Skip to main content
Normal View

Taoiseach's Meetings and Engagements

Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 16 February 2022

Wednesday, 16 February 2022

Questions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

Neale Richmond

Question:

1. Deputy Neale Richmond asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his most recent meeting with the British Prime Minister. [6422/22]

View answer

Mary Lou McDonald

Question:

2. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his most recent engagement with the British Prime Minister. [7523/22]

View answer

Richard Boyd Barrett

Question:

3. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his most recent meeting with the British Prime Minister. [7681/22]

View answer

Paul Murphy

Question:

4. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his most recent meeting with the British Prime Minister. [7684/22]

View answer

Neale Richmond

Question:

5. Deputy Neale Richmond asked the Taoiseach when he will next meet the British Prime Minister. [7768/22]

View answer

Peadar Tóibín

Question:

6. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his most recent meeting with the British Prime Minister. [7797/22]

View answer

Mick Barry

Question:

7. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his most recent meeting with the British Prime Minister. [7958/22]

View answer

Alan Kelly

Question:

8. Deputy Alan Kelly asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his most recent meeting with the British Prime Minister. [7925/22]

View answer

Brendan Smith

Question:

9. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his most recent discussions with the British Prime Minister. [8041/22]

View answer

Seán Haughey

Question:

10. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his most recent engagement with the British Prime Minister. [8042/22]

View answer

Oral answers (28 contributions)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 10, inclusive, together.

I spoke to the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, by telephone on Wednesday, 24 November, when we discussed the Northern Ireland protocol. I also congratulated him on the successful hosting of COP26 in Glasgow. We briefly referenced the latest developments on Covid-19. I welcomed the continuation of the talks between the European Union and the United Kingdom on the implementation of the protocol. I said that it was essential that these lead to substantive progress and joint, tangible solutions within the framework of the protocol. I emphasised to him that it was vital for stability in Northern Ireland, for the British-Irish relationship and for the wider European Union-United Kingdom relationship that this would be resolved through agreed solutions. I repeated our view that any triggering of Article 16 would also have far-reaching implications for stability in Northern Ireland, for the British-Irish relationship and for the wider European Union-United Kingdom relationship. We agreed that co-operation between our two Governments is key to ensuring peace and stability in Northern Ireland, which is a priority for both Governments.

I subsequently wrote to the Prime Minister on 7 December to reiterate my deep concern about the British Government’s proposed approach to legacy, as well as to emphasise that any decision to proceed with United Kingdom legislation on this basis would have negative consequences for reconciliation, for victims and for political stability in Northern Ireland. In light of this, I urged that his Government would continue to engage with us and with the stakeholders in Northern Ireland to find a common way forward on these difficult matters. I also had an opportunity to engage briefly with the Prime Minister during the world leaders summit at the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties in Glasgow, on 1 and 2 November.

The Government continues to give priority to engaging with the United Kingdom. Last year, more than 54 east-west meetings were held at ministerial or Secretary General level. This reflects the importance of our bilateral relationship, our ambition to strengthen our people-to-people and business-to-business ties and the need to address current challenges.

I ask that each speaker sticks to a minute and a half, because there are six speakers.

I spoke to the Taoiseach after the publication of the latest report of the police ombudsman. Having due regard for the fact that this is just the latest in a series of damning reports that shine a light on collusion, the actions of the British state, the targeting and murder of citizens by agents of the state, I said that it would be important that we have a full, comprehensive response from the Irish State and from the Irish Government. We are still awaiting that. By a response, I do not mean simply a response to a question on the floor of the Dáil. I mean a properly constructed political and diplomatic response from the Taoiseach’s Government. That should form the basis of his engagement with Boris Johnson on these matters. I accept that the Taoiseach is against the amnesty. It is our common goal to have that proposal pushed back. However, when he talks about a common way forward, there is a common, agreed framework, which is called the Stormont House Agreement. That is what I believe the Taoiseach needs to be arguing for.

Can the Taoiseach set out for us his proposed course of action on these matters? Can he also set out for us what contact he has had in respect of Acht na Gaeilge, the Irish Language Act, as well as the commissioning of abortion services? Both of these are awaited and the British Government must act on them.

Eighteen years ago, the British Government was critical in supporting the US Government in telling a pack of lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Those lies were used to justify a murderous war in that country, albeit against the nasty regime of Saddam Hussein. However, the premise of the war was a pack of lies that had been recycled by the British Government and the US Government. That war had disastrous consequences for the people of Iraq and the entire region. Given the events of the last few weeks around Ukraine, does that history give the Taoiseach any pause for thought about the claims of NATO and the United States that an invasion of Ukraine is imminent? Do not get me wrong; Putin is a nasty, authoritarian piece of work and I do not trust him. However, the Russian ambassador has stated that it would be insane for them to invade Ukraine. The Russians have started to move some of their military forces away from the border and, indeed, out of Crimea. Yet, NATO and the US are still saying that war is likely. This happens to coincide with NATO and the European Union looking for massive increases in military expenditure, including from this country. Does the Taoiseach not think that to some extent the role of a neutral country is to ask questions about the drums that are beating for war?

The UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has been one of the leading international figures who is beating the drums of war and aggression with Russia and who is calling for further NATO expansion. As Deputy Boyd Barrett mentioned, yesterday, 15 February, was the 19th anniversary of the day on which more than 100,000 people marched on the streets of Dublin in 2003. This was part of global protests by tens of millions of people who were opposition to war. Nearly two decades later, we can see clearly that those of us who marched were in the right, and how wrong all of the spin and the propaganda about weapons of mass destruction, etc., really was.

What is the Government doing now in the context of the drums of war being beaten once more? It has been presented with a report that is calling for a massive expansion in spending on the military. A tripling of such expenditure is called for in one scenario - this is the supposed middle-ground scenario - and an increase of 50% is called for in another. What other Department would get an increase of 50% in funding? That is €500 million more to be spent on warships or missiles. That amount would be sufficient to fund the introduction of free public transport right across the country. There are 44 references to NATO in the report in question. Should we not be prioritising welfare over warfare? Can the Taoiseach tell Johnson that we are not joining NATO?

A bit closer to home, the political events in Northern Ireland continue to mystify and trouble many of us on this island. It is about time that the Taoiseach and, more particularly, British Prime Minister, really engaged with this process. I am asking for the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference to be convened and for a full engagement on the part of the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in order to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland will not be left behind in terms of representation when it comes to the Northern Ireland Executive.

We need to make sure important legislation is passed and that, whenever we have an Assembly election in Northern Ireland, an Executive will be formed afterwards regardless of the result.

The following was sent to me by the Minister for Defence, Deputy Simon Coveney, in a written reply to a parliamentary question on 20 January:

In respect of deepening European Union and NATO links, it is my view that as an active partner of NATO through Partnership for Peace, Ireland should continue to welcome EU-NATO co-operation where it benefits international peace and security and is focused on avoiding duplication of structures, systems and interoperability standards.

Boris Johnson is Prime Minister of an imperialist power that plays a key role in NATO. Before the Taoiseach meets him next, I would like to know whether he endorses the Minister's comments. Is it now official Government policy to move this State towards closer co-operation with NATO?

I have a very specific and direct question. Is there any official, unofficial or secret agreement between the Irish State and the UK Government that permits the Royal Air Force, RAF, to conduct any form of armed operations in Irish airspace? Will the Taoiseach confirm to the House that this agreement does, or does not, exist? Under Article 15.6 of the Constitution, the Oireachtas is the only authority that can allow any other military force to operate within our State or on behalf of the State. Can the Taoiseach confirm to the House that no such agreement exists, either officially or unofficially? If one does exist, and a lot of people think that, will the Taoiseach finally confirm that to the House? The Oireachtas deserves and needs to know.

As the Taoiseach knows, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Marie Anderson, issued a 344-page report last week on a number of loyalist paramilitary killings in the 1990s, including the massacre at Sean Graham's bookmakers on the Ormeau Road in February 1992. The report makes for shocking reading. The ombudsman found that there was collusive behaviour between the RUC, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Freedom Fighters. The report outlines how the police provided weapons to these paramilitary organisations. It highlights how records regarding loyalist informants were destroyed and shows how warnings were not passed on to those known to be under threat, such as in the case of Jim Clinton and his wife and family. The term "collusive behaviour" was used by the ombudsman for legal reasons but it certainly means collusion in any language. Yet again, the issue of legacy arises from this report. Will the Taoiseach continue to press the British Government to play its part in implementing the provisions of New Decade, New Approach as regards legacy and urge it to drop its proposed legislation for a statute of limitations ending criminal investigations and prosecutions for Troubles-related incidents, as well as inquests and civil litigation?

Deputy McDonald raised a range of issues, primarily in respect of the ombudsman's report, which Deputy Haughey has also raised. It was shocking behaviour, as Deputy Haughey described it. The ombudsman described collusive behaviour - collusion, essentially - in the use of agents and weapons, including the handing back of weapons to loyalist paramilitaries. I have indicated a specific response to the ombudsman's report. The broader issue of legacy is one that we continue to work on, with both the British Government and the parties in Northern Ireland. Both of the recent reports from the ombudsman have to form part of that.

I have met with a number of organisations representing victims, who are very impatient and have been waiting a long time for closure in respect of what happened to their loved ones. The families of the victims represent a broad range of people in Northern Ireland society and in the Republic. Suffice to say, there has been a stalling since 2010, and since the signing of the Stormont House Agreement, with regard to the full and comprehensive nature of legacy inquiries and mechanisms to bring closure to families and to have accountability and justice. We are very clear on this matter. We have entered into discussions with the British Government and the Northern Ireland parties through the British–Irish Intergovernmental Conference and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Coveney, is working on that.

On Acht na Gaeilge, Deputy McDonald will be aware that the Minister of State for Northern Ireland, Conor Burns, stated at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee last week that it is very firmly the British Government's intention to bring forward the legislation before the Northern Ireland elections. All the detail was worked out in New Decade, New Approach and it should be implemented along with all the other commitments in that agreement.

Deputies Boyd Barrett, Barry and Paul Murphy raised the issue of Ukraine and Russia. I am taken aback that they have swung it right around and are now suggesting that it is NATO that is at fault. I find that an extraordinary conclusion to come to. That is what I derive from what they have said. They are saying that it is now NATO beating the drums of war.

They have expanded more than 800 km.

There are more than 100,000 Russian troops on the border of Ukraine. Ukraine should be entitled to its self-determination. I do not believe it is justifiable to have so many troops on the border with Ukraine-----

Does the Taoiseach trust US military intelligence?

-----and such militarisation there. I hope this continues to de-escalate. We do not want war. Above all, the people of Ukraine do not need war, destruction or conflict. Dialogue and diplomacy are extremely important. It is not in any way accurate to suggest that NATO is beating the drums of war here. NATO does not want war. The European Union does not want war and the member states of the European Union do not want war, at all. That is clear. People are anxious about the security architecture around Europe-----

It has all changed since Iraq, has it?

The Deputy has moved very quickly from the 120,000 Russian troops amassing on the Ukrainian border to blaming the British and the US. That is fantastic. He is back on terra firma again in terms of his ideological position on these matters

The Americans and British are angels then.

I did not say that at all.

We are running out of time.

I think I covered all three Deputies in the one response there.

What about Ireland's relationship with NATO?

I fully agree with Deputy Richmond. There is full engagement with the United Kingdom Government in respect of all aspects of the current situation in Northern Ireland, including legacy, the protocol and implementation of the trade agreement.

On Deputy Kelly's question, I am not aware of any agreement but I will come back to him on the specifics of the issue he raised with regard to RAF armed operations in the State.

To come back to Deputy Barry, the Partnership for Peace is well known. The country has entered into that in previous times. There are new threats to us. Cybersecurity is a major threat where we have to rely on other states to help us, particularly in the European Union. As I said yesterday, the United Kingdom and Poland came to our assistance on the occasion of that cyberattack.

So closer relations.

There are new hybrid threats happening all over member states of the European Union.

New computers for the HSE might help.

Look at what happened in Belarus, which is protected by Russia. The use of migrants to create issues with EU member states was appalling in that respect.

That was appalling.

I fully take on board what Deputy Haughey said. I believe I answered his question in my response to Deputy McDonald in respect of that 344-page report from the ombudsman. We will come back to that again.

Top
Share