John Brady
Question:1. Deputy John Brady asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the speech by the Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid to the United Nations Security Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49444/22]
Ceisteanna ar Sonraíodh Uain Dóibh - Priority Questions
Middle East
I ask the Minister for his response to the speech that was made by the Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid recently in the UN, when he talked about his commitment to a two-state solution, and whether the Minister is aware that the Israeli actions on the ground absolutely do not compare with what the Israeli Prime Minister said.
I took careful note of the addresses of both Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the United Nations General Assembly in September. It was disheartening, but not surprising, that we heard two very different perspectives of the current state of play. At the same time, both leaders acknowledged the need to work towards a two-state solution, a point that was also underlined by the Taoiseach in his remarks to the General Assembly. The need to redouble efforts in this regard was underlined by President Abbas and the Foreign Minister, Dr. Riad Malki, during their visit to Dublin in September. I assured them that Ireland stands ready to support all efforts to help resume credible negotiations aimed at achieving a just and lasting two-state solution. This was an issue that I discussed in a number of my bilateral engagements throughout UN High Level Week, including with my counterparts from Algeria, Qatar, Norway, Egypt and Jordan. Prime Minister Lapid’s speech recalled that a large majority of Israelis support the vision of a two-state solution and he repeated his own commitment to a two-state solution, which was welcome.
Regrettably, however, we continue to witness a situation where Israeli actions on the ground undermine the prospects for progress. In recent months, we have seen the ongoing threat of evictions and demolitions in Masafer Yatta, the expansion of illegal Israel settlements and increases in violence and incursions by the Israeli security forces in the West Bank. The raids on six Palestinian NGOs in August resulted in a further reduction of the civil space in the occupied Palestinian territory for civil society organisations and human rights defenders, who play a critical role in our view, in promoting international law, peace, human rights and democratic values. This deteriorating security situation and the increasing number of casualties, including among civilians, is deeply concerning and underscores the urgent need for a political horizon and a path towards relaunching a peace process. As the House will be aware, supporting efforts to this end will remain a high priority for me and the Government in our bilateral engagements, as well as within the EU and the United Nations.
Certainly, I view the Prime Minister's comments as more do to with the general elections that are due to take place in November, and an attempt to win over some Arab voices or voters living in Israel to try to secure his tenure in office. The Minister outlined all of the breaches of international law and the flagrant human rights violations, including the murder of journalists and the raid on the six civil society NGOs. We see the continued arbitrary detention of thousands of Palestinians, the expansion of illegal settlement expansions on a daily basis, forced evictions and demolitions, all continuing under the watch of the EU and the international community. What pressure is being brought to bear to ensure that the words of the Israeli Prime Minister are actually put into action?
Can I just say, first and foremost, that Prime Minister Lapid is personally committed to a two-state solution. I met him a number of times before he became Prime Minister, when he was foreign minister. Certainly, it is my view that he is committed to that outcome. Unfortunately, the government that he has been part of for the last number of years has allowed an awful lot of actions on the ground which make that achievement much more difficult, and has created increased tension between Israelis and Palestinians, some of which I outlined in my initial response to the Deputy. The aspirations and the words are welcome, but the actions that have taken place are contrary to that. I think there are potentially a number of reasons for that. The current government in Israel is made up of very different factions, which make compromise and consensus in relation to how to achieve a two-state solution very difficult to achieve. There will be elections in the coming weeks in Israel. Certainly, after that election, I hope we will be able to make real progress in a step towards a peace process that can help in achieving a two-state solution, but at the moment we seem to be a long way from there.
I do not think that it is just the make-up of the Israeli Government that is facilitating what is happening on the ground. I strongly believe that it is the failure of the international community to hold Israel to account that is emboldening Israel to carry out those illegal actions. We see it in some of the commentary from Liz Truss, who has stated that she is going to review moving the British Embassy to Jerusalem, a flagrant breach of international law. We also see it in the actions of the EU in proposing to reconvene the EU-Israel Association Council, which causes serious concern. Again, it appears Israel is being rewarded for its flagrant breaches of international law. A document of the association council, which I think has been leaked, includes not a single accountability measure and places not a single red-line demand upon Israel in respect of its illegal actions. Does the Minister agree that the international community is allowing Israel to continue to breach international law?
I certainly think the international community needs to do more. We are trying to find ways in which we can both encourage and push for that. The Deputy and I have had conversations about that both on and off the record in terms of how we might be able to do that, whether it is through our role on the UN Security Council or our role in the EU, and so on. I would say that Ireland is the most vocal EU country on this ongoing conflict, and we will continue to be so. We are looking for ways forward. One of the reasons President Abbas came to Dublin, on his way to New York, was to talk to me and the Taoiseach about how Ireland could be more proactive in encouraging a new process and perhaps some new thinking around trying to recreate some momentum through political dialogue that can stabilise the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians and move us towards a two-state solution at some point in the future, which seems like a long way off today.
I accept the Deputy's point. The international community needs to do more together and countries such as Ireland are looking to galvanise that support.
Middle East
Gino Kenny
Question:2. Deputy Gino Kenny asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has spoken to the Israeli ambassador to Ireland on the death of a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49391/22]
My question relates to the murder of a seven-year-old boy named Rayyan Suleiman who was chased to his death by the Israeli army. Has the Minister spoken to the Israeli ambassador in Ireland in respect of that murder and the countless others that have occurred in the past year?
The straight answer to the Deputy's question is that I have asked my political director to make contact with the Israeli ambassador and his team in respect of this killing. I was deeply concerned to learn of the death of a seven-year-old boy, Rayyan Suleiman, during Israel Defense Forces operations in the occupied West Bank last Thursday, 29 September. I extend my deepest sympathies to his family.
I echo the comments of the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Mr. Tor Wennesland, in which he called on the Israeli authorities to conduct an immediate and thorough investigation into Rayyan’s death. Children continue to endure the worst of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Of the 49 Palestinians killed during the hostilities in and around Gaza in August, 17 were children. Every child is born with the right to safety, the right to protection and the right to development. For Palestinian children, these rights are violated on a daily basis.
Ireland has consistently raised the severe impact of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on children, including during our current tenure on the UN Security Council. Ireland has called on Israel to comply with its obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Children must never be the target of violence or be put in harm’s way. Furthermore, Ireland is a long-standing supporter of the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA, which provides vital services, including education, to 5.7 million registered Palestine refugees in the occupied Palestinian territory, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. Last year, Ireland signed an agreement with UNRWA to provide predictable financial support to the agency, pledging €6 million per annum over three years. During the recent visit to Dublin of the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, I was pleased to announce an additional €2 million in funding for UNRWA, bringing our total contribution in 2022 to €8 million.
I have raised this issue. My Department is raising it at a senior level with the Israeli ambassador. It is an ongoing concern. Another child has died in the context of a conflict that has a political solution if there is a will to push it forward.
I have here a photograph of Rayyan Suleiman. He was a seven-year-old boy whose only crime was being Palestinian. That was his crime. The Israeli army took that young boy from his family. He is not the only one. Some 20 children have this year been killed by the Israeli army. The Minister does not have to listen to me. He can listen to former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Michelle Bachelet, who said that Israel on a constant basis is breaking international law and is combining that with an almost total lack of accountability. This comes down to that lack of accountability for the Israeli army and state. What did the Minister say to the Israeli ambassador about this killing and the countless others?
What I said to the Israeli ambassador is the same thing we have been saying internationally to Israel in multiple forums, including the UN Human Rights Council, UN Security Council and EU meetings. We expect Israel to conduct independent investigations when killings occur, whether of journalists, children or anybody else. An occupying power in an occupied territory has international obligations. One of the reasons I have been so outspoken about the approach of the Israeli Government towards NGOs their closure and the labelling of some of them as terrorist organisations, is that the important role of civil society organisations in a place such as the West Bank is essential to expose wrongdoing, to ask hard and awkward questions of governments and security forces and to take legal cases when appropriate. That civil society space is being shut down despite the fact that we are funding some of the organisations and are perfectly satisfied they are doing what they should be doing as civil society organisations.
We are over time.
That is what we are doing and saying.
I do not mean to keep interrupting because I know the importance of these issues but we are going to run out of time for other questions if we do not keep to the limits.
What the Minister has said is all well and good but Israel is not a normal state. This year alone, 100 Palestinians have been killed by excessive force and collective punishment by the Israel Defense Forces. As I said, 20 children were among the dead. This is a policy that runs through the Israeli state to crush any Palestinian resistance. That is how states such as Israel exist and continue. They have to use excessive violence to exist. When Palestinians fight back, whether armed or peacefully, they cannot be blamed. They cannot be blamed for fighting back when children are being murdered on a daily basis. What does the Minister say to the Israeli ambassador when this happens? How does he address it at a European level?
I disagree with the Deputy on the justification for Palestinian violence, which he seemed to suggest should not be criticised. There is violence on both sides of this conflict. I am, and continue to be, very critical of the approach of the Israeli Government to the Palestinians. I will also strongly criticise radical factions within Palestinian society that are also responsible for violence. We need a peace process, and we are moving further and further away from a viable peace process as a result of the decisions that have been taken and what has been happening on the ground in recent years. The international community needs to do a lot more to change the direction of that conflict. Ireland wants to be part of facilitating, encouraging and pushing for that, as I said earlier. My conversations with the Israeli Government, ministers and the ambassador have been consistent. Israel is a country with which Ireland wants a relationship.
I thank the Minister. We are over time.
However, we will be clear about our view of international law and the obligations on the Israeli Government towards Palestinian people-----
I thank the Minister. We are way over time.
-----in the lands it occupies.
Brexit Issues
John Brady
Question:3. Deputy John Brady asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will provide the details of the latest development in relation to talks between the European Union and the British Government in respect of the Northern Ireland protocol; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49445/22]
Michael Lowry
Question:4. Deputy Michael Lowry asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will provide details of the Government’s recent engagement with the United Kingdom Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland concerning the Northern Ireland protocol; the other engagement that has taken place with other European Union member states, EU institutions and globally in support of Ireland’s Brexit priorities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49453/22]
I wish to ask the Minister about the current position in respect of discussions on the Irish protocol, given the fact that there has been a lot of recent focus on, and talk about, an opportunity to reset and a change in the mood music. Is the Minister optimistic that progress will be made quite soon to address the concerns some people have with the Irish protocol?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together.
Given that the questions are paired, will I have a bit of extra time?
That is right.
I just wanted to know that before I started. This is a slightly longer answer but I would like to give quite a lot of detail to the House on this particular issue.
Deputy Berry is taking Question No. 4.
This is an important and current issue. I believe we currently have a window of opportunity for a much-needed reset in EU-UK relations. I welcome the positive statements from the new UK Government about its desire to find a negotiated settlement on the protocol on Northern Ireland. We now need to see those sentiments turned into constructive engagement between the UK and the European Union. We need political will focused on finding jointly agreed solutions to issues of genuine concern to people and business in Northern Ireland.
It is positive that for the first time in over six months, the EU and British negotiation teams have resumed technical discussions at official level this week. Ireland fully supports the Commission’s approach to addressing the challenges around the implementation of the protocol.
Our early engagements with Prime Minister Truss and her team have been constructive. The Taoiseach and Prime Minister Truss had a good discussion in London on 18 September. I spoke with the new UK Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, and look forward to a substantive in-person meeting with him in London this evening. I also had a frank and substantive meeting with the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Chris Heaton-Harris, in Belfast last week and we will meet again in London tomorrow for the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. The Minister of State, Deputy Thomas Byrne, spoke to his new UK counterpart, Leo Docherty, this morning.
The Taoiseach, the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, and I continue to engage extensively with our EU counterparts, as would be expected. The Taoiseach remains in close contact with President von der Leyen and I speak regularly to Vice President Šefčovič, as has been the case throughout Brexit. I expect I will speak to him again this afternoon, before meeting James Cleverly this evening. There remains an unshakeable commitment across the EU to mitigating the impacts Brexit brings for this island.
The Government is in ongoing contact with key figures in the US Administration and Congress. I had the opportunity to speak briefly with President Biden in New York recently. We are very grateful for continued bipartisan US support for peace and stability in Northern Ireland throughout the Brexit process, including the President’s stance on the importance of negotiated EU-UK agreements on the protocol in order to protect the gains of the Good Friday Agreement.
Our consistent message in all these engagements has been to urge the British Government to re-engage with the European Union. Only joint solutions will be successful and sustainable. We need to focus as a priority on the issues of genuine concern to people and business in Northern Ireland, particularly around the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Working together, we can ensure certainty and stability and maximise the benefits of the protocol for all in Northern Ireland. I am focused on the formation of an Executive in Northern Ireland before the 28 October deadline. I have been clear with everyone that discussions on the protocol should proceed in parallel to the process of Executive formation.
The European Union remains committed to making the protocol work. There is sufficient flexibility within the protocol to address the issues of concern to people in Northern Ireland, in my view. While our engagements in recent weeks have been positive, it remains a fact that the British Government is proceeding with legislation which would, if enacted, disapply core elements of the protocol, amounting to a breach of international law. I have been very clear with my British counterparts that this unilateral approach does not help rebuild trust in the British-Irish relationship or the EU-UK relationship.
I firmly believe that joint solutions can be found to the genuine issues of concern on the protocol by the EU and the UK working together in a spirit of partnership. The Government and I will do everything we can to support those efforts. We currently have a real and renewed opportunity to resolve these issues and we will, as I said, do everything we can to take that opportunity. However, positive sentiment and a change in mood is one thing but actually delivering the compromises that are needed to get a result is another.
The tentative optimism that is there at this point is welcome, as is the fact that conversations are going to start. It is the first time in many months that conversations have taken place. It is a welcome departure from the autocratic approach taken previously. Will the Minister outline some of the parameters regarding his meeting this evening with the British Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly? It would be interesting to see what may be discussed. Issues such as the European Court of Justice are critical. I ask for the Minister's views on whether he is confident that the EU is rock solid in its position with regard to the European court.
Liz Truss is open to conversations but, given her political instability, are there concerns that her position may shift very quickly to appease very strong pro-Brexit voices in her party in order to sustain her own future?
I too welcome the restart of negotiations between the EU and UK negotiating teams on the Northern Ireland protocol. It is a good thing. I also welcome the change in tone, in particular, the apology by Steve Baker during the week. It is quite a rare event in international relations these days that someone would apologise. That is also a good thing and he should be commended on it.
My question relates to a matter raised during the Minister's comments. The draft legislation introduced in the UK House of Commons over the summer would, if approved, unilaterally set aside some components of the Northern Ireland protocol. Where are we with that at present? Is it still working its way through the UK Houses of Parliament or has it been paused? If it has not been paused, would the Minister welcome such a pause as a further act of goodwill in advance of negotiations?
Sometimes, in moments of opportunity like this, less is more in terms of what is said publicly. We are trying to rebuild a relationship of some trust, which has been largely absent for quite some time. Certainly, the conversations I have had with the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his deputy, Steve Baker, have been warm. There is a genuine effort on the British side to try to rebuild and reconstruct relationships with Ireland, which is good. That is clearly under instruction from the Prime Minister's office because it is happening across the board.
My meeting this evening will focus on timelines and subjects where we think it is possible to make progress sooner rather than later. It will not be possible to resolve all the issues linked to the implementation of the protocol by 28 October but we could make significant progress on some of the issues that really matter to people in Northern Ireland, including the unionist and business communities. There are issues that need to be resolved and can be resolved relatively quickly, such as issues around tariffs and checks, the nature of those checks, and how we could move towards what Vice President Šefčovič has called "virtually invisible" checks by co-operation, partnership and sharing of data and information on trade flows and so on.
This is not easy stuff. If it was, it would have been done long ago. The chances of resolving these issues and bringing an end to the stand-offs on the protocol are enhanced by a new approach based on partnership rather than unilateral action. The UK Government unilaterally progressing and passing this legislation and making it law will, as I said many times, cause many more problems than it will solve. The legislation is in the system-----
The Minister will get a chance to come back in. I am very sorry but we are way over time.
I will address the matter of the legislation when I come back in.
I will give way and we will then have a free-for-all.
I thought I had double the time, that is all.
The Minister did have double time. He had four- and two-minute slots and will get a chance to come back in.
Sinn Féin is ready, willing and able to go into the Executive in the North today, tomorrow or as quickly as possible. We have been since the recent elections in the North. Chris Heaton-Harris has said that come 28 October he will push the button with regard to assembly elections. It is a matter of concern that elections are now being put forward. He is saying he is bound by legislation, which is unhelpful. On the Minister's engagement with unionism, are unionists serious about getting back into the Executive? Are the issues of concern to them regarding the protocol insurmountable? Can they be addressed before that deadline of 28 October?
I thank the Minister for his response. I appreciate he has to be much more circumspect than me when speaking in Parliament; I can comment much more freely. My point is that our two islands have solved vastly more complex problems than the protocol.
If the will is there, we can certainly do it again. There is a proposal floating around that we could treat goods travelling from Great Britain and staying in Northern Ireland differently from goods travelling from Great Britain through Northern Ireland and into this jurisdiction and, by extension, the EU Single Market. I would be grateful for the Minister's thoughts on that. I believe we can come up with a solution that respects the integrity of the EU Single Market but also that of the UK internal market.
I will pick up where I left off last time on the legislation. Of course it would be helpful if the legislation was formally frozen but I am not sure that ask is on the table because we are trying to make progress without creating barriers or raising things we cannot agree on. The legislation is there in the background. We know that and are not particularly happy about it but it is best ignored for now. It is not moving quickly and there is no chance that it will be passed by the end of the year. It has been through the House of Commons for an initial reading and is going to the House of Lords, where there will be a lot of concerns, amendments and debate on the legislation. It is there but it is not in danger of becoming law any time soon. Let us park that to one side. The official position is very clear; should that legislation become law, it would create huge problems as regards the relationship, trust and legal challenges. However, we now have a window. We should use it and not be distracted by where the legislation is.
I thank the Minister.
Do I not have double the time rather than just two minutes each time?
The Minister had double the time to start with, he then had two minutes for his first supplementary reply and now one minute for this. I am sorry to keep intruding.
If they are the rules, we will have to work within them. I thought I had twice the time to answer each question if two Deputies were asking. Deputy Brady's questions were pretty important.
We will stop the clock for a minute. It is not good to keep interrupting the Minister and the Deputies as we go on but the times are set. I have been letting both run over each time. The Minister and the Deputies have gone well over, sometimes by 30 seconds and sometimes a minute, in addition to the extra time provided to the Minister. I will double-check in case we have deprived the Minister in the last few seconds but we certainly have not beforehand. He had four minutes and then two----
I am not complaining. I am just saying these are important issues.
We are moving on to the last question. There are 30 seconds, two minutes and four minutes.
I will come back to the matter for the Deputy. There is another question on the topic later.
The next question is actually Deputy Brady's so he might be willing to give the Minister some time. It is entirely up to the Deputy and the Minister.
It was my understanding that there was double the time for each response but I hear what the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is saying.
Ukraine War
John Brady
Question:5. Deputy John Brady asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will provide the details of the Government’s response to the Russian annexation of areas of Ukraine; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49446/22]
Before I pose this question, I will take the opportunity to express my condolences and sympathy to the family of Rory Mason from Meath, who tragically died in Ukraine defending its territorial integrity and the rights of the Ukrainian people. Following on from that, I ask the Minister about the recent moves to annex illegally four regions-----
The Deputy is over time.
-----within Ukraine. What is the Minister's response?
The Minister has two minutes.
Are we on the next question?
I also express my condolences and those of the Government and this House to the Mason family. I spoke to Rory's father yesterday, an incredibly dignified individual who is clearly very proud of his son's courage and principles and is also trying to deal with an extraordinary family tragedy. He asked for some space and privacy for the family. We should all respect that while at the same time expressing our sympathies to Rory's brother, sister, parents and those around them.
Since Russia commenced its unjustified and unprovoked further invasion of Ukraine on 24 February, I have consistently expressed Ireland's unwavering solidarity with Ukraine and support for its sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders. Ireland has pushed for the Security Council to hold Russia accountable, to urge it to end its war in Ukraine immediately and to call out Russia’s cynical attempts to use the council and other UN bodies to spread disinformation. When I addressed the Security Council on 22 September, I made clear that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was a grave violation of international law and an attempt to change internationally recognised borders by the use of force.
On 30 September, Ireland voted in favour of a resolution at the UN Security Council condemning the Russian Federation’s organisation of sham referendums in regions within Ukraine’s internationally recognised borders. We categorically reject the so-called results of those illegal and illegitimate referendums and announcements purporting to annex Ukrainian territory. They have no legal effect anywhere in the world. Immediately following the Russian announcement of the referendums, EU foreign ministers agreed to prepare a new sanctions package. Member states were asked to put forward proposals and Ireland joined with Poland and the Baltic states in proposing a range of new sanctions. This latest package comes into effect today and comprises sectoral measures and new listings. It also extends the scope of the Donetsk and Luhansk sanctions regime to include the other occupied territories. It also includes a framework for the G7 oil price cap so that the EU can implement it once it is finalised.
There is no doubt that the annexations of the four regions, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, are totally illegal as they follow what have been widely and correctly described as sham referendums within those regions. Unbelievably, Russia does not even fully control these regions and yet it has declared it is legally annexing them. It is right that the international community acts and responds to any illegal annexation anywhere in the world. It represents a serious escalation in the illegal conflict and occupation in Ukraine and is coupled with the unbelievable threat that nuclear force may be used. Does the Minister see the recent military success on the ground, in which Ukraine has taken back large swathes of land previously occupied by Russia, as an opportunity to push for peaceful discussions to bring the horrific and illegal conflict in Ukraine to an end?
EU member states also co-ordinated to summon Russian ambassadors in capitals following the announcement by President Putin of his intention to illegally annex the territories we have been referring to. At my instruction, the Russian ambassador was summoned by my Department on 3 October. He was informed that Ireland categorically condemns the declaration by the Russian Federation on 30 September illegally annexing part of the territory of Ukraine. It was emphasised to him that this decision has no basis in law and that this move does not reflect the freely expressed will of the people of Ukraine in the regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.
With regard to the gains the Ukrainian military has made in recent weeks, which are really a testament to its organisation, professionalism and bravery, these battlefield successes have been extraordinary. The approach towards peace talks should very much be guided by Ukraine and its determination to free its own people from occupation. We need to stay close to what the Ukrainian President wants. After all, he and his country are defending themselves in this context.
I welcome the fact that the Minister called in the Russian ambassador to outline the Irish position on the illegal annexations but it raises the question of why he is still here. From the outset, my party and I have called for him to be expelled and I reiterate that point today. The UN General Assembly will next week debate the annexing of these four regions and I welcome that.
It is important that there is an international push to try to bring the illegal conflict and occupation to an end. I hear what the Minister is saying about Ukraine. We have to listen to what is being said by its President and its people but we have an international responsibility, given the impact this war is having not just on the energy crisis but also on food security, where there is a crisis in places such as the Horn of Africa. There is an onus on the international community to also push for peaceful discussions.
I believe the Deputy and his party are wrong to call for the expulsion of the Russian ambassador. I understand that sentiment, frustration and anger and wanting to send that clear signal. Keeping diplomatic channels open, in the context of making it very clear to Russia what we think of the illegality of its actions, and being able to call in an ambassador to send direct messages to Moscow and the Kremlin, is both helpful and appropriate at this time. The Deputy's calls for a peace process that can end this conflict are also very understandable, because this war has to end at some point in time. Having diplomatic channels open to speak to both sides is a useful tool in those efforts to understand both perspectives and find a basis for peace. We need to be careful that the international community does not in any way try to pressure or frame a peace outcome here in a way that is inconsistent with Ukraine's ability to defend itself and free its own people from Russian occupation.
I would like to move on to the other questions in a spirit of solidarity and co-operation. I have let every speaker over time. I have used my discretion and I gave double time where the questions were grouped. I am saying this for both sides of the House. It is not pleasant to have to keep interrupting but other Deputies will lose out if speakers go over time. There is some discretion with priority questions to go a little over time but not continuously.