Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the Deputies for their questions and also for their patience in the Chamber for the afternoon. I will provide further details about some of the external relations issues that were discussed at the European Council in Brussels last week, particularly in respect of Russia and Turkey, and then I will address the questions that have been asked.

The Taoiseach has noted that discussions on Russia took up most of the time over dinner. In that regard, I should highlight the unqualified solidarity which EU leaders expressed for the UK. As the conclusions rightly state, the nerve agent attack in Salisbury on 4 March was a very grave challenge to our shared security. Any use of toxic chemicals as a weapon is a security threat to us all. The expulsion of Russian diplomats from several member states is a strong testament to the solidarity across the European Union on this issue. It is also a clear reminder to small countries such as Ireland of the value of EU membership.

Once again Ireland utterly condemns this reckless attack. The Taoiseach fully supported the strengthening of the European Council conclusions to explicitly agree with the UK's assessment that Russia was very likely to have been responsible for this heinous crime and that there is no alternative plausible explanation. As the Taoiseach has noted, the Tánaiste has announced that, following an assessment by security services and relevant Departments of the activities of the Russian Embassy, one member of staff with diplomatic status will be ordered to leave the country. Ireland has been very consistent in calling for Russia and the EU to have a constructive and predictable relationship however there is now a very clear onus on Russia to address all questions related to the attack in Salisbury, including providing full and complete disclosure of the Novichok programme to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, OPCW.

The European Council also discussed issues relating to Turkey and specifically to its actions in the eastern Mediterranean and Aegean Sea. There was no opposition to the high-level EU-Turkey summit going ahead in Varna on 26 March, although the European Council strongly condemned Turkey's illegal action in the region. These relate to military exercises in Cyprus's exclusive economic zone which have blocked legitimate natural resources exploration and to the continued detention of two Greek soldiers who accidentally crossed into Turkish territory in adverse weather conditions. Ireland recognises that Turkey's relationship with the EU remains under strain. We support continued dialogue with a view to resolving our differences amicably but there is an obligation under respected international law on good neighbourly reactions and it is therefore appropriate that the European Council should remain seized of these matters. While Ireland recognises Turkey's concerns in the wake of the attempted coup in 2016, we have voiced our own concerns about negative developments in respect of human rights, freedom of expression, democracy and the rule of law, and will continue to do so.

I note that the European Council also discussed the EU-western Balkans summit which the Taoiseach plans to attend in Sofia on 17 May. We support the European perspective on the western Balkans region as is very clear from our support for the EU strategy for the region which was published just last month. It outlines a framework for those aspiring to join the Union in the foreseeable future. This is a priority for the Bulgarian presidency and we will be working very closely with it to ensure the meeting in May is a success.

As I mentioned last week, I had the opportunity to visit the region in January to meet with my counterparts, colleagues, members of parliament and the Irish community in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro. I have encouraged them to seize the momentum provided by renewed focus on the western Balkans and have assured them of Ireland's support as they carry out the reforms necessary to meet the high standards expected by the European Union. President Tusk is also expected to use the occasion of the summit to hold a meeting under the Leader's Agenda format.

I thank all Deputies for their statements and assure them that the Taoiseach will continue to report to the House in advance of and following meetings of the European Council. I will now speak on some of the specific issues which were raised. First, the social issue was raised during one of the events on the first day, last Thursday. The social fairness package which was launched by the Commission on 13 March sets out a number of different proposals. One deals with social protection for workers and self-employed workers which would ensure sufficient social protection coverage. Another proposal, which Deputy Howlin mentioned, was the European labour authority which would support member states in matters relating to cross-border labour mobility. This would include free movement of workers, posting of workers and the co-ordination of social security systems. A third proposal is a proposed initiative regarding a European social security number. This particular proposal has been delayed until a future date. The package also included a communication on monitoring the implementation of the European pillar of social rights.

Following on from the Council meeting last week, the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection and the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation are looking at these issues before arriving at any detailed national position. I know that Deputy Howlin also raised the issue of the labour authority. We are studying the Commission's proposal on this issue. We have some concerns, as do other member states, as we want to ensure that any kind of new authority does not duplicate or replicate existing structures and will actually make a genuine difference to workers' welfare within the EU.

A question was asked on the enlargement process and the western Balkans. I would restate that we agree with the Commission's paper and proposal and the fact that it includes a proposal for all six possible new member states and sets out timelines. I hope to attend the summit with the Taoiseach in September. Today, we have heard from our Croatian colleagues that when they host the Presidency in 2020, they hope to host a second summit, which we will support, in order to keep this issue very firmly on the agenda and to work with our possible new colleagues and member states.

On digital tax, there were a number of questions as to why there were no conclusions on this issue. There were never meant to be any conclusions on this specifically. It was always to be an informal discussion. While it was a part of the main body of the meeting on Thursday, it was purely because there had not been any update on the US position, which was due to be discussed at that time. Obviously the issue of digital tax and tax in general is something on which we have been very strong and very clear. We very much believe that the reason Ireland is seen as a good place for business is our transparent and reliable tax system. Indeed Ireland has implemented quite a number of the OECD report recommendations on base erosion and profit shifting, BEPS, and we have been held as one of the most transparent countries in this regard for some time now. Of course when it comes to digital tax we agree with the Deputy and believe this needs to be dealt with on a global basis. Companies, corporations and digital companies need to pay their fair share of tax, but it needs to be paid where value is created, not necessarily where transactions take place. Therefore we believe this needs to be dealt with through the OECD process. We had the support of many member states throughout the discussion in which the Taoiseach took part last week.

With regard to the backstop position, intensive negotiations have started again this week which are specifically looking at the Irish backstop position. We welcomed the fact that last week Donald Tusk, after the European Council meeting, reiterated and stressed that we needed to see sufficient progress on the Irish protocol by June. We believe that we need to see that sufficient progress in order for us to be able to complete this by October. As we have said many times, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. We have that support and commitment from all 27 member states when it comes to the Irish issue and, indeed, other issues within the withdrawal agreement which have not been finalised or concluded yet.

On the concerns in respect of Article 7 of the Treaty on the European Union, particularly in respect of Poland, while this issue was not addressed at the European Council meeting it was raised at the meeting of the General Affairs Council which I attended. As the Deputy has said, the Article 7 process has been implemented. The Polish Government published its response on Tuesday, the day of the meeting of the General Affairs Council, so we did not have full time to respond to it. It had to be translated. Ireland's position is that we have welcomed the re-engagement of the Polish Government with the Commission since Christmas. We feel that the best way to resolve these issues is through negotiations, dialogue and engagement. Of course we hold the very firm position that we now need to start seeing actions on this issue because any member state that in any way contravenes our key values, including the rule of law, needs to be held accountable. Obviously we are encouraging further engagement and dialogue and the fact that Poland has published its response is very welcome.

Specifically with regard to Russia, we are talking about the first time a chemical attack of this kind has happened on European soil since the Second World War. I was not in the room when Theresa May outlined why the UK believes Russia was specifically responsible for this attack. The Taoiseach was, as were other member states including some of the larger states, such as France and Germany, which would have significant intelligence in these areas. It was the view of the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, following recommendations, that we would act in solidarity with the UK. If this had happened on Irish soil, would be standing back and asking member states to support us and work with us or would we be saying that we would go it alone and that we would be able to deal with it ourselves? I do not think we would. The unity of the European Union in this regard is absolutely paramount.

See this speech in context