Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Dec 2017

Vol. 963 No. 2

Priority Questions

Brexit Documents

Darragh O'Brien

Question:

25. Deputy Darragh O'Brien asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if his attention has been drawn to the way in which a confidential internal report by his Department on Brexit was leaked to and reported in the media on 23 November 2017; the specific actions he has taken to prevent further leaks of confidential and sensitive data regarding Brexit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [53239/17]

Is the Minister aware of how a confidential internal Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade report on Brexit was leaked to and reported in the media, both in Ireland and abroad, on 23 November 2017? What specific actions has he taken, if any, to prevent further leaks of confidential and sensitive data? Will he confirm whether he has given this matter the absolute priority it deserves?

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. I am aware of the matter to which he refers. A core part of the work of our embassies in the EU is to report on views on Brexit in other member states. These reports are an important source of information, not just for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade but also for other Departments concerned with Brexit.

For the past year, it has been the practice for a weekly summary of such reports to be prepared and circulated both within the Department and to other Departments. These summaries, like the reports on which they are based, are not intended for the public domain. They do not include material relating to policy papers prepared within the Department or to meetings of a sensitive character held in Dublin, Brussels or London.

It is very disappointing and regrettable that a recipient of the summary would have leaked it to a journalist. This was the first summary out of approximately 40 to which this happened. The Secretary General of the Department is currently investigating the leak and has been in contact with all recipients of the document, either directly, in the case of recipients in my own Department, or indirectly, through the Secretaries General of other receiving Departments. Until I receive a copy of his report, I will maintain an open mind on how this occurred and how it might best be prevented in the future. In the meantime, given the sensitivity of the issues under consideration, no such summaries have been circulated since 23 November.

It is important to say that these weekly working documents are summaries. This is not a significant report that was leaked but it should not have happened. We are annoyed about it. The Secretary General of my Department is trying to get to the bottom of the matter. Until we are comfortable with putting in place the distribution system we had before, knowing it will not result in another leak, we are not going to do it.

While it may not be a very significant report in the Minister's opinion, I assure him that it is very significant and absolutely mortifying and embarrassing to those who are mentioned in it. I am glad to hear that we have amended procedures in so far as those reports are not being circulated until we get to the bottom of the matter.

I commend the officials and the staff within the Department on the efforts made in respect of the phase 1 negotiations. That is very important. It was a good result and we, as a party, have cautiously welcomed it. However, the real work starts in phase 2. We have to be sure that the reporting of the negotiations we have with our European partners is absolutely watertight. This is a breach that is nearly of strategic national importance, regardless of whether the Minister believes it is significant.

On a question raised by my party leader on 29 November, can the Minister indicate the status of the investigation and where it stands? Are we any closer to finding out who leaked this document or who gave permission for it to be leaked? What specific actions have been taken? Can the Minister give a commitment to the House that this will not occur again?

For the record, I did not say this is not significant. It should not have happened-----

The Minister said it is not a significant report.

The information in this report was meant to inform our Department and other Departments that are involved, as had been happening on a weekly basis. There were 40 such reports compiled weekly. We need to be informed in terms of what is being said about Brexit and in the context of ensuring that our approach is fully appropriate and up to date. This weekly summary should not have been leaked. It was embarrassing for some of the people who were named in it. Obviously, we made the necessary contacts to explain to people what had happened and to assure them that it will not happen again. As I said, until the Secretary General is satisfied in terms of his own investigations, we will not be circulating these weekly summaries. That investigation is ongoing.

We are all aware that our diplomats and those who engage on our behalf and on behalf of the State need to have confidence in the Irish Government. Our partners need to have confidence that they can speak to us openly. While this question mark hangs over the process, the position is very serious. I do not get the sense the Department or the Minister are taking this as seriously as it should be taken. Our partners have to trust that what they say to us is confidential.

The fundamental question is when we will get to the bottom of this. There is an "if" in there as well. When does the Minister expect to get a report from the Secretary General of the Department on this matter? Will he give a commitment that, when he gets that report, it will be debated, either at a meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence or here in the Dáil? We have to ensure that this never occurs again. If we were in the middle of phase 2 negotiations, which are very specific on trade and future relations between Britain and the EU, can the Minister imagine what effect a document like this - even though he says it is not significant - might have? This is being reported all over Europe, all over Britain and all over Ireland, with people named, their comments mentioned, etc. This matter needs to be given the priority and afforded the importance it deserves. I would like the Minister to confirm that it has been. When will a report be completed by the Secretary General?

The Deputy keeps saying I have said it is not significant.

The Minister did so. He should check the record. He said it is not a significant report.

I said that this is a weekly briefing. The content of it, of course, is significant.

That is changing what the Minister said at the start.

It is not a briefing on a significant report.

I am glad the Minister is affording it significance.

The Minister is clarifying the matter. The Deputy should allow him to continue.

The Deputy should not try to change the meaning of what I am saying.

The Minister should go back and check the record.

I have made it very clear to the Deputy's party leader and I am making it clear again to the Deputy now that this should not have happened. On foot of the importance of Brexit, we have a circulation list that goes beyond what would normally be the case in respect of briefings that would usually be confined to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Our Secretary General is anxious to ensure that what happened cannot happen again. That is why he is taking it very seriously, as I am. Sometimes, as leaks happen and the Deputy knows only too well, it is very difficult to get to the bottom of who was responsible.

One usually has a fair idea of it.

Let us not pretend this is an easy process. I assure the Deputies we will take actions to ensure we do not have a repeat of this, or at least we will do everything we can within our power to ensure it does not happen again.

Is there a timeframe?

I do not have an exact timeframe.

When? The Tánaiste has been asked three times when the House can expect a report.

I cannot allow another question. There may be other ways to raise the matter.

It needs to be pursued. We asked for an idea on a timeframe to expect a report. The Tánaiste does not have that either.

Brexit Negotiations

David Cullinane

Question:

26. Deputy David Cullinane asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if the Government has a guarantee that Northern Ireland will stay in the customs union and Single Market; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [53242/17]

I commend the Minister on his appointment as Tánaiste. It is very important we get clarity and certainty for businesses, farmers and citizens across the island of Ireland with respect to what will happen in Brexit negotiations. The only way we can provide certainty to businesses, farmers and others that there will be no hardening of the Border is if the North stays in the customs union and Single Market. My party leader put this question to the Taoiseach last week but did not get a clear response. I am putting the question directly to the Minister today. Is it the position of the Irish Government that come what may, the North and the entire island will stay in the customs union and Single Market? It is a very simple and straightforward question. It is either "Yes" or "No" and I ask the Tánaiste for an answer in the first instance to that question.

Last Friday in the joint report from the negotiators of the European Union and the UK Government, both sides restated their commitment to avoiding a hard border, describing it as an overarching requirement of the negotiations. We have also secured a firm commitment that no physical border infrastructure or related checks and controls will exist and I am therefore satisfied that in all eventualities a hard border will be avoided and there will be no return to the borders of the past.

It has been the Government’s consistent position that the best possible outcome for Northern Ireland and east-west trade would be for the UK to stay in the Single Market and customs union. This is ultimately a decision for the United Kingdom and while we hope they change their approach, the UK’s stated position is that it will leave the Single Market and customs union when leaving the European Union. However, the agreement reached last Friday not only provides a guarantee that there will be no hard border under any circumstances but it also spells out for the first time how this will be achieved. In the event that it is not possible to resolve the border issue as part of a wider EU-UK future relationship agreement, which has always been the Irish Government’s preference, or through specific solutions, paragraph 49 of the report states that "in the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support North-South co-operation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 agreement."

It has also been agreed that any agreements put in place will be accompanied by effective mechanisms to ensure implementation and oversight. This is an important fail-safe, recognising that to avoid a hard border, no matter how it is achieved, Northern Ireland or the UK as a whole will need to remain fully aligned with those rules of the customs union and the Single Market which underpin North-South co-operation and the all-island economy. There is a great deal of work still to be done on the Irish-specific issues in order to ensure that all of the commitments set out in the joint report are implemented. I am therefore pleased that work on Irish issues will continue to be taken forward in a distinct strand of the negotiations in phase 2. This will ensure that they will not be overlooked at any point in the next phase. All of those points were reinforced yesterday when I met Mr. Michel Barnier for over an hour.

Again, the Minister has not answered the question so I will keep putting it until the Tánaiste or Taoiseach answers it. It is a fundamental matter, central to protecting the interests of the people of Ireland. The Minister spoke of full alignment, which we acknowledge as progress. The qualification that comes with full alignment is that it is only on the basis of alignment with North-South co-operation, the all-island economy and the Good Friday Agreement. These are clearly important. We have tabled parliamentary questions to the Minister on several occasions trying to understand what the "all-island economy" means. Trade is not an area that is mentioned even once. There is mention of education, health, research and innovation standards but there is no mention of trade at all.

We have concerns because this is not a bulletproof guarantee, as the Taoiseach has said. It is simply a political agreement between two governments. Nothing will be agreed until everything is agreed. There is a world of difference-----

It is not an agreement between two governments.

If the Tánaiste does not understand the difference between full alignment and the North staying in the customs union and Single Market, cracks are beginning to appear. I will ask him again.

I heard the Deputy the first time.

Is it the position of the Irish Government that the North will stay-----

I heard him the first time.

Well he should answer the question he was asked the first time.

Unfortunately, we are now seeing Sinn Féin trying to raise concerns in a way that is irresponsible. Last Friday's agreement was not an agreement between two governments. It was an agreement between the British Government and 27 other governments. It is also patently clear from the guideline document that will be before heads of state towards the end of this week, if they support it, that in order for phase 2 to progress, the commitments made in phase 1 must be honoured. Will the Deputy please not raise unnecessary fears, in this House or anywhere else, about very sensitive matters? We have enough challenges in dealing with Brexit and the relationships between Ireland and the United Kingdom, as well as relationships in Northern Ireland between two communities, of course, without the Deputy raising unnecessary fears.

We have stated over and over again that the Irish Government's position is we would like the United Kingdom as a whole to stay in the customs union and Single Market. That would solve many problems. It is a decision for the British Government to decide how they want to approach this. We have agreement between the British Government and the European Union that in the absence of agreement, there is a fail-safe and fall-back position that would ensure full alignment on the island of Ireland with the rules of the customs union and Single Market. It would allow the all-island economy to continue to function as it does today. The Deputy knows what that means.

I will not be spooked at all by that response. We have consistently said we will support the Irish Government when it takes the right approach. It is entirely responsible of me to put questions to the Tánaiste. It is entirely responsible of me to tease out what full alignment means-----

Deal with the facts.

-----and the Tánaiste has not done that. I have asked him if it is the position of the Irish Government that the North will stay in the customs union and Single Market. When we look at the detail of what full alignment means in the context of the all-island economy, it is not as clear as we would like. We want the entire island to stay in the customs union and Single Market.

So do we but we do not control it.

I am not being irresponsible; I am being responsible in putting questions to the Tánaiste. I did not use the term "a gentleman's agreement". That was used by people in the European Commission. Until everything is agreed and there is a final agreement, which would be a legal agreement, there will still be hard negotiations to be had and much politics must be done. We have said we will stand shoulder to shoulder with the Irish Government in its approach to getting the best possible deal. Please do not accuse me of being irresponsible for putting genuine questions.

I will ask these simple questions again. What is the difference between full alignment and being in the customs union and Single Market? What would happen with imports and country of origin goods, for example? Why will the Tánaiste not answer the simple questions? Is it the position of the Irish Government that the North will stay in the customs union and Single Market? It is a "Yes" or "No" answer. I have asked the question a third time.

It is my position that I would like to see the United Kingdom staying in the European Union but it will not happen because it has made a decision to leave. In the context of Britain leaving the European Union, I would like to see a decision made that would allow Britain to stay in the customs union and Single Market but it is ultimately a decision for them. We cannot instruct the British Government, regardless of what Sinn Féin says, to do anything.

We were told of a special solution for Ireland.

This is part of a negotiated solution that protects the island of Ireland.

Is it a special solution?

It protects trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom also, which is good.

Until relatively recently, the Sinn Féin position was that we should demand that Northern Ireland stays in the EU as well.

That was how the electorate voted.

Yes, but we have to talk about the reality of where we are. As a result of the good outcome that was negotiated last Friday, we now have a default position which we did not have before. The British Government has agreed that, in the absence of agreed solutions, it will ensure Northern Ireland maintains full alignment with the rules of the Single Market.

The Tánaiste has not answered the question about the difference between full alignment and the customs union.

We do not control what the British Government does. We have a view. My view has always been that Northern Ireland and the UK are much better off in the customs union and the Single Market. We would like that to be the case, but demanding it does not deliver it. The best way to achieve such a result is through negotiating, which is what we have done very well over the past ten days.

This has not been negotiated.

Brexit Issues

Stephen Donnelly

Question:

27. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the recent progress that has been made regarding Ireland's domestic responses to Brexit, including progress with our EU counterparts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [53240/17]

There is a lot we still do not know about Brexit. We do not know whether there will be a hard or soft Brexit. We do not know if there will be a transition period. If there is such a period, we do not know how long it will be or what conditions might apply to it. We do not know whether there will be a deal. One of the parties might walk away from the table over the next one, two or three years. We do not know any of these things. As the Tánaiste knows, this level of uncertainty is bad for business. I will give an example of how it is affecting businesses in Ireland right now. Despite Ireland's significant success in the agrifood sector, it has been shown in a new ESRI analysis that investment in the sector has decreased over the past 18 months. It is reasonable to assume that this reduction is partly linked to Brexit. There is a lot we do know. Sterling has fallen to a point where more and more Irish firms are finding it impossible to compete. The UK economy is in trouble. Growth is now anaemic.

The Deputy should ask his question.

We know that trade will be more difficult regardless of the type of Brexit that happens. We also know that tens of thousands of Irish firms trade with the UK.

I will call the Tánaiste.

Given what we know, what supports are in place for Irish firms and Irish jobs that are exposed to Brexit?

I have responsibility for co-ordinating the whole-of-Government response to Brexit. In this capacity, I continue to work closely with colleagues across the Government to address many of the challenges resulting from Brexit, some of which the Deputy has accurately referred to. Detailed sectoral work is being done by individual Departments and through cross-departmental co-ordination structures chaired by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. These structures represent an active channel through which all relevant Departments are providing research, analysis and overall policy input to the Government's overall response to Brexit, including its priorities for the next phase of the Article 50 negotiations. I hope those negotiations will provide some clarity over the coming months. As part of the planning and preparation being undertaken through these structures, there is an important focus on deepening the Government's analysis and understanding of the exact consequences of a range of different possible scenarios, including a scenario in which no withdrawal agreement is concluded.

Engagement with stakeholders is an important pillar of the Government's overall response to Brexit. Within the framework of the all-island civic dialogue on Brexit, three plenary meetings and 20 sectoral meetings have taken place in locations across the country. The Brexit stakeholder forum, which has a more limited membership, has met four times since its establishment in September, most recently last Friday in the wake of the publication of the Commission-UK joint progress report. The Government is actively responding to the domestic implications of Brexit. In addition to our overall budgetary and capital spending policies, significant measures amounting to over €50 million were announced in budget 2018, including a new €300 million Brexit loan scheme for businesses, a €25 million Brexit response loan scheme for the agrifood sector and additional supports for the food industry.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

The increased funding for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the State agencies involved in export promotion will allow for the opening of six new diplomatic missions.

The support of our EU partners and the EU institutions has been a key factor in securing the positive outcomes achieved to date, including the agreement reached last week. The Government will continue its intensive engagement, particularly with member states which share our concerns. We will aim for a withdrawal agreement based on the commitments set out in the Commission-EU progress report, an ambitious framework for the future EU-UK relationship and transitional arrangements which will give time for the detail of that relationship to be negotiated and for businesses and citizens to prepare.

We have been waiting for these sectoral reports all year. I have probably asked for them from the Tánaiste, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation on five or six occasions. I keep being told that they are coming or not coming, or that they are being put together or not being put together. There is a fund which will provide credit to enterprise. I put it to the Tánaiste that the domestic response is in stark contrast to the international response. Business people like farmers, bed and breakfast owners, hoteliers, traders and agrifood exporters are not seeing the help that is needed. The National Competitiveness Council warned a few days ago that small exporting firms might not survive Brexit, even if tariffs are not introduced, without a relentless focus on competitiveness. I put it to the Tánaiste that we are not seeing such a focus. In November, a survey conducted by InterTradeIreland found that 95% of businesses across this island do not have a plan for Brexit, which represented a slight decrease on the 97% figure recorded last year. A survey conducted by a Department here found that just 15% of small and medium-sized enterprises have taken some form of action on Brexit. The reality on the ground is that firms are not getting ready. I suggest that one of the main reasons for this lack of preparedness is that firms are not getting the support they need from the Government. What has the Tánaiste done to secure the relaxation of state aid rules? What has he done to provide grants, in addition to loans?

Go raibh maith agat.

What has he done to provide high-quality training in areas like pricing strategy and market development? What has he done to ensure that our firms will be able to avail of proper, joined-up supports in the markets of the 26 member states that will remain in the EU with us?

The Deputy can ignore me, but he cannot ignore the clock.

I accept that these are challenging times for thousands of companies which rely on trade with the UK. Approximately 38,000 Irish companies have significant trade interests with consumers and customers in the UK. The Deputy has attended many of the meetings I have attended at which Enterprise Ireland, Bord Bia and IDA Ireland have provided information and updates. They have seen an increase in awareness levels among their client companies about the need to prepare for Brexit. There is huge uncertainty because we do not know what the final outcome will look like. We are anxious to move on to the second phase of the negotiations on Friday to try to answer many of the questions being asked by companies in the UK and Ireland. There is no doubt that we will speak to the Commission about state aid rules if the outcome of Brexit looks like it will be very damaging from an Irish perspective, particularly in the context of Irish trade with the UK. In such circumstances, we will talk about the measures we can take in response. We will certainly not get agreement on the relaxation of state-aid rules in the absence of an understanding of what Brexit will look like.

While Fianna Fáil has supported the Government's international efforts on this agreement, I believe the Government is asleep at the wheel when it comes to domestic preparations. I have heard the mantra that "Brexit has not happened, and we will start talking about state-aid rules when we know what is going to happen" again and again, but we might not know the final trade deal for ten years.

That is not what I said.

Businesses are in trouble today. The conversation on state-aid rules needs to happen today. We have had three Ministers for Business, Enterprise and Innovation in the past five months. I am yet to see a coherent and substantial response. I accept that Enterprise Ireland is helping a few hundred companies, but that is not enough. The Tánaiste spoke about 38,000 Irish companies, but I remind him that 90,000 such companies are importing and exporting from the UK. Tens of thousands of other companies will be indirectly affected by Brexit. The UK is a big economy. I think it is the sixth biggest economy in the world. The economy of the 26 other remaining member states is five times bigger than the UK economy. Our level of market penetration in those 26 member states is one ninth the size of our market penetration in the UK. The opportunity is there, but it is just not good enough to say we will need to know what the final shape of Brexit is before we get serious. We have to start getting our firms exporting out to the 26 member states that are remaining in the EU. The Tánaiste and I are aware that, regardless of what happens, Brexit will make it much more difficult for our firms to trade with the UK.

If the Deputy looks at the figures, he will see that this is exactly what is happening and has been happening for quite some time

We need to diversify our markets because some sectors are too reliant on the British market. That would be necessary even if Brexit was not looming. We have intensified those efforts, for example by increasing staffing in all the key State agencies in this area. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Creed, has been spending a lot more time on trade missions than would probably otherwise be the case. We have seen a dramatic increase in agrifood trade with big markets like China. Such trade has almost reached €1 billion per annum.

Five or six years ago, that figure was probably less than €200 million.

We are seeing significant increased efforts to find alternative markets in anticipation of problems in the context of Brexit, but that does not happen overnight. The relationships that we have in the UK are still strong, still functioning and still need to be maintained. At the same time, we are opening up other options for companies to trade, particularly in the agrifood sector.

Middle East Peace Process

Paul Murphy

Question:

28. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel by the United States of America and the relocation of its embassy; his further views on the removal of the invitation to President Trump; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [53199/17]

President Donald Trump is renowned for his very small hands, but he has put his big feet in it in the Middle East with his unilateral recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. This is rightly seen as an endorsement of the far-right policies of the Israeli Government and an attempt to annex not just East Jerusalem, but all of the Palestinian territories. It has caused uproar in the Middle East, with protests taking place and, tragically, four Palestinians killed and many hundreds injured. His arrogant declaration is already stained with blood. Does the Government not agree that it is now time to withdraw the invitation to President Trump to come to Ireland?

As I have reported to the House, I directly conveyed to the US Government my deep concerns in advance of this decision, as did many other leaders. I was disappointed at the US announcement recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and initiating steps to move the US embassy there. I issued a statement describing this decision as premature, ill-advised and unhelpful to efforts to resolve the conflict in the Middle East. High Representative Mogherini issued a similar statement on behalf of the EU and many EU governments have done likewise.

No country has its embassy to Israel in the city of Jerusalem. There are good reasons for this international consensus. First, the status of Jerusalem is one the issues to be resolved in a peace agreement and it is unhelpful to single out and anticipate a conclusion on just one issue. Second, Israel claims all of Jerusalem as its capital, including occupied East Jerusalem, where more than 300,000 Palestinians live and which Palestinians see as the future capital of the Palestinian state.

President Trump stated that United States recognition did not imply any US view on the eventual boundaries of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. That is an important caveat. Unfortunately, this nuance is lost in the political signal sent to Israel last week.

I would not be in favour of refusing to meet or host the President of the United States because of a disagreement on policy, however strongly we might disagree. That would be incompatible with the depth and scale of our relationship, which is overwhelmingly a positive one. It would reduce our opportunities for influence in the short term and damage our interests in the long term.

For our part, Ireland's policy on Jerusalem is clear. In this week's EU informal meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, I underlined to him our continuing conviction that the conflict could only be resolved by a two-state solution, including a sovereign state of Palestine. I also stressed the crucial and negative impact of continuing settlement building. Therefore, the Government looks forward in due course to recognising Jerusalem as the capital both of Israel and a sovereign state of Palestine.

The response is a wringing of hands and statements to the effect that, although it is bad that he has done this, there is nothing we can do. However, the Government can do something that would send a powerful signal right around the world, namely, to use this occasion as it should have used many other occasions previously to withdraw the invitation, which has political significance, to President Trump and say that we do not accept the policy of supporting the annexation of Palestinian territories, we oppose the oppression of the Palestinian people and we oppose the US support for that policy under various presidents, Democrats and Republicans. Candidates from both parties promised to move the embassies previously. Israel is the largest recipient of US military aid, including a recent deal for $38 billion over the next ten years.

The problem is that the EU presenting itself as an honest broker and as having a different policy than the US are just crocodile tears when Palestinians are being killed, given the covert support for Israel, such as through the EU-Israel association agreement, which effectively incorporates Israel into the Common Market, or the funding for Israeli armaments companies through EU research programmes.

The difference in approach is one of choosing engagement or protest-isolation. For Ireland to effectively reverse an invitation to the President of the United States to visit Ireland would be counterproductive and a mistake. We share many interests with the US and there is a long and friendly relationship between the two countries. We disagree on some policy issues, including this one. I have stated clearly that last week's decision was a mistake, one that has created a great deal of tension across the Middle East and annoyance in many Arab and other states. It makes the search for a lasting peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians more difficult.

However, I do not believe that, either on this issue or on the many other issues that the US and Ireland need to be talking to each other about, we advance the interests of either country by disinviting the President of the United States. If President Trump chooses to come to Ireland, that visit will be facilitated.

One has to wonder what it will take for the invitation to be withdrawn. Issues will arise time and again and, time and again, the question of withdrawing the invitation will be posed. What will it take? The conditions of Palestinians in annexed East Jerusalem are horrific and a microcosm for the oppression of Palestinians generally within the West Bank, Gaza and the 1967 borders.

Of the approximately 300,000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem, more than 140,000 are separated from Jerusalem proper by a so-called separation wall 10 m high. These are cut off from access to basic public services, have a minimal number of post offices and a minimal amount of electricity, and a small minority of people are connected to water legally. Despite East Jerusalem having 33% of Jerusalem's population, it gets less than 10% of the funding that goes into the city. There has been the expansion in settlements, with 200,000 illegal settlers in East Jerusalem since 1977, which is designed to make a Palestinian state unviable. That is the strategy of the Israeli ruling class.

The EU will not do anything about this, so the only answer is a movement of protest from below, which is precisely what the Minister says is not worth doing. Look at what was achieved in the Arab Spring. What is necessary in the Middle East is an uprising of ordinary people in Palestine and Israel and across the region to bring a solution that is in the interests of the people of that region.

I am not sure that the Arab Spring set a particularly good example in many countries, but I share the Deputy's concerns about the conditions in which many Palestinians live. I have been to Jerusalem, the West Bank, including Ramallah, and Gaza. I was there four months ago and will return in the second week of January when I will be visiting Gaza, Ramallah, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. I will also be visiting Cairo.

We have an interest in this issue and I want Ireland to use its influence, but I do not want Ireland to cut itself off and be seen as a country that simply makes critical statements of Israel and takes protest actions. We would be written off as a broker that could play a part in helping to move a new peace deal forward. I do not disagree with the Deputy's concerns about the conditions in Gaza in particular, but also those in much of East Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank. I had an opportunity to say directly to the Israeli Prime Minister that we, as the European Union but also as Ireland, continued to have concerns about Israel's policy of expanding settlements. I asked him direct questions in that regard.

The only point on which the Deputy and I disagree is how to bring about a political dialogue that can result in a good outcome for Palestinians, but also a good outcome for Israelis in terms of their legitimate security concerns.

That is what I believe the Government politically has an obligation to try to achieve.

European Court of Human Rights Judgments

Maureen O'Sullivan

Question:

29. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will meet with a group (details supplied) as soon as possible to discuss the way in which the Government will progress measures to ensure justice for them. [53241/17]

My question relates to the group known as the hooded men. Will the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade meet with them as soon as possible to discuss ways in which the Government can progress measures to ensure they finally achieve justice?

On 2 December 2014, the Government announced its decision to request the European Court of Human Rights to revise its 1978 judgment in the case taken by Ireland against the UK. The request was filed with the court on 4 December 2014. On the basis of new material uncovered, the Government contended the ill treatment suffered by the victims should be recognised as torture. The Government’s request remains under consideration by the European Court of Human Rights.

In March 2016, the UK was invited to submit observations on several questions posed by the court. At the request of the UK, the deadline for submission of its observations was extended by the court from time to time up to December 2016. In February 2017, the Government submitted its reply to the UK observations on the application. Further observations were submitted by the UK in April and the Government responded to these in May 2017. The Government is now awaiting notice from the court as to how it wishes to proceed in considering the case.

In a separate process, the Belfast High Court on 27 October last, further to a judicial review application by some of the victims in the case, quashed a 2014 PSNI decision not to take further steps to investigate the question of identifying and, if appropriate, prosecuting those responsible for criminal acts during the interrogation of the victims. The court finding means the question should be revisited. The Department is continuing to monitor these developments.

The Department has remained in contact with the legal representatives of the survivors and their families in this case since the Government’s request to the European Court of Human Rights in December 2014. Departmental officials also met with the men in November last year to inform on the status of the Government’s request to the European Court of Human Rights and to hear their views.

I would be glad to meet with the survivors to hear their experience and their views regarding their continuing search for truth, justice and acknowledgment. I have directed the Department to confirm the meeting sought in the period ahead, when I would hope to be in a position to brief on progress with the Government’s application in Strasbourg.

I thank the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade for his positive answer. He referred to the original details such as inhumane and degrading treatment. What emerged in early 2013, through declassified documents which the British Government had tried to hide from European Court of Human Rights, was that there was an existence of the interrogation centre in Ballykelly. In other words, lies were told to the European Court of Human Rights.

There is further evidence that this was a policy at the highest level which the then British Prime Minister, Secretary of Defence, and Home Secretary knew about. The Irish Government did fulfil its role. However, we are approaching 40 years since the events and the men are still waiting for justice. In the meantime, four of them have passed away. When one meets them, one realises the extent of their suffering, both physical and mental.

For how much longer will this go on? Surely this ticks all the boxes to be considered a priority case by the European court, considering the ages of the men involved, the new evidence and the length of time it has taken so far. Are we proactive in ensuring this can be heard by the European Court of Human Rights? Is the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade confident it will be heard in the near future?

It is important that I do not anticipate what the court will do with timelines. The Deputy will appreciate that. The Irish Government will ensure that any additional information we need to provide or requests that come of it will be treated with an absolute priority.

I do control when I can make myself available to meet the individuals concerned. I am happy to do that early in the new year. The Deputy is also more than welcome to accompany them if she wants to.

I thank the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. They will welcome that because they have been asking to meet somebody at the highest level, either the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade or the Taoiseach, for some time. It is a matter of courtesy and respect for what they have suffered.

It strikes me that there seems to be more effort and interest in protecting the identities and position of those who ordered the torture, as well as those who carried it out, than it is in ensuring justice for the victims. The case will also have significant political implications for the whole nature of torture across Europe and the globe. I urge that a date for meeting the men in question could be fixed for as soon as possible in the new year.

We will try to facilitate that meeting as early as we can. I will be in the Middle East in the second week in January. The meeting will probably be after that in the second half of January.

Top
Share