Vol. 970 No. 8
27. Deputy Lisa Chambers asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the preparations being made with the UK to maintain the common travel area and all associated reciprocal rights; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28001/18]
I ask the Minister to outline the preparations being made with the UK to maintain the common travel area and all associated reciprocal rights and if he will outline what conversations and discussions he has had with the UK in that regard, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I thank the Deputy for this question. The common travel area is a long-standing arrangement between the UK and Ireland, which means Irish citizens can move freely to live, work and study in the UK on the same basis as UK citizens and vice versa. It is an arrangement that is valued by both islands and the continuation of this arrangement is a stated objective of the Irish and UK Governments. In the context of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, it is important that any arrangements necessary to maintain the common travel area are made.
The common travel area provides for associated rights and entitlements which enable Irish and UK citizens to move freely between and reside in both jurisdictions. These rights and entitlements include access to employment, healthcare, education and social benefits, as well as the right to vote in certain elections. I benefitted from those rights when studying in the UK.
Article 2 of the draft protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, within the draft withdrawal agreement between the EU and the UK, is a translation into legal terms of the acknowledgment between the EU and UK negotiators, made in their joint report of December 2017, that the UK and Ireland may continue to make arrangements between themselves relating to the movement of persons between their territories. This has been marked as green, indicating that it has been agreed at negotiator level, and it is a welcome provision in seeking to maintain the common travel area insofar as it relates to the EU-UK negotiations.
The maintenance of the common travel area is a bilateral matter. Work is ongoing with the UK and domestically to ensure that the necessary provisions are made in both jurisdictions in order that the common travel area continues to function effectively after the UK leaves the EU. Work at official level will continue so as to ensure that the legal and administrative bases necessary to maintain the common travel area are in place and to safeguard the entitlement of Irish citizens to access these associated rights in the UK and that of British citizens to do so in Ireland.
I brought forward a briefing note for the Cabinet on this issue last week in the context of the broader Brexit discussions we had within Government. We have multiple Departments working together to ensure that we take the necessary legal and policy decisions to ensure that the common travel area, as we enjoy it today, continues post Brexit.
As the Tánaiste outlined, the common travel area, CTA, allows free movement of British and Irish citizens between the United Kingdom and Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and provides access to various government services in each country in terms of healthcare, education and voting rights in certain elections. We welcome the fact that there has been agreement from all sides to maintain the common travel area.
The importance of maintaining the common travel area was acknowledged by Prime Minister May in her letter of 29 March 2017 triggering Article 50, the joint EU-UK progress report agreed at the European Council on 15 December 2017 and in the protocol to the draft withdrawal agreement published by the Commission on 28 February 2018. Although the CTA predates both Ireland's and the UK’s membership of the EU, maintaining it with the UK as a third country presents regulatory and operational challenges.
It is imperative that we maintain in full the reciprocity of civic rights and social welfare rights and entitlements that currently exist for Irish and UK citizens moving within Ireland and between Ireland and Britain under the CTA. In that regard, we seek clarity on what exactly has been done in terms of bilaterals between the Tánaiste and the UK. How far along are those preparations? What type of provisions has he put in place to date to maintain the common travel area?
They are very fair questions. It is important to say that, in practice, the CTA has been implemented administratively and more formally through sectoral agreements and legislation, where necessary and relevant, for example, the Citizens of United Kingdom and Colonies (Irish Citizenship Rights) Order 1949, the Aliens (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1999, the Aliens (Exemption) Order 1999 and, in the UK, the Ireland Act 1949 and the Immigration Act 1971. That is the kind of legislation we have been relying on, most of which predates membership of the EU for Ireland and Britain.
What we are doing now at official level, internally within the Irish Government but also on a bilateral basis between Government officials here and their counterparts in the UK, is to work on the practical arrangements that need to be done here in Ireland and in the UK to maintain the kind of relationship we enjoy today as Irish citizens in the UK and UK citizens in Ireland. That work is well under way.
I note from a parliamentary question tabled by my colleague, Deputy O’Dea, that the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Deputy Regina Doherty, met the UK Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Right Honourable Esther McVey, on Monday, 23 April 2018. The Minister stated that she has a broad agreement to preserve the status quo in the field of social security for both Irish and UK citizens moving within the common travel area. I emphasise "broad agreement". We are glad to see such bilateral meetings taking place, given that the UK will exit from the EU in approximately nine months from now. It is crucial that detailed and extensive work is done to ensure that the commitments given to maintain the common travel area are translated into reality.
It might surprise the Tánaiste to know that a Senator in his own party, Senator Neale Richmond, has said that these bilateral discussions with London would undo any EU solidarity we have enjoyed and maintained. I welcome the Tánaiste's comments on that statement, which was quite worrying because it is my view and that of the Fianna Fáil Party that bilateral discussions are essential. Maintaining a good relationship with the UK following Brexit is essential also. Citizens on this island and those in our nearest neighbour, the UK, want those reassurances also. It is important that when Senator Richmond is sent out to bat for the Tánaiste, he is on the same message that Team Ireland, in terms of all of us in this House, is on.
In the event of a no-deal or a cliff-edge scenario, will the Tánaiste outline what he considers to be the implications for the common travel area?
I believe Senator Richmond has been doing an extraordinarily good job in batting for Ireland-----
For the Tánaiste, is it?
-----in both British and Irish media. He has been making the case in a succinct and informed way but it is important to make a distinction in respect of the common travel area arrangements because it is accepted by the EU task force and both negotiating teams that this is a bilateral matter and that nothing in any withdrawal agreement or treaty will undermine the capacity for Britain and Ireland to maintain the common travel area on a bilateral basis. This is different from many of the other issues that have to be negotiated formally through the task force with the British Government. It is accepted by everybody that bilateral discussion, agreement and negotiation will be necessary to make sure we protect the benefits of the common travel area for British and Irish citizens and that is happening.
As for the bilateral relationship with the British Government, I will be in London again next week, where I will meet a series of British Ministers to discuss Brexit. We talk to our counterparts all the time about Brexit but that is different from formally negotiating with them, which we cannot do because Michel Barnier and his task force have the responsibility to negotiate on behalf of the EU as a whole, including Ireland.
28. Deputy David Cullinane asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the veto Ireland has over the Brexit negotiations; his plans to use it if there is no legal agreement on the working of the backstop arrangement in time for the EU June 2018 summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27818/18]
My question is in respect of the current negotiations between Britain and the European Union in advance of the June summit and, specifically, the issues relating to the Irish backstop. If there is no agreement or progress on those issues, what veto does the Irish Government have in that regard? What are its plans to use any veto it might have to ensure we do not end up going into October with the Irish issues bungled into all the other wider issues of trade talks between Britain and Europe?
As the Deputy knows, we had hoped to make substantial progress on the Irish backstop issues in June before the summit this week. I think everybody accepted that everything would not conclude in June but we certainly expected to make a significant step forward in helping to ensure that backstop was taking shape and that we could have confidence that we would be able to finalise that arrangement over the summer. That has not happened. If we look at the draft conclusions that are being put to the European Council, they are very strong. They state that the European Council expresses its concern that no substantial progress has yet been achieved on agreeing a backstop solution for Ireland-Northern Ireland. It recalls commitments undertaken by the United Kingdom in this respect in December 2017 and March 2018 and insists on the need for intensified efforts in order that the withdrawal agreement, including its provisions on transition, can be concluded as soon as possible in order to come into effect on the date of withdrawal. I am afraid that because the British Government has not been able to bring forward proposals to fulfil the commitments it made in these negotiations in March and in December, there is an acceptance that we have not managed to make the kind of progress everybody wanted to make in June.
I do not believe threatening to stall the process will help in this regard. As we will not find solutions if people are not sitting around a table, we are encouraging the British Government to intensify its efforts to bring some certainty and clarity as to what it is looking for and is willing to put forward as solutions that can deliver on the commitments it has made in writing. I will be encouraging that in London next week. I understand there will be a meeting in Chequers on 6 July when the Prime Minister will bring her Cabinet together to focus on Brexit again. It is hoped a White Paper will be published in or around that time as well. I hope we will see a real intensification of negotiations post 6 July to allow us get on with providing certainty for businesses, people, the communities living in the Border areas and so on in order that the backstop can start to take shape and we can get confidence into the negotiation that we can get this concluded by the end of October.
With respect, it is not about making threats. It is about making sure we get agreement on issues on which we were told we had agreement. I have said consistently that my quarrel is not necessarily with the Tánaiste and the Irish Government but the benchmark that was set by all political parties in the political system here, which were supportive of the Irish approach to the negotiations and the European Union's approach, was that we would avoid ending up going into October with the Irish issues unresolved and no real or substantial progress other than fine words from the British Prime Minister in terms of high-level principles but with no detail worked out. We were told that would not happen. We were told we would not move on from phase 1 until the Irish issues were resolved. We did, and we had an agreement in December which we were told was cast iron. We were told by the Tánaiste that we would have real and substantial progress by June. We have not had it. The Tánaiste will understand that we have a job to hold him, and the Government, to account.
Yes.
We are exerting pressure on the Government so that this can, in turn, be exerted on the British Government and the EU. When the EU says that Ireland should come first, that must also mean that it should come first now. It is one thing for the EU to insist that progress be made, but progress must also be forced. Like many, I am concerned that we are heading towards October with all of the Irish issues in the larger melting pot of trade talks, which is not what we were told would be the case.
The reality is that it takes two to tango. The EU is ready to negotiate and discuss sensible and pragmatic ways of delivering on the commitments that the British Government made in December and March.
I appreciate the support that we have received from Opposition parties - Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil and others - in respect of our efforts to ensure that there is a unified message coming from Ireland and this House. That has not only helped us, it has also assisted Mr. Michel Barnier and his team to provide clarity about what Ireland is seeking. I hope that we can sustain that.
I have no problem with the Opposition asking me the hard questions and holding me to account. It has been disappointing and very frustrating that we have not seen the kind of leap forward that many, including in the British political system, hoped would happen in June. That is why we now need to intensify our efforts if we are to ensure that a no-deal Brexit scenario remains, if not very unlikely, then remote. I am of the view that it is unlikely. As Mr. Barnier, President Tusk and President Juncker have done, let me make it clear that there will be no withdrawal treaty if there is no legally operable Irish backstop in place unless and until something better is negotiated. We have to deliver on that commitment over the summer.
The Tánaiste will have a further opportunity to respond.
The problem is that the British Government has effectively taken the backstop off the table. If we are to read into what it-----
It has not, actually.
It has. I read what it published a number of weeks ago. Effectively, it changed December's agreement, which was a solution for the North involving an alignment with the rules of the customs union and an extension of the implementation period. That backstop was meant to be an insurance policy in the event of there being no deal.
I am concerned that, although there may be a deal, it might not be a good one, that is, an agreement on the entire UK being a part of some sort of customs partnership without the North being fully in the customs union or aligned with the rules of the Single Market. If there is divergence in any area, it will mean a hardening of the Border and checks and inspections at some level, particularly in view of the fact that the rules of the customs union and Single Market will have to be enforced. That is the space we are in.
We had a backstop that we hoped would be at least a bottom line for Ireland. While the Tánaiste says that it has not been taken off the table, it certainly has not been placed on the table in the form of a legal text that would give effect to the December agreement. The British Government is resiling from the agreement.
It is true to say that the British Government has not come forward with proposals that follow through on the commitments it has made yet, but that is not to say that the backstop is off the table. The Deputy needs to make a distinction between what was agreed and signed off on by both negotiating teams in December and March and papers that have been proposed - but certainly not agreed - by both sides. The British Government, for example, put one forward on 7 June, which I accepted was a step forward but was inadequate to deal comprehensively with the backstop.
It is important to quote the British Prime Minister from her last major speech in the Mansion House:
We have ruled out any physical infrastructure at the border, or any related checks and controls. But it is not good enough to say, "We won't introduce a hard border; if the EU forces Ireland to do it, that's down to them". We chose to leave; we have a responsibility to help find a solution.
As far as I am concerned, we take our lead from the British Prime Minister in her public speeches and in her written commitment to EU institutions and Ireland. That commitment is clear. It is a commitment to having a legally operable backstop which deals comprehensively with the Irish Border issues in a way that is consistent with the December agreement, and to placing that backstop in the withdrawal treaty unless and until something else or something better is negotiated, which I hope will be the case, in the context of the future relationship discussions. That is where we need to focus over the summer months. I believe we can get there.
29. Deputy Lisa Chambers asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on Ireland's domestic preparedness for Brexit and contingency planning in the event of a hard Brexit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28002/18]
I was concerned by the Tánaiste's statement that he wanted to see a backstop start to take shape. We were told that the backstop was already in place. While Prime Minister May has said that the UK has a responsibility to help find a solution, that is far from a commitment to delivering a solution.
I am sorry, but I need to correct the record for the Deputy. The backstop is not already in place, and will not be until it is in the form of a legally operable text-----
That is my point.
-----in the withdrawal treaty. The commitment is in place. That commitment is cast-iron and clear. The language does not lie. The commitment was followed up in March when the British Government agreed that not only would it agree to a backstop, but it would agree to a backstop being in the withdrawal agreement unless and until something better was agreed. The challenge now is to make that a reality in the context of the legal text of a withdrawal treaty that has legal effect. That is what we are trying to do.
Regarding the co-ordination of the whole-of-Government response to Brexit and the need to put contingency planning in place, contingency planning for a no-deal or worst-case outcome, bringing together the detailed work being undertaken by individual Ministers and their Departments on issues within their policy remits, is well advanced. It focuses on the immediate economic, regulatory and operational challenges that would result from such an outcome. It assumes a trading relationship based on the default WTO rules, while also examining the possible effects on many other areas of concern. This work is therefore providing baseline scenarios for the impact of Brexit across all sectors, which can be adapted as appropriate in light of developments in the EU-UK negotiations, including in regard to transition arrangements and the future relationship. This approach is also enabling the modelling of potential responses under different scenarios, such as one where a withdrawal agreement is concluded and a free trade agreement is the basis for the future relationship between the EU and the UK. It also takes account of the planning being undertaken at EU level by the Commission preparedness unit, which is issuing information notes aimed at different business sectors and examining legislative actions that may be needed at EU level.
However, the Government is already acting in order to get Ireland Brexit ready. Dedicated measures were announced in budget 2018, including a new €300 million Brexit loan scheme for businesses and a €25 million Brexit response loan scheme for the agrifood sector. Capital expenditure of €116 billion under Project Ireland 2040 will allow the State and its agencies to plan major infrastructure projects properly while ensuring that communities and businesses can plan ahead.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
There was also increased funding provided to my Department in budget 2018 for the opening of six new diplomatic missions. A further seven new missions will be opened as part of the next phase of expanding Ireland's global footprint. These 13 new missions will be located in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, North America and Oceania and will contribute to helping our exporters find new markets.
Our Government's enterprise agencies continue to work with companies, helping them to deal with Brexit by making them more competitive, diversifying market exposure and upskilling teams.
In total, 34 reports analysing the effects of Brexit across a broad range of sectors and, in some cases, setting out responses have been published to date by Departments. All of these reports are available on a dedicated Brexit web page on my Department's website.
My point was that the Tánaiste told us last December that we had a backstop. He used strong language to tell us that it was in place. He says that language does not lie, but it can be disputed. That is the problem. The Tánaiste also stated that preparations were well advanced, but it was only last weekend that the Taoiseach admitted that the Government was scenario planning for a potential hard Brexit. That is not well advanced - the Government is actually 18 months late in starting those preparations.
It is two years since the UK decided to leave. Responses to a series of parliamentary questions have revealed that the level of uptake by Irish businesses of a range of supports designed to mitigate against Brexit are low. Despite there being in excess of 250,000 enterprises in this country, just over 2,300 have made use of Enterprise Ireland's Brexit SME score card. Of the some 3,000 SMEs that engage with InterTradeIreland, only 281 have applied for its Brexit readiness vouchers, with just 107 successful in their applications. Only 2%, or approximately 100 businesses, of Enterprise Ireland's 5,600 companies have availed of its Be Prepared grant. Our SME preparedness level is worryingly low.
Does the Tánaiste accept that, when he and the Taoiseach oversold the backstop last December and prioritised spinning short-term progress as a major political win, they did so only to serve their own Fine Gael PR agenda?
In doing so, they basically told our business community it did not need to prepare. What will the Tánaiste do to increase business preparedness in this country?
Unfortunately, the Deputy is getting party-political again. To accuse me of trying to take party-political advantage out of Brexit is a cheap shot considering how open I have been in the briefings I have provided and continue to provide, both on and off the record, to all parties, including her own. What she said is also inaccurate. We are not just starting Brexit preparation now; it has been going on for months.
For a hard Brexit.
I have given a detailed update to Cabinet and I am happy to give a detailed update to the Deputy, if she wants it. She should read the reports we have published on different scenarios and the different levels of preparation that are required. For example, the ESRI has published four reports; the Department of Finance, three; the Revenue Commissioners, one; the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation has published 13 different reports trying to raise awareness among businesses; the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport has published a significant report; the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has published five different reports; the Department of Health has published four reports; and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs has published a report. No country has put the time and work into preparedness that Ireland has put into contingency planning for all scenarios. As time goes on, we will be more public about that. However, as the Deputy should be aware, there is good reason we should not publish everything we are doing in the context of the negotiations and the state they are in right now.
There is no doubt the Tánaiste is good at briefings and reports, but we still do not have answers on the substantive issues. There has not been the substantive progress on the Border that the Tánaiste said was cast-iron and bulletproof in terms of the backstop commitments. We were told we must be real about what is possible and what can be published, but it is not possible that I would know everything that is in the Tánaiste's mind if he is not briefing us on it.
The June Council meeting is not all about Brexit. Certainly, the impression given by the Tánaiste in the past couple of months was that this meeting would be the deadline when we would see substantial progress. However, Brexit is one of a number of issues to be discussed in June and the migration crisis will likely take precedence over it. In Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker's address to the joint siting of the Dáil and Seanad last week, he stated:
As the clock ticks down to Brexit, we must prepare for every eventuality, including no deal. This is neither a desired nor a likely outcome, but it is not an impossible one...
Only this week the Government admitted it was going to start planning for a potential hard Brexit. I did not suggest nothing had been done for other scenarios but, in regard to a hard Brexit, certainly nothing had been done at that stage. British and European trade unions and business organisations are now demanding pace and urgency and seeking measurable progress on the backstop arrangement for Ireland. They are now doing the Tánaiste's job by advocating for a solution to that issue. Leaving this until October leaves us in a vulnerable position.
We are not leaving anything until October. We are working today, yesterday and tomorrow on trying to advance what we need in the context of protecting Irish people and Irish interests on the island of Ireland, and Irish people living in the UK in the context of Brexit. I met with Michel Barnier for well over an hour yesterday and we went through a lot of the detail in terms of what he would like progressed over the summer. We also spoke about the relationships we have and he has with the British Government and its key negotiators. I am in London next week to try to advance that and to talk to key British decision makers about the way forward as we see it. We want a good solution for Britain as well. Unfortunately, what we are hearing constantly out of Westminster is somewhat chaotic in terms of messaging and that needs to stop. We cannot stop it; that is a matter for the British political system to resolve.
I thank the Tánaiste. The time is up.
However, we can maintain a consistent and firm approach based on agreements that have been made in these negotiations. There are clear, important and valuable agreements that go back to last December and last March that we are now looking for follow through on over the summer months. That needs to be all of our focus in order to get it done, hopefully, well in advance of October.
Deputy Mick Barry has been given permission to take Question No. 30, which was tabled by Deputy Paul Murphy.
30. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will report on his recent visit to the Middle East and his meeting with the Prime Minister of Israel; if the recent attacks against the Palestinian people were discussed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28028/18]
Will the Tánaiste report on his recent visit to the Middle East, specifically on his meeting with the Prime Minister of Israel? Were the recent attacks against the Palestinian people discussed at that meeting?
I thank the Deputy for the question. This was my third visit to Israel and Palestine as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, and my first such visit to Jordan and Cyprus. I have reported on the overall visit, including the Jordan and Cyprus elements, in previous parliamentary question replies.
In Israel and Palestine, on 6 and 7 June, I met, on the Israeli side, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Opposition leader, Itzhak Herzog. In Palestine, I met Foreign Minister Malki and Chief Negotiator Erekat, as well as Dr. Mohammad Shtayyeh, head of the Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction. I also met the United States ambassador to Israel to discuss US efforts to develop a peace plan over time.
All my discussions were focused on the broader prospects to restart the political process, centred on current US efforts, which clearly are having limited effect. I also followed up on the discussions I began on my previous visits relating to practical assistance for Gaza and ways of changing the dynamic, something which is especially important following the shocking recent events there. These events, and the heavy Palestinian casualties, of course, featured in my discussions with Prime Minister Netanyahu. As would be expected, he defended the actions of his government and its armed forces. I have strongly expressed my criticisms and those of the Government in my public statements, here in the Dáil and directly to the Israeli ambassador. They have also been expressed in Ireland’s actions at the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council. I also used this meeting to engage Mr. Netanyahu in a substantive discussion on practical alternatives for Gaza to seek to find new ways forward there. This was a useful discussion, feeding into ideas which I am continuing to take forward and that involve both Cyprus and Jordan, and, to a certain extent, Egypt.
The time is up.
I have on many occasions said in this House that while I may disagree with the approach that has been taken by Israel in its relationship with the Palestinians on issues like settlements and how Gaza border security issues have been responded to, that does not mean we should not engage.
I thank the Tánaiste. We need to control the time. It is two minutes and one minute. We are not yet on the fifth question and it is almost 11.10 a.m., although we were late starting. I call Deputy Barry.
Some 130 people died over ten weeks, more than 60 Palestinians were killed in one day and more than 1,300 were injured in one day. It is State-sponsored murder. The Tánaiste had talks but what about actions? The expulsion of the Israeli ambassador is something I would support. The Tánaiste does not support it, although he expelled the Russian ambassador on far lesser grounds.
I did not. The Russian ambassador was not expelled.
Okay, it was diplomats. The Tánaiste knows the point I am making. The State buys arms from Israel, some €14.7 million worth in the past decade, including bullets, drones and targeting devices, material which is marketed as being "battle proven" on "human test subjects". We trade with those who profit from the murder of Palestinian people and buy weaponry which may well have been tested against Palestinian people. Does the Tánaiste not feel it is time to go beyond words and take action, and end the buying of these weapons from the Israeli state?
I thank Deputy Barry for observing the time. I call the Tánaiste.
My sole interest in the engagement we have been having with the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Government is to try to advance the cause of Palestinians, whom I believe are victims of an extraordinary injustice. Ireland needs to do everything it can at government level to try to advance efforts to achieve a two-state solution in time and to try to prevent violence and bloodshed.
That is what I have been doing. I have made it clear that I do not believe that boycotts and protest from a Government are the way to advance those efforts. There are many who do that in the NGO community and so on. That is a matter for them. I am a Government Minister and the approach I have taken over the past 12 months is one of direct and blunt engagement to try to ensure that the interests of Irish people in trying to advance a way forward for a peace process in the Middle East are as effective as possible. In time, the approach I have taken will prove to be the right one.
The Minister says that his sole interest is to advance the cause of the Palestinians and he mentioned the importance of preventing violence and bloodshed. I ask him about the Irish companies that exported nearly €6.5 million worth of goods to Israel since 2011. This was both military hardware and materials that have a dual use. What have these weapons been used for? Can the Minister give a guarantee that they were not used in the 14 May massacre? Does this not represent a stain on the reputation of this country that there are people here profiting from the blood of the Palestinian people? Why is the Minister not prepared to say that he would support an arms embargo, that he is prepared to ban this trade and he would support a similar ban internationally?
Ireland cannot impose a trade embargo on Israel on a unilateral basis. Trade is a competence of the EU and the European Commission. I believe the Deputy is asking me to do something I cannot do, although I stand to be corrected on that. What I am focusing on are issues where I can have an involvement, such as advocating for products that can alleviate suffering in Gaza, advocating for increased funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, because some have decided to reduce funding to it. UNRWA supports millions of Palestinians, not just in Gaza but in the West Bank, Jordan and Lebanon as well. We will put a lot of Irish taxpayers' money into Gaza in terms of energy projects and we have been advocating for quite some time to find a way, through negotiation, to remove the blockade by sea of Gaza. That is something that has received some media coverage in the last 24 hours and it aligns with the thinking we have been advocating for a long time. The point I am making is that I do not disagree with the frustration and concern that is being expressed in this House regarding innocent people who have been shot and killed in recent weeks. What I am interested in, however, is finding political solutions that can reduce that bloodshed in the future and can provide some hope to Palestinians as opposed to simply looking at protest as a forum of trying to bring about change.
31. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the status of the implementation of the EU-Cuba Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement and its ratification by Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28083/18]
This question is on the EU-Cuba Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement of which we are part. It is particularly important in the context of the reaction of the Trump Administration to immigration over the past week or so. Ireland could send a strong message to America on how to deal with countries in Latin America by negotiating and bringing this further. That would be important.
The Government has strongly supported the conclusion of the EU-Cuba Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement, which was signed by each member state and the Cuban Minister for Foreign Affairs in the margins of the Foreign Affairs Council in December 2016. This was the first bilateral agreement to be signed between the EU and Cuba. Its signature marked a further positive step forward in relations between the EU and Cuba, which have improved considerably in recent years. The agreement is robust and comprehensive, consisting of three main pillars, namely, political dialogue, co-operation and sectoral policy dialogue and trade and trade co-operation. The core aim is to open channels of dialogue and co-operation between the EU and Cuba in order to assist the modernisation of the Cuban economy and society, strengthen human rights and democracy and work together to achieve the sustainable development goals.
In July 2017, the European Parliament voted to endorse the EU-Cuba Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement and in May 2018, the first EU-Cuba joint council took place in Brussels during which implementation was discussed. While most of the agreement has been provisionally applied since November 2017, its full application will require ratification by the EU once all member states have completed their own internal legal procedures. As it stands, 14 member states have done so. The remaining member states, including Ireland, have yet to complete their internal procedures. I look forward to working with colleagues in the Oireachtas to complete Ireland’s internal legal procedures and work is under way towards this objective. I hope to have it completed before the end of the year.
The entry into force of the EU-Cuba Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement and improvements in the EU-Cuba relationship will in turn have helpful consequences for the Ireland-Cuba relationship. Ireland has a positive relationship with Cuba which was further cemented by the successful visit of President Higgins to the island in February 2017. My assessment is that this agreement provides a solid framework and welcome opportunity to strengthen both EU-Cuba and Ireland-Cuba relations. I look forward to continued positive developments in the period ahead, including the completion by Ireland of the internal legal procedures necessary for ratification during 2018.
I thank the Minister for his response. Unfortunately, it is very similar to a response given a number of months ago, I think in February and to a parliamentary question on the same issue as well. That in itself is quite worrying.
I am convenor of the Ireland-Cuba interparliamentary group. Last week we had one of the Cuban five, Fernando González, visit the Dáil together with the ambassador, Hugo Ramos. It was very important to them that we build and develop the links between Cuba and Ireland and between Cuba and the EU. In that context, the Minister says that he will complete the internal procedures in Ireland but that is what he said previously in response to this. When will we see some movement taking place in completing these procedures because that will be vitally important in ensuring that this goes ahead? As we have been looking at it since December 2016, when will we see an outcome from the process?
I am anxious to do that as quickly as we can. I have committed in this answer to have it done before the end of the year. There are only a few weeks left before we break up for the summer. I understand that legal advice is required on this before I can bring a recommendation to Government. I assure the Deputy that I am anxious to do that as quickly as possible. The Government sees the improving and positive relationship with Cuba as something on which we want to build and we do not want to be seen to be one of the European countries that is delaying the full implementation of the potential of the agreement between the EU and Cuba. I want to make sure that does not happen but I also need to go through the proper legal procedures that must be undertaken to ratify it. I am happy to keep the Deputy up to date personally, given the role he plays in the bilateral relationship, and maybe I can get him a more detailed answer in terms of a date as early as possible after the summer.
I thank the Minister again. In his response in January this year, he said that nine member states had ratified the agreement. There are now 14 but Ireland still is not among them. That is worrying and I am afraid that if I put in the same question again in November, I will get the same response. That is not acceptable at this stage. I welcome the possibility that there is additional information the Minister can bring forward to me and I will look at that. We need to see movement on this and we need to be sure that the end of the year will not slip further away.
All I can say is that I will try to ensure that if this question comes up again towards the end of the year, we will have a more conclusive answer. It is important to say that only half of the EU member states have ratified the agreement. The other half have not and Ireland is in that half. I want to deal with this issue as quickly as we can and I will endeavour to come back to the Deputy with a more accurate date and reasons it is taking as long as it is in terms of legal advice.
Before Question Time this morning, I asked whether I could be given more accurate dates so I could respond more accurately in the Dáil. When I get the response to that, I might send it directly to the Deputy so he can, hopefully, provide his Cuban counterparts with a bit more reassurance in terms of a date that we can finalise ratification.
