If goods manufactured in Ireland receive their EU certification marks - known as CE marks - from bodies in the UK, then these firms will need to find alternative bodies in the EU 27 to provide these services. Likewise, if firms are importing products from the UK, they should make themselves aware of the new responsibilities that may arise as a result of Brexit. Firms must be alert to currency fluctuations. Many firms have already had to deal with currency volatility and further exchange rate movements are likely. Companies with exposure to foreign currencies should develop hedging strategies as a priority, allowing them to respond more effectively. While large companies have recognised the importance of this issue, many smaller companies are falling behind. Firms must be alert to the State supports and loan schemes available from Government, including through Enterprise Ireland, the LEOs and InterTrade Ireland.

We have been intensively planning for Brexit since before the UK referendum results were even known and my Department undertook an in-depth economic evaluation to understand the likely impact of a range of outcomes. Using this evidence and consulting with businesses, we developed a wide range of supports and it is vital that companies take full advantage of this offering. The priority at individual firm level must remain the urgent transformation of their business models, through product and service innovation, new geographic market identification, supply chain management, hedging and cost control.

I will be meeting the EU Competition Commissioner, Margrete Vestager, in Dublin on 24 January, where we will take stock of the work of our teams, as regards flexibilities in state aid. All that I have set out in my statement is key to preparing our economy and businesses in the event of a no-deal Brexit. I will be working intensively in this regard with all stakeholders over the coming weeks.

I now call Deputy Lawless, who is sharing time with Deputies Eugene Murphy and Rabbitte.

I want to respond to some of the points made today and highlight some areas where further attention is needed in this process. I listened with interest to the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Humphreys. I had studied the notes provided at the briefing on the 15th. I note there is an item on updating the Industrial Development Acts and one item under business, enterprise and innovation. In the scarce information provided and the speech just delivered I see no mention of research and development or science and technology.

I prevail on the Government to engage on issues such as Horizon 2020 and FP9 which is the next round of European funding. There is a significant threat and opportunity in that fund with the departure of the UK, which would have been both a significant contributor to and benefactor from that. The scientific and research community is one very strong segment of the UK population which does not want to leave but may have no choice. They are very keen to engage and perhaps find bilateral or other arrangements by which they can continue to engage with Irish and European scientists. I prevail on the Government to engage there.

I appreciate these are scant briefing notes. However, in the 17 items for legislation there is no mention of agriculture. I know the Minister, Deputy Creed, spoke earlier so I presume it is in there somewhere, but I did not see it. Coming from Kildare, I want to highlight the equine industry and the clear and present danger for places such as the National Stud. I visited there recently and saw the direct impact on horse breeding, stud farms, stables and the bloodstock industry in Kildare and around the country as Brexit looms. I understand there is a tripartite agreement between Ireland, the UK and France, which covers some but not all eventualities. The documentation is very scarce. As mentioned already, it came in on 19 December just before Christmas. We are beginning to see some of it fleshed out but as the detail is still very light, it is hard to know what is in and what is not in. If it is not in there, I encourage the Government to put it in.

Again I do not see fisheries mentioned in the documents. Many Irish fishermen from ports on the west coast, and indeed the south-east coast, will travel to fish in waters west of Scotland, north of Ireland and further out to little islands such as Rockall and beyond. What is the provision in any scenario for where the UK waters go, where the Irish waters go and where European waters go? To where do Irish fishermen next turn their nets?

Those are three policy areas I wanted to mention; there are many more, but my time is limited. There are also opportunities, as we know. There may be some silver linings. Ireland will be the only English-speaking country in the European Union in the very near future. We will also be the only common law jurisdiction in the European Union in the very near future. There are opportunities in commerce, investment, job creation and litigation. We can take advantage of those. However, all the usual domestic challenges such as housing and taxation with which this House grapples apply to inward investment. I hope those opportunities are being taken on board.

I listened with interest and dismay to comments from representatives of the DUP in recent days about the hard border or the lack of hard border, which I found perplexing. As a child, I travelled across the Border; on family holidays we went to the Giant's Causeway, the coast of Antrim and many other sites of interest. I vividly remember crossing borders with barbed wire and pillbox concrete installation posts. I remember soldiers interrogating my mother at gunpoint as she drove a car with buckets and spades in the back and four or five children with curiosity and no small amount of fear over what was going on. Of course, others who have lived there know much more than I do. It is the height of ludicrousness to suggest there was never a hard border. It may not have been as hard as they might have liked, but certainly it was very hard.

In that vein, I also question what happened between the Tánaiste and the Minister, Deputy Ross, the other day. What is the position? Is the Minister, Deputy Ross, being more candid than others? It may be time for some plain speaking and to get the facts out there so that we can all begin to understand what the position is. My approach has always been to hope for the best and prepare for the worst. In something as fundamental as this, that would be key.

I listened to Sinn Féin Members' comments with interest, particularly those of its leader, Deputy McDonald. It was the height if irony if not hypocrisy to criticise others for not being more active on some of these issues. I saw a video recording of a Sinn Féin representative standing outside Westminster on the night of the vote, criticising others for positions they were taking while the vote was taking place behind them in the Houses of Parliament. If I were to stand on the plinth and criticise a vote taking place in here, I would rightly have no credibility whatsoever. It is ludicrous that Sinn Féin has that position with nothing in the North, nothing in Westminster and very little representation for their constituents.

Even though the time is limited I appreciate the two and a half minutes to put my point of view. I will keep this parochial. We should not forget that the backbone of our economy, particularly in places like my Roscommon-Galway constituency, is agriculture, as the three Ministers present will realise. Up to 80% of our agrifood produce is exported. Of course, much of that goes fresh to Britain. We often talk about markets such as China and other far-flung places. It takes a long time and it is usually frozen food such as frozen beef that goes there. However, we can send fresh food to Britain.

In fairness, I know the Government gives good support to the development of artisan foods, which has been a major success and continues to grow. Many of those units, mainly based in rural areas, are very small, employing six, eight, ten or 12 people. Their market is Ireland, North and South, and Britain. Many people involved in those businesses tell me that they will be in big trouble with Brexit and find it hard to survive. We must give all the support we can to those businesses.

Although I live in Roscommon, I am still one hour from the Border. If border checks come into place it will cause major problems. Ireland has 6.6 million cattle. Some 75 million chickens are produced, many of them exported, each year. Some 5 million turkeys are produced each year and 2 million pigs. Some €800 million worth of pigmeat is exported. Many jobs are linked to this production. We need to be on the ball ensuring that if this Brexit occurs, we will protect that business as much as we can. Any border checkpoints will affect free trade which is vital to the country.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak this evening. I will look at it from a different perspective - from the perspective of the older person. Some 135,000 Irish residents living here are in receipt of a British pension and approximately 35,000 people living in Britain are in receipt of an Irish pension. My main reason for my seeking speaking time this evening was to get clarity and reassurance that nothing will change for those people.

Over recent months in the lead-up to where we are now most of the conversation has been about trade and agriculture. However, there are also social aspects. We need clarification that nothing will change for old age pensioners dependent on the pension coming in. Based on the response to a question by Deputy O'Dea in November, I am aware that the Minister, Deputy Regina Doherty, was carrying out a systematic review in her Department. Is that review complete? What impact will Brexit have on pension payments? Pensioners want to know if their pension payments will reach their bank accounts on the last Friday of the month or if they will be delayed during the transition period.

They are seeking reassurance on this and their questions are fair. They know the exchange rates will be affected when Britain leaves the EU but they want reassurance that they will receive their pension payments on time. Any clarification or reassurance the Tánaiste can give in that regard would be most welcome. The people to whom I refer are living in all parts of the country and they or their adult children are contacting Deputies seeking clarity on this matter.

The Government's Brexit plan can be summed up in one sentence, that is, leave it to the EU and let the market decide. This Government is walking away from its duty and is failing to address the most fundamental issue facing the Irish people outside of climate change. Brexit is disruption, of that there is no doubt, with the only question being how much disruption it will cause. The EU has decided that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, all 27 remaining member states will initiate the same plan. This is the same logic that was used during the banking crisis and subsequent austerity period, a logic that had disastrous consequences not only for the Irish State but also for the people of Greece, Portugal and Spain. We need a plan that is directed at the issues facing the island of Ireland, not just those facing the EU as a whole.

In terms of the legislation that is needed in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the Government has simply listed topics but has not produced Bills. Clearly the Bills have not yet been written and little preparation has been done. If the Bills were written, surely we would be able to see them. Any legislation produced between now and the end of January will be rushed and, as a consequence, possibly severely flawed. The lack of planning means that Bills cannot be scrutinised properly at committee and improved upon via input from Members of the Oireachtas and other relevant stakeholders. We have seen this approach previously and each time it has led to even greater problems, with the bank guarantee and the liquidation of IBRC being two recent cases in point. This House needs to see the Brexit Bills as a matter of urgency. This cannot be pushed down the road any longer. This is too big an issue. The Bills must be brought to the Dáil and moved to Committee Stage where they can be properly scrutinised and improved.

In terms of other planning, the Government asked Dublin Port only on 15 November 2018 for its plans for a no-deal Brexit, a mere four months out from the actual deadline. Meanwhile, the total extent of assistance to Irish exporters is an online course provided by the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, as if the problems caused by Brexit can be fixed with the click of a mouse. In terms of semi-State organisations, Enterprise Ireland has held a series of information days, the focus of which was on small businesses coming up with solutions themselves to a no-deal Brexit. The Irish State is spending its time looking for scapegoats instead of producing practical solutions itself. Is this incompetence or is it part of the plan?

The EU has said that it does not want any member states to tackle issues that could have been avoided by preparedness measures and timely action by the relevant stakeholders. This puts SMEs in an impossible position. A no-deal Brexit is entirely outside of their control. The view of most contributors to this debate this evening is that the Government lacks credibility because of a lack of detail. I would suggest that the Government has not actually planned for a no-deal Brexit and if it has done so, we have not seen that plan and that is the big problem.

Any problems that arise because of a lack of planning-----

It is not nonsense. Where is the credible detail?

It is on our website.

Where is the detail in any of the speeches from the Tánaiste and Government representatives this evening?

It is all online.

When has the Government given us details on anything? Ministers have not come across with those details. They are not in the Tánaiste's speech or in the speech of the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation. I read through every line and have sat through this entire debate this evening and have not heard the details we need. We are still waiting on the details.

There is lots of detail.

The 19 December document has no detail.

Any problems that arise because of the lack of planning will somehow be the fault of small businesses and citizens. It will be someone else's problem.

We must ensure the rights enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement are fully protected after Brexit. All we have had so far is high-sounding words but very little in the way of actual legislation and that needs to change.

We need solutions now. We need supports for our SMEs in vulnerable sectors, particularly the agrifood sector. Again, I listened to the speeches delivered tonight and drew very little comfort from them. On basic issues, like transporting goods across the landbridge to Europe, do we have the infrastructure and the trucks required?

Do we have the drivers?

What happens if there are delays? Nobody in Government is even talking about that.

We need to see an easing of state aid rules to allow the Government to directly intervene to support exporters through employment subsidy schemes along with grants for plant renewal, expansion and the introduction of enabling technology. We need targeted capital investment in transport and housing. We must tackle the costs of living, make investments in health and strengthen the rights of employees. We also need protection for those who live in the North, including voting rights in EU elections and bilateral agreements between the British and Irish Governments to secure the common travel area. The North must stay within the competency of the European Courts of Human Rights and Justice. That is what is needed.

We need detail but we have not heard it in this debate tonight. That is the big worry in the context of what is coming down the road.

We will now move onto the question and answer session. The first five minute slot is for Fianna Fáil.

My first question relates to the issue of an EU financial support package. What conversations has the Tánaiste had with the Commission and the EU as to what can be provided in terms of amounts, the manner of provision and when financial support might be made available to us? What criteria will we have to meet in order to access funds? I appreciate that before Christmas we were not yet in a position where we needed to ask for that help. However, I am concerned that we are waiting until we reach the cliff edge, or possibly go over it, before we ask for help. It is reasonable, if not imperative, that there would be a specific fund in place, ready to go, if and when we need it. It is inevitable that regardless of the type of Brexit we get, whether it be orderly or disorderly, we will still need supports for industry here. We will still need additional infrastructure because of Brexit and we need to know what financial package we can lay our hands on. It is not enough to say that we must wait and see what happens. If we have a no-deal Brexit for example, there may be an immediate drop in the value of sterling and there may be difficulties or delays in traversing the landbridge. These are two immediate impacts that we could face on 30 March. We cannot have three or four weeks in which we are scrambling around, looking for a solution.

My second question relates to infrastructure. I am not satisfied with the responses we have received to date on what exactly will be in place at Dublin Port, Rosslare and Dublin Airport. I asked if planning permission would be required to build certain infrastructure before the end of March and the response was "No" but that does not make sense. If one has to build on land, one needs planning permission. I ask the Tánaiste to flesh that out and to provide more detail on how that is the case.

On the issue of the backstop, a conversation was recorded between the Tánaiste and the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. I ask the Tánaiste to provide an explanation to this House as to what that was all about. The Tánaiste and the Minister thought they were having a private conversation so one can only assume they were both speaking openly and honestly with each other, as Cabinet colleagues. In that context, I ask the Tánaiste to explain what he said to the Minister and why he said it.

Has any contingency planning been done by the Government for a border on this island? Has there been any planning for that whatsoever?

The answer to the last question is a very clear "No". In response to the Deputy's question on EU financial support packages, in November 2017 the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation received approval from the European Commission for its proposed rescue and restructuring scheme, should it be necessary. That scheme can intervene in an extraordinary way and contribute up to €10 million of public money to help a company to restructure because of difficulties arising as a result of Brexit, in the context of no deal.

There is also the possibility of an extension of the scheme to include temporary restructuring aid, which was approved in May 2018. They are two specific examples.

On agriculture, as the Deputy may know, on occasions when there have been shocks to the agricultural markets across the European Union, the European Commission has been able to intervene with schemes such as aids to private storage when Russia imposed bans on pig meat coming from the EU. It also intervened to purchase milk powders when milk prices tanked and has only recently cleared most of the stocks they had in storage. There are intervention mechanisms, therefore, but they will kick in only after a crisis happens. Our job is to ensure we avoid that type of crisis and that even in a no-deal scenario, we will work to continue future trade between Ireland and the UK as we look for more medium-term sustainable solutions that are free of tariffs or barriers.

On infrastructure, I thought we had given the Deputy a detailed briefing on the topic when we met yesterday but I am happy to do so again, although I do not want to run out of time on the Deputy Ross issue in case I am accused of avoiding it. I will provide a written outline of what we are doing at Rosslare and Dublin ports and why planning permission is not needed before Brexit. On the issue relating to Deputy Ross, I was clarifying to him that the Government will not stop talking-----

May I finish my answer because others will ask the same question?

I do not want to concentrate on that matter.

I will be brief. I clarified the position that is consistent with the approach we support on the backstop, namely, that we will not support border infrastructure even in a no-deal scenario. Contingency planning on the issue goes beyond the kind of planning needed in many other areas because it is highly political and highly sensitive. It will undoubtedly involve conversations with the British Government, as well as with the European Commission, to find a contingency mechanism that can avoid physical border infrastructure re-emerging on the island.

The way to do that, which took two years to negotiate and put together, is the backstop. It is clear from her speeches in recent weeks that the British Prime Minister is as much an advocate for the backstop as we are. In our view, the European Commission is unlikely to move away from insisting on a backstop as part of a withdrawal agreement should that be agreed.

Earlier, the Tánaiste was asked a question about Irish drivers being advised about an insurance green card. The Motor Insurers Bureau has stated it will provide approximately 400,000 of the cards. The concern is that this is just the beginning and that it shows the possible damage that a no-deal Brexit will cause. The Tánaiste's answer did not make sense. I can currently drive anywhere within the EU or outside it without a green card in my car. I do not understand why it is changing. What else will be checked in the event of a no-deal Brexit? Will cattle crossing the Border need a new tag to be checked? Will milk and other dairy products be checked? Rather than talking down these issues, we need to start talking them up. This is the reality we are facing. People who regularly travel on the road face an increase in their premiums. Will the Tánaiste clarify the matter?

The question of what Ireland is asking of the European Union was asked earlier. We are told the EU understands Ireland's unique situation and it has expressed solidarity and support. There is a compelling case for exceptional state aid support to minimise the economic fallout. The pressure is likely to intensify as the economic cost of Brexit becomes clearer. Has the Government secured a relaxation of state aid rules in the event of a no-deal Brexit?

We have spoken to the Commission about a relaxation of state aid rules in certain circumstances. The issues and the challenges, however, will have to be much closer to materialising than they are in order for that to be sanctioned. The European Commission is unlikely to move away easily from its state aid rules, but there is undoubtedly a recognition that in certain circumstances Ireland will have to act to protect sectors within the Irish economy that are highly vulnerable to an unplanned, no-deal Brexit, which we will do if necessary.

On the green card issue, it is a practical response from the insurance industry which shows it is also aware of the issues and is planning for all contingencies. It is good that this morning the industry announced that if the United Kingdom leaves the European Union without a deal, the European directive that allows us all to drive around the EU or into the UK and be recognised for insurance purposes will no longer apply to the UK, including Northern Ireland. To overcome that, the insurance industry will provide what it describes as a green card - a slightly unfortunate name - which is proof that one's car is insured when one crosses the Border into what will be a third country. While it is inconvenient, while we would rather it did not exist and while it may be avoided if contingency arrangements between the EU and the UK are in place, the insurance industry is moving forward because those arrangements are not in place. Incidentally, the insurance industry in Northern Ireland and Britain have made the same announcements at the same time to warn people that this could become an issue and explain how it will be solved.

The green card is not currently needed. If one travels to Albania or somewhere else outside the EU, one does not need a green card on one's windscreen. It has been invented but it is not currently needed.

If the UK has an arrangement that will allow for that in its jurisdiction, that will be the case. If there is no arrangement to recognise insurance cover in a third country, however, a mechanism will be needed to show that is the case, which is the purpose of the proposed green card although I hope it will not be necessary by 29 March.

I have questions on three issues. We have all danced around political sensitivity but I hope there will be direct answers because we need them at this stage. What will the Government do to secure the Single Market at the Border in the event of a no-deal Brexit, when the two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland will be in separate customs territories? There must be some discussions about how that eventuality will be addressed on 1 April. Will the Tánaiste be frank with us and tell us exactly what will happen in that event?

As everybody knows, the common travel area is much more than simply an arrangement for common travel facilities to be provided. I do not need to list all the rights and privileges that are encompassed by the arrangement. At the media briefing yesterday, the Tánaiste indicated that a high-level memorandum of understanding will be soon signed. Has it yet been signed? If not, when will it be? Will it be laid before the House? If so, when will we have the chance to examine it? Yesterday, the Tánaiste said it will be underpinned by legislation in the compendium Bill.

Will further legislation be required or will all rights and privileges that are currently encompassed by the common travel area be encompassed in that Bill?

My final question is the one I asked in my speech earlier. Understandably, an enormous concentration up to this point from Government was on getting an agreement between the European Union and the UK on a withdrawal agreement. All the eggs were put into this basket. I know the Tánaiste still clings to that notion that can happen but the overwhelming vote in the House of Commons would indicate that there is very little likelihood of even a tweaked version of that being approved in Britain. What is the preferred option of our Government in relation to plan B or are we merely observers of what the British will determine?

On the last question, I do not accept the premise that because the British Parliament has voted by a large majority against ratification of the withdrawal agreement and the future relationship declaration, because they come as a package, that all of a sudden the withdrawal agreement and its elements are dead. I do not accept that. The EU's response has been very clear.

What about the British House of Commons?

Let me answer the question. The withdrawal agreement may well be passed by the House of Commons if the future relationship declaration changes, for example, because that changes the context entirely. That is why people like me, the Taoiseach and others, in particular, Michel Barnier, have said that if the UK decides to change its red lines - in other words, if it can tell us what it wants in terms of the future relationship - then we will try to respond accordingly. It is very hard for Ireland or for the EU, collectively, to respond to help the United Kingdom and its Parliament to come to an approach for the future relationship that can command a majority in Westminster-----

What about the common travel area, CTA?

-----unless we get a picture of what that is. The context of the withdrawal agreement and the backstop changes entirely if one changes the red lines of the future relationship declaration.

On the common travel area, CTA, the plan is to shortly sign what is needed to trigger the preparation of the necessary legislation in Dublin and London to ensure, as Deputy Rabbitte mentioned earlier, that we can give reassurance to people on pensions and so on. There are many people in Ireland who get pensions from the UK. I hope that next week Members will see next week the heads of the legislation and we will go through the detail of that then.

I also do not accept the premise of the Deputy's first question, namely, the assumption that we must protect the integrity of the Single Market above all else means that we have to impose a border if there is no deal.

I asked the Tánaiste what his views are.

What I am saying is that we have competing responsibilities towards peace on this island, towards relationships on this island and, as a member of the European Union, towards protecting the integrity of the Single Market.

Are the other 27 content with that?

If the Deputy looks at what the British Prime Minister is saying and at what we are saying-----

(Interruptions).

If the Deputy would let me answer his question, because he does not seem to want to hear the answer-----

Excuse me, Tánaiste, for one second. We are trying to stick to the time. I know what the Deputy is asking. The Tánaiste will be doing a wrap-up at the end. It is not possible to accommodate everybody's wishes in terms of how long we should go on. It will not work that way. I call on the Tánaiste to conclude.

It is a fair question. We cannot just hope that this issue will go away. As the Prime Minister said, the solution to the Border will not emerge simply because people sit around and say we will not have one. It is not just about aspiration; it is about practicality at this point and providing guarantees in law. That is what we are at here.

There is a shared responsibility on this island from both the British and Irish Governments as co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement to ensure that we protect that Agreement and that peace process and in a contingency where there is a no-deal Brexit there is an obligation, quite frankly, on those who have caused this problem to come up with solutions. In particular, if there are people who reject the approach of the backstop, which was, by the way, a position agreed by the British, by us and by the EU, there is an onus on them to outline how they would solve this issue. That is the difference between this issue, in terms of contingency, and many other issues that we deal with on our own or in partnership with the EU.

I call the People Before Profit Deputy. Deputy Barry has five minutes. I will strictly enforce the five minute limit. There will be no more latitude.

My question will not even take 30 seconds. I have one question only and may come back in depending on the Tánaiste's reply. It is essential for companies that wish to recognised as EU air carriers to be majority owned and controlled by EU legal or natural persons. The European Commission has underlined this. Can the Tánaiste explain the position of Aer Lingus on the one hand and Ryanair on the other in that regard?

On aviation, which is hugely important from an Irish perspective, because we are an island, about half the people who come to Ireland by air come from the UK airports. Connectivity is hugely important and the majority of people who come via the UK come via Aer Lingus or Ryanair. They are by far the two most important airlines for Ireland. In December the EU provided reassurance on a temporary basis that flights from the UK into the EU can continue to happen on a point-to-point basis, namely, from London to Paris and back again, but not from London to Paris and on to Madrid and to Berlin, unless they are an EU carrier. At least that guarantees direct access in and out of the EU from the UK.

There is also an issue on safety certification at UK airports, of which the Commission has said it will extend its certification and recognition but only for a temporary period in the context of contingency around a no-deal scenario. Where this becomes complicated is that both Aer Lingus and Ryanair need to qualify in the future as EU airlines to be able to benefit from the air agreements across the EU for EU airlines which are significantly important for their business model.

It is not appropriate for me to get into how Aer Lingus or Ryanair for that matter will consider restructuring or changing their ownership structures in order to qualify to be EU-owned and-or controlled airlines. That is a matter for the companies concerned but both have stated that they will have contingency plans in place should that be needed. There are issues around commercial sensitivities here that restrict what I can say in the detail of this. Both airlines are very aware of this not just in terms of connectivity to and from Irish airports. They are both big European airlines now and like Governments, they will need to have their contingency plans ready to go, which I understand is what is in place.

My supplementary question is in two parts. Are Aer Lingus and Ryanair currently majority-owned and controlled by EU legal or natural persons? If not, and we have a crash-out Brexit in the short-term, how long will they have to put their house in order? Do they have a matter of weeks, months or years? Can the Tánaiste give the House information on that? This is a matter of major concern to huge numbers of Irish people who use these airlines, irrespective of commercial sensitivities, as the Tánaiste calls them.

It will be up to the regulator to assess the ownership model and controlling shareholding and whether that qualifies an airline as an EU airline or not. In simple terms, if the airline is more than 50% owned by EU or EU-based shareholders, then that qualifies the airline.

What is the Minister’s understanding of the position? Is that currently the case?

My understanding is that neither Aer Lingus nor Ryanair is more than 50% owned by shareholders in the EU. Should the UK leave and not be an EU member state any longer, there may be issues in terms of qualification as EU airlines-----

Does that apply to both airlines?

-----but I also understand that both Aer Lingus and Ryanair have plans should they need to change their status. That is a matter between the airlines and the regulator. If the United Kingdom crashes out of the EU without a plan on 29 March, on the following day it will be a third country and the changes would take effect straight away.

Could the Tánaiste clarify what will happen with the European Parliament elections in May if the withdrawal period is extended beyond 29 March? Will the UK hold European Parliament elections and will that affect the number of seats available to MEPs in Ireland?

My second question relates to haulage companies using the UK as a destination or as a land bridge to Europe. What Government assistance will be given to haulage companies to carry out their business? The Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Humphreys, referred to the issue but did not clarify the position.

My third question relates to farming. What supports will be available to farmers both to help them cope with the difficulties of exporting if tariffs are applied and in the context of Common Agricultural Policy payments, such as the single farm payment and others?

I also wish to ask about funding from the EU in the area of education, such as that relating to the Erasmus programme, initiatives on the peace process and also Waterways Ireland, which is a North-South body.

The Deputy poses many interesting questions. The question of an application for an extension to Article 50 is a matter for the British Government and Parliament. I do not think it is up to us or anybody else to advise them on that because it is a democratic choice they will need to make. If an application is made for an extension of Article 50, the Taoiseach and I have indicated that we would not stand in the way of that or see it as a problem. However, if there is an application for an extension of Article 50, that application would need to be accompanied by a plan. Rather than just buying more time, it would be a case of providing an opportunity to get something done. That would not be an unreasonable request from the European Council, which would have to agree to the UK's request.

If an extension was sought and granted, and pushed beyond the time for the elections to the European Parliament, the question for the United Kingdom is whether it is required to elect MEPs because it will be a European member state and issues arise as to whether the European Parliament could form without having representation from all member states in a way that is consistent with the treaties. These are issues the United Kingdom will have to consider and manage appropriately. It would be strange to have elections for representation in a union one is about to leave. The assumption was that the United Kingdom would have left the European Union by the time the elections take place. The extra seats have been reallocated already and Ireland has benefited from two of those. The seats in question could potentially be impacted upon on a temporary basis if British MEPs were to take their places for a short period in the event of an extension. The way they would nominate or elect their representation in the European Parliament is a matter for the United Kingdom would need to be consistent with British and European law. That is an important issue, but it is not the most important in the greater scheme of things. We can put up with a bit of disruption in the European Parliament if there is a larger priority to be deal with in to ensure that we reach a point where we have a managed withdrawal agreement that can put in place everything we want, namely, the protections for Ireland and its peace process, a transition period for business and all the other things we need to see in that regard.

In terms of road haulage, the European Commission was very helpful on that in December when it agreed to essentially roll over, on a temporary basis, the recognition of licensing as it applies today. In other words, road haulage operators would not need licences to go in and out of the UK and into the EU Single Market. As long as there is a reciprocal arrangement with the UK, which presumably there would be, we would allow for road hauliers to move back and forth and to use the UK as a land bridge where appropriate.

I will probably not get time to properly answer the question on farmers.

The Minister has started so he can finish.

As a former Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, I know - and the current Minister, Deputy Creed, knows - how sensitive the agriculture and fishing industries would be to a bad Brexit. We need to protect and shelter the sector in a worst case scenario, and we will. That will not be easy. It will be challenging but we will work with farming and fishing representative bodies to plan in as complete a way as we can for all eventualities and we will work with the Commission on that as well.

Finally, I have positive news. There has been confirmation that PEACE funding will continue up until the end of this funding cycle and it will also be prioritised in the next funding cycle post 2020 because the European Union wants to be very clear to people in Northern Ireland that it wants to continue to support - financially and in a very real way - the peace process and good community relations.

As nobody else is offering, I call on the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to reply.

I was criticised earlier by Deputy Crowe for not giving more detail. I must inform him that, in view of the time constraints, I was anxious to let some of my colleagues contribute. As I have time now, I wish to respond to some of the concerns outlined by colleagues.

In terms of the politics of this Dáil, I thank all parties for their patience and co-operation on what has been a testing period due to Brexit negotiations and the intensification in recent weeks and months of no-deal contingency planning.

I have heard colleagues opposite express frustration - both here and elsewhere - that they are not getting information or detail quickly enough. If people have genuine concerns and they want information or briefings, if they contact my office, if we have them, they will get them straight away. I mean that. The relationship with Fianna Fáil is very important but so are those with Sinn Féin and others. That is why I made a point after the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday of briefing Fianna Fáil as the main Opposition party and then briefing others before we gave anything to the media. That is what we will try to continue to do. This is not a political game. This is not about the Government trying to look good and taking tough positions on Brexit. This is about a national interest. We might not be in government in a year's time; it could be somebody else. There are core issues that we need to be careful that we protect and defend. In many ways, what we are witnessing here and what we are part of is history unfolding week by week before our eyes in terms of our relationship with our closest neighbour and in terms of the United Kingdom's relationship with the EU.

Decisions will be taken in the coming weeks and months which will change the direction of that relationship. We need to work together to make sure that, through that process, we focus on the priorities I think we all have, which are to try to maintain the closest possible relationship with the UK, to protect core Irish interests, our businesses, farmers and fishermen, Irish citizens in Britain and Northern Ireland, and to protect the peace process and the progress that has been made in the past 20 years, which has been reinforced by the absence of any physical Border infrastructure as an impediment to the free movement of people or goods, or anything else for that matter.

Those are the priorities I have outlined many times. We are, unfortunately, in a position where, with some 70 days to go, we still do not know what a majority in the British Parliament want. This has made preparations difficult to plan across the EU but in Ireland in particular because of our exposure and vulnerability to Brexit and its fallout. We are planning for all eventualities across all sectors. We are working in a collaborative way with industry, trade unions, representative organisations for different sectors and other political parties. While I hear accusations that we are not open about that, in fact, I have faced down people who suggested we should not have had, for example, Opposition political parties in our stakeholders group. I insisted from the very start that we should have every political group or party there that wants to be there, and I think that has been the right decision and has helped to create consensus.

Nonetheless, every now and then we have different approaches. For example, I have been critical of Sinn Féin's position on having a debate on a border poll in the midst of all of this. I do not think that is helpful and it has added a lot of tension and polarisation to the debate in Northern Ireland. However, I respect that everybody in Northern Ireland has a right to dream and to aspire to the kind of future they believe they want for themselves and their families, whether a person is a nationalist or a unionist. I have my own views on that. However, what we are trying to do right now is protect the status quo so we can create some stability to be able to have debates like that in the future in a non-heated environment. We have enough challenges to overcome right now in an atmosphere where we do not have devolved government, we do not have North-South structures and, effectively, we do not have a functioning Good Friday Agreement in terms of its structures. We do not want to add the pressure of a very divisive, difficult and emotive debate, which could create huge fears among some communities at a time we are trying to achieve compromise on both sides to find a way forward on Brexit in both London and Belfast.

Having said that, to Sinn Féin's credit, it has not made life difficult for me at times when we have had to plan to get things done, despite the fact we have different perspectives on certain approaches. I want to recognise that contribution.

The next few weeks will be challenging for Ireland and we need to work together, unlike what is happening in Westminster, where the two main parties are refusing to even talk to each other without preconditions despite the fact their country is rolling towards a cliff edge. It is unbelievable. I say that because my country is being impacted by their inability to talk to each other in terms of no-deal Brexit planning and, of course, all of the stress and strife, and fears and rumours, that will filter through communities in Border counties, which are wondering what is going to happen. I hope we will see mature politics developing and a middle ground emerge within Westminster that puts this issue of a no-deal Brexit to bed as soon as possible, although that is a matter for Britain and Westminster. While we have to deal with the consequences, it is a sovereign parliament and it needs to make decisions in the way it does.

In terms of what we can do here, we can continue to prepare for the worst-case scenario, which we are doing. I do not accept the glib criticism that the document we published in December did not have any detail in it. There is a lot of detail in that document. If anybody wants to sit down with me for a few hours and go through it section by section, I will point out the detail to them. However, it is true there are parts of the document that are light. That is because there are certain things that do not have contingency plans yet, including EU competence, which we cannot deal with even if we want to, given there are certain areas where the EU has yet to decide how it would approach the consequences of a no-deal Brexit. Fishing is a good example of that.

This is hugely complex. People may call for answers, assuming I have them in a briefcase somewhere and I am not giving them out. This is an evolving process. What we published in December was essentially a framework document for dealing with contingency planning. It deals with 20 different sectoral areas. What we did at the Cabinet meeting this week was to provide a lot more detail to Ministers on four of those areas and we then gave initial briefings to Opposition parties, although we probably need to give more detailed briefings, for example, on how we are going to deliver on the common travel area so Irish citizens and British citizens in each other's countries in the future will be able to enjoy the kind of privileges they enjoy today. That was there long before either of us joined the EU and it will be there long after Britain leaves.

We also did this in regard to medicines because I know, as the Minister, Deputy Harris, knows, this is a sensitive area and we need to reassure people. That is why we wanted to prioritise it and to do it early in January. There are no medicines on a risk list that we predict will not be available post Brexit. Of course, that could develop so we have a team of people working on it. In fact, conversations have been under way on that issue for two years between the HSE and the other relevant stakeholders and bodies. The Minister for Health's memo to Government this week was convincing and persuasive. While there is undoubtedly work to do in this regard, we do not have anything fundamental to worry about.

We also did this in regard to legislation, which is where we had probably the longest element of the briefing the other day. We are essentially going to have to introduce 17 Bills in one omnibus Bill, and we are going to have to do that before the middle of March - just in case. While I think it is unlikely, we are doing this just in case Britain crashes out on 29 March and just in case the British political system is unable to deal with this issue and it happens almost by default. That is possible, if unlikely, so we have to plan for it. We will be ready from a legislative point of view, with the help of this House, and we will be totally open about this legislation with the House. Next week, hopefully, we will be able to publish the heads of that legislation, which, as I said, has 17 different sections in different areas and involves nine Departments. We will have another 28 secondary Bills in regard to ministerial orders and statutory instruments. We will go through that again in detail with anybody who is interested.

I ask that people would please not put out the accusation that there is no detail going on here. We have itemised 28 statutory instruments that are potentially required to be introduced over the next few weeks and we have 17 different sectoral areas within one omnibus Bill, the heads of which will, hopefully, be ready for Cabinet next week and will certainly be published by the end of next week. This will then go to the parliamentary draftspersons to draft one of the largest pieces of legislation this House may ever have passed to be ready to publish it on 22 February, so we can then take it to Second Stage in this House and debate it. We need to agree procedures with the Opposition, given this is not about big parties dominating or anything like that. This will mean we can get this thing done, if we have to, to protect our country. Based on my initial discussions, again, I have to say that people could not have been more co-operative in terms of wanting to help us get that done on time in a way that allows us to effectively pass legislation to protect the status quo for our citizens in different areas.

With regard to the backstop, there are a number of valid questions.

The assumption that if there is a no-deal Brexit, our obligation to protect the EU Single Market and customs union will force us by default to reintroduce border infrastructure is one I do not accept because when it comes to the Border, we have competing responsibilities. These include the peace process, peaceful relationships and an all-island economy as well as EU membership. While that is understood in London and Brussels, it does not support the narrative we sometimes hear from Brexiteers that if Dublin, London and Brussels do not want it, there is nothing to worry about and there will be no border. It is a bogus argument. To assume it will not happen because we do not want it does not deliver what we need, namely a legal agreement which provides a guarantee that no physical border infrastructure will re-emerge as an unintended consequence of Brexit, whether in a no-deal or planned scenario. There is an obligation on the British Government just as there is one on the Irish Government as co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement to ensure these matters are planned for, even in the case of a no-deal Brexit. I note some of the language the British Prime Minister used: "...in all circumstances, we have an obligation to avoid hard border infrastructure". The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said that deal or no deal, the British Government must prevent border infrastructure on the island of Ireland.

We will have to be mature enough to ensure contingency planning is in place should it be necessary to prevent border infrastructure even in a no-deal Brexit scenario. Of course, it will be challenging should it happen, which is why we remain strong advocates of the backstop as a mechanism to provide the guarantees we need. It is an approach the British Government supported along with the Irish Government and 26 other EU member states. We will continue to advocate for that as, in my view, will Michel Barnier, President Tusk and President Juncker. There is strong solidarity on this issue which I do not see dissipating any time soon because it is the right argument. Those who argue against the backstop, which is about ensuring border infrastructure is unnecessary through regulatory alignment in the areas required, should realise that it is a different approach to the issue than that of those who seem to think it can be dealt with through technology or slick camera systems. That is not a credible argument, if people are being honest. That is the context of any comments I have been quoted as having made this week and it is the Government's position as firmly stated by the Taoiseach in the House on Tuesday.

We must demonstrate some patience over the next few days. Ireland must hold its nerve as I have said a number of times this week. While we are impatient for the answers and solutions which need to come from London, we will have to show some patience in terms of the political solutions in the context of the pace at which those solutions will, I hope, be put together and agreed. We cannot solve this problem or contribute to its solution until we know what a majority of people in Westminster want and will vote for. In the meantime, we must focus on what we control, namely contingency planning with the Commission and domestically. That is what Members will see a major focus on next week on the part of Government as we move to publish heads of legislation, which I hope will not be needed ultimately but which are needed to help us prepare in the weeks ahead.

Barr
Roinn