Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 6 Mar 2018

Vol. 966 No. 3

Ceisteanna - Questions

EU Meetings

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

1. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the February 2018 informal EU leaders' meeting; the issues that were discussed; the contributions that he made on the multi-annual budget for the post-2020 period; his contributions on the European Parliament; and if he held bilateral meetings at same. [9654/18]

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

2. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the discussions at the EU leaders' informal meeting regarding the budget after 2020; the contributions he made; and the consensus. [10147/18]

Seán Haughey

Ceist:

3. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the outcome of the meeting of EU leaders in Brussels on 23 February 2018 at which the EU budget was discussed. [10466/18]

Brendan Howlin

Ceist:

4. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the informal summit of EU leaders on 23 February 2018. [10928/18]

Brendan Howlin

Ceist:

5. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his engagements with leaders at the G5 Sahel conference. [10929/18]

Joan Burton

Ceist:

6. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his contribution at the most recent informal EU leaders' meeting regarding the EU budget after 2020. [11543/18]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.

I attended an informal meeting of the 27 EU Heads of State and Government in Brussels on 23 February. This was the third such meeting convened by President Tusk under his "Leaders' Agenda" format, with the focus this time on institutional issues and the post-2020 multi-annual financial framework.

On institutional issues, there was general support for the proposal to redistribute 27 of the 73 European Parliament seats left over following the departure of the United Kingdom. I expressed our support for this move, which will see two additional seats allocated to Ireland.

We noted the European Parliament's rejection of the use of transnational lists for the 2019 elections but agreed to keep the proposal under consideration for future elections. We also agreed that, while European political parties can nominate their candidates for the role of President of the European Commission, the final decision should remain with the European Council. I have already outlined my views on these issues, including in my address to the European Parliament in Strasbourg in January.

Although not formally for consideration, a number of other institutional issues were discussed, including the size of the European Commission, in respect of which we are strongly opposed to any reduction, and the proposal to combine the roles of President of the European Commission and President of the European Council, which we also oppose.

In response to President Macron's proposal for EU-wide public engagement on the future of Europe, I was happy to outline our own citizens' dialogue, which I launched last November and which is being achieved under the leadership of the Minister of State at the Department of European Affairs, Deputy Helen McEntee. The dialogue is scheduled to conclude on 9 May and I offered to share our experience with partners.

In discussions on the next EU budget, the multi-annual financial framework, I noted that a strong and well-funded CAP remains a key priority for Ireland. I acknowledged the contribution of cohesion funding, including the PEACE and INTERREG programmes, which have done so much to support peace and reconciliation on this island. I also acknowledged the contributions of research and innovation initiatives, such as Horizon 2020. I also recognised the importance of newer EU priorities and said that Ireland is open to contributing more, if and where it brings added European value and provided our core priorities are protected.

A range of views were expressed at the meeting including in regard to the size and the priorities of the budget. Further intensive discussions will take place on this following the publication of the European Commission's formal proposal in early May.

We discussed a number of other items, including the importance of finance for Libya and developments regarding Turkey and Cyprus.

In addition to the informal summit on 23 February, I attended a dinner the previous evening at the invitation of Prime Minister Charles Michel of Belgium. I was joined by a number of other EU leaders, including Chancellor Merkel, President Macron and the prime ministers of Spain, Italy, Finland, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Luxembourg and Bulgaria. This dinner provided an opportunity for an informal and open-ended exchange of views ahead of the meeting of the 27 Heads of State and Government the following day.

On the morning of the informal summit, I also attended a high-level conference on the Sahel, together with my EU counterparts and the leaders of the G5 Sahel countries - Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger – in addition to representatives of international organisations and relevant parties. The aim of the conference was to bring together the three strands of our support for the G5 Sahel region, namely political and diplomatic support, security and development. I noted Ireland's ongoing commitment to the region, including through humanitarian and development funding, as well as the deployment of Irish civilian experts and defence personnel to a number of CSDP missions in the region.

I had no scheduled bilateral meetings during this trip but used the opportunity of the informal summit, the high-level conference on the Sahel and the dinner event on Thursday to engage informally with my counterparts, including the President of Mali, with whom I discussed our EU mission to Mali.

I have said before that it is extraordinary and strange that there were no pre-EU Council statements prior to the EU informal summit held last month because, as the Taoiseach outlined, institutional and transnational issues were discussed, in addition to high-level EU appointments.

With regard to the discussion on the number of seats, the departure of the United Kingdom from the Union because of Brexit will mean a redistribution of about 27 seats, in keeping with the principles of degressive proportionality.

Will the Taoiseach outline what was the nature of the discussion around this? Does he support a wider discussion regarding the number of seats which the European Parliament should have? I believe there was some attempt to reduce the number of MEPs from 751 to 705. What was the Taoiseach's position on that?

Was there a discussion at the informal summit on the Brexit negotiations and draft withdrawal agreement? Will the Taoiseach outline the Government's priorities for the next multi-annual financial framework? What level of consultation took place on this and with whom before the priorities were decided upon? The Taoiseach might recall his speech to the European Parliament where he said they were his personal views and had not been signed off by Government. I am interested in the Taoiseach's approach to this meeting. Was it the Government's views or his own personal views about institutional reform?

On investment in research and innovation, I am glad that the Taoiseach said that CAP will still be a major priority. While she was a Commissioner, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn did fantastic work on Horizon 2020. We, as a country, should place a very high premium on the importance of such a European research programme and substantial investment being put behind it.

MEPs were recently before the Joint Committee on European Affairs and they are concerned about the post-Brexit European budget, which may be in a deficit from anything from €7 billion to €15 billion. Can the Taoiseach confirm that Ireland has agreed to increase its budget contribution as long as other states do likewise? What increase might this involve? Would it be 10%, 20% or another figure?

I welcome the Taoiseach's comments regarding the protection of the CAP, the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Fund. They are things that the EU does well, and I know it wants to take on new projects. I also welcome the Taoiseach's opposition to a common corporate tax base throughout the EU, which he expressed at the summit.

It was not on the agenda for this meeting, but the media has reported that Ireland is signing up to two of 17 PESCO projects on offer as we speak. There is a meeting in Brussels today. Can the Taoiseach give us any information on the two projects to which we are apparently signing up? Presumably, they are in compliance with Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality.

There has been a proposal for some MEPs to be elected by transnational Europe-wide lists. What is the Government's view on this? I have concerns about this proposal as it removes MEPs from the citizens and makes them less accessible.

Finally, will the Taoiseach confirm that support for Ireland's position in relation to the avoidance of a hard border remains firm among the EU 27, and that it has not diminished as the negotiations continue?

When will the question of additional seats be settled? How and when will the distribution of seats within the State be determined so that people can begin to make preparations?

On the next multi-annual financial framework, apparently Ireland is agreeable to making an increased contribution to the next funding round. How much extra is Ireland willing to pay? Has the Government examined the options put forward by the Commission to raise additional European funding? For example, the EU emissions trading systems moved from state level to EU level. Where does Ireland stand on that? Does the Taoiseach have a view?

Was there agreement on the proposal that profits from seigniorage, the profits made from issuing currency, by the European Central Bank could be an EU resource? Does the Taoiseach have a position on that?

On the discussions with leaders at the G5 Shahel meeting, Ireland has its defence force in that region, although we do not currently have diplomatic personnel. Is it part of the deepening and broadening of Ireland's footprint that the Taoiseach signalled when he took office to have an aid office in that region? It is a region that is focused more not only on defence force personnel, but also personnel from An Garda Síochána than in the past. Does the Taoiseach have a view on this?

The United Kingdom is currently a significant net contributor to the EU budget. Brexit, when it happens, will cause a weekly €200 million gap in the European budget. The options currently being examined by the EU Commission include increasing member states contributions from 1% to 1.2% of GNI* which is a very large jump and would particularly affect Ireland at a time when our GNI* is rising; an entirely new income flow, such as the EU introducing some new form of tax with a number of options having been discussed already; and increasing the increasing VAT contributions into the EU budget. At present, Ireland is a small net contributor. Under all options laid out by the EU, it will become a very large net contributor. Where does the Taoiseach stand on the proposals that are now on the table in this matter?

On the additional seats in the European Parliament, is the Taoiseach open to the idea of people from the North of Ireland being afforded a seat and an opportunity for representation in the Parliament given that everyone born on the island is entitled to Irish citizenship and, by extension, European citizenship? I commend that idea to him.

I met Michel Barnier yesterday to discuss the draft withdrawal agreement. I am pleased to see that they are holding firm on the backstop option and the efforts to protect the Good Friday Agreement and avoid a hard border on the island.

The British Prime Minister, Theresa May, came out with a rather outlandish suggestion that the Canadian-US border might be looked to for inspiration, an idea to which the Taoiseach has responded. It does not augur well for the British contribution or its ability to come up with solutions rather than political rhetoric. Can the Taoiseach tell us whether Mrs May and the Conservative Government has indicated when they might come forward with real solutions rather than fantasy?

The Taoiseach has about two minutes to respond.

The way informal summits work is that matters are discussed but no conclusions are reached or decisions made. I am always interested in other parties' views on institutional issues and matters of reform. I encourage parties, if they have not done so yet, to produce a short paper outlining their views on institutional reforms and submit them to the public consultation being led by the Minister of State, Deputy Helen McEntee, so we might take them into account in forming Government policy. I have not seen any policy papers from any Opposition parties yet.

We will send ours on.

We have been publishing policy papers on European reform for a long time - for years.

Did the Taoiseach miss it?

I said that I had not seen them. I did not say they had not been produced. I will make a point of reading them.

The strategic communications unit should send them on.

Deputies, please, we have just over a minute left.

The Government has adopted a paper on the multi-annual financial framework. It was brought to Cabinet by the Tánaiste and Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform about two weeks ago. The paper adopted by the Government was very much in line with views expressed in the European Parliament in Strasbourg. We indicated that we would be willing to increase our contribution to the budget but we have not said by how much. We have said that we would prefer to stick with the GNI*-based system of making contributions to the budget; we are not enthusiasts for new European-wide taxes or sources of funding. We need to be very cautious about that as it may lead to a whole series of EU-wide taxes that we or the public might not support.

In the context of the spend, our view is that we should continue to fund well programmes that we believe work well, such as those relating to the Common Agricultural Policy and to Structural Funds. These programmes include INTERREG, PEACE II, ERASMUS, Horizon 2020, research and development, etc. If we are to continue to fund them well in the absence of the UK, we will need new money. I invite parties to publish papers on the multi-annual financial framework, MFF.

With regard to Deputy Burton's comment, I would not like us to get sucked into a very narrow view of net contributors and net beneficiaries. This is the kind of talk we hear from eurosceptics - especially those in Britain and other places - to the effect that a country is paying this much in and getting that much out. That is a very narrow view of European Union membership. It is not just about what a member state pays into the budget and what it gets out in programmes. The real value of EU membership is intangible. It is about the four freedoms, the freedom of movement of people, labour, capital and free trade. These intangible benefits are enormous. It disappoints me when I see that type of thinking entering our debate. As Ireland moves from being a net beneficiary to being a net contributor, we need to ensure that we do not get into that kind of argument as put across by eurosceptics all the time.

That is because the issue is never discussed. We need a debate on the issue.

I would always like to spend more time discussing issues of substance.

There are no pre-Council statements. There is no real or genuine debate on the issue in the House.

Programme for Government Implementation

Brendan Howlin

Ceist:

7. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach the status of the commitment in A Programme for a Partnership Government on political reform. [9663/18]

Mary Lou McDonald

Ceist:

8. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the status of commitments in A Programme for a Partnership Government in respect of political reform. [11221/18]

I propose to take questions Nos. 7 and 8 together.

A Programme for a Partnership Government, which was published in May 2016, contains a number of commitments on Dáil and Seanad reform.

The most recent report setting out the progress made in implementing the commitments in the programme for Government was published on 19 December last. An annual progress report will be published in May. On Dáil reform, this Government continues to build on the Oireachtas reform packages introduced between 2011 and 2016 by the previous Government.

Since the 2016 general election, a number of additional reforms have been introduced. These include: the establishment of a new cross-party Dáil Business Committee to discuss and agree the Dáil schedule; a new Committee on Budgetary Oversight was established to allow the Oireachtas play a greater role in the budgetary process; committee chairmen are now appointed using the D'Hondt system; there is more time for Private Members' business in the Dáil; and votes are now grouped to encourage a more family-friendly environment and workplace.

Since September, there is now more proportionate speaking time for all Deputies, additional time is provided in the Dáil for Government business to make progress on the Government's extensive legislative programme, staffing for the new Parliamentary Budget Office, which will be a source of financial and budgetary intelligence for Oireachtas Members, and, in particular, for the Committee on Budgetary Oversight, chaired by Deputy Colm Brophy, has been provided.

Within my Department, there is an expanded role for the Chief Whip's office, alongside the new parliamentary liaison unit, to support these arrangements, including supporting good communication between Departments and the Oireachtas, particularly in the context of progressing legislation through the Houses.

There is now more proactive communication between Ministers and their Departments and Opposition spokespeople and Oireachtas committee chairpersons and members. The new budgetary procedures and the new use of pre-legislative scrutiny by committees give the Oireachtas greater input into significant policy matters.

As I outlined in my recent speech in the Seanad, I have decided that an implementation group on Seanad reform should be established and given an eight-month mandate to consider the Manning report and develop specific proposals to legislate for Seanad reform.

I propose that the implementation group comprise Members of the Oireachtas and should have the assistance of outside experts, including the franchise section in the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, as appropriate. It is important that all groups in the Oireachtas be represented on the implementation group and also that it be representative of the groups' different sizes in the Houses. I will be writing shortly to party and group leaders inviting them to nominate members to the group.

This is the third time the Taoiseach has told the House that he is writing to us to ask for nominations to the Seanad reform group. I look forward to receiving the letter. Subsequent to the referendum held on the future of the Seanad, the agreed position across the House was that reform of the Seanad was needed. The Taoiseach referred to the reform group. I understand that a chairperson for the group was suggested and this was to be Senator Michael McDowell. It is the understanding on this side of the House that the nomination was blocked by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether this continues to be the case? Is the Minister continuing to block the nomination of Senator McDowell to chair the Seanad reform group? In a truly reformed situation, would this not be an appropriate decision for the Seanad and the Dáil to make?

On the previous occasion on which we discussed these issues, I also referred to town councils. I acknowledged, and even admitted, that one of the mistakes we made when in government was the abolition of town councils. I am most anxious that we restore these councils. A tier of local democracy has been lost. The Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Phelan, has said he plans to introduce town districts to replace town councils in the 28 largest towns. How does the Taoiseach see those town districts operating? Will they be analogous to the powers that town councils formerly had? Would the Taoiseach agree that the urban focus is a really important part and would he consider returning to that?

On that note, the programme for Government contains an important commitment on local government. The programme states:

As part of the next wave of local government reform the relevant Minister, having consulted widely with all relevant stakeholders, will prepare a report for Government, and for the Oireachtas, by mid-2017 on potential measures to boost local government leadership and accountability.

This report has not been published but reports at the weekend suggest that the Government is considering establishing town districts, as Deputy Howlin said, to compensate for the abolition of town councils in 2013. It seems that the proposal arises from a report submitted to Cabinet last week by the Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Phelan. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether this is the report that was promised in A Programme for a Partnership Government? If it is, why has it not been made available to the Oireachtas? Can the Taoiseach please make arrangements for Members to see the report?

The programme for Government also contains a range of other commitments on political reform, such as those relating to Ministers of State playing a more substantive role in policy formation and the re-examination of their functions within departmental structures and their relationship with Cabinet Ministers. The programme for Government also contains a commitment to examine the creation of unpaid roles of parliamentary private secretaries and, crucially, an examination of the balance of power and responsibility between Government and the Civil Service - a matter that looms large at present. None of these has happened. Can the Taoiseach tell us why?

There are many commitments in the programme for Government in respect of political reform. One of the disappointments has been the lack of progress for many Opposition Bills going through the House and the abuse of the money message. At the beginning of the lifetime of this Dáil, Members were told that a reasonable approach would be taken in using the money message with regard to certain Bills. I am of the view that there has been an abuse of the money message by the Government. This needs to change. I refer to three examples of Bills that could go through, namely, the Mortgage Arrears Resolution (Family Home) Bill 2017, the Parole Bill 2016 and the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill.

On page 150 of the programme for Government, there is a commitment to "examine the balance of power and responsibility between the Government and the Civil Service." Will the Taoiseach confirm whether this review took place and if not why not? In light of the current debate on the strategic communications unit, would the Taoiseach agree that it is a very opportune moment to conduct such a review? In this context and going back over the freedom of information material, the Grangegorman campus of Dublin Institute of Technology, DIT, was part of the budget campaign promoted by the strategic communications unit. The campus was part of the national development plan campaign, as were the projects relating to the national children's hospital, the National Maternity Hospital and the Central Mental Hospital. All of these projects have been on the go for eight or nine years. The Grangegorman campus was conceived by Bertie Ahern and a lot of work was done in decanting the health services there.

I was on the original steering committee.

Various Governments brought that project through. I visited DIT recently and buildings have been constructed. It has the makings of a fine campus. It is being advertised, through the use of taxpayers' money, as though it was something completely new that Ireland will get in 2040. All the time, the project is rolling on. There is a very legitimate question to be asked. Why are civil servants engaged, wittingly or unwittingly, in promoting and inputting into campaigns of this sort, which are paid for by the taxpayer, about projects we have all known about for the past five or six years?

The national children's hospital-----

The Deputy's time is up.

-----will have its own campaign shortly.

Please, Deputy. I call the Taoiseach.

It is bizarre, absurd and wrong.

The Seanad implementation group - and it is an implementation group - is designed to implement the Manning proposals. There had been a few suggestions for chairman and I am open to it being a decision of the House rather than my decision. I do not feel it needs to be an appointment that I make-----

The Minister, Deputy Ross, has had his way then.

-----so I will certainly take Deputy Howlin's suggestion into consideration. It is supposed to be independent. I do not see why it has to be an appointment made by me and I am not sure how that came about in the first place.

There is no decision to restore town councils.

Sorry. I am being distracted.

The Taoiseach said he was not sure how it came about that the nomination of the chairman - anyway, we will talk about that again.

The procedure must be that one asks the question and then, having asked it, one lets the person answer it. If there is-----

I know, but sometimes one is taken aback by the answer.

Wait until we hear what the Taoiseach has to say about town councils.

I know, but if there is an opportunity for supplementary questions, we can-----

As I said, the Government does not have any plan to restore town councils. The matter has been examined. It would cost approximately €40 million a year to do so, and we do not believe that is how ratepayers and people who pay the local property tax would like to see their rates and local property tax money spent.

The Taoiseach might give us a briefing note on that-----

Deputy Howlin, please.

The Minister of State, Deputy Phelan, when he is ready to publish proposals, will do so. He proposes that town districts and borough districts would essentially function as area committees do now but could have the ceremonial functions that previously town councils and borough councils had. This would be a kind of restoration of their ceremonial functions. He is also carrying out a separate piece of work, which is nearing completion, on directly elected mayors for Dublin, Cork and perhaps other counties and the relationship between chief executive officers and county cathaoirligh.

The Ceann Comhairle will be aware that discussions about the lack of progress on legislation are ongoing. There is absolutely a delay in progressing Private Members' Bills. It is not as simple as money messages. We have a difficulty in that there are different standards for the ways in which legislation passes through this House. For Government legislation, in the ordinary course of events, it is necessary to produce the heads and general scheme of a Bill, go to pre-legislative scrutiny, talk to the Attorney General's office and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, publish the legislation, leave a gap for people to consider it and then take the legislation through the Houses. What we allow from Private Members, including those from my own benches as well as those from the Opposition benches, is for legislation to be produced on a Thursday, discussed in the Dáil the following week and passed through Second Stage, and this is not a good way to do legislation. We need a better process to ensure that legislation that comes through from Private Members is of equal quality to that of what is produced by the Government. If we are serious about getting some of these Bills through - and there are some good Bills there - we need to reform our procedures. I know under the Deputy's leadership some good work is taking place in this regard and I hope we can make some progress on that.

I would have to check up on the review Deputy Micheál Martin mentioned. I do not think it has been done but I may be mistaken. In any case, I very much believe in the separation between the Civil Service and politics. It serves us well. This is part of the reason I was so disturbed by Deputy Martin's comments on "The Last Word" last night, on which he alleged that the Government - he said "the Government" - refused to release information under freedom of information, FoI. He said those making the FoI request were first refused and then went to the Information Commissioner. He asked why the Government refused to release the information and what it had to hide. He said it should release all material. I have not been in this House for as long as some Deputies have been, but we all should know how the FoI legislation works. There is a deciding officer in each Department or agency. He or she decides what is and is not released under FoI. It is not permitted for politicians to try to influence or interfere with civil servants when it comes to the FoI Act. That would be a very genuine and legal breach of the separation between civil servants and politicians. I am therefore very confused when I hear allegations thrown at me that I have blurred the line between the Civil Service and politics yet I hear Deputy Martin claiming that an official function is a Government function and suggesting I should somehow interfere with the Civil Service. I will come back again and again to this and the other allegations he has made and seek the evidence for them every time these issues are raised because the double standards in this regard are a matter of concern to me, as are allegations being thrown around without evidence and the real double standard in this regard.

On a point of order-----

There are no points of order on questions.

When it comes to DIT's Grangegorman campus and the national children's hospital, the fundamental difference, I would have thought, from a very practical point of view, is that these projects were promised and promised and promised by previous Governments; now they are actually under construction.

We built them in our time in government.

We will move on to Question No. 9.

On an important point, the Taoiseach talks about allegations. He made an allegation about someone who is not a Member of this House last week. This is a very important point regarding Standing Orders. He has not withdrawn the allegation he made about Mr. Flaherty in the Dáil. He is the last man to be lecturing anyone about casting aspersions on people's characters. He repeated the allegation-----

Deputy, please.

-----again today when he said he has his own conspiracy theories. I am giving him an opportunity-----

Please, Deputy.

-----to reflect on what he said today and last week about Mr. Flaherty and to withdraw those remarks.

A Cheann Comhairle, I never mentioned the man, for a start.

I do not even know what the Deputies are talking about, so will they please-----

Second, Deputy Martin has made any number of allegations against people not in this House and will not produce evidence to support them.

May we move on to Question-----

Do we have time for a supplementary question?

We have no time for supplementary questions.

Deputy Martin has made any number of allegations-----

We move on to Question No. 9.

-----about people that he will not support with evidence.

Taoiseach, please.

The Taoiseach does not like criticism.

Deputy Martin does not like his own standards being applied to him.

It appears to me that neither of you likes abiding by the rules of the House-----

I am happy enough.

-----which provide limited time-----

Deputy Martin is happy enough to make allegations about unnamed people and not produce the relevant evidence. It is not right.

Will the Deputies please stop this bickering?

Cabinet Committee Meetings

Richard Boyd Barrett

Ceist:

9. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach when Cabinet committee D (infrastructure) will next meet. [9873/18]

Brendan Howlin

Ceist:

10. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach when Cabinet committee D (infrastructure) will next meet. [10930/18]

Mary Lou McDonald

Ceist:

11. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach when Cabinet committee D (infrastructure) last met; and when it is scheduled to meet again. [11220/18]

Joan Burton

Ceist:

12. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach when Cabinet committee D (infrastructure) will next meet. [11546/18]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 to 12, inclusive, together.

Cabinet committee D last met on 1 February 2018. The next meeting of the committee has not yet been scheduled.

Cabinet committee D was established to cover the areas of infrastructure investment, climate action and housing. There is significant work under way across each of these areas.

Cabinet committee D aims to ensure a co-ordinated approach to the delivery of this work and the ongoing development of policy.

In this context, the Government provided a forum in which the preparations for the recently launched Project Ireland 2040 were discussed, although there were several Government meetings dedicated to the preparation of the plan.

Project Ireland 2040 marks the first time our national planning policy and national programme of investment in infrastructure have been developed in tandem. Cabinet committee D will continue to provide a forum for oversight of the implementation of the plan.

Project Ireland 2040 places climate action objectives at the heart of public capital investment plans. It builds on the national mitigation plan and the national adaptation framework and will support a significant reduction in carbon emissions over the period to 2030. The largest single allocation under any theme in this plan is for climate change at approximately €22 billion over a ten-year period.

Regarding housing, Project Ireland 2040 anticipates provision for 550,000 additional houses by 2040, taking forward the progress already under way in implementing Rebuilding Ireland. Of these additional homes, 110,000 will be social or public housing.

I wish to ask the Taoiseach about one specific piece of infrastructure that I have discussed with him particularly when he was Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport and was responsible for this piece of infrastructure, namely, Dún Laoghaire Harbour. A very important meeting will take place in the council tonight at which there will be a discussion as to whether Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company will be dissolved and Dún Laoghaire Harbour transferred under the full control and ownership of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. As the Taoiseach knows, I have campaigned on this since I was elected to the Dáil, for six or seven years, and have argued with him, among other Ministers responsible for transport, that it should have happened long ago. The company had driven out the ferry and wasted millions of euro and there has been a risk assessment and due diligence. The county manager of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown says the council still does not know, after two years of investigating the finances of the company, what is going on in it, how much revenue it has, what real liabilities it has and so on. I very much welcome a report by the county manager that came out last week in which she has endorsed the position we have been campaigning for, that is, the dissolution of the harbour company, a dysfunctional quango, and its transfer into public ownership, a big victory for people power. However, because of the six years of delay on the part of the Taoiseach among others, major questions hang over the financial position of Dún Laoghaire Harbour, questions that I appealed to successive Ministers to get to the bottom of.

The Deputy's time is up.

Given that this transfer may go ahead and should go ahead, will the Government ensure that the decks are cleared in terms of the finances and liabilities of Dún Laoghaire Harbour in order for this transfer to occur in an orderly way and for this unique piece of cultural and architectural heritage to be able to be used to the benefit of the millions of people who use those piers?

We have ten minutes remaining and if people consume all of the time asking the questions, there will not be any answers.

Tell that to the previous Deputies.

I will, and I think I did.

The Taoiseach has confirmed Cabinet committee D on infrastructure did meet to discuss if not formally approve the Project Ireland 2040 national development plan, and perhaps the Taoiseach will indicate to us whether it did approve it. Were there specific evidential criteria applied to the individual projects that were proposed in the plan? I asked in advance of the plan that they would be published at the same time. To ensure that we know proper due diligence and proper evaluation for every project on the same basis was made, will the Taoiseach arrange to have it published?

On the specific investment on preparing Ireland for Brexit, I am very concerned that while Rosslare Europort is one of the most important ports in the country, the only reference in the development plan to it is to have a further review of the port and neither is there a commitment to complete the M11 motorway, from Oylegate to Rosslare Europort itself, when the current phase, which is the Enniscorthy bypass, is completed, hopefully by the end of this year. In the event of there being difficulties with a land bridge across the UK to the rest of Europe, this would be a vital national link. I ask the Taoiseach to give his views on this matter.

I too would like to hear something about the due diligence and metrics applied in terms of the compilation of Project Ireland 2040. It seems upon reading it that much of it was a restatement or rehash of announcements that had long been made and that people have been long awaiting.

The Taoiseach spoke earlier about the weather event and the status red the country has been through. He quite correctly commended the public services and emergency services. There has been infrastructural damage as a result of the very severe weather. The Taoiseach was in Wexford and he saw at first hand the devastation there. The stories among the farming community, where sheds caved in due to the bearing down of record snowfalls, were extremely worrying. It may be a mundane matter, but does committee D propose to look at this weather event and assess the infrastructural needs or gaps that arise as a result of such weather events, for example, the issue of technical specifications for sheds? This might seem mundane but it is an important matter. Will these types of issues be addressed? In terms of transport and housing equally, it not just a case of picking over the damage that has been done but planning in a concrete way for future episodes. Sadly, with climate change and global warming, it seems that increasingly these severe weather events are with us.

The other evening I went to see "Lady Bird" featuring Saoirse Ronan. Before the film started, there was a bit of a laugh around the cinema as an advertisement was played of little balsa men and little balsa houses that looked like architects' working models on behalf of the Government for the national development plan. To be perfectly honest, I wonder when we go to the cinema why we have such trivia put in front of us, paid for by public taxpayers' money. People were just laughing at it. The bus shelters, I do not quite know how many, particularly in Dublin 7 and Dublin 15, have been somewhat taken over by the same advertisements. These are in an area where there is a lot of housing need and it is not nice. They are balsa housing units and apartments that are not there. I do not get it. I notice some of them have been removed, and perhaps the Taoiseach will tell us why. In terms of the national development plan, are we now going to have a set of mini-launches of specific areas such as one for arts and culture, which I understand is in the works as we speak?

Technically, is the Taoiseach able to say why the Government decided to remove the cap of 10% on public private partnerships which was put in place by the previous Government and has now been removed? Of the two of the big providers of public private partnerships, Carillion, is bust, gone and in liquidation, and Capita is in a great deal of difficulty. Why is the Government removing the ban when, in particular at this point in time, public financing is definitely cheaper?

I call Deputy Martin and ask him to stick to 30 seconds if he would.

I note the entire Cabinet is decamping to UCC on Friday.

I am now beginning to understand why the Taoiseach was seeking assistance from all parties in the House for a quorum, because clearly half of the Fine Gael Party will be on the UCC campus marketing the national development plan.

The Taoiseach will be in Waterford.

On his way to Cork.

Delivery is the key and more than 9,000 people are in emergency accommodation of whom 3,267 are children. This is the bottom line. When people come into our clinics in desperate situations looking for housing, they find it unbelievable that there are all these advertisements about 2040 and 2027. The Luas to Finglas is post-2027 but it is a great thing and the Government will even get a few personalities and pretend it is contributing-----

We need to give the Taoiseach a chance to respond.

We need delivery. Rapid housing was promised when the then Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, announced it three years ago. In 2015, some 1,500 houses were to be delivered. There is a huge issue about delivery in 2019, 2020 and 2021 in hospitals, health services and housing. They are the key issues on which the Government needs to refocus.

The Taoiseach has just under three minutes to respond.

On Deputy Boyd Barrett's first question on Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company, I am not up to date with the issues relating to the harbour but I am familiar with the company and the place from my previous time as Minister with responsibility for transport. It was my view at the time, and we discussed it then, that the smaller harbour companies were not viable as semi-State companies and it would be better if they were transferred to the control of the local authorities. My role as Minister was to get the legislation through the Dáil and Seanad to make that possible. I did that and a number of smaller port companies have now been transferred to local authorities and this is another one. It is obviously a decision for the local authority as to whether it wants it to happen or not. It would be appropriate because these small port companies and harbours are more amenities than commercial enterprises. As amenities it is more appropriate that they be under local authority control than operated as if they were semi-State companies like the ESB or Dublin Airport Authority. I cannot make any commitment on clearing the debt. That is a matter the Deputy would have to raise with the Minister, Deputy Ross. I am not aware of the debts having been cleared for any other port, if there were debts on transfer.

There were liabilities.

Project Ireland 2040 was approved by the Cabinet and not by a Cabinet subcommittee, and all projects were assessed by the line Department and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. The extent to which there was assessment depended on the nature of the projects. Projects under the purview of Transport Infrastructure Ireland or the NTA often had quite detailed assessments and benefit to cost ratios, and other projects perhaps did not so much.

Rosslare Europort is owned by Irish Rail. Irish Rail did not put forward any specific plans for the development of the port but we thought it would be useful and helpful to include a mention of it to keep open the possibility that there could be investment in Rosslare.

That is depressing in and of itself.

It got a mention.

Other ports, for example the Port of Cork, the Port of Dublin and the Port of Foynes, put forward their own detailed proposals for development, which the Government supports. That is why they are included in the plan. The plan, which is backed by a ten-year infrastructure investment plan, covers ten years and in any ten-year investment plan there is a pipeline of projects, some that are under construction, some that have gone to tender, some that are still in planning and design and some that have yet to go to planning or design.

I looked back on previous capital plans. I looked back on the capital infrastructure priorities plan, which was produced by Fine Gael and the Labour Party when we were in Government together. I looked at the 2007 plan published by Fianna Fáil and the Greens. We all took exactly the same approach and I think it is the right approach; to take the full ten-year spectrum of projects, including some that are already under construction, some that have yet to go to tender, some that are at the planning stage and some at the design stage. This is the approach that has been taken with previous capital plans and I did not see any reason to change it.

Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.
Barr
Roinn