Michael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

1. To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the newly formed Cabinet committees.. [40543/17]

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

2. To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the reorganisation of the Cabinet committee system. [41637/17]

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.

I have reorganised the Cabinet committee structure to streamline political oversight and to focus the work through a smaller number of Cabinet sub-committees which are convened as necessary.

The Government has established the following six Cabinet committees, all of which I chair:

Cabinet committee A, dealing with the economy; Cabinet committee B, dealing with social policy and public services; Cabinet committee C, on the European Union including Brexit; Cabinet committee D, dealing with infrastructure; Cabinet committee E, dealing with health, and Cabinet committee F, dealing with national security.

To date each Cabinet committee has met once.

Under this new structure some committees now have broader terms of reference than before and this is reflected in their membership.

Committees may on occasion meet in different formations depending on the agenda, with additional members being invited to attend as necessary.

There is no change in the practice of substantive issues being referred to Government for approval and a report on the work of each Cabinet committee will continue to be submitted to Government annually.

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

Its is established practice for the Cabinet committee on the European Union and Brexit to meet the week before a European summit to agree on key changes of Government policy. On a number of occasions in the last two weeks, the Taoiseach has said that the Government is not contemplating or preparing for anything other than a close customs union between the United Kingdom and the European Union. In one of the scripted off-the-cuff replies which the Taoiseach supposedly hates so much, the Taoiseach said that the call for this contingency planning was tantamount to calling for Border dogs to be trained. That was an intemperate response last Wednesday. Yet, in Derry on Friday night, the Taoiseach said something completely different. On that occasion he said that we were planning for different contingencies and "we will seek a unique solution for Northern Ireland". Will he explain why he said one thing in the House last week and then something completely different in Derry? Will he confirm that he is preparing proposals for a situation where the United Kingdom does not have barrier-free access to the European Union?

The Taoiseach has repeatedly spoken of his being open to full briefings for pro-European parties regarding the Brexit talks. We have sought such briefings but from what the Taoiseach said in Derry, it is becoming clear that there is nothing open or candid about these briefings. Is it the position that the Taoiseach has given instructions that certain matters are not to be admitted in briefings if they are not in tandem with what he says in public?

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

On the Cabinet sub-committees, does the Taoiseach believe it is wise or appropriate for Brexit to be put alongside European issues? I understood that international affairs also featured in that sub-committee. Will the Taoiseach clarify this point?

Brexit issues require a singular focus and effort. When we last spoke on these on 3 October, the Taoiseach told us that the previous sub-committee meeting had taken place on 11 September, that is some three and a half weeks. The idea that any sub-committee that engaged in a serious piece of work, and especially Brexit, would meet almost monthly is ludicrous and irresponsible.

I disagree with how Deputy Mícheál Martin has dealt with the threat of a Border on the island of Ireland. The Taoiseach is correct to hold firm on the line and the understanding that there can be, and will be, no Border on the island. The efforts to secure what Sinn Féin has described as special designated status - it does not matter what it is called, it only matters what it does - in order to ensure that Ireland in its totality remains within the Single Market and the customs union is what is important. I do not believe that it is beneficial or appropriate to debate what the electronic Border might look like.

The idea of mimicking toll free traffic on the M50 which I think is Fianna Fáil's brainwave-----

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

No; I am sorry, but that is not Fianna Fáil policy.

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

I do not think that is helpful or appropriate.

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

Stop distorting the truth once again. It is asinine commentary.

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

It is the job of the Taoiseach to protect the interests of the country and the island as a whole and it is absolutely and resolutely squarely in the region of having no border. The Taoiseach might answer my question about the sub-committee and my proposition to him that he has a Brexit sub-committee that is in session and meeting all the time, not monthly.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Taoiseach will recall that in the Government of which both he and I were members there were ten Cabinet sub-committees which were very effective at pursuing the reform agenda in each area of operation, with direct accountability to the Taoiseach, which was good. If there was any criticism of them, it was probably that there were too many people attending each of them, but that was a general complaint. The problem with reducing the number and broadening the scope of each of the reduced committees is that we will have an extraordinarily large number attending. That waters down their effectiveness.

I would like the Taoiseach to answer on two specific issues, one of which is climate action. Should there be a stand-alone committee dealing with the issue if we are to give it the sense of priority to which the House referred during Leaders' Questions? Justice reform was a major part of the reform agenda and most people in the country would still regard it as critical. Where in the six committees the Taoiseach has set out is it housed and how often does the reform committee meet?

On the questions put by the two previous questioners, all of the meetings I have attended on the island of Ireland and in Britain have had far too many generalisms about what we are facing. Bluntly, I would like to have a real debate about the options we have to face because we are galloping towards the edge of a cliff and talking in generalisms and making assertions that something will not happen. It will be too late if we actually reach the edge of the cliff and there is no solution.

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

Absolutely.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We need to have real debate about these issues now.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All expert opinion suggests the formation of hurricane Ophelia was due to rising ocean temperatures which are related to global warming. Does that not prompt the Taoiseach to think we need a far more seriously focused approach to dealing with climate change, rather than what we are doing, which is engaged in special pleading as to why we should be allowed to continue with increased CO2 emissions and not meet targets and run the risk of fines? The Citizens' Assembly stated we should be global leaders. That is what it recommended to the Government and we are the opposite. The fact that the Taoiseach does not have a dedicated Cabinet sub-committee suggests he is not taking the issue seriously. Should he reconsider after the weekend?

The next issue I want to raise which is of critical importance and requires the emergency response we saw at the weekend from the Government is housing and the need for a special committee to deal with what continues to be a crisis that is out of control. We need an emergency focused, dedicated, all-Government response to the housing and homelessness crisis. It justifies having a special Cabinet sub-committee which the Taoiseach would chair.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with those who have spoken about the need for greater urgency and action to deal with climate change, but those involved realise it also requires us to take many more dramatic steps to protect the environment and the social system in a variety of ways. In that regard, I understand the Taoiseach has abdicated responsibility for implementing the sustainable development goals to the line Minister, Deputy Denis Naughten, but I do not see how that can work. I am interested in this issue as it affects the committees. It is the type of issue that comes in under every committee, in education and justice, as well as dealing with environmental issues. Will the Taoiseach outline what role, if any, his Department has in overseeing implementation of the sustainable development goals? How does it fit across the five Cabinet sub-committees? Does the Taoiseach agree that if, as he stated in the Timemagazine article, we have to, as a country, be at the centred of the world, in other words, be open to what is going on in it, the biggest hope for it is that this manifesto for the north, as well as the south, the sustainable development goals, which were negotiated by an Irish civil servant shows us the path? That being the case, why is it that I see them nowhere in his or his Department's agenda? Why is it that he is not taking responsibility? Where do they sit within the Cabinet sub-committee system?

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important to say the Cabinet held a special meeting in Cork on Friday in UCC to deal with two issues, namely, Brexit and health reform. It is fair to say Brexit took up the majority of the day's deliberations. I did this because it was important to include the Cabinet in the discussion on Brexit, particularly with the European Council meeting coming up this week, rather than just a Cabinet sub-committee. We will have another full Cabinet meeting tomorrow to deal with the Finance Bill. As Deputies will probably see, between last Friday and Wednesday of this week, we will have had three Cabinet meetings, which is reflective of the different approach I am taking as Taoiseach, which is to have the full Cabinet meet more frequently and for longer periods of time in order that we can have genuine collective responsibility, whereby all Cabinet members will be across the big decisions being made. It will be the total reverse of what happened during a previous Government, of which I was a member, when a sub-committee called the Economic Management Council made lots of decisions and informed the rest of the Cabinet of them. That is something I never favoured and was never part of. It is not the way I propose to lead a Government.

Separate to the Cabinet committee on Brexit, the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, the Minister of State, Deputy Helen McEntee, and I also meet regularly to discuss European affairs and European policy. Actually holding a Cabinet sub-committee which we can all attend is very difficult. For example, today the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, and the Minister of State, Deputy Helen McEntee, are at the General Affairs Council and the Foreign Affairs Council; therefore, it would be impossible for us to have a Cabinet sub-committee meeting today. On Thursday and Friday the Minister of State, Deputy Helen McEntee, and I will be at the European Council and it would not be possible for us to attend a meeting. Whereas Deputy Mary Lou McDonald may suggest Cabinet committees should meet all the time, in practical reality that is not achievable because we are all coming and going all of the time because of the nature of our jobs. That is why I want to centre more things around the Cabinet and the bilateral and trilateral meetings involving the key Ministers.

On contingency planning, it is appropriate for any Government in office to plan for worst-case scenarios. Some years ago we had a plan for what we would do if the euro fell apart; of course, therefore, Governments have to engage in contingency planning. Doing a desktop exercise and engaging in due diligence on worst-case scenarios are very different from what seems to be Fianna Fáil policy. Perhaps RTÉ misreported what had happened at the Ard-Fheis, but I distinctly read an article about a motion being passed calling for an electronic border with gantries and M50 style tolls. I think that is to what Deputy Mary Lou McDonald was referring. It seems that it is Fianna Fáil's policy-----

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

I think the Taoiseach's position in the past couple of weeks has been-----

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what RTÉ-----

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

The Taoiseach knows full well what my position is.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what RTÉ reported, but perhaps it misreported what had happened.

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

To be quite frank, I think the Taoiseach's response is asinine. It does him no justice in terms of his seriousness.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It also reported comments on "The Week in Politics" that Fianna Fáil would prepare for a hard Brexit. How else would it prepare for a hard Brexit other than by going around the place scoping out sites for customs posts and truck stops and training border guards and dogs?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would not start to train the dogs just yet.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not the policy of the Government.

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

Neither is it-----

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Those things are self-fulfilling prophecies. If Deputy Stephen Donnelly, as Minister of Foreign Affairs or European Affairs, was to go to London to negotiate with the British authorities the details of how an electronic border might work, he might find soon enough that it would actually become a solution. That is why it would be very unwise to have a Fianna Fáil Government in London discussing with British officials what an electronic border might look like, how big the toll gantries might be and where they should be placed. That would be a very unwise political strategy and it is something I absolutely would not support.

Briefings are absolutely open to party leaders.

I have given no instruction other than to give people full information.

Climate action is an important issue. I totally acknowledge that but there are any number of issues on which one could have a dedicated Cabinet sub-committee. We could have one for every single issue for which there is a Department, and then some more, but then we would be back to where we were before, with 15, 20 or 30 Cabinet committees. It is just too many and it becomes unwieldy. Justice reform is dealt with by Cabinet committee B but the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Charlie Flanagan, and I also meet bilaterally. I disagree with the view, often expressed to me on Taoiseach's questions, that if an issue is important, one must have a dedicated Cabinet sub-committee do deal with it. I am not sure that is true. I have seen Governments from ten or 20 years ago, and maybe more recently, for which setting up a committee was a way not to deal with something. It was just a consultation exercise or talk-shop exercise. The way one tends to get things done in government is either at Cabinet, where Ministers are all present so one can actually make decisions, or in much smaller groups.

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

The Taoiseach is letting himself down with the asinine comments he made both last week and today on Fianna Fáil's position on Brexit. He was present when I gave my speech at the All-Island Civil Dialogue. I spoke at Cambridge at the British-Irish Association meeting in the presence of the Taoiseach's Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Simon Coveney. I have been very serious and constructive about Brexit. The Taoiseach should ask his predecessor, Deputy Enda Kenny, how constructive I have been on Brexit since it was voted for. I have been serious about wearing the green jersey for Ireland. Our clear position has always been to have a special economic zone on the island of Ireland to ensure full trade and no border. Treating Question Time like some smart-ass university debate is not doing justice to the seriousness of the issue. The Taoiseach said at the outset in answering me that we should engage in contingency planning and that everybody should prepare for worst-case scenarios. The Revenue Commissioners did their work. I was not raising the Revenue Commissioners today. They did serious work. In my humble opinion, it was work that should have been shared with people. I see no rationale as to why it would not have been shared with people. It could have informed public debate, not to become a self-fulfilling prophesy but to warn those affected, including those in SMEs in Ireland and Britain, about the horrendous impact of what Brexit will mean for them in their daily lives, economically and in terms of jobs, for example. It would have been advantageous to public debate. Lest there be any doubt - it is one thing for Sinn Féin to try to distort the truth but I suggest it is something different for the Taoiseach to try to do so - our position has been very consistent, from the referendum onwards, in terms of avoiding a hard border in Ireland. That is why we are putting forward the propositions in all seriousness. I ask the Taoiseach to acknowledge that.

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

I do not believe an M50-type solution to the Border is a serious proposition at all and I do not believe it demonstrates any kind of political nous or understanding of the job that needs to be done. It is a very significant challenge to ensure that not only the economic life of the island but also the political life and the Good Friday Agreement infrastructure are not completely undermined.

On the issue of the report from the Revenue Commissioners, I see no reason it would not be shared. I suggest, however, that there is a deep understanding among SMEs, businesspeople, the agrifood industry and farmers of the massive disruption Brexit potentially represents.

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

Not in Britain.

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

Although the Revenue Commissioners carried out the exercise, I do not believe the exercise was necessary to put what I describe up in lights.

The Taoiseach gave the reasons the Cabinet sub-committee is not meeting as regularly as would be optimal. Given this, he needs to ask himself the purpose of the sub-committee and the effectiveness of its work.

May I ask the Taoiseach about the briefing of other political parties and leaders on these matters? Whatever our differences, I believe we can all work together constructively.

The Taoiseach should not imagine for a second that light debates about what a border might or might not look like would be lost on the Government in London and by others. It would be absolutely detrimental to send out a signal other than the fact that, politically, socially and economically, we cannot and will not entertain any border on the island. That needs to be said explicitly. Nonsensical positions on M50-style toll-free traffic certainly do not assist in that regard.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This House voted by majority to have special economic status for Northern Ireland and to maintain the customs union on the island of Ireland. The Government voted against it. I have done everything I can to explain the consequences of not having both parts of the island in the same customs union, certainly to my colleagues in the British Labour Party. We need reports such as the one prepared by the Revenue Commissioners to underscore that work because there is extraordinary naivete, if not blindness, to this reality among politicians in Britain.

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

Yes.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a fact. All of us in this House have to face up to this. In the words of Mr. Michel Barnier, the clock is ticking. If we continue as we are, with Britain saying there will be a soft or seamless border and us saying there will be no border, what will happen when, suddenly in March 2019, we will be in different customs unions? What will physically happen then? Rather than talking around the issue, we need to have concrete proposals. The only solution that works for us is the maintenance of a single customs union on the island of Ireland. I hope that, between Britain and Ireland, that is achievable, but we need to explain the consequences of it not happening.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am keen to get an answer to the question I asked, on the role of the Taoiseach's Department and his committee system in the implementation of the sustainable development goals, signed off on by this country, along with most others, in September 2015. The goals provide a perfect roadmap for the future for this country. What is the Taoiseach's responsibility and what is the role of the committee system in delivering on the goals?

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the final matter, the sustainable development goals, the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment, is the lead Department. As is the case with all Departments, mine has oversight of its work.

On the solution to the Brexit conundrum, I am in broad agreement with what has been said by others. I believe the only solution that is workable for Britain and Ireland is that the United Kingdom as a whole should remain in some form of customs union. One could call it a customs partnership if one wanted. It should be some form of customs union involving the United Kingdom and the European Union. It is not just about the North and South. The east-west trade is really important also. If one talks to anyone involved with an SME, or an exporter involved in agrifood, one will realise the trade between Britain and Ireland is much greater than the trade between the North and South. We need to bear that in mind. In my conversations with my colleagues across Europe and on the telephone yesterday with Ms Theresa May, to whom I spoke for 40 minutes, I emphasised my view that the United Kingdom should remain in a customs union with the European Union. If it wishes to call it something different, because the term "union" has particular connotations, it would be the best solution. It could call it a customs partnership; I do not mind. If it cannot be achieved, we then need to consider a secondary, less-favourable solution, but that is one that would involve special arrangements for Northern Ireland. That is what I said to Ms May when we spoke yesterday and what I have said before on many occasions.

Using the term "special status" is not helpful. It is seen by the DUP and other unionist parties as an attempt to diminish the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, using the term actually makes the objective harder to achieve. This is because of the sensitivities around language. Deputy Martin, as a former Minister for Foreign Affairs, will know how unbelievably sensitive people in Northern Ireland can be about language, even in regard to whether a word is spelled with a capital letter. It is not helpful, therefore, to use the term "special status". Unless one is deliberately trying to undermine and to annoy unionists, I ask that one not use it.

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

I have not used the term "special status".

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but the Dáil voted for it. It did not help. It was not helpful in trying to achieve a good outcome for the Irish people that the term was adopted by the "Oireachtas". The Deputy will know that it is not helpful at a European level more widely. The European Parliament motion using the same language, backed by Sinn Féin MPs, was voted down at European level because other countries saw it as potentially giving rise to regionalism and nationalism within their regions. That is another example of where people pushing agendas for political gain from Brexit did harm to our national interest.

It is something I asked Sinn Féin MEPs to reflect on. There is no point in putting a motion to the European Parliament demanding special status for Northern Ireland only to have it voted down. That undermines our case in negotiations.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Taoiseach. I have to move on.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Finally, I wish to touch briefly on the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis. I fully accept that the media may have misreported this.

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

The Taoiseach knows my position.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept absolutely that the media sometimes get these things wrong, but the reports are that Fianna Fáil called for an electronic border with Northern Ireland post-Brexit, similar to the toll system on the M50. The motion suggested an auto-logging system for goods and services traded. If that is Fianna Fáil's policy, I disagree with that policy.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Now, we move to a bit of housekeeping. We ran over time because of the importance of the matter. I can be blamed. We have 20 minutes left. The next question is on Seanad reform and the following question is on political staff and advisers. I want Members to decide which question they want to take, or whether we should give ten minutes to each.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let us take the first question and see how far we get.