Vol. 1053 No. 6
49. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the timeframe in which he intends to submit a declaration to intervene in the case of South Africa v. Israel taken under the Genocide Convention at the International Court of Justice, ICJ. [21105/24]
What is the timeframe in which the Government intends to submit a declaration to intervene in the case of South Africa v. Israel taken under the Genocide Convention at the International Court of Justice? In his remarks will he also confirm to the House that Ireland, along with other states, intends to recognise the state of Palestine on 21 May, as reported?
I think the latter issue will come up in a later question. I will respond on the question as tabled. As Deputies will recall, South Africa initiated its case against Israel under the Genocide Convention at the International Court of Justice by filing an application with the court on 29 December 2023. South Africa also sought a number of provisional measures pending the outcome of the case. A contentious case before the ICJ proceeds by way of an exchange of written pleadings, beginning with the filing of a detailed memorial by the applicant state, before oral hearings can take place. On 5 April, the court made an order setting time limits for the filing of written pleadings by the parties in this case. It fixed 28 October 2024 for South Africa to file its memorial and 28 July 2025 for Israel to file its counter-memorial. As I have made clear in response to a number of questions on this issue, Ireland intends to file a declaration of intervention in this case under Article 63 of the statute of the court after South Africa has filed its memorial. That is absolutely in line with what happened in respect of Ukraine. We expect that a month or two after the South African memorial is submitted that we will file our intervention.
On the conflict in Gaza more broadly, the current situation in Rafah is extremely concerning. One and a half million people are currently sheltering there. Most are already displaced from elsewhere in Gaza and in desperate conditions. I visited the Rafah crossing in late April and saw the terrible circumstances there myself. The international community has repeatedly made it very clear that an Israeli military operation in Rafah will inevitably lead to disastrous humanitarian consequences and the deaths of large numbers of innocent civilians. This operation must stop. Protection of civilians is an obligation under international humanitarian law and these people have nowhere safe to go. Further Israeli military strikes will take a catastrophic humanitarian toll.
Ireland was one of the first countries to call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire and I renew that call today. We need the violence to stop, a massive scale-up of humanitarian aid and the unconditional release of all hostages. Israel has clear obligations under international law and these must be fulfilled. Israel must facilitate full, safe and unimpeded access of humanitarian aid to the civilian population of Gaza.
I also condemn the Hamas attack on the Kerem Shalom crossing over the weekend, which resulted in the death of four Israeli soldiers. This has resulted in the closure of the Kerem Shalom crossing, which is vital for the delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza.
I am sure the Tánaiste agrees that it is impossible to imagine what parents, children, men and women in Rafah are going through right now, considering all they have come through in the past seven months. In many instances, they have been moved up to six times already and are living in a situation that can only be described as depraved, and now they have the anxiety of wondering when the next barrage will come. I set that out because, while I am sure they are not listening to Oireachtas debates or debates in multilateral forums, if they could hear the timeframes being set out, they would wonder what the world is doing. Everything is sometime in the future. There is nothing in the ICJ's rules that prevents Ireland from intervening now and setting out a clear case that it is our belief that Israel is in breach of the Genocide Convention. It is in gross violation of international law. I implore the Tánaiste to do so.
We should endeavour to be fair, straight and honest with people. I have never deviated. I have been consistent from the outset about how the ICJ operates. We have been consistent with how we responded to the Ukrainian situation. Sinn Féin's motion talked about Ireland indicating a willingness to file. I made it clear that first South Africa needs to file its memorial, and that takes time. Everything to do with international courts takes time. I would argue that people in the House gave a wrong and false impression that this could all be done in 24 days, that we could join the case and so on. That was not being straight with people, however. There was political work afoot in that. I have an obligation to be honest with people and explain how the ICJ works. It is important that we are credible in how we file interventions.
South Africa will file a substantive case and it asked for this length of time. We need to see the substantive case submitted by South Africa and then make sure our intervention is at least informed by the South African substantive case. We have also been working on how one would file. It has to be done under Article 63 or Article 61. Our legal advice is that we would not get a hearing under Article 61. The issue of broadening the parameters and definitions around which the court can make its decision is a significant move by us. We are preparing the ground for that. There is no reluctance or slowness on our part.
It is welcome that the Government has made this commitment. The point is, in some ways, down to the timeframe. It is also down to the substance of the intervention, when Ireland makes it. We want it to be as strong as possible. The ICJ has made it clear in previous rulings that there is no specific timeframe in which a state can intervene. In other words, a state can intervene at any stage.
Sorry?
Legally, there is no need in this instance, for example, to wait until the substantive submission by South Africa is filed.
There is.
That is a matter of fact and ruling by the ICJ.
I again welcome that Ireland, along with other states, has indicated it plans to recognise the state of Palestine on 21 May. I welcome that although I contend it is far beyond the time it should have happened. It would be useful if the Minister would confirm that is the case.
Confirm which?
The recognition on 21 May. We also must recognise that a Palestinian state today is unviable precisely because Israel has made it unviable. A further incursion and invasion into Rafah will make not only a Palestinian state but any prospect of a lasting peace settlement virtually impossible to contemplate. Does the Minister agree there is a need for the international community and states such as Ireland to take meaningful action to ensure Israel pays a political price for what it is currently doing?
First, in terms of the declaration of intervention, we would be making it under Article 63. States do not join one side or another in filing an intervention in the case. Rather, they submit a statement that sets out their interpretation of one or more provisions of whatever convention is at issue before the court. This declaration of intervention must then be deemed admissible by the court in order for the intervention to proceed. Waiting until South Africa has filed its memorial will ensure we have a good understanding of what provisions of the Genocide Convention South Africa intends to rely on which we can then, in turn, address. This will make it more likely that the court will deem Ireland's intervention admissible. Arguing in respect of the commission of genocide would not be our role. Rather, we would be explaining to the court how we consider the Genocide Convention should be applied in this case. We are breaching new ground here in terms of broadening the definition upon which genocide can be judged by the court. The threshold was set very high originally by many of the contracting parties, some of which had been involved in wars and wanted the threshold to be deliberately high. We have watched the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and the prevention and impeding of aid going in and so on and we believe there are grounds now for making a submission on that basis. We are doing this in a very informed way.
On the question of recognition, I made it clear in the House that we are working with like-minded European countries and have been doing so for quite some time. The Deputy is familiar with me articulating that position in the House. We have worked with Spain, in particular, and with others. We have worked with Spain regarding a specific date. Other countries have yet to indicate whether will do it in a co-ordinated manner. There are some talks still under way in that respect. Certainly, we have made it clear in the House that this is something that will happen in a relatively short timeframe.
In the context of the Arab peace initiative, I have met representatives of the Arab contact group. We are familiar with what is in that initiative and we believe this is an important moment in terms of sending a signal to the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian population more generally that we recognise a Palestinian state and that we recognise its right to self-determination. The Government will revert to the Dáil in due course in respect of a specific decision on that.
50. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his proposals to ensure the Passport Office operates efficiently throughout the busy summer period; if he will ensure that applicants can avail of urgent passport renewal or first-time in-person application and collection services when required; and if he will outline the number of additional staff who will be appointed to the Passport Office in the coming weeks. [21106/24]
I commend the staff in the Passport Office, who have been going through probably the busiest two or three years the office has ever faced. I think everybody in this House has at some stage added to their burden in terms of dealing with urgent cases in particular. Will the Tánaiste ensure there are sufficient staff within the Passport Office to deal with demand during the busy summer period? Will he consider a mechanism that will allow urgent passport applications to receive an urgent appointment in order to secure passports, perhaps at the last minute, in unavoidable circumstances? There is a provision for emergency cases but not for urgent cases.
I pay tribute to the team and all of the staff working at the passport service. It has issued 450,000 passports to date this year and is on track to have issued half a million passports by the end of this month. Virtually all complete passport applications are being processed within advertised turnaround times.
The passport service is well-staffed and in an excellent position to deliver on the demand forecast for the rest of this year. Ensuring that we have enough staff to respond to demand is a priority for me and my Department and is kept under constant review. The passport service currently has 830 staff, including 40 officers who were assigned in April. A further 16 staff are due to be assigned in the coming weeks.
In situations where applicants have booked travel and need their passport renewed urgently, the public offices in Dublin 2 and in Cork operate a four-day urgent appointment service for renewal applications. The Dublin office also offers a one-day urgent appointment service. In March, the passport service made an additional 55 one-day appointments per week available in the Dublin office. Therefore, there are now 220 one-day appointments and 264 four-day renewal appointments available in Dublin and 280 four-day renewal appointments available in Cork every week for citizens who need to renew their passports urgently.
First-time applications are too complex to process at a public counter as they are, in essence, verifications of Irish citizenship. As such, a rigorous process is in place to validate the identity of applicants and to confirm their citizenship status.
With regard to passport collection, this can be facilitated in emergency situations. However, given the efficiencies of the passport online service, once the passport is printed and dispatched, it will generally be with the applicant through the post on the next working day. I encourage everyone to apply online through passport online, which offers citizens the ability to apply for their passport 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The Tánaiste should have a look at the Oireachtas query service for passports as well. It is not great at the moment
I have said a number of times that when the passport service works well, it works very well. That is the experience for many people. I know a lot of people who have applied, particularly for passport renewals, who have actually been surprised at the speed at which their passport has arrived in their letterboxes. That is an absolute credit and testament to the staff and the operation that is in place.
The issue is that when problems arise they can be devastating. They can result in families missing holidays that have been long-planned or people missing weddings or other important life moments. We still always need to endeavour to ensure we have a system that is as close to perfect as possible.
In December 2021 the House was told that staffing levels in the passport service would actually rise to 920 by January 2022. The Tánaiste has indicated the current staffing level is 830, with an additional 18 being brought on board. Has the target of 920 been abandoned? There was no reference to it. What is the staffing level target within the Passport Office?
The first point I would make is there is a balance as well. We have to consistently tell people to remember to get their passports updated, to apply online and in time. We do everything we possibly can to facilitate urgent cases. Most people in the House would acknowledge that, and we will continue to do it.
However, we do not want to create a new scenario whereby people think they can get a passport within four days or one day and they do not have to bother applying online. There is a balance to be struck there. That said, we will still do everything we can to sort out urgent situations. In emergency situations, passports are sorted out, as the Deputy knows.
With regard to staffing, we have temporary staff in addition to full-time staff and we keep it under constant review. We have significantly increased staffing levels in the past two years in particular. We are confident we can meet the demand again this year, as we did last year. There was a post-Covid spike that we believe will even out and settle down in the next year or two.
The urgent passport service is the gap within the services. It is primarily for first-time applicants. I am not talking about people who apply on 1 May and wish to travel on 20 May. In most instances we deal with, these are people who submitted their applications late last year or in the very early weeks of this year.
They subsequently received notification from the Passport Office that something was not right, such as a photo not being perfect, the person who provided a signature on a consent form not being contactable or whatever the case may be. By the time that communication was received, a case that may not have been urgent when the passport was first applied for has become urgent. There needs to be a mechanism whereby, in cases where the Passport Office has dealt with all of the citizenship issues and other questions, an appointment can be made for somebody to bring in a final piece of information and a passport to be offered on the spot.
I found that most people in that position would quite willingly pay five or ten times the cost of the original application because of the urgency involved. That would negate the fear of the Minister that everybody would leave it until the last moment. In most instances, only people in desperate need of a passport would avail of such a service. I ask the Minister to keep that under review and give it consideration, in particular during the summer months.
We are doing so. The manner in which we have approached this issue is to increase the number of appointments at public counters for the one-day or four-day renewal service at the Mount Street office in Dublin and the four-day renewal service in Cork. As I said, every week there are about 221 one-day and 264 four-day renewal appointments available in Dublin and 280 four-day renewal appointments in Cork. We will examine whether we can improve and expand that service in order to get the balance right and deal with the urgent cases that arise.
51. Deputy Marian Harkin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the actions he has taken to persuade the European Commission to suspend the EU-Israel association agreement. [20548/24]
I very much welcome the fact that Ireland, along with some of our European colleagues, proposes to recognise the state of Palestine before the end of the month. I believe the Minister's work and leadership on this matter has been very positive. However, I want to raise another issue that is very important, namely, the EU-Israel trade agreement, something I have raised many times in the House. I have written to the Commission and spoken to the Minister about it. What are we doing to try to move forward and review this agreement? I believe it should be suspended.
I thank the Deputy for her kind comments. As she is aware, the then Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, and Prime Minister Sánchez of Spain wrote to the President of the European Commission on 14 February of this year, requesting an urgent review of whether Israel is complying with its human rights obligations under the EU-Israel association agreement. The letter further requested that the Commission propose appropriate measures for the consideration of the Council, should it find that Israel is in breach of its obligations.
This request was followed up at senior level with the cabinet of President von der Leyen on 12 March. It was also discussed by EU foreign ministers at the Foreign Affairs Council on 18 March. While this initiative does not enjoy the support of all EU partners, it remains my firm view that the European Commission should respond in a meaningful manner to the Irish-Spanish request. This was further emphasised by the Taoiseach when he met President von der Leyen on 11 April. Ireland’s request regarding the EU-Israel association agreement is just one element in our efforts to shape EU policy in the context of the current crisis. It is also consistent with our overall approach, which is grounded in respect for international law.
In my view, the European Union can and should do much more to use the levers at its disposal to exert pressure on Israel. This will remain a priority for my continuing engagement at EU level. The importance of Ireland’s intensive efforts through bilateral diplomatic channels, co-ordination with like-minded partners, leadership within the European Union and our clear and principled voice at the United Nations are fully understood and appreciated by our Palestinian and international partners.
I am pleased to hear that by February the Government had moved to this point. I, along with my colleagues in the Independent Group, wrote to the Commission last November. Article 2 of the trade association agreement is very clear and states that the provisions of the agreement shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles to guide internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this agreement. I voted for that agreement in the European Parliament. We spent a lot of time examining trade deals and the carrot-and-stick aspect, as it were. This agreement makes a mockery of that, and I do not say that lightly. If at this point the EU is not reviewing that trade agreement, what is the point in us voting for something like that? When I initially raised this issue, the response was not positive from the Government. I know the Minister has come around to it. Can anything else be done at this point to move things forward so that the EU can stand over what is in its own trade agreements?
I welcome the Deputy's contribution. She is correct that when the EU signs and supports association agreements, these clauses have to mean something. I refer in particular to Israel's compliance with the essential elements clause of the agreement. The Commission needs to carry out a review. Josep Borrell has initiated a discussion on this, and I understand some work has been done in the context of the external action service in respect of assessing this.
Fundamentally, the letter from Prime Minister Sánchez and the former Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, requested that the Commission carry out a review of the association agreement in terms of whether the clauses were being fulfilled adequately by Israel. It is our view that those clauses have to mean something. We are clear that there has been a breach of international humanitarian law by Israel in Gaza. What is happening to Palestinians in Gaza is unacceptable by any humanitarian yardstick.
I thank the Minister. As I said, I appreciate his work on this. At the same time, we are a party to this trade agreement. We signed it and voted for it in the European Parliament, and the Government ratified it. Therefore, the Government has a responsibility to do whatever it can. I know this issue was raised by the Government in February. As I said, I raised it with the then Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, in November. At that point he spoke about agreements between the EU and state of Israel not applying to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. I pointed out that, of course, there are international as well as national agreements. It is not all about whether something is inside Israel's territory; it is about what is happening outside.
Europe Day is marked today. Regarding trust in the European project, we must mean what we say. This is an example of where we can show that we mean what we say. I thank the Minister for his work on this matter and ask him to do the very best he can to get the agreement reviewed because it would send a strong signal from the European Union. I believe the agreement needs to be suspended. We cannot wait any longer to show that Europe does mean what it says.
As the Deputy knows, trade relations between the European Union and Israel are governed by a free trade area as part of the EU-Israel association agreement. That agreement was signed as far back as 1995 and entered into force in 2000. It forms a basis for relations between the European Union and Israel, governing the trade relationship as well as including political aspects. The last association council took place in October 2022, following a delay of ten years.
In principle, if the EU and its member states formed a view that there is a serious and persistent violation of the requirement to respect human rights as an essential element of the association agreement and that the situation is one of special urgency, it could seek to rely on article 79 to suspend the agreement in whole or in part. We believe that is the case and that is why, along with the Spanish Government, we have written to the Commission to seek a review of this.
In doing so, there is a requirement to prioritise those measures which least disturb the functioning of the agreement. A Council decision would be required to suspend an association agreement, with unanimity likely to be the applicable voting rule.
We have requested that the Commission would undertake an urgent review of whether Israel is complying with its obligations under the EU-Israel association agreement, which makes respect for human rights and democratic principles an essential element of the relationship and that if it considers Israel to be in breach, it would propose appropriate measures to the European Council to consider.
