Peadar Tóibín
Question:1. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Taoiseach if he will provide a list of the State apologies issued by Taoisigh in each of the past ten years, and to date in 2023. [42621/23]
Ceisteanna - Questions
Mother and Baby Homes
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:2. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will provide a list of the State apologies issued by Taoisigh in each of the past ten years, and to date in 2023. [43876/23]
Paul Murphy
Question:3. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach if he will provide a list of the State apologies issued by Taoisigh in each of the past ten years, and to date in 2023. [43880/23]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
In the last ten years or so, apologies have been issued in the Dáil by various Taoisigh on behalf of the State. In February 2013, the then Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, issued an apology on behalf of the Government in Dáil Éireann to women who were resident in the Magdalen laundries for the hurt done to them and for any stigma and trauma experienced by reason of their residence in those institutions. The Government followed up on this through the establishment of the Magdalen restorative justice ex gratia scheme, as recommended by Mr. Justice John Quirke, and by ensuring the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s report of November 2017 on the operation of the scheme are fully implemented.
On 22 October 2019, as Taoiseach, I issued an apology in the Dáil on behalf of the State to the women and their loved ones affected by issues relating to the CervicalCheck screening programme. While screening cannot prevent all cases of cervical cancer, the failures experienced by the women concerned were acknowledged. The apology came on foot of Dr. Gabriel Scally’s scoping inquiry into CervicalCheck. Since then, the Government has been committed to learning lessons and making positive progress in this regard. All 170 actions of the implementation plan arising from the Scally report are now completed. This work included developing an updated reporting structure for the national screening services within the HSE. Efforts arising from Dr Scally”s inquiry have enabled improved governance, strengthened reporting lines and, most importantly, helped to create a more patient-centred environment within the CervicalCheck programme. In his final progress report published last November, Dr Scally acknowledged the progress that has been achieved. The Government is very much aware that the issues in CervicalCheck in 2018 led to a severe loss of trust in our screening system, but we are working to rebuild this by working with patients and patient advocates to improve and develop services across all screening programmes, including CervicalCheck.
On 13 January 2022, the then Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin, issued a formal apology for the hurt experienced by many former residents of mother and baby institutions and county homes. He apologised for the profound generational wrong visited upon Irish mothers and their children who spent time in mother and baby homes, institutions, or county homes and for the shame and stigma to which they were subjected. As part of that apology it was acknowledged that the State had failed in its duty of care to the mothers and children who spent there. Since January 2021, work has been advanced by the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy O'Gorman, on restorative action for survivors and former residents of these institutions through the action plan for survivors and former residents of mother and baby homes and county home institutions, which commits to 22 actions in total.
In addition to this, in June 2018, on the 25th anniversary of the decriminalisation of homosexual acts, I moved an historic all-party motion in the Dáil. As part of this, a sincere apology was offered to those affected by the criminalisation of homosexual acts in Ireland and the hurt and the harm caused by this legislation was acknowledged by the House. The Government continues to advocate for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, LGBT, community in Ireland and abroad, and to advance the rights of those most at risk of being marginalised, including through a review of the functioning and effectiveness of the Equality Acts, which is currently under way.
At the Aontú Ard-Fheis in recent weeks, a motion was passed calling for a State apology for the Travelling community and for the systematic way in which governments discriminated against it. Basically, this country told Travelling people that they could only be accepted and included in society if they ceased being Travellers. Governments did this by way of legislation such as the Roads Acts and the Housing Acts, as well as the Commission on Itinerancy and so on. It was a blatant attempt to clamp down on an ethnic minority in our country and to make their way of life impossible for them. The State has never apologised for this. Too often in my role as a politician, I experience situations where I am talking to people and they whisper to me that they are a Traveller. The reason they whisper is because they are too ashamed to say it out loud. I know of a married person whose spouse did not know they were a Traveller when they got married. It is heartbreaking to see, not to mention the demise of much of the Traveller culture such as the Cant language. Will the Taoiseach issue a State apology to the Travelling community for the dehumanising way in which Governments have treated them and the long-lasting effect this has had on this ethnic minority in the decades since?
The Taoiseach mentioned the State apology to mothers and children who went through the mother and baby home institutions, but the fact is that approximately 24,000 people who went through those institutions as children were excluded from the redress scheme. The redress scheme is still not open for applications, which is pretty incredible given the age of many of these people. The exclusion of people on the very arbitrary grounds that they did not spend more than six months in a mother and baby home was a really shocking and terrible decision. A lovely woman called Susan, who comes into my clinic regularly, has been campaigning on this. She is an adoptee and was in a mother and baby home. She thinks she probably will be entitled to redress because she thinks she was there for more than six months, although there is not a lot of consistency in the information in the various documents she is getting from the different people to whom she can apply for documents. However, she feels she is letting down others by taking up the redress when so many others were excluded. She rightly identifies, as other people and I have said to the Taoiseach, that the length of time spent in these institutions does not take into account the trauma of mothers and children who were forcibly separated. The fundamental wrong that was done to children is that they were forcibly separated from their mothers. Susan is so upset about all of this. She talks about only existing on paperwork and never being able to trust the Government ever again; I could go on. Even at this late stage, the Government should recognise that all of those who were forcibly separated from their mothers should be entitled to the redress and indeed, that the redress scheme should be opened as a matter of urgency.
I raise the scandal of historical child sex abuse at St. John Ambulance. It is now more than seven months since Dr. Shannon's utterly damning report. It found that a past culture had facilitated the potential grooming of children and that the organisation had failed to intervene despite the knowledge that boys were at risk of abuse. It concluded that the organisation had failed to act against the perpetrator for years despite "a significant degree of organisational awareness" of the risk he posed to children. Why have the recommendations of the report not been implemented? Why are survivors like Mick Finnegan, who is in the Gallery, still forced to campaign for justice for, at the very minimum, the recommendations to be implemented? Why are there still three people on the board of St. John Ambulance who were either senior officers at the time of the disclosures and knew what was going on, or were on the board at the time?
This includes the person who is currently the chair. Incredibly, one of them was involved in adapting lyrics of a song to mock children being abused. How can these people continue on the board? How has there not been a clear out of the board? How come there is still no national safeguarding officer, which was another recommendation? What is the Government going to do? There was a Topical Issue about this a couple of weeks ago. The Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, said he had written to try to encourage it and that he was concerned about the lack of speed. We need more action by the Government to ensure the recommendations are implemented.
I thank the Deputies for their questions. Deputy Tóibín's question related to the possibility of a State apology to the Traveller community. He spoke about the attempt for decades to assimilate the Traveller community, which was wrong and should not have happened. I recall that under the Government led by Enda Kenny, and with a lot of leadership from the Minister of State at the time, Deputy Stanton, we as a State recognised Traveller ethnicity. This was the right thing to do.
I know from being involved in State apologies in the past that any apology has to be carefully considered. First of all it has to be adequate because if it is not adequate it is not accepted. It has to be authentic. We can only apologise for things that definitely happened, for obvious reasons. Beyond this, it needs to be followed up with action. It cannot just be an apology and that is the end of it. I will certainly be happy to engage with the Traveller organisations on the matter. I have met them on a number of occasions. I do not think it has ever been raised as an issue but that is not to say it is not an issue. It is something I will follow up with those organisations.
On the issue of the mother and baby institutions payment scheme, the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, has explained, as have I in the House on many occasions, the reasons for the criteria. In terms of the timeline, the establishment of the mother and baby institutions payment scheme is an important commitment to the Government's response to the final report. In July the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Act was signed into law.
Work is now under way in the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth to progress the scheme and the structures needed for a scheme of this size. This includes appointing a chief deciding officer and staff, establishing an online application system, rolling out trauma-informed training for the staff and ensuring that all necessary communications, information and application forms for applicants are in place in hard copy and electronic form. The Department informs me it will be a number of months before this work has concluded and the scheme can be open to applications.
With regard to the issue of sexual abuse at St. John's Ambulance I am aware of the report and some of the issues in it. St John's Ambulance is not a public body and we do not appoint the board. The Government has limited influence in terms of what it can do. It does receive some State funding. I am not sure whether this is continuing. I can certainly check it out. I will have to ask the Minister to come back to Deputy Murphy to see whether there is more that we can do to encourage the organisation to do what is right, not only by people who were harmed in the past but also for the future of the organisation itself.
Cabinet Committees
Peadar Tóibín
Question:4. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Taoiseach if he will provide a list of the Cabinet committees on which he sits. [44812/23]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:5. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will provide a list of the Cabinet committees on which he sits. [46433/23]
Cian O'Callaghan
Question:6. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Taoiseach if he will provide a list of the Cabinet Committees on which he sits. [46601/23]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, together.
In January the Government established ten Cabinet committees. These are on Brexit and Northern Ireland, children and education, economy and investment, environment and climate change, EU and international affairs, Government co-ordination, health, housing, humanitarian response to Ukraine, and social affairs and public services. I am a member of all of the committees as are the Tánaiste and the Minister Deputy Ryan. The Tánaiste chairs the committee on economy and investment and the Minister Deputy Ryan chairs the committee on environment and climate change.
I hope the Taoiseach will not mind me saying that he looks a little bit tired today. This may be because of the ferocious row that happened at Cabinet yesterday between Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Green Party. It may be that cracks are appearing in the coalition as we speak. I understand it was about the issue of migration, which is a sensitive topic. I know that most people understand we have moral obligations to those who are fleeing war. We also have moral obligations to make sure we provide proper accommodation and services. Most people want a sustainable immigration policy but sustainable it is not. The Tánaiste admitted recently that Government policy has created a pull effect, that the offering of accommodation and social welfare is more attractive here in Ireland than elsewhere in Europe. Does the Taoiseach agree that given the capacity constraints in Ireland the Government needs to equalise this offering with other EU countries to make sure there is not a pull effect in future?
My worry is that the particular row happening at Cabinet is cosmetic. It is more about shifting the issue and the difficulties with regard to providing accommodation from one Department to another. Instead of having large numbers of people living in emergency accommodation under the Department of the Minister, Deputy Roderic O'Gorman, we will have large numbers of people living in emergency accommodation under the Department of the Minister, Darragh O'Brien. Is this a real effort by the Government to try to make the system sustainable or is it a political effort to make sure that one particular party is not holding this hot potato come the next election?
I appeal to the Taoiseach again about the Government's attitude towards preventing people ending up homeless. Obviously I think it was an absolutely disastrous decision by the Government to lift the eviction ban. The majority of people who end up homeless do so because they are evicted through no fault of their own. With regard to the other element of why people end up homeless I will cite an example of a mother and her child that I am dealing with at present. She is working in a supermarket and has just got a good promotion. She has been living in her family home. Her family is selling up and she and her daughter face homelessness. She writes that she has done everything and called everyone for a place to rent or live. Everywhere in the area costs €2,800 to €3,000 a month. She can show every example of the email she has sent to thousands. In her case she finally found an apartment for €2,400 that accepts the housing assistance payment, HAP. She states she was lucky to find a place that accepts HAP but has now discovered the rent is too high for her to get HAP and she will not get a top-up because it is considered too high.
This situation is faced by a huge number of working people, some of whom are not even on the social housing list because their income is too high, as I have pointed out relentlessly to the Taoiseach. They are not even entitled to HAP. Something has to be done about this. We will have the figures on Friday and they will show that more and more people who should not be homeless are homeless. They are doing everything they can to source accommodation. The vast majority of them are working and contributing to our society. They cannot find anywhere and they end up homeless because the Government does not have the attitude of stating it will do everything it can to make sure people do not end up homeless, or of making the changes and putting in the schemes necessary to ensure this is the case.
I want to ask about new build house prices and developer profits. The ESRI has said that if the help-to-buy scheme was scrapped house prices would fall. Recent analysis by the architect Orla Hegarty has shown that in Dublin 15, in the Taoiseach's constituency, since the shared equity scheme was introduced new build house prices have increased by €92,000. BNP Paribas has stated that new build house prices are increasing at 18 times that of the rate of second-hand homes. These numbers are backed up by the CSO. Today I introduced a Bill that would require developers to publish their profits so there would be transparency if they are in receipt of State subsidies or are beneficiaries of these. Does the Taoiseach have any concern about the various Government schemes that are pushing up the price of new build houses? Will he support the Social Democrats Bill so there is transparency around the profits of developers who benefit from these schemes?
What is the Government doing to ensure that asylum seekers who are here and staying in State provided accommodation are safe?
I understand that a new accommodation centre was opened in west Donegal recently. There are people there who have fled horrific wars in Syria and Libya, as well as some Palestinians. They have been subjected to physical threats. There have been threats to attack the building where they are staying. There have also been threats to local public representatives who have spoken out to support these people's right to asylum. Three days ago, two Palestinian men were beaten up, allegedly because they are refugees and staying here. What actions are being taken to ensure that these people will be kept safe? What actions are being taken to ensure that integration is taking place and investment is being undertaken in the local community to ensure that people are properly integrated?
I thank the Deputies for their questions. Deputy Tóibín said I was looking a little tired today. If I am, it is probably because I got back from Wexford at 1 a.m. and then had to be in Blanchardstown at 8 a.m., but this comes with the job. The rows in Government are much exaggerated. To answer the Deputy's question, though, which is a serious and valid one, and I do want to answer it seriously, the situation is this. As a country, in the past two years, we have welcomed nearly 100,000 people from Ukraine. There may have been another 20,000 people from other parts of the world seeking international protection. In almost all cases, we have provided accommodation, food, heat, light, education, healthcare and income or a job.
I am very proud that as a country we have done that in the past two years, notwithstanding the difficulties this has caused and the enormous challenges and costs. When we look back on this period of history, being a small country that took in 100,000 Ukrainians will be something we should and will be proud of. What is becoming increasingly apparent to everyone now, though, if it has not been the case for a long time, is that while there is no limit on the compassion of the Irish Government and people, there is a limit on our capacity. We are very much at this point now. We just do not know if we will be in a position to provide accommodation and all these additional supports for another 30,000 to 50,000 people if this number were to arrive over the next year. Based on current numbers, it would not be far off this figure. We just do not know if we will be able to provide that level of accommodation.
As the Tánaiste said the other day, there are now many secondary movements. Ukrainians who have been living for months in other parts of western Europe are relocating to Ireland. It is a long-standing issue with international protection. I refer to people who have been living safely in other parts of western Europe for some time then coming to Ireland and claiming asylum. Some of this is linked to the fact that we have a better offering in Ireland than would be the case in Northern Ireland, Britain, France or other countries not too far from us. This is why we must review the situation, and we are doing this now. The overall intention is to bring the offering we have more in line with other western European countries. This work is now under way. No Government decision or agreement has been made in this regard, but this work is very much in train. Of course, when we look at those things, we must adjust for the fact that the cost of living is higher in Ireland and that we have a very serious housing shortage, which we do not wish to make worse. It is not that we are just going to take the average of what is done in other countries. We will have to tailor it for the very real situation we face here now.
Deputy Boyd Barrett said that the majority of people who end up in emergency accommodation are there due to eviction or receiving notices to quit. I do not think this is quite correct. It is closer to being in or around one-third of people, with other reasons accounting for the other two thirds. We do, though, need better data in this area. We fund prevention services in this regard because it is much better to prevent people from becoming homeless than it is to have to try to find emergency accommodation and then also find accommodation for them after that. We certainly encourage people to engage with Threshold because many notices to quit are invalid and rejected when challenged. We are also really scaling up the tenant in situ scheme, for which, in fairness, Deputy Boyd Barrett was a very strong advocate some time ago. We have about 3,000 of these purchases in process now. This is where the council or an approved housing body buys a house if a landlord is selling up. This allows the social housing tenant to move from being in a HAP tenancy to a much more secure, permanent social housing tenancy. We have also increased the social housing income limits. I am sure we will do so again.
Deputy Cian O'Callaghan mentioned some of the reports that would indicate the impact Government schemes can have on house prices. There are different reports that state different things. I have seen reports contradicting each other regarding whether the help-to-buy scheme has led to house prices increasing. I have not seen the specific report the Deputy referred to. New builds are more expensive than older homes for many reasons. They are built to a much higher standard. Building costs have also soared. Anyone building a house will be able to tell you how much building costs have soared in the last year or so. Equally, anyone who has bought an old house and had to renovate it and bring it up to the modern standard will tell you how much that costs.
Speaking of different reports and analyses, I saw a very interesting graph that was put together by the gentleman who is behind the very interesting Crazy House Prices account on Instagram, which many people follow. It looked at the ratio of house prices to incomes. This person would not be a supporter of Fine Gael, but he produces very good testimony and evidence. I thought this was very interesting, because what matters most in terms of house prices is not just the cost figure but the relativity to income and also interest rates. What this graph showed was that if we were to go back to the 1970s or 1980s, it was possible then to buy a house for roughly four times the average income. This ratio really soared in the 1990s to about eight times the average income. It then peaked 20 years ago, at around eight times the average income, and since then it has gone up and down a bit, but is more or less 7.4 times the average income. It is probably falling again now since incomes are rising faster than house prices. This was, therefore, an interesting analysis to see. I refer to seeing that the peak in this ratio was reached in 2020 and since then it has kind of stayed around seven to eight times average incomes. This kind of surprised me, given much of what I hear in the House.
Deputy Paul Murphy raised the issue of the safety of international protection applicants. Obviously, the Government has a duty of care when it comes to providing safety when it comes to providing safety for people in any State-funded facility. We do take measures to try to ensure this safety. We also have a specific fund to try to recognise local communities that have accepted international protection applicants and Ukrainian people into their areas. I might provide more detail in this regard to the Deputy in correspondence.
Taoiseach's Meetings and Engagements
Mick Barry
Question:7. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach to report on his attendance at the recent European Political Community meeting in Granada, Spain. [45266/23]
Alan Farrell
Question:8. Deputy Alan Farrell asked the Taoiseach to report on his engagements during his attending of the European Political Community [45073/23]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:9. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the recent European Political Community meeting in Granada, Spain. [46434/23]
Paul Murphy
Question:10. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach to report on his attendance at the recent European Political Community meeting in Granada, Spain. [46436/23]
Peadar Tóibín
Question:11. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the recent European Political Community meeting in Granada, Spain. [46373/23]
Mary Lou McDonald
Question:12. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach to report on his attendance at the recent European Political Community meeting in Granada, Spain. [46425/23]
Seán Haughey
Question:13. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach to report on his attendance at the recent European Political Community meeting in Granada, Spain. [46619/23]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 13, inclusive, together.
I attended a European Political Community, EPC, summit in Granada, Spain, on 5 October. It was hosted by the Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, and the President of the European Council, Charles Michel. The EPC is an informal forum which brings together leaders of around 50 countries from across the Continent of Europe to discuss issues of shared concern. This was the third meeting of the European Political Community. It first met in Prague in October 2022 and then in Chiinu in June 2023. It will meet again in the first half of next year in the UK.
During the summit, I participated in a round table on multilateralism, including security and geostrategic issues, co-chaired by the President of the Swiss Confederation, Alain Berset, and the Greek Prime Minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis. Other parallel round tables focused on digital transition and artificial intelligence, and on energy, the environment, and climate change. I held bilateral meetings with UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, as well as the Prime Ministers of North Macedonia, Latvia, Armenia, and the President of the Swiss Confederation.
The focus of the meeting with Prime Minister Sunak was Northern Ireland, including the UK Legacy Act, the restoration of the institutions in Northern Ireland, and the implementation of the Windsor Framework.
In my meeting with North Macedonian Prime Minister Dimitar Kovačevski, we discussed EU enlargement, including North Macedonia’s accession aspirations, as well as bilateral relations and North Macedonia’s chairing of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE.
I had an introductory meeting with the newly-elected Prime Minister of Latvia, Evika Silia, during which I congratulated her on her election, welcomed her to the European Council and discussed issues of mutual interest and bilateral contacts between Ireland and Latvia.
During my meeting with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, I reiterated Ireland’s serious concerns about developments in Nagorno-Karabakh, offering Ireland’s assistance in responding to the resulting and evolving humanitarian situation.
My meeting with the President of Switzerland focused on bilateral relations. We also discussed our countries’ experiences of neutrality and the reflective processes under way in both countries on our respective security and defence policies.
The summit concluded with a dinner at La Alhambra, hosted by the Spanish Prime Minister and attended by the King and Queen of Spain.
Raz Segal is an Israeli historian who specialises in Holocaust and genocide studies. He is among many who in the past couple of weeks have described what Israel is doing to the people of Gaza as genocide. This is an Israeli historian. The Taoiseach may have seen many Jewish people in New York, Canada and across the world raising their voices over what Israel is doing to Gaza and describing it as genocide. For the descendants of those who were victims of the Holocaust and, in Raz Segal's case, people who are experts in this area, to be describing what Israel is doing as genocide really gives us some indication of the barbarity, savagery and brutality of what it is doing. Europe continues to actively support the Israeli state in developing, sustaining and researching the military means through which they are visiting this genocide on the Palestinians and ethnically cleansing them.
I got a very good paper from the Transnational Institute citing the details of some of this. The European Union association agreement has seen €46 billion of trade between Israel and the European Union. Israel received 1,661 grants totalling €1.2 billion in Horizon 2020. The Israelis are also involved in Horizon 2021 to 2027. This includes money for national security studies. It includes money going to the military and strategic affairs programme, the director of which, Gabi Siboni, developed systems and advocated for the use of overwhelming and disproportionate force to be used against civilian populations, and so on and so forth.
The Deputy's time is up.
Does the Taoiseach believe it is time to end European Union subsidies to the apartheid State committing genocide against Palestinians?
On 19 October last year, President von der Leyen made a speech in the European Parliament where she said: "Russia’s attacks against civilian infrastructure, especially electricity, are war crimes. Cutting off men, women, children of water, electricity and heating with winter coming - these are acts of pure terror. And we have to call it as such.” Then when Israel began to do precisely that with attacks against civilian infrastructure, especially electricity, cutting off men, women and children of water electricity and heating - precisely what Israel is doing to the more than 2 million people in Gaza - what did President von der Leyen do? Did she call it as such? She did not. She went to Israel and spoke about the right of Israel to self-defence without any conditions. She gave a green light to precisely that happening against the people of Gaza and against the Palestinian people. Why does the Taoiseach believe that the European Commission and the European political establishment in general has such double standards when it comes to condemning the war crimes of Russia but not condemning - and in fact giving a green light to - the war crimes of Israel?
What is happening in Gaza is horrendous. The intentional killing of non-combatants, the collective punishment, the intentional targeting of civilian infrastructure, forced displacement and the prohibition of access to food, fuel and water are illegal under international law. Any perpetrators should be stopped immediately and held accountable by all available means, but this is not what is happening. We have a situation where the EU is distorting Ireland's foreign policy at the moment. Ursula von der Leyen has distorted this policy significantly. Indeed, her latest pronouncements as she visited the United States of America were that she would stand shoulder to shoulder with the US position in relation to Gaza and Israel. The EU has just vetoed a resolution that basically looked for a pause in the fighting. Again, that distortion continues. Outsourcing foreign policy to the EU is a mistake. The Government counters this to say that the pooling of foreign policy with the EU significantly increases our voice. The latest crisis, however, has shown that this has actually distorted our voices. Where will the accountability lie in the context of Ursula von der Leyen's position and the distortion of our foreign policy?
Hearts were broken for the Israeli lives lost on 7 October, and the horrific loss has been roundly condemned. In Israel's siege of Gaza we are bearing witness to human catastrophe on an unimaginable scale. Last week, the Dáil became one of the first parliaments in the world to call for a ceasefire. It was an important international signal that other parliaments should follow. The world must demand that Israel ends the siege and the attacks on Gaza and the Palestinian people. The horrific events in the past few weeks have created a new urgency around the need for decisive international intervention. Rigorous international leadership means demanding an immediate ceasefire. That was the call from the Dáil and it must be followed by other parliaments and political leaders.
Sinn Féin has said that we will work with the Government on this because we recognise that Ireland's voice on this issue is important. That voice must always be used for peace, for justice, and for an independent and sovereign Palestine in line with international law and EU resolutions. Unified, we must call on Israel to end its bombardment of Gaza and to stop the indiscriminate slaughter. Together with one voice, we must assert the primacy of international law and dialogue as the only basis for a just resolution and a foundation for lasting and transformational peace.
Does the Taoiseach accept that it is now up to countries like Ireland to take the lead in building an international alliance in the first instance to bring about a ceasefire and to then engage with all parties to bring about a just and durable solution to the conflict?
We are aware that the European Political Community platform is an initiative of French President Emmanuel Macron. The idea was to bring all European states together, and not just those in the European Union. It has been a useful forum for networking, as we just heard from the Taoiseach, but it does put the focus on the proposed enlargement of the European Union. Consideration is now being given to expanding the EU from 27 to 35 member states or more: I think of the western Balkans, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia in this regard. That will be a challenge. Ireland of course supports enlargement as a general principle. Membership of the EU for the past 50 years has been transformative for us. The current geopolitical situation also needs to be taken into account. A number of issues need to be examined if enlargement is to be facilitated, such as the EU decision-making capacity or the future of the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, as well as CAP reform. What is Ireland's approach to this discussion? Is work being undertaken by the Government as to the implications of enlargement for Ireland? Does the Taoiseach believe that the existing treaty should be utilised fully first to accommodate enlargement rather than to go down the road of treaty change?
I thank Deputies for their questions. The European Union does not have a single foreign policy. Each member state has its own foreign policy. This is very evident when one looks at the different positions held and different actions taken by the 27 member states. Depending on the case involved, we try, from time to time and on a case-by-case basis, to have a common policy. We have done that fairly successfully in respect of Ukraine, but there are dissenters, like Hungary, for example. When it comes to Israel and Palestine, it will be difficult because different countries are coming from very different perspectives with this issue and this conflict. We were able to agree compromise language, and that was the basis of the European Council statement the weekend before last. We will try to do the same over the course of the next two days. I am sure that on Thursday and Friday in Brussels we will discuss co-operation with Israel.
As we all know, there is very strong support for Israel from most EU member states, but that could change. That will depend on how Israel acts in the coming weeks and months. President Biden described it very well. He said that the events of 7 October in Israel were the Israeli people's 9/11. They were attacked, civilians were killed in huge numbers and it came as a huge shock and huge trauma to the Israeli population. The point he made, and I think it was a very valid one, was that Israel should not make the same mistakes the US made. It is very clear what he meant because the US made terrible mistakes after 9/11, which caused a lot of hurt in a lot of parts of the world and impacted on its influence. The point President Biden was making to Israel, if you read between the lines, was a message of restraint and is one we will be making as well.
Regarding international law, our view as the Irish Government is that collective punishment that deliberately targets civilians and civilian infrastructure is a breach of international humanitarian law no matter who does it. We have been very clear and consistent on that. I cannot speak for the President of the European Commission or other member states, and nor would I, but I understand that other member states come from different perspectives. Let us not forget why so many European Jews had to emigrate to their ancestral home in Palestine, in Israel. It was because of what was done in Europe, particularly the Holocaust. Many countries feel historic guilt because of their involvement in the latter. We have to understand that.
We also have to understand that when it comes to extremist Islamic terrorism, the Supernova event in Israel was not the first concert to be attacked by Islamic fundamentalists. Let us not forget what happened at the Bataclan in Paris or what happened in Manchester.
You should not be likening those events.
Other countries come from a different perspective on this and we need to make sure we understand their perspectives, even if we do not agree with them. We must also guard against rising antisemitism and rising Islamophobia, both of which are happening in Ireland and in Europe and really concern me.
We should also not forget that war crimes have been committed in our country. War crimes were committed in the name of the Irish people, although we always rejected that. Only this week, we mark the 30th anniversary of the Shankill Road bombing - a war crime if ever there was one. We need to be consistent too in our condemnation of war crimes, particularly when they are done on the territory of Ireland or done by people who claim to be acting in our name.
Or by the Irish State in the foundation of the State.
On the issue of international alliances, it is a very valid suggestion that we would try to build an international alliance that looks for a ceasefire first and a peace initiative later. To have any influence, we cannot take absolutist positions. Once you take an absolutist position your influence is gone, unless you have other forms of power. You cannot be an honest broker in that kind of scenario.
Is féidir teacht ar Cheisteanna Scríofa ar
www.oireachtas.ie
.
Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.