Vol. 766 No. 1
100Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his plans to attend the Euro 2012 Championships in Poland and Ukraine in view of the recently published treatment of imprisoned former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25421/12]
I anticipate there will be political representation at Ireland's Euro 2012 group stage matches, all of which take place in Poland. As regards Ukraine, the European Union had made its concerns known to the authorities there about politically motivated trials and the conditions of detention of Ms. Tymoshenko. High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton, has called on the Ukrainian authorities to ensure her right to appropriate medical assistance. I fully support that call. I discussed Ukraine with my EU Foreign Minister colleagues in Brussels on 14 May and we agreed that further progress on the EU's association agreement with Ukraine would require a number of positive steps on the resolution of the issue of politically motivated trials, including Ms. Tymoshenko's detention, and the free and fair conduct of the parliamentary elections due to take place in October.
On the issue of attending matches in Ukraine, there is no common EU position. A number of political figures have made it known that they do not intend to visit Ukraine while Ms. Tymoshenko is imprisoned or will not attend matches in Ukraine during the championships. An alternative view has been expressed that a sports boycott would not be an effective tool of persuasion or could send an unintended signal to the wider Ukrainian public. Individual member states will need to assess this question for themselves.
For my own part, I have no official travel plans that would entail attendance at a match in Ukraine during the championships. However, I cannot at this time rule out a visit to Ukraine at some point this year, including in my separate capacity as chairman-in-office of the OSCE as this is a forum in which Ukraine plays an important role and it will assume the chairmanship-in-office next year.
We hope the dilemma the Tánaiste faces is whether to go to Kiev. We all hope there will be an Irish match in that location. We also appreciate the general public desire to see a separation of politics and sport. It is not a great idea for politics to intrude onto the field of sport. Notwithstanding that, the circumstances surrounding the case of Julia Tymoshenko, which have been highlighted internationally, are so fundamentally wrong and concerning that one must ask what is the plight of the ordinary citizens who fall foul of the justice system in the country, if a state can treat a former Prime Minister in this way, where she is held in a hospital ward with guards in the ward and television cameras monitoring her constantly. We hope Ireland will be playing in Kiev. If that situation arises, can the Tánaiste give us an understanding of his position and whether he will have discussions with our honorary consul and our diplomatic representatives in order to give them guidance on their position?
The detention and trial of Ms Tymoshenko has given rise to considerable concern about the conditions of her detention. She was sentenced on 11 October 2011 to seven years in prison and was the subject of a three-year ban on holding high public office. She was also subject to an order to repay €130 million to the state-owned gas company, having been convicted of exceeding her authority as Prime Minister when concluding a gas deal with Russia in 2009. I do not have any plans to travel to the Ukraine to attend any of the football games. We are making arrangements for consular services to be provided because we expect there will be a significant number of Irish fans travelling to the Ukraine if we qualify from the first round. We are making arrangements to have consular services there to support and to be of assistance to the fans.
We must discuss with the Ukraine issues of a bilateral nature and issues in the context of the chairmanship of the OSCE. At some stage this year it is possible that I may travel to Ukraine to conduct business.
In the event of the Tánaiste travelling in the course of 2012, does he anticipate seeking an opportunity to visit the prisoner to see for himself the circumstances in which she exists? Will the Tánaiste instruct our consular or diplomatic representatives to meet the former president and discuss her plight?
There has already been an international visit to Ms Tymoshenko and we have relayed the deep concerns of the Irish Government in Kiev and in Dublin. We will continue to do that. The issue of concern with regard to the Ukraine at the EU Foreign Affairs Council was not solely Ms Tymoshenko but also the conduct of the elections to be held in October and this must be taken into account.
101Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade is he in favour of the EU introducing a ban on settlement goods if Israel refuses to cease settlement building in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25589/12]
103Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his proposals in response to continued Israeli settlements in Palestine in view of the recent European Union communiqué on this matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25422/12]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 101 and 103 together.
Ireland and its EU partners have on many occasions expressed firm support for a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians and the wider Arab world, on the basis of the two-state solution. Although the talks process is at present stalled, we continue to do what we can to encourage the parties to engage and to work towards that end.
There is increasing concern in the EU, which I have highlighted, that the relentless progress of Israeli policies in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is undermining the possibility of constructing a viable Palestinian state. These policies pose a threat to the prospect of a negotiated political settlement and run directly counter to the two-state solution which has been the central objective of the EU for many years.
At the urging of Ireland and other member states, the Foreign Affairs Council last Monday focused its discussion not on the overall peace process but on these specific viability issues, notably issues around Israeli settlement expansion and the pressure on Palestinians in East Jerusalem and area C, which is that part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory in the West Bank still fully under Israeli military control and occupation.
The Council conclusions adopted last week send out a strong and united EU message on these critical and urgent issues. Ireland was heavily involved in the preparation of these important conclusions and fully supports them. The EU has set out in some detail the issues which threaten a two-state solution, the EU's position in respect of these issues and the remedial action it wishes to see, primarily, of course, from Israel. I very much welcome and support these strong Council conclusions, which restate and in many respects advance EU positions on these key points.
I suggested at the Council that in view of the urgency of these issues on the ground, Ministers should look at them again in the autumn to see if the situation had improved or was continuing to worsen. I suggested that if matters continued to worsen and our existing actions had not improved them, we would clearly need to consider stronger actions. The exclusion from the EU of settlement products and of individual settlers engaged in violence, should, in that case, be considered.
I have previously stated that Ireland would support a ban on settlement products. We do not support bans or boycotts on Israel, and this is not in question, but the products of illegal settlements constitute a separate and specific matter. However, this is in the future and the Council as a whole will need to decide on any actions. I would emphasise that with sustained work and the co-operation of partners, we have achieved a strong set of EU conclusions which all 27 member states have supported and which now places High Representative, Baroness Ashton, and the EU in a stronger position to argue for the continuing viability of the two-state solution, both within the framework of the international quartet and more generally throughout the region.
I welcome the conclusions of the EU Council meeting and I congratulate the Tánaiste and the departmental officials for their work in bringing about the conclusions. This is my second opportunity to congratulate the Tánaiste and it is very important that our State continues to seek for justice and peace between the Palestinian people and the Israeli people but in the interim to defend the rights of the Palestinian people who are being so grievously offended in the West Bank.
I refer to the reports on area C which currently has a population of 150,000 Palestinians and 300,000 of a growing Jewish population. The Oslo Accord was to have resolved this question but it is clear there is now a focused ongoing initiative by the Israeli Government to continue to build in that area.
It has been stated by a UN rapporteur that ethnic cleansing is happening by stealth. Does the Tánaiste agree with this assertion?
I thank Deputy Mac Lochlainn for welcoming the statement from the EU Foreign Affairs Council. This strong and significant statement addresses the conditions on the ground. We all want to see meaningful talks resuming between Israel and Palestine, with a view to putting in place the two-state solution. It is not realistic to have that, however, in circumstances where settlement activity is taking place. As President Abbas said, one cannot talk about a state for Palestine if one continues to build on it.
I saw the reality for myself when I visited area C when I was in the region in January. In effect, as these settlements continue, they are making it physically impossible for a two-state solution to materialise. We are seeing a settlement right around the eastern part of Jerusalem, which in many ways is sealing off the Palestinian population within Jerusalem. In addition, we are seeing settlement activity whose effect, if it continues, will be to cut in half the northern part of the West Bank from the southern part, thus making things very difficult on the ground.
The statement by the EU Foreign Affairs Council has nailed that matter by clearly identifying it. That is why, at the Council meeting, I argued that we need to return to this topic in the autumn to see what has happened in the meantime and then examine what further steps may be appropriate.
I concur with much of what has been said by Deputy Mac Lochlainn. I commend the Tánaiste and his EU counterparts on the mid-May communiqué, as well as for highlighting the issue of goods emanating from the settlements. Talking to Israeli representatives in this country, one gets the sense of a willingness to negotiate and move forward. What one sees happening on the ground, however, is very much at variance with what we hear.
I am struck by the Tánaiste's unique position as chair of the OSCE. He recently convened a conference on Ireland's role in conflict resolution, which is a point I have been repeatedly highlighting. Notwithstanding the merits of EU involvement and being conscious of the efforts of Mr. Tony Blair in this particular region, does the Tánaiste see any opportunity for Ireland to play a role, given our unique history? Some 30 years ago our problems seemed to be as intractable as the Middle East appears today. For example, could the Tánaiste see us taking some unilateral action? Can he envisage a situation in which he might dispatch a troika from Ireland, perhaps comprising Mr. David Trimble, Mr. Martin McGuinness and Mr. Bertie Ahern, who have practical, hands-on experience of conflict resolution? Could the Tánaiste see a situation like that being initiated?
We have invested a lot of effort in getting an agreed EU position and statement. That was not easy. As I am sure the Deputy is aware, there have been differing views within the EU and the Foreign Affairs Council concerning the Middle East peace process. It was a significant step forward to arrive at a conclusion last Monday upon which all 27 EU foreign Ministers were able to agree. I would like to see that momentum being maintained and therefore we need to continue to have a united EU position on where we are moving things. There are a number of matters we have to advance, the first of which is maintaining the pressure for talks to be resumed. The Quartet statement, which was issued in September 2011, sets out the framework for that. The timetable is being missed but, nevertheless, the framework is there for that.
Second, we must be clear about what is happening on the ground and make a clear statement about it. That was the thrust of the recent statement. It is not really something that comes within my remit as chair-in-office of the OSCE. The approach we are taking on this particular issue is within the context of the EU Council.
Under the roadmap it was agreed - Israel signed up to this - that at the outset of negotiations there would be a freeze on all settlements and that the settler outposts would be dismantled. The EU Foreign Ministers obviously reiterated in their statement that the roadmap is the path to a peaceful resolution of the conflict there. Does the Tánaiste agree that President Abbas is entitled to see a freeze on settlements in place prior to negotiations commencing?
In terms of the new government arrangements in Israel and the coming together of Likud and Kadima, does the Tánaiste envisage there being any opportunity for progress arising out of that in so far as Prime Minister Netanyahu is no longer dependent on the more extreme elements in parliament?
President Abbas is entitled to see an end to and a freeze on the settlements. They are illegal and should not be allowed to continue.
The coming together of the new government in Israel provides an opportunity for Prime Minister Netanyahu to move into meaningful talks with the Palestinian side. However, there has to be a willingness both on the part of the Israeli side and the Palestinian side to engage in meaningful discussions. While I was in the region in January I met with both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. I strongly advocated that there needs to be an engagement and that this issue ultimately has to be settled by negotiation but I understand President Abbas's position is undermined by settlement activity taking place. To be fair, the position of Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israel Government is also compromised by any terrorist activity that takes place which threatens the security of the people of Israel.
102Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the steps he and his Department have taken, and are taking, in addressing the human rights conditions of prisoners in Maghaberry Prison, County Antrim, including the human rights of the prisoner who has been moved to Hydebank Prison. [25423/12]
The issue of prisons within Northern Ireland is a devolved matter related to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Prison Service. Arising from the Hillsborough Agreement of February 2010, Dame Ann Owers and the prison review team undertook a review of the prison system. In October 2011 their report made 40 recommendations on prison reform in Northern Ireland. The Minister for Justice, Mr. David Ford, MLA, has underlined his commitment to full implementation of the recommendations and has described the prison reform process as "unstoppable". I had an opportunity to discuss the reform process with him at our most recent meeting on 20 April.
Implementation of the Owers report remains the most effective way to ensure that prison conditions in Northern Ireland meet the required standard. The Government will continue to raise concerns regarding the circumstances of conditions of detention of Irish citizens as appropriate.
Concerns have been raised about the circumstances of this prisoner's detention, both in this House and directly with me by human rights organisations. The prisoner's defence team maintain that as she was granted a royal prerogative of mercy, the terms of the licence do not apply. I discussed this issue with Secretary of State Paterson on 27 April. I have been advised that the parole commissioners considered the terms of the royal prerogative of mercy after receiving submissions on behalf of the prisoner and the Secretary of State and had ruled that "the life sentences were not in fact remitted by the royal prerogative of mercy" and that the prisoner "remains subject to the life licence". I understand that the case is currently under review.
Concerns surrounding the prisoner's health led to the prisoner being moved to the medical wing of Hydebank Prison where I have been informed that medical and prison administration staff are making every effort to make the prisoner comfortable. I have been advised that a medical expert has requested an assessment visit and I have asked to be informed on the outcome of that visit. In the meantime my officials are in regular contact with the authorities in Northern Ireland, human rights NGOs and others close to this case.
The Tánaiste's answer might have been acceptable except for the fact that these issues have been ongoing for some time. They have been kicked to touch or from one person to another for far too long. In the meantime, the human rights issues have worsened, with solitary confinement, the denial of medical treatment, inadequate medical treatment and regular full body searches although scanners are supposed to be used. Elected representatives, human rights organisations and the Pat Finucane Centre have not received responses to their inquiries from the authorities in the North. Human rights regulations are being disregarded.
In January in response to a question I asked, the Minister for Justice and Equality stated the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade had been involved in negotiations the previous summer. This has been going on for almost a year and in the meantime the conditions for some of the prisoners have deteriorated. What other action can be taken? Action is required instead of phrases such as "we will continue to monitor it" and "we are in close consultation" before one of the prisoners dies.
As I stated, responsibility for prisons in Northern Ireland has been devolved to the Department of Justice under the remit of the Minister, Mr. Ford, MLA. Among the issues which arise is reform of the prison service in Northern Ireland. The Minister categorically stated to us he is implementing the recommendation of the Owers report and the process is unstoppable. We have raised the issues of human rights and the conditions of the prisoners in Maghaberry Prison, in particular the prisoner moved to Highbank Prison, with the Minister and the Secretary of State, Mr Paterson, MP. I have asked departmental officials to monitor the situation very closely and keep in touch with the Northern Ireland Office and the Department of Justice there and we will continue to do so.
The denial of medical treatment and the way in which medication has been withheld from one of the male prisoners are very serious issues. I am also aware of issues regarding the health of Marian Price. When is a royal prerogative not a royal prerogative? Is it when it suits the authorities in the North and in England? Mr. Owen Paterson, MP, has not been elected by anyone in the North and is not accountable to the electorate in the North, but he seems to be able to disregard human rights legislation and legal issues. We speak about human rights at meetings of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade and we take up the cases of prisoners in Bahrain, Iran and China. Yet, this is happening up the road and is an urgent matter because one of the prisoners will die.
Responsibility for prisons has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Administration under the aegis of the Department of Justice. With regard to the royal prerogative, three sentences were handed down to Marian Price; she was sentenced to two life sentences and one sentence of 20 years. My information is that the royal prerogative applied to the 20 year sentence and the life sentences were covered by a life licence which may be withdrawn, which is what happened in this case. I share the Deputy's immediate concern about Ms Price's medical condition and health and about the conditions under which she and other prisoners are detained. I wish to make clear we have raised these issues with the Northern Ireland Department of Justice and the Secretary of State and we will continue to do so at political and official level.
Question No. 103 answered with Question No. 101.
104Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on comments made on the 17 May 2012 by the newly positioned French Finance Minister Muscovici that his Government will not ratify the Austerity Treaty as is; and the impact this stance will have on the overall stability of the Euro in coming weeks. [25747/12]
I congratulate the newly appointed members of the French Government, including the new French Finance Minister, Pierre Moscovici, on taking up their new appointments. Throughout the presidential election campaign and since, President Hollande has made clear his intention to seek to complement the stability treaty with a growth-oriented approach. The comments by Mr. Moscovici are entirely consistent with that approach, which the Government has welcomed.
The European Council will meet tomorrow to consider how to advance the growth and jobs agenda, and it will return to the matter again in its meeting next month. These are important meetings and we will engage actively in the discussions. There is now an understanding at European level that we need to continue with the reforms necessary to place our economies on a sustainable path, but that this needs to be balanced with policies to generate growth and to create jobs. This will require progress on a number of important fronts. We need to continue to press ahead with implementation of existing commitments, especially regarding the Single Market. President Van Rompuy has argued for rapid progress in a number of areas, on which I fully support him. President Barroso has also signalled that the Commission is working on identifying further areas that have the capacity to provide the greatest and most immediate boost to growth and will come forward with a targeted set of measures.
We also need to continue with reforms at national level as part of the Europe 2020 process aimed at future-proofing our economies. The Commission will make its specific recommendations for each member state on 30 May and these must be advanced as a priority. Ireland's EU-IMF programme is at the heart of Ireland's efforts in this process. However, it is clear that steps are also necessary to improve prospects for growth in the short term. In this regard, a number of important and interesting proposals have been brought to the table, including those made by President Hollande. These include the possibility of increasing the capital available to the European Investment Bank as a means of improving its capacity for onward lending; considering whether there are ways in which unspent structural funds can be mobilised in support of our growth agenda; and advancing the Commission's project bonds initiative.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
It is important that these measures are all seen in the round. As I have said before, efforts to ensure stability, such as the new treaty, and efforts to drive growth are two sides of the one coin. There will be no growth without stability and no stability without growth. The Government is very strongly of the view that the best way for Ireland to secure its recovery and its future is to endorse the treaty; to put ourselves in a position where we have a credible and secure line of future funding, should it be needed; and to work closely and urgently with like-minded partners at European level to drive forward the jobs and growth agenda.
During the French presidential election, François Hollande, then a candidate said that he would not ratify this treaty as is and that he would look for measures regarding growth and jobs to be put in place. On several occasions when those of us on the "No" side, including Sinn Féin, made this point clear, the Government challenged us. The French Finance Minister, Pierre Moscovici, has now repeated that assertion that France will not ratify as is, but will negotiate to seek significant changes on growth and jobs. That has now clearly led to that perspective being raised at the G8 gathering that took place in the past week. What I want to say is-----
A question, please.
The question is as follows. The Government has enthusiastically supported the treaty and has not sought to renegotiate but has given it as it is. It did not call for changes to the text regarding growth. It has done nothing compared with what the French President and his Finance Minister are now stating. All the parties of the left - the social democratic parties - and even the European Trade Union Confederation have spoken out against the treaty. When will the Tánaiste change tack? Why is his party alone on the left and in the social democratic movement in Europe so enthusiastically selling this treaty as it is?
I am not alone. All the parties, to which the Deputy refers, support the budgetary discipline measures that are contained in the treaty. President Hollande and the French Government are seeking what the Government here has been discussing since last year. The Government was among the first to argue that we needed growth and jobs measures in order to complement the stability treaty. In addition it was agreed that there would be such an agenda. First, it is contained in the text of the treaty which states clearly that its purpose is to promote growth, competitiveness, employment and social cohesion in Europe. Second, it was expressed clearly in the conclusions of the January summit where the treaty was finally agreed, that there would be a growth agenda and a number of specific measures were set out at that meeting, including measures to tackle youth unemployment, measures to provide for lending to small and medium-sized businesses and regarding completion of the Single Market. President Hollande is talking about precisely the same thing and we welcome it. I expect that tomorrow's European Council meeting will discuss how that growth agenda can be advanced. Those may relate to the European Investment Bank, Structural Funds and project funds. Arising from that, I hope it will be possible to return to the June summit meeting, because tomorrow's meeting is an informal one, with a concrete programme of growth measures to complement the stability treaty, the provisions of which are supported by President Hollande and other social democratic parties in Europe.
Now that there is a renegotiation at last of this failed right wing austerity approach in Europe, and particularly of this treaty, what specifically is the Government seeking? Is the Minister or the Government actively renegotiating the treaty? Is the Government seeking eurobonds, the deployment of the European Investment Bank or a write down of banking debt in Ireland, which means we cannot meet the targets in real terms? Can the Minister give us some specific details about what the Government is seeking to achieve in this renegotiation?
I wish to be clear about this, because Sinn Féin has a habit of constantly misquoting, selectively quoting and twisting words and terms. The treaty on which we will vote on 31 May is not being renegotiated. The text of that treaty is clear and it will not change. What we are doing, and what we have been doing since last year, is pursuing a growth agenda. We have always said that the stability treaty alone was not the sole means of getting the European economy to recover and grow, and that there must also be growth and jobs. We have put forward a number of suggestions, some of which were taken up in January. We have supported and advocated a widening of the role of the European Investment Bank. Building on the decision made in January, which addressed how unused Structural Funds might be used to address issues such as youth unemployment, we are looking at ways that might become a reality. We would support the concept of project funds and eurobonds.
Bank debt is a separate issue. We have been pursuing a separate track of negotiation relating to bank debt and we have already made progress on that. We secured a reduction in the interest rate and agreement on the exchange of the promissory note for a longer term bond. We continue to negotiate with the ECB on ways of re-engineering the bank debt to the best advantage of the Irish taxpayer.
