Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The arrests yesterday and revelations of a very sophisticated scam involving illegal immigration to this country, particularly through Dublin Airport, were truly shocking and exposed a significant lapse in national security at key entry points into the State. This has wide-ranging ramifications in terms of future security policy and our capacity to withstand many types of violation of our security system. This is a wake-up call given the ease with which people could enter the country with the connivance of people working at the airport, either with carriers or in any other capacity. It seems an extraordinary gap in our system that could facilitate such illegal activity organised by global crime gangs targeting Dublin and Ireland generally as an easy route.

As the Garda Síochána has indicated, while evidence has not emerged yet it may not just be people being smuggled in this manner or by other routes. There could be firearms, drugs or large sums of cash coming in through similar systems to bypass controls. Tom Clonan, a well respected security analyst, made the point that Ireland through no fault of the Garda would be Europe's weakest link. He is quoted as saying in response to this revelation that we do not know who is here.

Are we wide open for terrorists? I know that is a different paradigm from smuggling people but if they can bypass us so easily on that front it seems we need to review our national security to make sure we rid ourselves of any complacency in the system about terrorists exploiting such gaps and lapses in security for their nefarious purposes. Brexit is coming down the track with potentially very significant immigration issues arising, and issues pertaining to controls. It is alleged that the British security system has notified Dublin of its concerns about weaknesses in our national security. Will the Taoiseach ensure, and is the Minister for Justice and Equality committed to, a comprehensive national security review to ensure these types of lapses in security do not occur again?

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with that. This appears to have been quite a sophisticated operation. Somewhere between disembarking from an aircraft and going through passport control some people were apparently diverted and exited the airport and this seems to have been going on for quite some time.

As the Deputy is aware, a Garda operation targeting illegal immigration led to the arrests of three people, including two employees of Aer Lingus, at Dublin Airport on Sunday night. As there is an ongoing criminal investigation, I cannot say too much at this time. I understand this matter is the subject of a Topical Issue matter allowed by the Ceann Comhairle later today. There will probably be an opportunity for a discussion of a greater length at that time.

We should commend the Garda on its work in this regard. The smuggling of people, by definition, crosses international boundaries. The Garda is working with other police forces. It has a close connection with Europol and Interpol on various strands of its investigations. It is worth pointing out that immigration officers in Dublin Airport process approximately 15 million passengers per annum. Approximately 3,500 passengers were refused permission to land at Dublin Airport last year, with more than 4,000 passengers being refused permission to land across all points of entry. Constant vigilance is required. Cases like this are uncovered and investigated on foot of such vigilance. Responsibility for the security of the airport itself is a matter for the airport authorities.

Significant resources are being invested to secure our borders, for example, through the increased use of technology. The sharing of data with other jurisdictions is very important. We have a particularly close operational relationship with the UK authorities in managing the security of the common travel area between Ireland and the UK, which is so important for the future. The gathering and sharing of relevant information is an important aspect of this co-operation. The immigration and security information sharing arrangements in place between Ireland and the UK are strong and are evolving constantly. That is as it should be. Ireland introduced new regulations last year to enable the UK to collect advance passenger information from Irish carriers in respect of passengers entering the UK from Ireland. The Government is committed to providing the Garda with the necessary resources to enhance its connectivity to a range of EU and other international resources. A great deal of work is going on in this regard. This includes connecting to the Schengen information system and to other EU and Europol information sharing resources that are relevant to countering the terrorist threat. A series of measures is being rolled out at EU level to build on the current framework. Aer Lingus and the Dublin Airport Authority are co-operating fully with the Garda in this investigation. When further details become available, the Government will see to it that an overall security assessment of the airports of Ireland - the regional airports and our main airports - is carried out.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am surprised that a national security review has not been initiated already. This is a fundamental breach. We should not be waiting around on this issue. Airports across the globe are being targeted by terrorists and different operators. We cannot be complacent about it. The Taoiseach said in his reply that "the security of the airport itself is a matter for the airport authorities". He might clarify that for me because I think it needs to be looked at fundamentally in the context of national security and when it violates national policy. In Britain, MI5 and the intelligence networks are involved in protecting the integrity of the nation's security and borders. We do not know how long this went on. The Taoiseach has said that 15 million passengers are processed each year. The passengers in this case were not processed and never wanted to be processed. The whole objective of the exercise was to bypass being processed. Given the ease with which this seems to have happened, I think it is a wake-up call for our system. The Garda needs to be involved in this. The proper guardians of the State - the intelligence system within the State - need to take this over. There needs to be an overview of what is happening. There needs to be a rigorous review of security at our ports and airports. This wake-up call should be a catalyst for the Government to do that.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Deputy has rightly said, we do not know how long this has been going on. It has come to light because of vigilance at another airport. There has been an ongoing assessment of the situation at our airports. While the security of the airport is a matter for the airport authority, the point is that these people, in whatever number, never got as far as passport or immigration control.

It is true to say that the authorities at Dublin Airport Authority - the premier airport in the country - have vastly scaled up the assessments of passports coming through. Everybody has that check.

The Deputy asked about terrorists. In that context, this matter is assessed with the international organisations such as Interpol and Europol. There is no evidence that indicates any specific difficulty with particular people. The matter is kept under assessment on a constant basis, as should be the case. As more details emerge, there will be a full response from the Government on what is happening and on what needs to be done to secure our place and reputation internationally.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Since the Brexit referendum result on 23 June last year, it has been clear that the British Government intends to leave the European Union and bring the North with it in defiance of the vote of the people in that part of our country. It has also been clear that if this is allowed to happen, the land frontier between the European Union and British state will be on the island of Ireland. It will run from Derry to Dundalk, and that has also been obvious.

What has been the Government's response to this? Generally speaking, it has been to wait and see what the British might say next. It has been to watch their game instead of concentrating on our own game. The Taoiseach and the Fianna Fáil leader have bored us to tears - they have certainly bored me - with their idle speculation about what the British might do next, accompanied by lamentations that Britain is leaving the European Union. In fairness, the Taoiseach set up the civic dialogue after initially dismissing the idea when Sinn Féin first proposed it. I know the Taoiseach has said the priorities are trade, the economy, the common travel area, the peace process and the future of the European Union. That is fair enough but it does not match the significance or historical importance of what is happening.

Last week the British Prime Minister made a significant speech in which she reiterated her position. She also repeated her intention to withdraw form the European Court of Justice and she has already committed to scrapping the Human Rights Act and withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights. These are fundamental parts of the Good Friday Agreement. The Taoiseach's response has been disappointing and dismal. Clearly, we need to protect, as best we can, our trading relationship with Britain. That is taken as a given. We also need to resist the effects of Brexit on this island and State. All of the remaining 27 EU member states will decide the conditions of Britain's exit. I will quote the Taoiseach's former colleague, EU agriculture Commissioner Mr. Phil Hogan, who has stated:

There is a risk that Ireland could allow our relationship with Europe to be defined by our relationship with the UK. Instead, we should have the confidence to recognise that post-Brexit Ireland will need to have in place different relationships with our EU partners.

I suggest to the Taoiseach that the starting point for the Government must be to actively seek special designated status for the North within the European Union. That will uphold the democratic rights and vote of the citizens there. It will also ensure that the frontier between the European Union and Britain will not be on the island of Ireland. That is crucial for both parts of this island. It is also in our national strategic interests that the Government takes an all-island view of the future. I again ask the Taoiseach to assert this approach by embracing the proposition that the North should be given a special designated status within the European Union.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not accept the Deputy's starting premise. For the past 18 months, Ireland had been preparing for the possibility that there might be a Brexit vote. On the day after the vote, we published a comprehensive document setting out the main priorities, in so far as we saw them, arising from that decision of the UK people. On 9 September 2016, I delivered a detailed paper at the Oxford Union setting out the priorities that we see as important. The Deputy's party was represented at that conference.

I also set out the need for deeper analysis of the key issues, challenges, risks and opportunities for Ireland. I referred to the need for greater levels of public consultation and engagement around those issues. I outlined the need for deeper interaction with all our EU partners, the EU institutions and, increasingly, with the Barnier task force in order to ensure that our concerns were fully understood and respected. In addition, I highlighted the need to consider the economic implications for economic policy more generally and, where appropriate, specific measures to deal with the Brexit-related developments. Some of these were contained in the budget 2017 measures and others can be found in the action programme of the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, which assesses the implications involved.

Other parties have detailed papers in respect of the issues that will arise in the agri-sector - with particular reference not only to the economy of the North and South but also to that of the east and west - in respect of which we have a trade surplus of over €1.3 billion. Obviously, by setting out all of that long before the UK Prime Minister was even elected, we committed to maintaining our place as one of the 27 member states of the European Union. As I said, our collective goals remain the same. In her speech last week, the Prime Minister referred to the current uncertainty relating to the Northern Ireland political situation. She reinforced the view that I have already outlined for Deputy Adams.

The Deputy makes a point about special designated status. When he gets the opportunity, I would like him to explain what he means by that. We have particular circumstances that are recognised in Northern Ireland arising from the Good Friday Agreement. Northern Ireland is the only location in the European Union where they apply. The rights of the citizens both North and South - which they voted for - are enshrined in that internationally-binding agreement. It has been lodged with the United Nations and supported by Europe, the United States, the British Government and the Irish Government.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Exactly.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will work very hard to see that those rights continue to be vindicated. When the people, North and South, voted for the Good Friday Agreement, they did so on the basis of being European Union citizens. The fact that the British Government decides to leave the Single Market and the European Union will not impact on their rights, as validated by their vote for the Good Friday Agreement. The circumstances we have are special. They are the only such circumstances in Europe and I want to build on that. With the help of Sinn Féin we might get some constructive suggestions.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I actually support the rationale outlined by the Taoiseach to the effect that the people in the North voted for the Good Friday Agreement and, therefore, that should have primacy. Let us follow the Taoiseach's rationale. The people also voted to stay within the European Union. There are numerous precedents for the special designated status that we are advocating, including, for example, the case of Denmark and Greenland.

The Taoiseach lauded the Good Friday Agreement. The British Government is in default and this Government is in default in respect of many grounds and elements of the Good Friday Agreement. What I am trying to focus in on is that the Government is accepting that the land frontier between the European Union and the British state will be on the island of Ireland. That is implicit in what the Taoiseach says. He should not accept that.

If the Government accepted our proposition, for which there is precedent, it would not affect the constitutional issue and the Government would ensure that the land frontier would not be not on the island of Ireland. There are technical, strategic and national interests to support the logic and common sense behind that. The Taoiseach refrained from embracing the proposition but I want to give him another opportunity to do so. Why does the Taoiseach not make it clear that his Government will accept the case for a special designated status within the European Union? He should make it a central plank of the Government's negotiating strategy and policy. Moreover, he should tell the British Prime Minister as much next week.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government stands committed to see the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, as well as all of its conditions, in full.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does not.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree that significant elements of the Good Friday Agreement - some historical and some cultural - have not been implemented. These are matters on which we need to follow through.

We do not have a constitutional claim on the Six Counties of Northern Ireland any more, but the rights of the citizens, North and South, who voted for the Good Friday Agreement on the same day are enshrined in the Agreement.

As I already said, in respect of the island of Ireland at some future date, the language around that in terms of negotiations will be something I intend to pursue very vigorously to allow for that possibility, if it becomes a matter for the people to decide at some future time. I have made that point to Deputy Adams before. This is a situation in which we have a particular special set of circumstances.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have a peace process supported by the European Union. We have cross-Border activities supported by the European Union.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to see that continue-----

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In special designated circumstances.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----as indeed does the British Prime Minister. I would be happy to talk to her-----

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No she does not. Please catch yourself on, Taoiseach.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----about that and other matters when she comes here in the short time ahead.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do not be vouching for Mrs. Theresa May.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Northern Ireland is facing an election, mainly because of the intransigence of Mrs. Arlene Foster and her refusal to stand down to facilitate an investigation into the cash for ash scandal. I read today that the Taoiseach is about to commence a commission of investigation into certain Garda matters following the O'Neill report. Yesterday, the Garda Commissioner was on the airwaves telling us how wonderful everything is and how wonderful she is herself, bombing us with doublespeak. Meanwhile, the harassment of whistleblowers continues.

Last December, in reply to a question of mine, the Tánaiste said, "the Garda Commissioner is entitled to her good name - as, indeed, are people making allegations entitled to theirs - unless facts properly established prove otherwise". Mr. David Taylor was interviewed for 21 hours. A file was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions in September 2015 with no decision yet. Nothing has been proved against him. Is the Garda Commissioner allowed to ride roughshod over fair procedure in this area? The Commissioner said yesterday, "I've absolutely no knowledge nor was I privy to any campaign to undermine any individual in An Garda Síochána". Mr. Keith Harrison wrote to her 14 times detailing his harassment and bullying. He has been out sick since May 2014. He is on €188 per week and has three kids at home. Mr. Nick Keogh has got nothing but grief since he reported malpractice.

The Commissioner was boasting yesterday about taking part in the fight against heroin. However, she has protected the chief superintendent who has been involved in the heroin case in Athlone. Last year, she placed a superintendent on the promotion list who has been accused on numerous occasions of harassing a whistleblower. In June 2015, the Garda Commissioner appointed an assistant commissioner to carry out an investigation into the allegations surrounding the chief superintendent and the garda from the drug squad in Athlone. It was the same assistant commissioner who had been accused of earlier leaking information back to the superintendent who was the subject of the complaint. In October 2015, the Commissioner stated that she had commenced an investigation into this alleged conflict of interests. There has not been a word of that since. I wonder where it is.

Following its investigation into the matter, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, asked for disciplinary procedures to be taken against them. Who did Nóirín O'Sullivan appoint to look after it? Yes, the very same assistant commissioner, who also happens to be retiring in April, will probably will not even get to the end of the process and will delay it all even further. This month, GSOC asked to oversee the disciplinary procedure. Its request was refused. When is the Taoiseach going to publish the report? Will he include the protected disclosures of all whistleblowers in the investigation? If he does not, it is only a case of kicking the can down the road, because we will eventually have to do it. Does the Taoiseach intend to leave the Commissioner in place while the investigation goes on? It would make a mockery of it if he does.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have confidence in the Garda Commissioner. There has been significant change to the procedures for members of the Garda who wish to report allegations of wrongdoing. The Protected Disclosures Act 2014, which came into operation on 15 July 2014, was part of the then Government's comprehensive approach to enhancing the protection available to whistleblowers, including members of the An Garda Síochána. Under that Act, GSOC is now the prescribed body authorised to receive protected disclosures on Garda matters. Accordingly, members of An Garda Síochána may communicate their concerns to the Garda Commissioner, as their employer, if they so choose, or may make a disclosure to GSOC. Where a protected disclosure is made to GSOC, the Act provides that GSOC may investigate the disclosure, if it appears to GSOC desirable in the public interest to do so. People are protected under that Act and cannot be bullied, sacked or dismissed.

It is important to recognise the very significant fact that a member of the Garda who makes a disclosure in accordance with the Act is entitled to all of the protections for whistleblowers in the Act. These include protection from having their identity revealed, protection from being dismissed and protection from being penalised in their employment as a result of having made a protected disclosure. In light of the public interest in An Garda Síochána having robust policies and procedures in place to support and protect whistleblowers, and to ensure that their complaints and allegations are fully investigated, the Tánaiste asked the Policing Authority on 2 June last year to examine and report on the policies and procedures in place in An Garda Síochána to deal with whistleblowers and whistleblowing. The Tánaiste also asked that it make any recommendations it considered appropriate in order to ensure that the policies and procedures in place are protected. The Policing Authority completed its review and reported to the Tánaiste on 11 November 2016. The report was published on the website of the Department of Justice and Equality and has since been laid before both Houses in accordance with the Act. On 7 December 2016 the Tánaiste received from Mr. Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill the report of his review relating to the two protected disclosures cases which were made to the Tánaiste by members of An Garda Síochána in early October. Mr Justice O'Neill was asked to review the allegations of wrongdoing and to include any recommendations which he considered appropriate. The report, I understand, sets out in detail the allegations contained in the protected disclosures. I am sure that the House will appreciate that in the view of the nature of the allegations and the fact that third parties are mentioned the Tánaiste referred this to the Attorney General for advice on how to proceed, including the question of what material may properly be put in the public domain having regard to the rights of all concerned. The Attorney General has given some response to that but has some further matters to conclude on. The specific proposals will come to Government shortly including putting the conclusions and recommendations of Mr. Justice O'Neill into the public domain.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before Deputy Wallace comes back in I want to make a point to him please. I am reluctant to interfere with anything Deputy Wallace is saying because much of what he has said is in the public arena but the House is not a court of law. Adjudicating of aspects of current controversy and any individuals associated therewith under fair and proper procedures rests elsewhere in accordance with the law, and not in this House. I put it to Deputy Wallace that he is perhaps sailing very close to the wind.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Only close to it.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Ceann Comhairle is only encouraging him.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Taoiseach has not answered any of my questions. While the Government sat on the O'Neill report - the Taoiseach has still not told me when he intends to publish it - GSOC had to go to the High Court to force the Commissioner to hand over the transcripts of the O'Higgins report. It is almost eight months since the Tánaiste requested GSOC to investigate the same. Only last week the Minister received a letter from a whistleblower regarding a witness statement in an assault case being doctored by gardaí. The background to the assault case related to the planting of drugs by a garda. I ask the Taoiseach again when he intends to publish the report. Does the Taoiseach intend to leave the Commissioner in place? It will be laughable if he does. If all is so well, as the Commissioner likes to tell us, can the Taoiseach or the Commissioner explain to me why so many whistleblowers are out sick and why they are not at work? Why does Nóirín O'Sullivan not ring the whistleblowers? How is it that she has never even rung them? She has not rung any of them. Would the Taoiseach consider asking the Commissioner to ring the whistleblowers who she says she cares so much about? It is a bit scary that what she says in public is one thing but the reality on the ground could not be much different.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Act protects gardaí - if they make a report to GSOC or to the Commissioner - from having their identity revealed. It offers protection from dismissal and protection from being penalised in their employment as a result of having made a protected disclosure. That is the law of the land. That is what the Act says it protects whistleblowers for. Deputy Wallace made reference to the Minister receiving the report from Mr. Justice O'Neill. There are third parties mentioned in this report and it is only right and proper that the report be referred to the Attorney General for advice as to what form, and in what element, it should be published. The Minister is engaging with the Attorney General on that matter.

Michael Harty (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In regard to Brexit and its potential effects on the action plan for rural Ireland unveiled yesterday, which is a welcome recognition of what rural Deputies on all sides of the House have been seeking for many years, will the Taoiseach outline to the House how he envisages protecting rural areas from a hard Brexit, which appears to the model the British Government is to pursue, given the Prime Minister's speech last week? The United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union is the most pressing political, economic and social issue to be confronted and managed by Ireland in the next decade. Ireland is intimately linked to the UK in many ways, most particularly in respect of agriculture, which is the lifeblood of rural Ireland. Without a sustainable agricultural sector, the action plan for rural development will not succeed.

The comprehensive plan, with its 276 recommendations, is very welcome. It is a compendium reference document against which actions and implementations will be judged in the coming years. In the Taoiseach's words, there is something in the plan for everybody. It refers to rural-proofing Government decisions but does not address Brexit-proofing the agrifood industry. Our absolute proximity to and substantial dependence on the UK make Ireland very vulnerable to decisions that country will make solely with its own interests in mind. The requirements of the EU and Ireland are very far apart on this matter. Both the EU and the UK want a hard Brexit, but we want a soft Brexit.

Even before the UK triggers Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, we in Ireland are feeling the effects of the uncertainty Brexit is causing, with a weakening sterling making the agrifood sector less profitable. It is envisaged that exports to Britain will fall by 30%, unemployment will rise and there will be a deepening regional inequality and a decline in economic growth. The agrifood industry will be the worst hit. Already, Irish food exports have dropped in value by €575 million since the Brexit vote. The mushroom industry has all but collapsed, and beef, pigmeat and poultry exports will follow as the UK seeks cheaper imports from Brazil and Argentina. Our beef exports are 50% dependent on the UK market. Meanwhile, €10 billion of UK contributions to the Union's agriculture budget will be withdrawn, resulting in cuts to single farm payments to Irish farmers. Will the Taoiseach indicate the particular measures he intends to take to protect Ireland and the rural agriculture industry from Brexit?

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yesterday's publication of a comprehensive document to achieve the potential of rural Ireland, covering 600 towns and villages throughout the country, speaks for itself. The question is how that plan will be impacted when the shape of the new relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union is eventually decided. All of the analysis carried out in economic studies by bodies and individuals, ranging from the ESRI, to IBEC, Teagasc and Professor Alan Matthews, indicates an adverse impact on the agri-economy in Ireland. The Deputy referred specifically to the mushroom industry and commodity pricing, the latter being of great concern to the Minister, Deputy Creed. In the short term, the immediate concerns for agrifood exporters centre on exchange rates and the significant drop in the value of sterling against the euro, which have created particular difficulties for sectors such as the mushroom sector that are relatively more exposed to the UK market. The Minister has made €150 million available in the form of low interest, long-term credit. Specific measures were included in the 2017 budget for implementation in 2018. In addition, Bord Bia has activated a four pillar strategy to deal with many of these issues.

There is a particular dependence on the UK market for sectors like horticulture and forestry and in respect of the sizeable quantity of product, such as butter, cheese and seafood, that is sent to the UK for further processing or packaging and returned for finishing, the ingredients that are sourced in the UK for incorporation into Irish products, the products transiting through the UK en routeto European Union markets, the transnational producer organisations, the transport of horses for racing and sale, and the very significant Northern Ireland dimension.

These areas are all the focus of a forum set up by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine dealing with beef, pork, dairy and all these other sectors where there is a constant engagement. This is of exceptional interest to us here in Ireland given that we have a trade surplus in the agrisector of €1.3 billion with the United Kingdom.

The British Prime Minister, Mrs. May, having clarified some of the issues here, such as removing Britain from the Single Market, the question of the customs union and trading relationships is one that we will have to negotiate hard about and imaginatively in respect of our objectives. In that regard, from speaking to the Irish Farmers Association the other night, it recognises price commodity is an issue, as are many of the issues I have raised here. These are ones that we will focus on, through the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and its agencies, as these negotiations begin to commence.

Michael Harty (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My main concern is the strategy which Ireland is taking in Brexit negotiations. Ireland needs to take an independent line rather than being tied exclusively to the pan-European negotiation stance which does not represent our unique interests and vulnerabilities, in particular, in agriculture. We must be proactive and strong in our critical demands at the negotiation table and be as forceful as possible.

Our strategy is vague and unco-ordinated. We may need to support some of the UK demands, particularly in access to UK markets for trade, services and customs. We may not be able to take a negative stance in that regard. We must ensure our unique relationship with Britain is recognised by our European partners.

I would put it to the Taoiseach that we need to have a clear leader to deal with Brexit. I would put it to him that we need a Ministry for Brexit, essentially devoted exclusively to our negotiations Department by Department, which would be consistent, single and focused.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not accept that the approach of Government has been vague and unco-ordinated. As I pointed out to Deputy Adams, the day after the vote was taken by the United Kingdom, we published a strategy to deal with that future. On 9 September last at the Oxford Union, I set out our priorities in detail. Our three pillar strategy is to continue to implement our programme for Government, to continue to manage the public finances well in the people's interests, and to continue to both grow employment and reduce unemployment. Yesterday's publication is to deal with 135,000 jobs in rural Ireland.

The second part is to have specific diplomatic negotiations with every Head of Government and the different Ministries at their councils in Europe. There is not a European country that does not know about our particular circumstances.

The third part is that when we start to negotiate, we will do so from a position of strength with a clear and comprehensive strategy. I have met quite a number of the leaders and will continue to do so until we have met them all separately from the European Council meetings. Our strategy is focused, strategic and co-ordinated. The game has not even started yet.