Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I also warmly welcome the very firm assurance given by the Minister for Health that all services currently enjoyed by citizens of the Republic of Ireland in Northern Ireland and Great Britain will continue to be enjoyed, regardless of what form Brexit takes. That is an important issue.

I have a question about the new information the Minister for Health has given to the House that today the Cabinet approved the memorandum of understanding on the common travel area arrangements between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. The CTA is about far more than common travel arrangements. For the first time in the memorandum of understanding there is a codified body of reciprocal rights which in many instances amount to joint citizenship. They will allow Irish people to work, live, draw social welfare payments, receive full health benefits and vote in the United Kingdom. There will be the same rights for United Kingdom citizens living here.

It is the anchoring document. When will we have sight of it? Now that it has been approved, when will it be signed by the British and Irish Governments and when we will have an opportunity to forensically examine it to see what precisely will be enduring rights for Irish and UK citizens post Brexit?

An important point was raised by Deputy Ó Caoláin in regard to the rights to medical cards that arise from EU membership. I refer in this regard to, for example, seafarers working out of Rosslare Europort. I take it from what the Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, has said that on the basis of the memorandum of understanding or on some other basis, UK citizens will continue to be able to access Irish medical cards if they are resident in the Republic of Ireland. In other words, the status quowill continue.

I will return to the point I made about the constitutionality of the section in terms of the devolution of powers to the Minister for Health to alter law without reference to the Dáil. When I made my Second Stage contribution I was assured by the Tánaiste that I would get an explanation in that regard. I regret I got no explanation from the Tánaiste in his closing comments, other than, as I have already put on the record of the House, that the Attorney General is satisfied. I have been privileged to serve in a number of Governments. I remember being told by one Attorney General that something could not happen and being told by a successor Attorney General that it could. The opinion of a law officer of the State is just an opinion and it is challengeable. I want to ensure that what we are doing is robust.

I take more comfort in the final comment made by the Minister for Health, which, if expanded on, might provide me with more security. Am I correct that the Minister for Health is stating he is not seeking to make any primary law but, rather, that he is seeking to preserve what has already been determined by the Oireachtas, which is the status quo? If that is the explanation, it is a more robust explanation. It also is a limiting power. In changed circumstances, it would not be replicating the status quo. How do we deal in the future with changes that did not transpose what is happening now but were making something new, because of new circumstances? I believe Deputy Donnelly circled around this issue. If the constitutionality is explained as preserving what is already passed by the Oireachtas, then nothing new in changed circumstances could be done by the Minister for Health without reference to the House. Am I correct in my understanding in this regard?

See this speech in context