Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Feb 2019

Vol. 980 No. 2

Ceisteanna ar Sonraíodh Uain Dóibh - Priority Questions

Middle East Peace Process

Niall Collins

Question:

1. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the status of the meeting he held with EU and Arab Foreign Ministers to discuss the Middle East peace process; the progress made; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9756/19]

Will the Tánaiste provide an update on the meeting he held recently between EU and Arab Foreign Ministers to discuss the Middle East peace process? I would be grateful if he could give us as much detail as possible on what was achieved at the meeting.

A group of Arab and European Foreign Ministers met in Dublin on 18 and 19 February at my invitation for a discussion on the current state of the Middle East peace process. As well as the Palestinian Foreign Minister and me, Ministers from Bulgaria, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Jordan, Spain and Sweden were present, as was the Secretary General of the Arab League. The participants were welcomed to Ireland by President Higgins and by the Taoiseach before the meeting. I had invited this group of Ministers based on my previous engagements with them on this issue in the past 18 months. Although there were a number of EU Ministers present, we did not, of course, represent the European Union as a whole. All of those present shared a vision for peace and believed in a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict based on the two-state solution. In our view, that is essential to a successful new peace plan.

Ministers emphasised their support for a comprehensive Middle East peace process which met the legitimate rights and aspirations of both parties: the right of Palestinians to freedom and statehood and the right of Israelis to security and regional acceptance. We urged international mobilisation and serious and effective negotiations to create a political horizon so as to counter disillusionment and potential radicalisation. Participants reiterated their support for every credible effort to get such serious negotiations started.

As it was always envisaged that the meeting would be a private discussion, we did not produce a declaration or long public statement. This format allowed for the maximum openness and straight talking, which we certainly had. Therefore, I will not comment in detail on who said what. What I can say is the purpose of the meeting was to bring people together who had a shared interest in a peace plan which might emerge in the coming months landing successfully in terms of both content and approach.

The Minister said there were six European countries represented, as well as Jordan and Egypt. Can he tell us if representatives from Israel were invited and, if so, did they decline? Were there other invitees who either declined or did not turn up? Fianna Fáil shares the Government's interest in the Middle East peace process. It is a long-running conflict. A two-state solution which would deliver a fully sovereign state of Palestine independent of and coexisting with Israel is a goal we all want to achieve. It is a cause of concern for us all that, despite condemnation by Ireland, the European Union and many in the international community, Israel is continuing the settlement programme in the occupied territories. This is counterproductive and will work against any peace initiative. My party and I wholly condemn the anti-Semitic attacks and increase in anti-Semitic activity across Europe and elsewhere, of which recent events in France are examples. Were representatives from Israel invited to the meeting? Who else declined? Was there any consensus on the way forward? Does the Tánaiste accept that Israel is acting unilaterally in continuing to build settlements in the occupied territories? Does he also accept that it is in breach of international law?

I have been very clear many times that we think the expansion of settlements in occupied territory is in breach of international law. We believe it should not be happening, as it undermines the capacity to have a viable two-state solution and makes it more difficult to negotiate. It also undermines the context in which we can achieve a fair settlement and causes unnecessary tension. For many reasons, I have been vocal and critical of expanding settlements in the West Bank.

I join the Deputy in absolutely rejecting and criticising comments that may be linked with anti-Semitism, something against which we should all stand up. Given the past history of anti-Semitism in the European Union, it is something we need to guard against in the future and learn lessons from.

Everybody who was invited to the meeting came. The initiative arose from a conversation I had with the Palestinian Foreign Minister, Mr. al-Maliki, last June.

The Tánaiste will have another minute. I urge Deputies to keep to the times allocated.

When the Tánaiste makes his subsequent reply, he might tell us whether the Israelis were invited. In September 2018, when he announced that he was convening the meeting, he said Ireland would be forced to recognise the state of Palestine. Is it still his thinking that we will be forced to do so? Why do we not just go ahead and do it now? Is there anything going on in the background in respect of the long-promised US peace initiative which we are awaiting? Elections are due to be held in Israel in April.

Will the Tánaiste comment on correspondence which he and the Taoiseach received, as did my party leader and party Whip, from about ten members of the US Congress which is viewed by many as a veiled threat to Ireland and the Oireachtas in respect of the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill?

It was led by Congressman Peter King. It effectively points out that we have a significant foreign direct investment base in this country, including Google, Facebook and Twitter. I am sure the Tánaiste has read the letter which could be interpreted as a slightly-----

Go raibh maith agat.

-----veiled threat towards Ireland-----

The Tánaiste to respond.

-----and our Houses of Parliament-----

The Tánaiste to respond.

-----in terms of what legislation we seek to discuss and enact. Does the Tánaiste propose giving a substantial response to the authors of this letter pointing out that we are independent and the Houses of the Oireachtas are independent, and that we are entitled to discuss-----

-----and debate any legislation we see fit?

Before we go any further, may I point out that there are numerous questions? There might not be many Members in the House, but they will be coming in. Until such time as the Standing Orders decide that one minute becomes two minutes or a minute and a half, please try to assist me.

The Tánaiste has one minute.

I will do my best, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Regarding those who were invited, I have explained to those in Washington who were putting together a peace plan, to the Israeli ambassador and to an Israeli Minister who telephoned to discuss something else, why I did not think it would be helpful to have Israeli representatives at that meeting. We are trying to have a free and open debate, not an argument, and to get an understanding and a perspective of the Palestinian frustration at lack of progress. It has been a very difficult 18 months for the Middle East peace process, for Palestinians in particular. This was about a meeting of countries that want a viable solution for both Palestinians and Israelis, but, of course, there was a big focus on the Palestinian perspective as part of that discussion. There will be many forums in the future, as there has been, that will focus on the Israeli perspective which I think I also understand pretty well, having met many Israelis to discuss it on many occasions.

We have said that if there is no progress on a Middle East peace process, we would look at the issue of recognition again and we will. The commitment in the programme for Government is recognition-----

-----of a Palestinian state-----

I am wasting my time and your time.

-----in the context of an overall solution.

If I am in the Chair, the Tánaiste and Members must at least observe the clock. If I call them short, all of them are very quick in observing the clock.

I am not looking at you.

Why is he looking at Deputy Boyd Barrett?

From here on in this morning I am going to be extremely sharp.

What about correspondence from the congressman?

Sure listen, carry on. Are you going to carry on?

Okay, carry on.

I call on Deputy Crowe to pose Question No. 2. Members need to be fair to themselves and to the House.

I agree with you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

If the Deputy agrees, then everybody should.

Sectarian Violence

Seán Crowe

Question:

2. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland has found that significant and sensitive information about the activities of loyalist paramilitaries between 1988 and 1994 was withheld by the Police Service of Northern Ireland from the investigators of the ombudsman; his views on this development; if he has raised this matter with the British Government; and if he will meet the families and victims of the Irish citizens killed in the cases that the ombudsman was investigating. [9758/19]

I tabled this question when it emerged that the PSNI withheld significant and sensitive information about the activities of loyalist death squads between 1988 and 1994 from the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, who was compiling a report on more than 20 loyalist murders. Does the Tánaiste share my concerns at this development? Has he raised his concerns with the British Government? I am conscious that this morning the Finucane family is-----

Go raibh maith agat. I call the Tánaiste.

-----in the British Supreme Court. Will he urgently meet the families?

The Tánaiste has two minutes.

I thank the Deputy for raising this question. The Government is very concerned by the announcement by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland on 14 February of the receipt of significant new material from the PSNI.

The ombudsman has indicated that the discovery of the new material will delay the publication of his report into events connected to the actions of loyalist paramilitaries in the north west between 1988 and 1994.

My thoughts are first and foremost with all the families affected, including the family of Councillor Eddie Fullerton, who was brutally murdered by the UDA in Buncrana in 1991, the five families who lost loved ones in the Ormeau Road attack in 1992 and the family of a teenager, Damien Walsh, who was murdered in west Belfast in 1993.

This is a most anxious and difficult time for each family affected as they now have to wait even longer for the report of the ombudsman into their cases. I have directed my officials to meet the affected families in the first instance. I also raised this matter with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Karen Bradley, when I spoke to her yesterday.

It is important now to allow the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Michael Maguire, the necessary space to complete the investigation, taking account of the new material uncovered.

In addition, in response to the request of the ombudsman that an independent review be carried out into the methods used for disclosure of information to his office, the Northern Ireland Department of Justice announced on 19 February that it had requested Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland to undertake an independent review into the methods the PSNI uses to disclose information in respect of historical cases to the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. The chief inspector of Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, Brendan McGuigan, has confirmed that the review will be prioritised and that its report should be completed in six weeks. Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland is an independent statutory inspectorate with responsibility for inspecting all aspects of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland apart from the Judiciary.

The Government will keep this matter under very close review in the period ahead.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

This development makes clear once again that the Stormont House Agreement framework is urgently needed in order to provide a comprehensive process for addressing legacy investigations and issues in Northern Ireland, focused on the needs of victims and survivors. The Government will continue to engage with the British Government and the political parties in Northern Ireland to seek the implementation of the Stormont House Agreement framework as soon as possible.

Deputy Crowe has one minute.

Eddie Fullerton was a friend of mine and I know his family. I know they have been informed that the ombudsman's report will be delayed.

It is important to use clear and precise language. There was some suggestion that the PSNI had discovered new information. That is incorrect; it had this information and it is not new. Crucially it was withheld from the ombudsman's office. The ombudsman released a statement stating that the police did not disclose sensitive information. He did not release one stating that the police found new information. There is a significant difference here and it undermines the role of the PSNI in this.

The information directly impacts not only on those who were killed in the Ormeau Road bookies but also in several other related killings in south Belfast and 19 other UDA sectarian murders in south Derry and north Antrim in the early 1980s. I do not think it is an isolated incident of withholding information and the concern is that it undermines confidence in the PSNI.

Go raibh maith agat.

Part of the peace process-----

The Tánaiste to respond.

-----was to have a new beginning in policing, but also to have a justice system that people could look to.

The Tánaiste to respond.

Unfortunately that is not the case.

Cases like this undermine the entire basis of the justice system. Again it is about what we can do.

Everybody nods their head in approval and nobody agrees. I call the Tánaiste.

I will try to observe the clock this time.

This development makes clear once again that the Stormont House Agreement framework is urgently needed in order to provide a comprehensive process for addressing legacy investigations and issues in Northern Ireland, focused on the needs of victims and survivors. It is important that we all work to ensure that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has the trust of both communities. Clearly this issue is challenging in that regard. That is why it is important that the independent review that is taking place happens quickly and that families are reassured. I am happy to ensure that officials from my office meet the families to listen to their concerns. We need to ensure we work together, as political parties North and South, to ensure there is belief and trust in the policing system in Northern Ireland. Without that a whole series of new and very difficult challenges will emerge.

There is clearly a systemic problem with disclosure concerning state killings, particularly where collusion is a feature and that is a difficulty. Successive British Prime Ministers have talked about a different narrative about the conflict in the North, but clearly this is a difficulty. The weapons used in this were brought in from South Africa as we know. Many of the killers were British operatives. They were trained, given information and sent out to kill. That needs to be dealt with by the British state. We need to support these families. Those families were waiting for many years with delay after delay. Withholding sensitive information such as this undermines the justice system. We may need to look at different ways of dealing with this. Clearly this has undermined the PSNI and the justice system.

The British Government needs to wake up to the fact that people, in particular these families, are losing patience.

That is why we have an Ombudsman who has made an issue of trying to ensure that accurate information is made available to families. It is also why we must ensure that the independence of the review is robust in terms of how information is brought forward and made available to the PSNI. The core issue is the credibility of the response that is undertaken. We must work with the families to reassure them that the PSNI shows the necessary leadership in response, which I believe it wants to do, and ensures they get to the truth so that we can move forward with confidence in the PSNI, something that is important for policing in Northern Ireland.

Brexit Issues

Lisa Chambers

Question:

3. Deputy Lisa Chambers asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the status of Brexit developments at national and EU level, including preparations for same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9757/19]

I know that the Deputy will observe the time.

I am conscious that we have 30 days to go until Brexit. It is a fluid situation that is moving and changing almost by the hour, but will the Tánaiste update the House on the agrifood sector, including the beef industry, the landbridge, the backstop and the potential for a codicil to the withdrawal agreement? Will he also update us on his conversations with the Commission regarding the financial aid package that will be available to Ireland across all sectors in the event of a no-deal Brexit?

As the Deputy knows, it will be difficult for me to respond to all of those questions in two minutes. We have just come from the Brexit stakeholder forum, where we had a detailed discussion on the current state of Brexit negotiations. There will be votes today in Westminster that will essentially put in place a new timetable for the potential ratification of the withdrawal agreement. It now looks as if the next meaningful vote in Westminster will be on 12 March. It will be on whether the British Parliament decides to ratify the agreement that the Prime Minister and British Government have put in place with the EU. If the British Parliament fails to ratify it, there will be a vote, in all likelihood the following day, on whether the British Parliament wants to accept or reject a no-deal, crash-out Brexit. If that is rejected as an option, the British Parliament will vote on the following day, 14 March, on whether to seek an extension to Article 50 and create more time and space to resolve the outstanding issues. Therefore, we at least have some clarity on those dates. At that point, though, we will be two weeks away from the planned departure of the UK from the European Union on 29 March.

We continue to prepare for all eventualities. That is why we will debate the omnibus legislation for no-deal Brexit planning on Second Stage this week. The Deputy will have heard this morning about how the work that Bord Bia, Enterprise Ireland and other State agencies and Departments are doing with their clients, companies and vulnerable sectors is intensifying across a range of areas and preparing for the worst even though we hope and expect that we will get better outcomes through successful negotiations than the consequences of a no-deal Brexit.

The EU and Irish position in those negotiations remains clear - the withdrawal agreement is not up for renegotiation and will not be reopened to change its legal text. Instead, we are looking for ways to provide clarification and reassurance to the British Parliament regarding its concerns. That will be worked on for the next two weeks.

I thank the Tánaiste. We are tight for time this morning and I appreciate that we had a good discussion at the stakeholder meeting, where many of these questions were addressed.

As the Tánaiste stated, it is likely that we will initially see a short extension up to the end of June, but that would not be without consequence. Further delays and uncertainty are already impacting on business and the farming community. Regarding the Government's preference for an extension, if we see a lengthy extension following that initial period, will there then be informal discussions and negotiations on what the future trading arrangement might look like in order to assist the withdrawal treaty getting over the line in, perhaps, two years' time?

Regarding the backstop, I understand the intention is to try to secure alternative or updated advice from the UK's attorney general, Mr. Geoffrey Cox, MP. As I have already told the Tánaiste, it is unlikely that his advice will change significantly in the absence of a legally binding change to the backstop, which we do not want to see and will not support. We appreciate that the Government will not support it either.

Will the Tánaiste touch upon the Commission and the conversations happening around an aid package for Ireland? Should the worst happen on 29 March, we need to know what money will be available to Ireland on 30 March.

I will take the last question first. The response for vulnerable sectors in terms of support, aid and flexibility for Ireland in how we use state aid is already under way. Consider the package that has been put in place between Enterprise Ireland and the Carbery Group. A significant financial package that supports the Carbery Group in diversifying away from an over-reliance on the UK market has already been signed off on and put in place. One could call it a Brexit contingency measure for that company.

Regarding the broader vulnerability of, for example, the beef industry and the agrifood sector in general, there is ongoing discussion between the European Commission, in particular Commissioner Hogan, and the Government on examining the most appropriate ways to support and sustain those through a transition, even a semi-chaotic one resulting from a no-deal Brexit. I do not believe that the European Commission or the Government will be found wanting in that scenario.

I welcome the state aid concessions and the additional supports and flexibility being afforded Enterprise Ireland through the omnibus Bill. In terms of actual financial aid from the EU, though, what conversations has the Government had with the Commission and what might be available to Ireland?

The Tánaiste touched upon the beef industry. We discussed it this morning but, for the record of the House, reports in a newspaper last week - I believe it was the Irish Independent - spoke of pressure coming from the UK because it was aware of our vulnerabilities and exposure in the beef sector, given that the UK market is of particular importance to our agrifood sector, and of some MPs attempting to suggest that same might be used to twist our arm and seek concessions on the backstop. Will the Tánaiste confirm for the House what engagements he has had with the UK Government on this issue?

Regarding the landbridge, there still seems to be no solution to the real issues that we will face at the Port of Dover in terms of our supply chains.

On the Port of Dover, while we discuss these issues with the UK and the EU, we do not control all of the levers. That is the truth. Similarly, the British Government does not control what we do at Dublin Port or Rosslare. We continue to advocate to try to ensure that the landbridge remains a viable option for bringing goods to and from our market.

There were some unfortunate headlines in the Irish media last week around trade wars on beef and using that sector as a way of putting pressure on the Irish. In response to those headlines, I got a call from my counterpart, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Mr. David Lidington, MP, who was concerned about them and made it clear to me that they were not coming from the British Government. I believe him. My relationship with him is good and we talk to each other in a very blunt and honest manner about all of these things.

However, that is not to say that there are not elements within the Westminster system that are frustrated that they cannot get over this issue of the backstop and want to see some pressure being applied to Ireland. Similarly, comments have been made here about putting pressure on the system in Westminster to get a deal done. That is the nature of politics when there is an impasse, but trying to put Ireland under pressure in terms of beef is not a tactic or official position being adopted by the British Government. It is a big issue, but one that we want to resolve together.

Human Rights Cases

Richard Boyd Barrett

Question:

4. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade further to Parliamentary Question No. 86 of 29 January 2019, if, in his continued monitoring of the reports of ill treatment of eight female activists in a prison in Saudi Arabia, he has given further consideration to establishing an all-party delegation to visit these detainees; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9755/19]

I am asking the Tánaiste to show a bit of moral backbone and commitment to human rights and women's rights.

Will the Tánaiste ask the Saudi Government to provide an all-party group from the House with access to investigate the very credible allegations of abuse, torture and unjust imprisonment of women's rights and human rights activists in Saudi prisons?

Recent reforms in the socio-economic sphere in Saudi Arabia have been overshadowed by reports from the UN and a number of human rights agencies of an intensive crackdown on domestic dissent and a near total restriction of the civil society space. Reports of torture, abuse and dire detention conditions for the prisoners in question are worrying. It is unacceptable that women should be imprisoned, let alone mistreated in any way, for peacefully seeking their basic rights. The Irish embassy in Riyadh works with other EU member states to ensure that human rights issues in Saudi Arabia are addressed. The EU delegation in Riyadh has raised the cases in question directly with the Saudi authorities on multiple occasions and at various levels. Ireland has consistently raised Saudi human rights issues bilaterally with the Saudi embassy in Dublin and at international fora. I am aware of the report issued by a cross-party panel of British Members of Parliament who had requested to visit the prisoners in question and I understand that many Members of the Oireachtas may be deeply concerned about the issue also. The question of the establishment of a cross-party delegation is, however, a matter for the Oireachtas.

Promoting respect for human rights is a cornerstone of Ireland's foreign policy. Ireland has consistently supported the human rights of prisoners and detainees and continually advocates for the freedom of civil society actors to operate in a safe and enabling environment. Through our engagement at the UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, Ireland works tirelessly to combat all forms of discrimination against women and to safeguard the rights of those deprived of their liberty. During the last universal periodic review of Saudi Arabia's human rights record at the Human Rights Council in November 2018, Ireland registered its concern about the imprisonment of human rights defenders and recommended that Saudi Arabia bring its laws into line with international standards for the exercise of the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association. My Department will continue to monitor these distressing cases and will continue to relay Ireland's concerns to the Saudi authorities at bilateral and international fora.

I brought two Saudi citizens who are human rights activists to Leinster House. This woman and this man cannot go back to Saudi Arabia as they would be tortured and imprisoned if they did. That is what is happening over there. Expressing words of concern and making recommendations is meaningless. It is laughable. Saudi Arabia is on the UN Human Rights Council at the same time that it is refusing access to an all-party group to investigate the imprisonment and torture of women activists in Saudi prisons. Are we going to allow this to continue or are we going to do something? The Government must not hide behind the skirts of the EU. In fact, the EU Parliament has overwhelmingly passed a strong condemnation of what Saudi Arabia is doing. Germany has imposed an arms embargo while the British Government, which, let us be honest, is compromised in relation to Saudi Arabia, has at least made the request to send an all-party group. What is the Government going to do to show some commitment to addressing the foul human rights abuses being conducted by the Saudi regime?

We are already doing things. I am not quite sure what the Deputy is suggesting we do. This week, the Minister of State, Deputy Cannon, and I were at the Human Rights Council in Geneva and in a contribution I made I referred specifically to the need to protect human rights defenders. I have met the Saudi ambassador in Dublin on two occasions to talk about Yemen and the Khashoggi case with particular reference to the promise of an independent investigation. There is engagement with the Saudi embassy in Dublin and in international fora, in particular at UN level, and there have been multiple discussions within the EU on human rights concerns in Yemen and the need for Saudi Arabia to ensure solutions are implemented which move away from war and violence towards the protection of civilians. I am happy to explore any new approach that we can take. In my experience, getting results in international politics requires one to talk to people, not simply engage in grandstanding. We will take on board any suggestions the Deputy has, but they need to actually work.

First, the Tánaiste's methods are not working.

What are the Deputy's?

Bin Salman says he will implement reforms for women and then simply locks up a lot of women. He tortures and abuses them and cracks down on human rights. Germany is not afraid to take unilateral action so why are we? Even Britain, which has a huge trade with Saudi Arabia, has politicians who are putting it up to the Saudi Government. We are not. Expressing concern is not enough. I ask simply that the Irish Government makes a formal request for access for an all-party group to visit the prisoners and assess the allegations of torture and abuse, ask for the prisoners to be released and, if not, say we will have to consider sanctions. That is what I want the Government to say to Saudi Arabia. If the Government does not do so, why would Saudi Arabia bother listening to any of these expressions of concern or recommendations?

The straight answer to that question is that I do not think Saudi Arabia is going to act on the basis of threats from Ireland.

It is a request, not a threat.

The Deputy just said that if they do not do it, we should threaten sanctions. We need to be realistic about what we can do here. That does not mean we should not ask the hard questions. In fact, we are asking them. My understanding is that the request by a British parliamentary delegation to visit the prisons concerned has not been granted. If access is not granted to a UK delegation, it is unlikely it will be granted to an Irish one.

Let us ask and add some pressure.

We should be honest about what actions are likely to achieve a result.

Humanitarian Access

Maureen O'Sullivan

Question:

5. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if Ireland will support peaceful efforts aimed at solving the Venezuelan crisis and only those initiatives that will help to bring the crisis to a peaceful and inclusive conclusion. [9759/19]

My question is on Venezuela. I ask that Ireland supports all peaceful efforts to resolve the Venezuelan crisis and only those initiatives which will lead to a peaceful and inclusive resolution.

I thank the Deputy for the question. Venezuela is 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. The UN estimates that more than 3 million Venezuelan migrants and refugees have left Venezuela since 2015, with the majority going to neighbouring countries. We are very concerned about the 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 efforts of the EU's international contact group to secure the urgent delivery of humanitarian aid in the country. Along with our EU partners, Ireland 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, in particular at the borders with Colombia and Brazil. I condemn this violence and support fully the EU statement of 24 February which calls on the Venezuelan 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 the humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence.

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 in Montevideo on 7 February.

A technical mission, co-chaired by the EU and Uruguay, travelled to Caracas last week 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 to effectively address the needs of Venezuelans.

I very much welcome and support the high priority which the EU is giving to this issue and the co-ordinated action it is undertaking.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

Likewise, I fully subscribe to the 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 2019, 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 my counterparts in 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 EU 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.

Humanitarian aid is going in. It is genuine humanitarian aid and is not going in under another guise. The elections in 2018 were carried out under the same rules and procedures as the elections in 2015, with over 200 electoral observers present. Several opposition parties took part, they got 3 million votes as opposed to 6 million for President Maduro. One element of the opposition did not take part and we know who that was.

President Maduro has stressed the importance of multilateral negotiations and the significance of the UN. There are humanitarian issues but we know that they are arising as a result of the sanctions that have been imposed over several years. These are the same kind of sanctions that are crippling Cuba. Ireland has always been a strong voice against the sanctions imposed on Cuba. We know there is a US agenda. The US has been very open about its agenda to increase the number of military bases and the need for regime change. Reference has been made to "all options on the table", another phrase for military invasion. The US National Security Adviser, John Bolton, stated in a media interview that he was in talks with US oil companies to produce oil in Venezuela. There are questions regarding the US special envoy to Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, and his track record in Central America. Ireland has to be strong on peace.

I do not agree with the Deputy when she seems to suggest that there were free and fair presidential elections last time out in Venezuela.

Jimmy Carter thinks there were.

I do not think that stands up to scrutiny.

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 my counterparts in 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 EU member states, the vast majority of Latin and South American states and as many as 60 other countries.

The only objective is to try to get free and fair presidential elections. If, as the Deputy suggests, President Maduro has popular support in his country, why would he oppose that? He does and to date has refused to allow for such elections. This is not a question of siding with the US per se.

There is a far broader coalition of countries involved.

Ireland is setting a very dangerous precedent, namely, interfering in the internal affairs of another country. Let us look at this self-proclaimed president we are recognising. Until recently, he was a pretty obscure character in a marginal far-right group that was more associated with street violence. He was better known outside Venezuela, particularly in certain Washington circles. There is a credible assumption as to who exactly is pulling the strings there. Let us now look at the Venezuelan constitution and exactly when the President of the National Assembly could temporarily assume the presidency of the country where there is an "absolute" lack of a president-elect before taking possession. There was no lack of a president-elect. On whose advice did the Government recognise this self-proclaimed president, whose actions are actually contrary to the Venezuelan constitution? Did we get some independent international law expert to advise on this? It is going against our tradition of peace-building.

Our colleagues, Deputies Clare Daly and Wallace are in Venezuela as we speak. I hope the Tánaiste will make some time to meet them next week when they bring back direct information on what is happening there.

We did not make any decisions lightly. This is a collective EU effort to try to bring about democratic change in Venezuela responding to an extraordinary humanitarian crisis. People seem to totally ignore that. There are 3 million refugees.

The Deputy seems to be making the case for no change.

Ireland was one of the last EU countries to recognise Juan Guaidó as interim President to facilitate free and fair presidential elections. We are not alone in this. That is the only objective here. We reject any approach that may involve military intervention, absolutely. We are looking for peaceful democratic decisions to allow Venezuelan people decide on who is their President.

That is the end of Priority Questions.

Top
Share