Vol. 980 No. 2
6. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will urge the European Union to start negotiations with President Maduro of Venezuela; if all available dispute resolution mechanisms have been utilised including existing frameworks in Latin America; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9436/19]
7. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the rationale for declaring Ireland in support of Mr. Juan Guaidó as the interim President of Venezuela; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9740/19]
26. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the basis on which the decision was taken to recognise a self-appointed person as President of Venezuela; his views on the statement from the UN rapporteur that sanctions on the country are illegal and could amount to crimes against humanity under international law; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9735/19]
27. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on the amassing of troops from the United States of America on the border between Colombia and Venezuela (details supplied); if the calls on the Venezuelan military to enter the political arena and engage in a coup will be condemned; and if he will support the Montevideo dialogue initiative. [9636/19]
This is a continuation of the previous question but it is important that we discuss the matter in the House. I want to know if the Tánaiste will encourage the European Union to engage directly with President Maduro of Venezuela rather than with the fake president and his view of that.
I have semi-answered this question already.
Will the Tánaiste just confirm what questions he is taking?
The Tánaiste can answer it again.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 7, 26 and 27 together.
That gives me a bit of time to read a full response. As stated in reply to the previous question, Venezuela is currently experiencing the worst social, humanitarian, political and economic crisis in its history. This crisis is having a dire impact on the population, and has resulted in mass migration, affecting countries in the region and overall regional stability. An estimated 3 million migrants and refugees have left Venezuela in the past three years, with the majority going to neighbouring countries.
We are concerned about this unfolding humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, where the needs of the population are acute. Ireland is strongly committed to the humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence and supports the EU's international contact group which has been set up to ensure that it can bring about a peaceful and democratic intervention.
Ireland, along with its EU partners, has called on numerous occasions for the government of President Maduro to acknowledge the full scale of the humanitarian crisis. The refusal by the government of President Maduro to allow humanitarian aid into the country over the weekend resulted in violence and confrontation, particularly on the border with Colombia and Brazil.
We condemn this violence and I fully support the EU statement of 24 February which calls on Government authorities to show restraint, avoid the use of force and allow the entry of aid into the country. The statement also reiterates the EU's commitment to increase humanitarian assistance from its current levels of over €60 million for Venezuelans in need, in line with humanitarian principles.
As well as addressing the humanitarian situation in the country, the EU's international contact group aims to facilitate a peaceful, democratic solution to the crisis, by seeking to put in place conditions to allow for a political process to take place. The contact group had its first meeting on 7 February. A technical mission, co-chaired by the EU and Uruguay, travelled to Caracas last week in order to look at how the EU can assist with next steps and preparations for fresh presidential elections, and to assess how best to organise the delivery of aid.
I very much welcome and support the high priority which the EU is giving to this issue, and the co-ordinated action which it is undertaking. Likewise, I fully subscribe to the EU common position outlined in late January, when the EU made clear that if no announcement regarding fresh elections were to be made during a specified period by President Maduro, then the EU would take further actions, including regarding the issue of recognition of the country's leadership, and consideration of additional EU targeted sanctions.
On 3 February last, in the absence of an announcement by President Maduro to call fresh elections in Venezuela, a number of EU member states began issuing statements recognising Juan Guaidó as interim President of Venezuela.
On 6 February, I joined the vast majority of other EU member states in acknowledging and supporting Mr. Guaidó, President of the democratically-elected National Assembly, as President ad interim of Venezuela, in order for him to call for free, fair and democratic presidential elections.
We currently share this position with 24 other member states.
Ireland continues to call for a negotiated democratic, peaceful solution that can bring political stability and address the pressing needs of the people. I will continue to engage on this with our EU and regional partners at the highest levels. Ireland strongly rejects the suggestion of any possible military intervention in Venezuela. Any solution to this crisis must be both peaceful and democratic.
This has been an incremental position where an unfolding humanitarian crisis needs an international response. The response has been a collective one by the EU. The US has taken a somewhat different approach but the objective of all countries, be they in South America, North America or the EU, is to try to ensure there is a democratic solution to this humanitarian crisis and that it does not continue to deteriorate in a way that results in violence.
A number of Members have tabled questions so there will be different supplementary questions and, hopefully, the Tánaiste will cover them all. It is interesting how we are so active in support of the unelected, so-called president of Venezuela yet we let so many other humanitarian crises continue across the world, such as in Libya, Iraq, Yemen and South Sudan. They are endless, but we are very active on this one. I wonder if the deal for us will be to provide dairy or something else in Venezuela when its government is overthrown by us and the European Union. The Tánaiste mentioned that the EU delegation went to Caracas to discuss how to help in Venezuela. To whom did they talk? Did they talk to the Venezuelan Government to see how they could help?
He also referred to aid in this crisis. The crisis did not start when this man became the Americans' puppet in Venezuela. It was ongoing for many years before that. There were American sanctions in place on Venezuela for many years but I did not hear the Tánaiste or anyone in Europe speak out on the difficulties they were causing for the Venezuelan people. Perhaps he will comment on that as well.
We will take all the supplementary questions together.
The double standards and hypocrisy of the Government and the EU on this are stunning. Saudi Arabia brings Yemen to the brink of famine, kills Jamal Khashoggi and tortures and abuses civil rights activists, yet they do not even ask to visit its prisons. From the moment the Chavez regime came to power in Venezuela, America and the wealthy in Venezuela were trying to sabotage it, despite its democratic mandate. President Maduro has done things that are wrong, over-centralised power and repressed legitimate opposition, and I condemn and criticise him for that. However, to say that the crimes he has committed are even close to what Saudi Arabia is doing is preposterous. To deny the fact that the US has an oil driven agenda in that country and throughout the region and has actively sought to sabotage the democratic wishes of the people of Venezuela from the outset is hypocrisy, denial and dishonesty at an enormous level. America is trying to control its backyard and, in particular, some of the largest oil reserves in the world. The Tánaiste knows that.
I must agree that hypocrisy jumps out. The Tánaiste talked about a humanitarian crisis. The cost of the sanctions greatly exceeds the cost of the humanitarian aid that is being sent, and there is a serious question about that humanitarian aid and its origin. South Sudan, Yemen, Libya, Iraq and the Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC, have been mentioned and I could refer to many more. The Minister is clapping himself on the back because this was an incremental decision. It was a slow decision to become one of the best boys in the European class, rather than standing with our neutral voice for peace. The constitution that was introduced in Venezuela in 1999 has the mechanisms within it for bringing about a peaceful solution. If we were genuinely interested in bringing peace to Venezuela and not in taking oil from it or supporting America as it takes oil from it, we would stand up as a neutral country and set in place the means to bring peace to that country. The hypocrisy is simply appalling. I understand why the Minister stuck to his script because if he had moved from it he would have been in serious trouble with his conscience on this matter.
The Tánaiste's announcement that the Government recognised Juan Guaidó as President of Venezuela is an attempt to legitimise a coup. He says he came to this position on an incremental basis but, unfortunately, coups happen in South America with an incremental approach. That has been the history in the region. One could point to other countries where one could say a coup is happening. The Tánaiste said he has a difficulty with the election. The election in May 2018 did not have to happen. It was based on a call from the opposition parties in Venezuela for an election. The election went ahead and many parties decided not to participate. Guaidó did not put himself forward in that election. President Maduro won it and he is the legitimate president. Certainly, there are difficulties in that country but Ireland releasing this statement, particularly before the Tánaiste goes to Washington and meets President Trump and under pressure from the European members of NATO, is a worrying development in Irish foreign policy. Instead of a damaging recognition of an undemocratic coup the Tánaiste should have declared that Ireland will support the efforts of Mexico and Uruguay to find a peaceful political solution. What will the Tánaiste do now? Is he supporting that process? If he is, why are his officials not involved in supporting that initiative?
First, the EU is co-ordinating with Uruguay. The EU has set up a contact group to focus on peaceful democratic solutions. That is the contribution it is making. The Deputies appear to be focused solely on the US approach to this, but it is important to point out that the EU has made its own statements and decisions regarding Venezuela and how we should respond to a totally unacceptable deterioration of conditions that has resulted in 3 million refugees leaving that country. That is destabilising its neighbouring states as well. This is not just about Venezuela but the impact of what is happening in Venezuela on neighbouring states, the region and even on the EU. The number of Venezuelans who have come to Spain, for example, in the past three years is very significant. Whether we like it or not, this issue is impacting on everybody and the EU, as a significant contributor to the foreign policy debate, had to take a position. Unlike Deputy Crowe, the EU and I do not recognise that the last presidential election was free and fair and that President Maduro was legitimately elected.
What was wrong with the election?
We do not accept that the election was run in a free and fair way, without intimidation. What we are trying to do now is ensure there is an interim mechanism that will facilitate free and fair presidential elections.
Members referred to Yemen, Iraq, the DRC, Libya and so forth. We talk about those issues all the time. I was speaking specifically about some of them in the United Nations Human Rights Council this week, so there should be less lecturing with regard to comparing crises. There are legitimate and real concerns about many countries across the world but that does not mean we should ignore the scale of what is happening in an influential country in South America.
The EU has tried, but on many occasions it is not able to respond to such crises with one voice. However, it was able to do it in this instance. The EU is often criticised for not being able to have a collective influence and impact for the better in different parts of the world. We are trying to respond to that criticism in respect of Venezuela.
Regarding the humanitarian response the EU is trying provide to Yemen, Ireland committed €5 million to it yesterday. The Minister of State, Deputy Cannon, was responsible for that. Let us not start comparing all of these areas. What we are trying to do here is be part of a collective EU effort to build pressure to try to deliver a democratic solution. There has been a recognition of a temporary president to facilitate that, as opposed to anything more permanent than that. This is not about overthrowing governments; it is about trying to facilitate an election that can allow the Venezuelan people to decide what kind of government they want.
The Tánaiste will have another opportunity. There will be four brief supplementary questions. I call Deputy Boyd Barrett.
By recognising Guaidó, who is a far right wing opponent of the government, the Venezuelan Government has essentially given the green light to civil war and to external intervention. It would not have been a problem if the Tánaiste had talked to the government there and various parties and considered assistance to Venezuela on the humanitarian front, but Europe has given legitimacy to people who are trying to organise a coup against the Venezuelan constitution and in a context where Trump - God save us, Donald Trump - is straining at the leash to send the US military in to get oil. The Tánaiste knows that. The Government has legitimised that and it will be responsible for the consequences.
We have not. The Deputy should not mislead the House.
That is the truth. That is what the Government has done.
We have repeatedly-----
The Tánaiste will have an opportunity to respond. I call Deputy Pringle.
Could the Tánaiste answer my first question on whether the EU delegation in Caracas has been in contact with the Venezuelan Government to organise a meeting? They are the people with whom relief could be organised. Is the EU doing it with the so-called-----
The Tánaiste accused my colleague, Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan, of not being interested in humanitarian aid. He probably did not mean that.
I did not.
The Tánaiste did. He said she had no interest in humanitarian aid.
My specific question was on the statement made by the UN rapporteur who was appointed, who said in January:
Coercion, whether military or economic, must never be used to seek a change in government in a sovereign state. The use of sanctions by outside powers to overthrow an elected government is in violation of all norms of international law.
The statement is long. The Tánaiste said he is happy there is a collective EU voice, but I am not happy. We are a neutral country with a proud record up to recently and people listened to us. As has been said, if the Tánaiste was seriously interested, he would be talking to the people on the ground in Venezuela. We are picking and choosing our countries depending on what Mr. Trump wants - it is difficult to call him president, but he is – and what the EU wants. Oil is top of the agenda here.
It is appalling to come into the House and tell us about the EU's collective voice. We are standing over sanctions that will cause a lot more damage. We know from the experience with Iraq that sanctions cause more distress, more upset and more human suffering on the ground than anything else.
There is a very real risk of a conflict in Venezuela. US troops are gathering in neighbouring countries and the situation in Venezuela is becoming more and more difficult. Part of the difficulty is due to shortages. The Venezuelan Government has said the shortages are due to outside influences. The statements are simply facilitating extremists who are hell bent on forcing the legitimate president out of office for their own ideological reasons and they will stop at nothing to do that. The declaration on Guaidó undermines democratic norms. It is also a violation of international sovereignty and marks a dark day in Irish foreign affairs policy that will create a precedent for the future. I am concerned that we are out of step with democratic norms in taking that direction and supporting that approach. The Government has said it is reluctant to go down this road but it is a worrying development.
The Tánaiste has only two minutes to respond to the four supplementary questions.
In case there was any confusion earlier, I would never suggest that Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan is not interested in humanitarian aid. She is one of the people in this House for whom I have much regard on issues such as this. She has made a long and distinguished contribution to humanitarian assistance in many conflicts and difficult situations. I want to put that matter to bed. If that was taken from what I said earlier, it is not what I meant.
The motivation behind any decision taken by the Government or I is to try to support democratic decision-making, not the opposite to that. Many Members on the other side of this House put me under pressure all the time for Ireland to do more to intervene when democracy is being undermined, when human rights are abused or when humanitarian relief cannot gain access. How much criticism have I taken in this House for not speaking up in a stronger way to get humanitarian relief into Yemen, but when I say it regarding Venezuela, I am criticised because Members recognise a president in Venezuela that I do not believe to be democratically and fairly elected. There is hypocrisy coming from the other side of the House. What we have tried to do is work with EU partners and other neutral member states. Sweden has taken the same position, as have Austria and Malta. Other countries that are neutral in the EU, which are not aligned militarily, have taken the same position. Most of them took that position before we did to try to have a collective effort and message coming from the EU that we want a peaceful resolution to the matter, not a violent one; that we totally reject any suggestion that there could be military incursions into Venezuela; and that we continue to appeal to all involved, including Mr. Maduro, to facilitate a peaceful and democratic solution to this crisis that has driven millions of people out of his country.
8. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade when a decision will be made on the appointment of Ireland's next EU Commissioner. [7998/19]
I put this question about the appointment of our next EU Commissioner earlier to the Taoiseach and he referred it to the Tánaiste. We heard that the current Commissioner, our former colleague, Mr. Hogan, has indicated that he is positively disposed to another five-year term, as of course he would be. What about the role of this House in the appointment? For example, is it a matter for the confidence and supply agreement with Fianna Fáil in this type of coalition Government or is it such a fundamental choice, for example, in agriculture or financial matters, in the post-Brexit era, that this House should be intimately involved?
The nomination of the Irish Commissioner to serve as a member of the next College of Commissioners will be taken by the Taoiseach and Government in due course.
Following the election by the incoming European Parliament of the new Commission President, which is expected to take place in July, I expect the new President to begin working with member states who will designate Commission nominees from their countries.
I expect this process of consultation will take place in the succeeding weeks in July and August in order for the new President to build up a team and for all the Commissioners-designate to attend hearings in the European Parliament in September to October, prior to the Parliament's own vote of consent.
What happens is that governments suggest candidates and they become Commissioners designate. They then have to go through a hearing system in the European Parliament, something I have taken part in previously as a member of that parliament, which involves a fairly robust questioning process. The European Parliament then decides whether to approve the College of Commissioners. That is the way it will work and I am not aware of anything in the confidence and supply arrangement that is linked to the selection of Ireland's next European Commissioner.
I am sure the Tánaiste agrees that the next five years will be critical for this country and for its representative on the 27-person Commission. Notwithstanding the importance of the portfolio of our current Commissioner, we must be cognisant of the importance of the finance portfolio because we are facing action from France and Germany on the unanimity rule on taxation. In that context, should we be considering someone who has a background in finance? Furthermore, the gender ratio of the current Commission is more than 2:1, male to female. In that regard, there is a case to be made for Ireland to nominate a female Commissioner this time around and to choose one from the many distinguished women in public life - in this House and elsewhere - who could fulfil this role very well. There is an opportunity for us to break new ground. Given the situation regarding Brexit, there is also a strong case to be made for Ireland to put forward a candidate for the Presidency of the European Commission. An Irish President of the Commission for the next five years would be beneficial in view of the fact that this is such a difficult time for our country.
The Deputy is right that the next five years will be crucial for the EU and for Ireland's place in it. There is no question about that. I hope that Brexit will not still be an ongoing issue in August, September and October, although it could be. To be honest, I do not want get above myself; this is a call for the Taoiseach. He will make a recommendation, taking into account many of the issues that Deputy Broughan has raised. Ireland needs to select somebody who is able and who has the necessary skill set to be able to do a really good job for Ireland in the Commission, but not just for Ireland. The candidate must do a really good job for the Commission because when one is in the College of Commissioners, one is representing the EU as a collective and not necessarily one's country's place in the EU. It is a serious decision and the Taoiseach will need to weigh up all of those factors and recommend somebody who is appropriate for the job. I am very confident he will be able to do that.
There is great dissatisfaction across Europe with the level of democracy in the institutions of the EU, particularly the Commission, and this has been cited as one of the reasons that a majority in the UK voted to leave. There was no democratic control whatsoever regarding the appointment of the secretary general to the Commission. Dissatisfaction was expressed in this House, in other parliaments and in the European Parliament regarding that appointment. We now have an opportunity to have a more democratic process by involving this House. It is surprising to hear that Fianna Fáil, despite the confidence and supply arrangement - which is effectively a coalition arrangement - does not have an input into this and that the House will not have an input either.
The next five years will be critical and the decision on Ireland's next Commissioner is very important. Gender is an issue that should be considered very actively given that many in Europe are of the view that the Commission's gender ratio should be 50:50. We could take the initiative in that regard and select a Commissioner from among the many distinguished women in public life in this country.
As already stated, it is not my call. As a member of the Government, I will have an input into the decision but this is ultimately down to the Taoiseach's judgment. I disagree with the Deputy's overall point. This is a democratic process; the Government is democratically elected and represents Ireland's interests. Every day it makes decisions on behalf of the people and it can be changed at election time. This is one of the decisions that this Government needs to make. We have a mandate from the people to make decisions on their behalf in lots of areas and this is just another one of them.
9. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the progress being made to restore power-sharing institutions in Northern Ireland. [9742/19]
20. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his plans to resume talks with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the political parties in Stormont regarding the need to have the political institutions in the North restored; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9700/19]
34. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the progress of the recent talks with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the political parties in Stormont in respect of the need to have the Assembly and Executive restored; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9699/19]
Deputy Niall Collins has permission to introduce the question submitted by Deputy Troy.
It is almost two and a half years since the Executive at Stormont collapsed. This is a critical time in the context of Brexit. The majority of the people in Northern Ireland are remainers and the Northern Ireland economy is potentially hugely exposed by Brexit. Against that background, has any progress been made on restoring the power-sharing institutions?
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 9, 20 and 34 together.
The continuing absence of vital institutions of the Good Friday Agreement is a source of deep concern for the Government, as it is for the British Government. The Government will continue to do everything in its power, in accordance with its responsibilities as a co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement, to secure the effective operation of all of its institutions.
The British Secretary of State, Ms Karen Bradley, and I met the leaders of the five main political parties at Stormont on 15 February, further to our respective consultations with each of the party leaders in January. This meeting sought the parties’ views on how a new talks process could most constructively be commenced in the period immediately ahead. Each of the party leaders confirmed their wish to participate in the institutions again and provided views on the necessary basis for an effective talks process. It was agreed that the two Governments would engage further with the parties to seek an urgent way forward with a new political process that can secure an agreement for a functioning Executive and assembly. Following these further consultations, the Government does not underestimate the way to go in achieving a resolution, but continues to believe that this can be achieved and that there is an increasingly urgent need for talks to recommence.
The two-year absence of the devolved institutions cannot be allowed to continue. There are pressing decisions and issues across a range of areas which require a functioning Executive and assembly. The devolved institutions of the agreement are also urgently needed so that the assembly and power-sharing Executive can represent the interests of all of the people of Northern Ireland and address issues of concern, including the challenges for Northern Ireland resulting from the UK decision to leave the European Union. The North-South Ministerial Council is also essential to oversee and develop North-South co-operation on matters of mutual interest, as provided for under the Good Friday Agreement. The legislation that was brought forward by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which temporarily suspends the requirement to call an assembly election, underlines the urgent requirement for all with responsibilities to do everything in their power to get them operating again. I am continuing to work with the Secretary of State and remain in regular contact with the leaders of each of the political parties to get the necessary political process underway to secure an agreement for a functioning Executive and assembly and North-South Ministerial Council.
There is an elephant in the room now, which is Brexit. It has been there for some time and has had a corrosive impact on politics in Northern Ireland. It has had a polarising effect in that, in many cases, nationalists are looking to Dublin and unionist are looking to London for protection. That is the exact opposite of what should be happening in the context of the Good Friday Agreement and the trust and spirit of co-operation and partnership that should be developing. That said, even with all of the pressures that persist, linked to Brexit and political choices that need to be made, primarily at Westminster, I still think it is possible for the two Governments to work together with all of the political parties to find a way forward and a basis for an agreement that can result in a functioning Executive again. As late as yesterday, I had a long telephone call with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the approaches that the Governments should or could take to try to facilitate re-engagement.
I know that there is scepticism, particularly on the part of Sinn Féin, about the efforts that are under way.
I can understand that, but we need to work together. I hope we will be able to meet the Sinn Féin leadership on this issue in the next few days to try to build understanding and trust around a new approach that can result in a deal being done. That has to involve all the parties. It needs to be a process that all the parties can buy into. We cannot have any party or group of parties vetoing anything. I look forward to working with all of the parties to try to find a way of making progress. The Governments need to take on the responsibility of making sure the next process that is put in place actually works. I do not think we can afford another failure.
The Tánaiste might get an opportunity to ask his Department to provide a briefing for us on this matter. He mentioned in his reply that communities and political parties in the North need to have trust and confidence and need to be able to believe in one another. He said that words matter and that there will be proper follow-through. I am sure he is well aware that since the beginning of this session, the UK Supreme Court has delivered its decision on the Finucane family's challenge against the decision not to hold a public inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane many years ago and all the collusion that was involved in carrying out that murder. This is something of great concern to Fianna Fáil. Our position has been that we want to see a full public inquiry into this case. As we know, David Cameron did a U-turn on the commitment he gave following the Fresh Start agreement. The Finucane family's challenge against the decision not to hold a public inquiry has failed. However, the family has won a declaration that there has been no effective inquiry or investigation into the murder of Pat Finucane. Will the Tánaiste comment on that? Is he in a position to comment now? I know we are doing this on the hoof. The news has broken since this session started. Maybe we could have an opportunity to discuss it further later today because its implications are of very serious consequence.
While I welcome the Tánaiste's reply, he has not given us any cause for optimism in regard to the resumption or restoration of the political institutions in Northern Ireland. The Tánaiste gave us a detailed briefing at last Thursday's meeting of the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. As my colleague, Deputy Niall Collins, has said, it is most regrettable that we do not have a functioning assembly or Executive in Northern Ireland at this critical and crucial time in the history of our island. Similarly, it is most regrettable that the North-South Ministerial Council cannot meet. We are all aware of the value of its meetings at full council and sectoral levels. If those institutions were working on the basis of an all-Ireland approach to Brexit, they could work in the best interests of all the people of this island. Are the Tánaiste, his Government colleagues and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland giving any consideration to putting a timeline on talks? Deadlines are valuable at times because they can focus minds. It is clear to me from my interactions with my neighbours in Northern Ireland that they are absolutely frustrated that the institutions have not been working for more than two years. The assembly is not meeting to represent the people who voted its members into office in the first place. Has a date been set for further talks with the political parties in Stormont and the Secretary of State? A clear message needs to go out to the electorate in Northern Ireland and throughout this island that some urgency will be attached to such talks to try to ensure the political institutions established under the Good Friday Agreement are fully functioning, are working in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland and are working in conjunction with our Oireachtas colleagues.
Like everybody else, while I have been in the House this morning I have been reading on my phone about the UK Supreme Court decision in relation to the murder of Pat Finucane and the attempts by the family to secure a full public inquiry. The Government's position remains clear and consistent. We believe an independent public inquiry into the Finucane case should be established in line with the commitments made by the British and Irish Governments at Weston Park in 2001. The Taoiseach and I confirmed and reaffirmed this when we met the Finucane family in recent months. That is still our position and it is not going to change, regardless of this legal decision. I have not seen the full legal decision. We probably need to study it before we can make an informed commentary on its implications. The Government's position on the substantive issue remains consistent and firm. There was an agreement that a full public inquiry would be established. That agreement has not been followed through on. We believe it should be followed through on. That position is not going to change. There are dangers with putting strict timelines on talks. We have spoken to the party leaders about whether there is a window between now and the summer for an intensive period of talks during which an agreement could be reached as a basis for re-establishing a functioning assembly and Executive. I believe there is such an opportunity if parties want to take it. That is something about which the two Governments are talking directly to the two parties now.
I thank the Tánaiste again for his reply. I would like to stress the need for the public to know that urgency is being attached to the talks and the restoration of the institutions. We talk at times about the restoration of the assembly and the Executive, but we also need to emphasise the importance of meetings taking place at North-South Ministerial Council level and at sectoral level. I reiterate that there has never been a more opportune time than now, when this island and our neighbouring island of Britain are facing significant challenges as a result of Brexit, for the workings of the North-South Ministerial Council to be optimised. It would be great for the political heads of Departments to meet to thrash out a common position on the issues arising from Brexit that affect all the people on this island.
At a political level, a successful meeting of the all-island civic dialogue on Brexit took place in Dublin Castle last week. It was the fifth meeting of the dialogue to date. There has been engagement between civil servants in Dublin and Belfast on understanding the challenges of Brexit and the responses that may be necessary, particularly in a no-deal scenario. We have had some very good and frank discussions in that regard. It is important to let people know publicly that the Governments want to inject some urgency into this issue. For example, it may well be necessary for more legislation to be passed in Westminster to allow civil servants to be able to make practical decisions to protect vulnerable sectors in the context of a no-deal Brexit. We do not like that, but we recognise that it might be necessary. We certainly do not want to move towards a situation of direct rule for Northern Ireland. We cannot support that and will not support it. It is totally contrary to what the Good Friday Agreement should be about.
This is why we want to intensify efforts to work with all parties to find a way of getting not just an Executive but all the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement functioning again and doing what they were set up to do, which is to create a sense of normality, partnership and co-operation on this island in order to reinforce the positive benefits of the peace process.
That concludes Question Time. If Deputies are dissatisfied, I warned them at the start.
