I remind Deputies two minutes are allocated for the initial reply, four minutes overall for supplementary questions and a limit of one minute for replies to supplementary questions.
Other Questions
State Visits
Joe Higgins
Question:6 Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will report on his planned visit to China; the purpose of same; and the issues he intends to raise with his Chinese counterparts. [29814/11]
I hope to visit China on an official visit at a mutually convenient date in the coming months. The Government attaches great importance to widening and deepening bilateral relations with China, including the political and economic relationships. China was at the heart of the Government's Asia strategy and remains a key high-growth and high-potential market for Ireland under the strategy and action plan for Irish trade, tourism and investment to 2015. The local market team, set up under the strategy, includes all of the State agencies present in China in addition to the embassy in Beijing and the consulate-general in Shanghai. The team is chaired by our ambassador in Beijing and has been actively working to build on our growing economic and trade relationships with China. Ireland had a modest trade surplus with China in 2010. Total merchandise trade between Ireland and China was worth almost €5.3 billion in 2010. Trade in services during the same period was worth €2.3 billion. Over 130 Irish companies now have a permanent business presence in China, an increase of 300% over the past five years. I hope to visit China in the near future in order to build on the excellent bilateral relations that exist between our two countries; to have discussions with my opposite number in China on matters of mutual concern; to promote Irish interests; and to further enhance our political, trade, investment, education and tourism links with China. A visit must take place at a time mutually convenient for my Chinese counterpart. This entails continuing discussions between the Irish and Chinese sides through diplomatic channels.
While we welcome any trade development for this country in the current circumstances, the Tánaiste is well aware of the brutal human rights record of the Chinese regime, its completely undemocratic character, its persecution of Falun Gong and the people of Tibet and its regular execution of political dissidents. Did the Tánaiste raise these issues with the Chinese authorities during his visit? Does the Tánaiste think it is right that the western world seems to be willing to turn a blind eye and pay lip-service to human rights issues in China because there is so much trade? We do not really put pressure on them to democratise and improve their human rights record.
Human rights issues in China, including individual cases, are regularly discussed on a bilateral basis with the Chinese Government, both in Beijing and in Dublin. At such meetings the Government continues to stress the importance attached by Ireland to human rights, and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, and to urge the Chinese authorities to ratify the international covenant on civil and political rights. In my meetings with Chinese leaders who visited Dublin recently, I raised human rights issues in a frank, friendly and respectful manner, which reflects the maturity of our relationship.
Human Rights Issues
Gerry Adams
Question:7 Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he is planning on proceeding with the proposal undertaken by the previous Government to clearly label any produce that comes from illegal Israeli settlements in order that customers here are aware of the origins of what they are buying. [33717/11]
The regulation of product labelling is not the responsibility of my Department, but is overseen by a number of domestic Departments. The Tánaiste's predecessor, Deputy Martin, undertook to discuss with other Departments the possibility of introducing labelling to identify products of illegal Israeli settlements. He reported to the Dáil in November last year on the outcome of those discussions. The position then was that, bearing in mind the existing labelling requirements, the likely small volume of products involved and the absence of significant stakeholder pressure on this issue, this was not seen as a priority by domestic Departments.
However, it is important to be clear that there is nothing to stop Irish retailers, if they wish, from clearly labelling goods to distinguish settlement produce. They could do so along the same simple and obvious lines as in the DEFRA guidelines in the UK, as either "Produce of the West Bank (Palestinian produce)" or "Produce of the West Bank (Israeli settlement)", or any similar wording. That advice has been available since last year on my Department's website, where it may be viewed by or cited to retailers or members of the public.
Taking the matter further forward within the regulatory framework is a matter for those Ministers and Departments responsible for product labelling. I have also raised at EU level the question of whether settlement products should not be excluded altogether from the EU but as I have reported to the House, there is not yet sufficient support for such a proposal to have any chance of success.
Two issues arise, the first of which the Israeli labelling after the 2000 agreement between the EU and Israel, and the deal in recent years where products from the Palestinian territories are labelled as from West Bank to allow the Palestinian territories to develop economic activities. In the middle, produce from illegal settlements that are against various UN resolutions and which Ireland and many other European countries have condemned can be labelled as Israeli produce and in some cases West Bank produce. In the failure to confront Israel over the settlement, it is completely unacceptable to allow Israel to benefit economically, never mind the fact that it has torn down hundreds of homes. In response to the UNESCO vote, where the international community democratically voted for full membership for Palestine, Israel threatened to build more settlements.
I am not sure if there is a question in that contribution.
They will be in the supplementary contribution.
This is supposed to be Question Time.
Deputy Mac Lochlainn and I had an exchange on this general issue during the meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade. We are ad idem in terms of the Government’s approach to settlements. As the Tánaiste mentioned in his response to previous questions, we are deeply disturbed by the aggressive action of Israel in respect of settlements. If there is some way we can manifest this through labelling, we will be happy to do so. The issue has been raised at European level but there is no willingness to go down that road. At this point, it is deadlocked because the Irish Government has one position while other member states do not share that position.
Is the Government satisfied there is no settlement produce being circulated in the Irish economy? Is the Government considering a ban on produce from these illegal settlements, in order to be absolutely clear on the matter?
It is difficult to say that no such produce is circulating because there is no mechanism for clearly identifying and labelling it. There is probably a small amount circulating in the economy. The issue is how to identify it and how to oblige suppliers to label it clearly. That is a matter for the line Ministers and the issue has been explored. There is no appetite to go down the road of identifying such produce because of the small quantity in question. There is nothing to stop producers and retailers from identifying this produce but this practice has not been taken up. The information is available on the departmental website. A full-scale ban has not been discussed at Government level.
Foreign Conflicts
Martin Ferris
Question:8 Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he has engaged in any communication with Israeli officials regarding the issue of the on-going shooting and shelling of Palestinian minors working near the border fence between the Gaza Strip and Israel which between 26 March 2010 and 17 February 2011, there have been 27 children shot while collecting building material as documented by DCI-Palestine. [33720/11]
I am aware of the report of DCI-Palestine, which documents the cases of 27 teenage children shot and injured while collecting building material near the border fence between the Gaza Strip and Israel between March 2010 and February this year. These children and a number of adults scavenge for building materials among the destroyed buildings close to the border fence. This is testament to the inadequate volume of construction materials being allowed into Gaza and to the complete collapse of economic life and employment opportunities in the territory as a consequence of the blockade. I have raised this disturbing report in recent discussions with the Israeli ambassador and I intend to pursue it further when I visit Israel and Palestine, as I plan to in the near future. These shootings arise from the maintenance by Israel of a no-go zone of about half a kilometre in front of the border fence and I am also concerned about the effect this has in preventing farmers in Gaza accessing much of their land, which is in very short supply already.
I must acknowledge, however, that it would be very much easier to make this case if militant groups in Gaza were not regularly launching and seeking to launch attacks on or across the border, including attacks on the crossing points through which Gaza's supplies come. In this context, I make it clear that I condemn all acts of violence across the Israel-Gaza frontier, regardless of by whom or from where they are initiated.
Ireland has raised other issues concerning the treatment of Palestinian children generally in the Occupied Territories with the Israeli authorities, as well as in international fora such as the Human Rights Council in Geneva. I have also made clear my strong views on the overall blockade of Gaza which forms the background to this issue.
The report I have seen from the organisation Defence for Children International makes for harrowing reading. It includes pictures of children who were shot and injured by the Israeli defence forces in the region. I thank the Tánaiste's officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and in the Irish Embassy to Israel for their assistance in recent days in dealing with the 14 Irish human rights activists. Anytime I rang the officials, they came back quickly with clarification. In addition, they did everything they said they would to make the families aware of the state of play on their loved ones. I must give credit where credit it due and personally thank the officials. However, we have nine more activists to get home; therefore, let us work together to achieve this. We can then deal with the wider issue involved.
Does the Deputy have a supplementary question on this issue?
I am taking the opportunity to discuss the situation in Gaza and the fact that 1 million people are in an open-air prison. There is no doubt that there are fundamental issues——
That is a different question.
What is the international community doing? What can Ireland do?
There is a time limit and the Deputy is over time.
The Ceann Comhairle will appreciate that it is difficult to summarise the profound issues involved in a couple of minutes.
I have to stick to the questions on the Order Paper.
I will wrap up on this point. Does the Tánaiste accept that the reason 14 Irish human rights activists considered it necessary to undertake the mission was the international community had failed to address the issues involved?
I thank the Deputy for his kind remarks about my departmental officials who have worked very hard in the past week. Each day they have visited the 14 people in detention and worked to have them released and returned to their families here as quickly as possible. I have been in daily contact with our officials both here and in Israel on the matter. I had hoped that seven of the 14 people held would be home today and the other seven tomorrow. I still hope all of them will be home by tomorrow. That is our immediate priority. As the Deputy said, there are issues which we can raise with the Israeli authorities and I have already indicated some of them to the Israeli ambassador.
The blockade of Gaza should not be continuing. The international community has to work to get the negotiations back on track between Palestine and Israel to find a solution to the problem. The Quartet's statement agreed at the UN General Assembly which provides a timetable for discussions is very helpful. We must work and build on it.
Given that the Tánaiste has acknowledged the rogue behaviour of the Israeli state in Gaza, including shooting children, the siege and snubbing the Government in raising the treatment of our citizens——
Does the Deputy have a question?
Does the Tánaiste think it is time we stopped treating Israel as a normal state, playing nice guys and started to get tough? He should be making the kind of statements he rightly made about the failures of the Church in this country and its abuse of individuals. Why can we not hear statements about Israel's behaviour which are as strong as those made about the role of the Church in the abuse of children?
We are over time on this question. I call on the Tánaiste to give a quick reply.
We have to seek a resolution of the conflict and the difficulties involved. Some progress has been made through the Quartet's statement. I have made the Government's position clear on the issues of Palestinian statehood and membership of the United Nations. We have to work constructively in order to find a solution. That is the approach I intend to take. I do not intend to mince my words about actions taken concerning settlements or the blockade of Gaza. Nor do I intend to mince my words about rockets being launched from Palestine into Israel, which is not on either. We must use our good authority in international organisations, as well as our experience of conflict resolution, to see what we can do to help.
I do not want to be awkward, but I stress that there are six minutes allotted to deal with an ordinary question: two minutes for the Minister's reply and four minutes for supplementary questions, with a limit of one minute in the case of each supplementary question. Members should, please, adhere to these rules, as otherwise we will not get through the questions tabled and other Deputies' questions will not be answered.
It is not easy.
I know, but these are the rules. If the Deputy wants to change them, I do not mind, but these are the rules I have to apply.
Diplomatic Representation
Niall Collins
Question:9 Deputy Niall Collins asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the number of vacant ambassador, heads of mission and first secretary positions in his Department; the length of time each position has been vacant; the countries in which they are located; and if he will make a statement on the matter.i [33618/11]
Vacancies at ambassadorial level occurred at the embassies in the Holy See on 11 June, in Brussels on 31 August and in Canberra and Stockholm on 22 and 30 September, respectively. As the Deputy will be aware, last week the Government decided to close the Irish Embassy to the Holy See. It also made arrangements to fill the other above-mentioned vacancies and others that will occur in the next few months. The new ambassadors will take up duty as soon as possible. There are no first secretary vacancies at missions abroad. There has been a reduction in staff numbers across my Department arising from retirements and restrictions on promotion and recruitment necessitated by the current budgetary pressures.
I am happy with the Tánaiste's reply.
EU Developments
Seamus Kirk
Question:10 Deputy Séamus Kirk asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he is in favour or opposed to the proposed idea of treaty changes as part of EU efforts to confront the eurozone crisis; if he has considered specific treaty changes that the Government would approve of; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33612/11]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:24 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the extent to which he and his Department continue to engage with his EU colleagues with a view to achieving a greater degree of cohesion, solidarity and objectivity throughout the EU, with particular reference to the need to address the ongoing issues of political, social and economic instability throughout Europe, both within and without the eurozone; the extent to which he can and will engage with his EU counterparts in this context; and if he will make a statement on the matter.i [33725/11]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:37 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the extent to which he and his EU colleagues can influence the progress of the European Union towards a more inclusive and united approach in terms of fiscal and political policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33792/11]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:38 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade he extent to which he and his EU colleagues can reach consensus on the various issues now affecting the European Union, with particular reference to economic and fiscal policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33793/11]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:39 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the extent to which the objectives of the Lisbon treaty are currently observed in the true spirit and letter of the treaty; if efforts are likely to be made to redefine these objectives; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33794/11]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:40 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the extent to which there is recognition within the EU member states that decisions affecting the economic, political and social development of the Union are taken at the appropriate levels as envisaged by the Lisbon treaty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33795/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 24 and 37 to 40, inclusive, together.
When EU and euro area leaders met on 26 October, they agreed a comprehensive package of measures to restore stability to the euro area. The deal covers all the key issues, including bank recapitalisation, debt sustainability for Greece, robust firewalls to prevent contagion, and improved governance within the euro area. In each area Irish interests have been fully protected.
The deal, together with the growth promoting measures agreed by the European Council on 23 October, constitutes a complete package that will allow the European Union to address the immediate challenges posed by the financial crisis, while also focusing on supporting the development of sustainable growth and jobs at national level. If implemented in good faith and in full, I am confident that this balanced and robust set of measures can provide the basis for a return of stability and confidence to the euro area and, more broadly, the European Union.
As well as addressing the immediate issues of concern, euro area leaders further agreed on 26 October that the President of the European Council, working closely with the Presidents of the European Commission and the euro group, would prepare a report for the December European Council on possible steps to further strengthen economic convergence within the euro area, improve fiscal discipline and deepen economic union. As part of that report, President Van Rompuy will explore the possibility of limited treaty changes. The December report is to propose a roadmap for how to proceed. This will, of course, be the subject of discussion in the run-up to and at the December European Council meeting. A further report with proposals on how to implement the measures agreed is to be finalised by March 2012.
The Government has consistently advocated that the first step is to examine what needs to be done and only then to identify how best to achieve it. I am satisfied that the approach being adopted is the right one. We continue to maintain that the existing treaties provide considerable potential which, as yet, remains untapped. We will continue to pursue this point. It should be noted that the principles of conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality remain critical foundations on which the relationships between member states and the European Union are built. I welcome the improvements the Lisbon treaty made in these areas and believe they are working well.
While new treaty changes will not form part of our response to the immediate crisis over the longer term, they comprise one of a range of possibilities that President Van Rompuy has been asked to explore. It should be clearly understood that although a particular treaty change may not have direct consequences for every member state, treaty change is always a matter for the 27 member states of the European Union and must be agreed on the basis of unanimity.
Together with the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and other members of Government, I will continue to engage proactively with our EU partners on every issue in respect of which Ireland's interests are at stake. In addition to my having met EU colleagues on the margins of regular European Council meetings, I have visited a range of European capitals for consultations and will be extending these bilateral contacts over the period ahead.
I acknowledge that some of this subject matter was dealt with, by way of a tour de force, at the meeting of the joint committees earlier today. The prospect of treaty change, certainly treaty change that may require referenda, strikes fear into the hearts of all those who are pro-European.
I commend the Minister of State on what she said on the need for us to continue to maintain very strong, close and good relations with all our European partners. However, there is much concern among people in Ireland and across Europe about what is emanating from the Franco-German axis. In this regard, I was struck by two statements in the past two days. Ms Angela Merkel stated the political Community will not survive if it is not capable of changing, and President Sarkozy stated there will be two European gears, one focused on more integration in the eurozone and the other on a more co-federal response in the Union. I want to give the Minister of State the opportunity to say that while engaging in the hard work she is doing on this matter, which I acknowledge, she will not countenance, under any circumstances, this federalist type of approach.
I do not necessarily share the view that a referendum on treaty change inspires fear. We must go through an important process in this country. If there is a question of changing the balance of competence between member states and the European institutions, a referendum is needed. We will engage in this process if or when the time comes. We should not fear this because it is a very democratic process and it enables us to have a very robust and meaningful debate on all these issues.
The proposed treaty change, which we know encompasses budgetary control and making the management structures more robust within this Union, is not one I fear in principle. However, if one opens up the prospect of treaty change, one must deal with something much broader. There ought to be a much more holistic response to how we approach the future of the European project and European Union. In this regard, of most direct concern to us at present is the eurozone. I stated the at the joint sitting of the committees earlier today that we must have meaningful engagement in our own Parliament. Other Parliaments need to engage also. This cannot happen overnight and will take time. President Van Rompuy is very mindful of that fact.
In the meantime, there is an immediate crisis that must be dealt with. There has been much criticism of the very prominent role of the German Chancellor and French President in this regard. I share some of the concerns. Consider the discussion on treaty changes in respect of a reversion to the sort of Community method that obtained in the past, which method served us very well and led to huge strides being taken in European society and the EU economy over many decades. That all happened through the Community method and through a robust European Commission. The European Commission, whether we like it or not, has been very much sidelined in this process. I would like to see the Commission, which represents all member states equally, returning to the centre of European decision-making. This is in our interest as a small member state. Many other member states share that view. Unfortunately, the current crisis occurred in a vacuum in that there was not a mechanism to deal with it. There was no sufficiently robust decision-making mechanism and, therefore, it was imperative that the French and German Heads of State stepped up to the plate and showed leadership. Many of us were complaining for months that there was no leadership from Germany and France. We saw some decisive leadership, particularly at the last meeting of the Heads of State and Government of the eurozone on 26 October and 27 October. That was welcome and I am glad we saw it. It puts us on a firmer footing for the future.
The policy of the Government is to cut the State's deficit to 3% by 2013, thereby returning to us our sovereignty, yet it is now supporting the potential of the European Central Bank to become the central bank and ruler of our banking system. Power is taken from our hands in any case. I would like the Minister of State to elaborate on this.
The policy of austerity will bring all countries to their knees, particularly Italy, Spain, Greece and Ireland. Deputy Shane Ross asked some days ago whether there is a plan B. Are Irish punts being printed? Having listened to Ms Christine Lagarde referring to ten years, or more, of austerity, I believe this must be asked. To what extent is the Government willing to put the people on its knees and impose further austerity measures?
Does the Minister of State not acknowledge that the main players in Europe and many major economists are of the opinion that the Union, as currently arranged, will not keep the euro alive? Is it not pretty understandable that the Germans and French are talking about a two-tier union? They do not expect to get 27 countries to agree to the sorts of measures they regard as necessary to make the euro sustainable. Does the Minister of State not agree that we must either accept what the Germans want lock, stock and barrel or end up in a second tier? I am not saying it would necessarily be the end of the world.
On the question on the European Central Bank becoming the ruler of our banking system, Deputy Collins's view of the world is very distorted. We have a monetary union that has been in existence for over a decade. The euro is our currency, not somebody else's. It is not in some far-off, distant land and not just the preserve of Brussels; it is our currency and we need it to survive. It behoves the Deputy and every other Member to ensure it survives and to fight for its survival. The consequences of the disintegration of our currency would be unprecedented and unthinkable for the people of this State.
What about the consequences of austerity?
Could the Deputy allow the Minister of State to continue? There is a time limit.
What about the austerity that would mandatorily ensue next month or week if we pulled the plug on the funding coming into the State from both the European Central Bank and the EU-IMF programme? It would begin with a budget adjustment for 2012 of €11 billion. I would like the Deputy to suggest to this House where that money would come from. Who would she tax? Would it be the working people, who are finding it difficult to meet mortgage repayments and pay all their bills? Would it be the people in receipt of social welfare? Would she like to increase bin charges or water charges, about which she complains all the time?
What about the billionaires and millionaires?
We need to inject a little bit of reality into this debate.
Tax the billionaires, the developers and the bankers.
I put on record that the European Central Bank is the solution to the euro crisis. It is our task to convince the German Chancellor and the German Government that we have to relax the rules on intervention from the ECB and we have to make the ECB the backstop for the EFSF to ensure that we can continue to fund the services we provide in this State, pay the people in receipt of social welfare their social welfare benefits every week and to pay the people in receipt of pensions from this State their pension payments. We have to ensure we can maintain that line of funding and protect services. That is the only option. I have not heard a credible alternative option from anybody on the other side of the House in that regard.
We have put forward many options, one of which is to tax the wealthy.
In response to the Deputy Joan Collins's question as to whether there is a plan B, there is no plan B. We have one currency and plan, incorporating every letter of the alphabet, which is to save our currency. That is in the interests of Irish citizens, Irish business and everybody in the Chamber.
Finally to answer Deputy's Wallace's question——
The Deputy will have to be brief as we are way over time.
I did not want to say it.
We are way over time.
——about whether Europe in its current arrangements——
That is the trouble about letting people make supplementary questions.
——can save the euro, I believe that with more political will and pragmatic decision making, we can do so.
Thank you, Deputy.
I have outlined some of the ways in which we need to save the euro and the first is to start with the role of the European Central Bank. I firmly believe that if we can get our act together——
I have to ask the Minister of State to conclude.
——in terms of spelling out the role of the ECB, we can——
The Minister of State should have put that in her party's manifesto, that its priority was to save the euro.
——save the currency. I can tell the Deputy——-
I ask the Minister of State to ignore those comments
——that when people go to the ATMs in this country——
Thank you, Minister. I want to move on to Question No. 11.
——to withdraw money from their deposit accounts, they will be very glad that we have saved the euro.
What the Minister of State has said is not what President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel have——
Question No. 11.
Foreign Conflicts
Jonathan O'Brien
Question:11 Deputy Jonathan O’Brien asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views that the high level of militarisation in north-eastern Sri Lanka is directly linked to most of the other problems prevalent in the area such as the breakdown in the social fabric, state brutality including sexual assault, land grabs and occupation and that it is completely unacceptable that more than two years since the conclusion of the war, the Government of Sri Lanka has failed to facilitate the proper transition of these areas from a situation of conflict to a normal environment. [33718/11]
While there have been some improvements in living conditions in the north and east of Sri Lanka, areas formerly held by the LTTE, there are still many matters of concern. The north and east remains heavily militarised. The Sri Lankan army is closely involved in daily life, with the local population under surveillance by soldiers and military intelligence.
I am concerned at reports of continued violence against the local population by the Sri Lankan military. Suggestions that people are being moved into the north and east from other parts of Sri Lanka are extremely worrying. Approximately two-thirds of the people who were displaced by the war have now returned home. The intention of the Government of Sri Lanka in regard to the remainder are unclear. In September 2011, the Emergency Powers Regulation and the Prevention of Terrorism Regulation were not renewed. However, the more comprehensive Prevention of Terrorism Act remains in force.
Despite the best efforts of the United Nations and the wider international community, the Sri Lankan Government has, to date, refused to co-operate with the Panel of Experts on Accountability appointed by UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon and has failed to address the recommendations contained in their report concerning allegations of atrocities and human rights violations during the war. Ireland is supportive of the mandate of the UN Secretary General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka. I urge the government in Colombo to co-operate fully with the UN and address the recommendations made by the panel.
A Lessons Learned and Rehabilitation Committee, with a limited mandate, was established by the Government of Sri Lanka in May 2010. The committee's focus was on restorative justice, not on tackling impunity for actions during the war. It is due to submit its report by 15 November 2011.
Overall, there is an urgent need to initiate a comprehensive peace and reconciliation process in Sri Lanka. It would be important to address impunity and the crimes of the past as part of that process. Officials from my Department have conveyed our positions to the Sri Lankan authorities, directly in bilateral contacts and in multilateral fora, including through the European Union and at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva and at the UN in New York.
I have a detailed report before me about the ongoing grave situation in what would be considered Tamil areas in the north and east of Sri Lanka from which I will read a particular sentence. I could read the whole report but the Ceann Comhairle would not allow me do that.
Certainly not. The Deputy is not allowed quote from documents during Question Time.
The question will follow from this. It states that families must——
The Deputy is not allowed quote from documents during Question Time. It is against Standing Orders.
Okay. When families in that area are receiving guests they must inform the army who the guests are and that is the case for any family event. The intrusion and the sense of humiliation and subjugation goes down even to the right to associate within one's community and have a social event in one's home.
What is the United Nations doing allowing these types of situations to continue when civil society, NGOs and people whose credibility is beyond question are circulating these reports? This is a horrendous report about what is happening in the region. What message are we sending out to these regimes?
First, Ireland has played an active part in the European Union and particularly in the decision in 2010 to suspend duty free access for Sri Lankan exports under the generalised system of preferences after the Sri Lankan Government failed to deliver a written undertaking on human rights conventions dealing with torture, children's rights and political rights. Second, Ireland is active at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, most recently at the council session in September, highlighting the human rights situation in Sri Lanka as one of the most important human rights problems to be addressed by the international community. Ireland was also instrumental at EU level in including concerns about Sri Lanka in discussions with at the UN General Assembly and we support the continuing work of the UN mission in Sri Lanka and the recommendations by the UN panel of experts in their report on accountability in Sri Lanka.
In addition to that, Irish Aid is providing humanitarian funding. Almost €500,000 in humanitarian funding has been provided to Sri Lanka since 2009.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.
The Dáil adjourned at 4.47 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 15 November 2011.