Vol. 940 No. 1
21. Deputy Darragh O'Brien asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the current processing times for the passport service; the steps that have been taken and the resources allocated to deal with the increased demand; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8823/17]
I am sure the Minister is aware, as I am, of the difficulties being experienced within the passport service. I tabled this question to afford the Minister an opportunity to update the House on the current turnaround times, processing times, the resources that are allocated to the passport service and the additional resources he has planned, if at all possible. I am sure the Minister is aware of the many incidents in recent weeks where people have had business trips and family holidays cancelled because of the elongated processing times. I ask him to update the House on the steps he is taking to address this matter.
As the Deputy will be aware, last year just over 730,000 passports were issued. This represented an increase of over 9% on the year before and demand continues to be very strong so far this year. Notwithstanding these pressures, renewal applications submitted through Passport Express continue to be processed within the 15-working day target. Some categories, however, such as first-time applicants, take longer because of additional anti-fraud measures. For example, first-time applicants are advised to allow 20 working days; the current turnaround time is 19 working days.
As the Deputy will readily appreciate, it is very important that citizens use the right channel when applying for a passport. There have been a number of cases in recent times where applicants have used Passport Express despite their travel plans falling within the processing period for their passport, and I know that people in this category frequently contact my office and those of other Deputies. Where applicants are travelling in less than 15 working days, the best course of action is to make an online appointment at the Passport Office in Dublin or Cork. There are a limited number of appointments available daily in both offices. I appreciate the assistance of Members of these Houses in promoting good practice as regards the Passport Office and I would like to thank the Deputy in this regard. This week, I will again circulate a note on good practice to all Members of the Houses.
Significant customer service improvements that are being rolled out as part of the passport reform programme will assist in managing growing demand. In particular, the new online service for adult renewals to be launched in the coming months will result in reduced turnaround times for applicants and significant efficiency gains for the passport service.
In the immediate term, and to respond to the seasonal demand and the more general increases, a total of 230 temporary clerical officers have been recruited into the Department. Over half of those officers are already in place and most of the others will join by early March.
Regarding the renewal of applications within 15 days, I do not believe all of those are being met. Online appointments are limited, as the Minister said, and it is not a real option for people. I welcome the fact that he will issue an up-to-date note but my particular issue with this is that the figures for last year show there was an increase of almost 10%, with 740,000 passports being issued. The passport service through the Minister's Department employed additional clerical officers last year to deal with the spike around summer time, which is understandable. All of those were let go before Christmas and now we are employing them again. I put it to the Minister that we have to prepare in a post-Brexit Ireland because the level of applications being submitted will continue to increase. Employing temporary clerical officers in the passport office, letting them go and continuing that cycle is not a long-term solution. The passport service needs to revisit the turnaround time issue and republish those because as we approach the summer months and the holiday period, thousands of holiday makers and people who wish to go on business trips will be disappointed, as we have seen already. Is there any movement towards employing those 230 additional clerical officers on a full-time basis, which is the basis on which they should be employed? I would support the Minister if that is what he is endeavouring to do.
The Deputy will be aware that the need for additional resources is kept under constant review. I agree that during recent years we have employed hundreds of temporary officers to assist the office, particularly during the summer months. They are a ready resource of experienced people who will work side by side with the permanent staff. However, I would remind the Deputy and the public that all applicants should carefully check the validity of their passports, and in particular those of their children, and then choose the correct mode of application because there have been a number of pressure points in recent times. The employment of temporary clerical officers is not a long-term solution. That is why we are proceeding with innovative actions in the Passport Office such as the passport card online service, which is very user-friendly for travelling and is accepted throughout the European Union and beyond. I would ask people to differentiate clearly between the application, the Passport Express service and the emergency application.
It is important that we recognise that there is a problem. I raised this matter with the Minister on 15 December 2016. I welcome the fact that additional resources are in place but permanent additional resources are needed. I would support the Minister in his efforts to do that because if the turnaround time for passport renewals is 15 working days, that is not the evidence I have available to me. While in most instances that is the case, in others it is not.
The online application will very much assist in this. Will the Minister update the House on when he hopes to roll out the facility? There are issues relating to incomplete applications that elongate the process. I agree with the Minister completely in this regard. However, this is causing stress for families and individuals who have planned to travel but who then realise they cannot get a passport in time. This is a major issue as well. The easier and the more seamless we make the process, the better for everyone.
A total of 230 extra temporary staff are being employed. More than half this figure are already in office and all will be in place in the coming weeks. I expect online renewal to be introduced in the next couple of months. In the meantime, the An Post passport express channel will remain fully functional. This is an important service for An Post, especially in respect of the work and busyness or otherwise of post offices throughout the country, in particular rural post offices.
By 2019, as part of the overall long-term passport reform programme, it is envisaged that all applications will be enrolled via the online platform. I assure Deputies that all decisions relating to the reform of the passport service are informed by the strategic objectives of the Government, including the need to ensure we have a first-rate service for our people.
22. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if his attention has been drawn to the comments of the Democratic Unionist Party leader, Arlene Foster, who stated that she would not support the introduction of an Irish language Act; furthermore, if his attention has been drawn to the fact that a commitment to introduce this Act was explicitly stated and agreed in the internationally binding St. Andrews Agreement of 2006; and his views on the DUP failing to live up to its obligations on equality, respect and reconciliation. [8928/17]
Voters in the North go to the polls on 2 March. Public confidence in the political institutions has been undermined by the DUP mishandling of the renewable heat incentive scheme scandal and allegations of corruption associated with the scheme. Recently, Arlene Foster said that the DUP will never accede to an Irish language Act. This is a corruption of the principles of the equality pillar enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement. It also violates the commitment explicitly stated and agreed in the internationally binding St. Andrews Agreement of 2006. The Government was at St. Andrews, as was Sinn Féin. Is the interpretation of the Government the same as that of Arlene Foster in respect of the Irish language Act?
A number of elements of the Good Friday Agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement have not yet been fully implemented, including the element relating to the Irish language Act. The Government's firm position is that the Good Friday Agreement and the successor agreements must be implemented in full. This is reflected in the current programme for partnership Government.
Respect for linguistic diversity and the Irish language remains central to the Good Friday Agreement. Whatever the divergences on policy on the Irish language or indeed any other issue, it is of the utmost importance that all parties to the political process in Northern Ireland must live up to the principles of partnership, equality and mutual respect as well as the goals of reconciliation at the core of the Good Friday Agreement.
An Irish language Act in Northern Ireland to be enacted by the British Government was provided for in the St. Andrews Agreement in 2006. Successive Irish Governments have advocated in favour of an Irish language Act and continue to do so. Regrettably, however, there has been no agreement within the Northern Ireland Executive to take forward what is now a devolved matter.
As part of the outstanding commitments under previous agreements, the question of an Irish language Act for Northern Ireland was discussed on several occasions during the Stormont House negotiations in late 2014. While I and other Irish Government representatives advocated for this commitment being honoured and implemented, regrettably it was not possible to reach agreement for such an explicit undertaking. Nevertheless, in the text of the final Stormont House Agreement, the Irish Government and the British Government, recalling the commitments from previous agreements, endorsed the need for respect for and recognition of the Irish language in Northern Ireland.
The Stormont House Agreement provides for regular review meetings with the participation of the Irish Government, the British Government and the Northern Ireland Executive party leaders. At the last two review meetings, most recently before Christmas, I had the opportunity to draw attention to these outstanding commitments, including those relating to the Irish language, and I asked that they remain on the agenda for future review meetings.
I imagine we would all agree that the remarks made by Ms Foster are highly offensive to Irish speakers. She was also spectacularly wrong when she stated that more people speak Polish than Irish in the Six Counties. According to the last census in the North, a total of 184,898 spoke Irish compared with fewer than 20,000 who spoke Polish. This is being used as a distraction. We hear these fake statistics. Ms Foster was also given political cover by the Secretary of State, Mr. Brokenshire, given his remarks on the need for cross-community support on the matter. It provides political cover but it also effectively gives them a veto in the matter.
People want to know what the Government is going to do. The Irish language is an integral part of people's lives growing up and more and more people are using it. Will the Minister outline the Government's plans in respect of the commitment on the Irish language Act from the St. Andrews Agreement as well as the outstanding commitments from other agreements and how they will be fully implemented?
I reject the comments that are disrespectful of the Irish language and that are, furthermore, inconsistent with the principles of the Good Friday Agreement. However, I welcome the subsequent comments and the clarification from the DUP leader to the effect that those who want to speak the Irish language are entitled to do so.
We must move forward, therefore, on the basis of mutual respect for our respective cultures and traditions. In that regard, respect for linguistic diversity and the Irish language remain central to the Good Friday Agreement. The principles of partnership, equality and mutual respect and the goal of reconciliation are objectives in respect of which everyone in the House is keen to see progress. These are at the core of the Good Friday Agreement and must be upheld by all parties to the political process in Northern Ireland.
I assure the Deputy that I will continue to raise this matter with all those I meet in the context of ensuring all implemented aspects of the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent agreements are fully honoured and implemented.
Is the Minister concerned about the fact the Secretary of State, Mr. Brokenshire, is giving political cover on this issue? His remarks are a poke in the eye to Irish speakers.
It is great for Arlene Foster to come out with remarks along the lines that people are entitled to use the Irish language. However, she is the architect of blocking recognition of the language and the British Government is backing her up.
It is a question of doing something about it. Irish speakers are looking for support from the Government and other parties that have signed up to the St. Andrews Agreement. The agreement clearly and explicitly states that an Irish language Act would be enacted, but this has not happened. People want to know why it is not happening. What are we doing about it? Clearly, we are on the side of the people who want to use the language as part of the equality pillar. However, others are opposed to this and their actions and what they have said about the Irish language Act suggest they are opposed to any changes. What can the Government do in this matter?
The UK Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the leader of the DUP are fully aware of my views, my concerns and concerns across Government on this issue. We will continue to support the Irish language on an all-island basis, including through financial support for the ongoing work and development on the part of Foras na Gaeilge. The Government will also continue to engage fully and highly with the British Government and all the political parties in Northern Ireland to seek the full implementation of all provisions of the Good Friday Agreement.
The Deputy will be aware that language policy is a devolved matter but, as always, the Government is ready to support and assist those parties in the devolved institutions. We look forward to the devolved institutions being fully established at the earliest opportunity following the election. In this regard, I imagine the Deputy and his colleagues will be in a position to play a prominent role and to assist in this regard. Our commitment as co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement remains constant in good times and bad.
23. Deputy Darragh O'Brien asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will confirm that when he stated in his recent press statement on 14 February 2017 that it is essential that none of the human rights protections or frameworks underpinned by the Good Friday Agreement is disturbed by changes that are consequent to a Brexit agreement, that this includes the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and all the human rights and constitutional protections therein that give effect to the Good Friday Agreement; the action the Government as co-guarantor has taken, in view of the fact that the Agreement is inviolable as part of a UN-recognised international treaty, to ensure the delivery of the outstanding human rights protections of that Agreement, including the bill of rights; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8824/17]
When the Minister said in a press conference on 14 February last that it "is essential that none of the human rights protections or frameworks underpinned by the Good Friday Agreement are disturbed by any changes that are consequent from a Brexit agreement", does that include the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and all the human rights and constitutional protections therein that give effect to the Good Friday Agreement? Will he also confirm, given the Agreement is inviolable as part of a UN-recognised international treaty, what action he and the Government have taken, as co-guarantor, to ensure the delivery of the outstanding human rights protections of that Agreement, including the bill of rights?
As a co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement, the Government is determined that all aspects of the Agreement are fully respected through the process of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union and thereafter. Our priority is to ensure that the Good Friday Agreement and the overall balance of the settlement is not in any way disturbed by the UK’s exit from the European Union. All provisions of the Agreement must be respected, including those relating to the constitutional status and to human rights.
The human rights provisions of the Agreement are a fundamental pillar of the Agreement and of the peace process overall. In Northern Ireland, the human rights provisions support the confidence and willingness of all communities to participate in the agreed political institutions of the Agreement and ensure that every citizen is guaranteed equal status and equal protection under law.
On 13 February, I convened a sectoral dialogue on human rights under the Good Friday Agreement to hear the views of civil society in this regard. There were participants from the North and the South who all dealt with the possible implications of the withdrawal of the UK for this pivotal chapter of the Agreement on human rights. This was a very valuable exchange and a number of key themes emerged, including: the importance of upholding the Good Friday Agreement chapter on rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity as an integral part of the Agreement as a whole; the value of a bill of rights for Northern Ireland as referred to in the Good Friday Agreement; the value of a charter of rights for the island of Ireland as referred to in the Agreement. This would also support the provision in the Agreement on equivalence of rights on the island.
Each of these themes demonstrates that human rights are central to the peace process and must be protected and sustained, regardless of the UK’s future relationship with the European Union.
As provided for under the Good Friday Agreement, the UK’s Northern Ireland Act 1998 established the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the UK Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic UK law.
I have raised these issues on each occasion I have had the opportunity to do so, most recently in Dublin with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the last couple of weeks.
We all agree that at the core of the Good Friday Agreement is a commitment to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights. We must ensure that what has been agreed and voted on by the people of the island North and South is sustained and not in any way diminished as a result of the Brexit negotiations. In particular, we must advocate for the ongoing realisation of the rights of citizens in Northern Ireland. I believe we should use the negotiations we will have on Brexit as part of the European bloc as an opportunity to advocate for the introduction of a bill of rights in the North of Ireland. Will the Government consider taking legal steps, if necessary, to defend the people of Northern Ireland and to ensure that all human rights and constitutional protections within the Good Friday Agreement are protected? It would be an important statement if the Minister would state today that he would go as far as is required to ensure their rights are vindicated and, furthermore, would state that he would support a bill of rights in Northern Ireland.
The Good Friday Agreement clearly envisages a bill of rights in Northern Ireland and I support the Good Friday Agreement in its entirety. With regard to the peace process, the Deputy will be aware that the Stormont House Agreement provides for regular review meetings with the participation of the Irish Government, the British Government and the Executive party leaders. At the last two review meetings, most recently in December last, I specifically raised outstanding commitments in the Stormont House Agreement, one of which is a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. It is important that these issues be acted on, irrespective of the status of the United Kingdom either in or out of the European Union. My position is clear, namely, that the Good Friday Agreement and the subsequent agreements be honoured and implemented in full. That is reflected in the current programme for partnership Government. These agreements and the principles and values that underpin them are at the core of the Government's approach towards peace, reconciliation and prosperity across the island of Ireland.
To be honest, the Minister's position is not clear. I asked him if he supports the introduction of a bill of rights in Northern Ireland. He said he supports the Good Friday Agreement, as I do.
I do.
That is super. Will he ensure the Irish Government vindicates those rights during the negotiations regarding Brexit? The Minister will recall that last week the Dáil, on foot of a Sinn Féin motion as amended by Fianna Fáil, called on the Government to seek special status for Northern Ireland as part of its negotiations with Europe and as part of the European bloc's negotiations with Britain. I believe this is an opportunity to push for a bill of rights, be it island-wide to incorporate Northern Ireland or specifically for Northern Ireland. If the Government believes that any aspect of the Good Friday Agreement is being threatened during the course of those negotiations, will it take every step available, including legal action, to ensure that does not happen?
I have made it abundantly clear on numerous occasions, as has the Taoiseach, that we stand fully behind all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement. In fact, I have just arrived to the House after a constructive and positive meeting with my colleague, Jean-Marc Ayrault, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs. In a press conference he specifically referred to the Good Friday Agreement and its importance in the context of the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union. The answer to the Deputy's question is "Yes". It is imperative for all parties to the negotiations with the UK, which will begin later in the spring, to fully appreciate and acknowledge the unique and special circumstances surrounding Northern Ireland and to factor that into the negotiations in a way that ensures there is no disruption or change to the Good Friday Agreement and, with specific reference to the Border, that ensures we maintain the current open Border status. I am satisfied that is understood not only by my French colleague, who made very positive comments in that regard today, but also by each of the 25 other EU Foreign Ministers I have had the opportunity to speak to directly over the last number of months.
24. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will report on his recent meeting with Secretary for State for Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8821/17]
Will the Minister report on his recent meeting with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Brokenshire? In particular, I am interested in the points the Taoiseach mentioned during Leaders' Questions that the Minister would be raising with Mr. Brokenshire, that is, undercover British police officers operating in Ireland and the call to extend the Pitchford inquiry to include Ireland. The Taoiseach stated the Minister would issue a statement about that after the meeting but the statement has not been forthcoming. What concerns were raised with the Secretary of State? Was it the operation of the police officers or the question regarding the Pitchford inquiry?
I am in regular contact with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, James Brokenshire. We held a bilateral meeting most recently in Dublin on 14 February.
On Brexit, I reminded the Secretary of State of the particular impact on Northern Ireland of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union and of the entirely unique circumstances that pertain to Northern Ireland, given the political and constitutional settlement of the Good Friday Agreement, which is the foundation of the peace process. I emphasised the Government’s priority to ensure that the Good Friday Agreement is not in any way disturbed by the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union and of course to maintain the open Border on the island, as well as the common travel area. I underlined that the hard-won peace on the island must be protected by both governments as co-guarantors of the Agreement.
I outlined to the Secretary of State that the Government’s focus regarding Northern Ireland is on the substantive outcome on each of the key issues, rather than the label ascribed to the overall package. I emphasised that the Government will maintain its focus on pursuit of specific, effective and realisable measures that address each of the issues of concern under Brexit.
Regarding the Border, I noted that while the British Prime Minister, Mrs. May’s commitment to work to retain an open Border on the island is welcome, if this is to be achieved, there must be significant flexibility shown by the British Government once these negotiations begin. I also outlined to the Secretary of State the discussions that had taken place the previous day at the all-island civic dialogue on human rights under the Good Friday Agreement.
On the current political situation in Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State and I agreed that it is of the utmost importance that the conditions are in place for a power sharing Executive to be established as soon as possible after the election. I also discussed last week the imperative of dealing with a range of issues related to the Troubles in a way that meets the needs and expectations of victims. I reiterated my determination that the comprehensive legacy framework be established at the earliest opportunity.
I had asked particularly about the Pitchford inquiry. We know that at least four undercover British police officers were operating in this State. It seems that all of them commenced or had intimate relationships with women during that time. We know that the Metropolitan Police in Britain has apologised for that to people like Sarah Hampton and other victims. We know that the Pitchford inquiry has been set up to look into this, that other States including Scotland, the North and Germany have requested the inquiry be extended to include their own countries and that the Minister was to raise these points with the Secretary of State. What points did the Minister raise with the Secretary of State and what response did he get in relation to this very serious matter?
Further to the commitment given by the Taoiseach to the House last week, I did raise with the Secretary of State, James Brokenshire, the concerns that were expressed by Members of the House, the Deputy included, regarding the issues connected with the Pitchford inquiry. I said this was a matter of concern, that these concerns had been raised in the House and that we felt it appropriate that there would be a formal reply. In response, Secretary of State Brokenshire undertook to convey these concerns to the British Home Secretary, Amber Rudd. The Deputy will understand that these are matters for which the British Home Secretary has direct responsibility rather than the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I confirm that I did raise this issue and that I specifically conveyed the concern of some Members of the House. I know that the Deputy raised this issue with the Tánaiste.
Could the Minister check if that was grouped with another question? As it is a priority question, that would not be so.
Could I ask the Minister to be a bit more precise? He says, and this is the phrase that is used repeatedly, that concerns were raised. What concerns were raised? Was concern raised that the Irish Government did not know that the police officers were operating in this State or was concern raised that the Pitchford inquiry does not include Ireland? It is really important that we know what concerns were raised. I agree that it is a matter for the Home Secretary unless it is the case that the Irish Government did not know that they were operating here. The Taoiseach suggested that the Minister would be raising this at the meeting. Will the Minister give more details about exactly what concerns he raised?
The Deputy is aware of these concerns because he has raised them, not only in the House with the Taoiseach last week, but also he had an opportunity during questions to the Minister for Justice and Equality. This matter relates to the portfolio of the Minister of Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald. I understand the Deputy raised these issues directly with the Minister in some detail during questions to the Minister for Justice and Equality only last week and that she has fully responded to them. I conveyed his concern to Secretary of State Brokenshire and I will not comment further on the issues as arising.
25. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will progress Ireland's recognition of Palestine as a state, in view of the recent approval by the Israeli Government of further construction of settlements, the illegality of which has been reaffirmed by the United Nations Security Council and the violation of international law. [8689/17]
My question relates to the ongoing settlement issue in Palestine and our recognition of the two-state solution, particularly in view of the fact that the illegality of the settlements has been re-affirmed by the United Nations Security Council.
As I have reported to the House on a number of occasions, I am keeping under continual review whether the immediate recognition by Ireland of a state of Palestine, prior to its real achievement on the ground, could be helpful towards the goal of resolving the conflict and, if so, when that might have the greatest impact. My two visits to the region have contributed to that ongoing consideration. I have discussed the question with local leaders, EU colleagues and international colleagues outside of the European Union. The motions passed by the Dáil and the Seanad in this regard in 2014 are obviously important factors, but ultimately this is a decision for the Government. There are many factors to take into account, both positive and negative.
I am also acutely conscious that the situation on the ground has continued to deteriorate and efforts to reanimate the political process have not yet been successful. I condemned the recent surge of Israeli settlement announcements in a statement issued on 25 January. Continued settlement expansion runs directly contrary to the prospects of achieving a peaceful solution to the conflict in Palestine and has for this reason been a central focus of the policies I have advocated at EU level.
I discussed the matter earlier this afternoon with my colleague the French Foreign Minister, Mr. Jean-Marc Ayrault, who played a leading role in a Paris initiative culminating in an international conference in January to which Ireland was invited and in which it participated.
While the settlement announcements of recent times do not directly relate to my consideration of the specific question of possible recognition, I have to say that recognition would not help to prevent settlement construction, as the existing recognition of Palestine by many other states clearly has not. However, it is certainly an indirect factor in that continued pressure on Palestinians is a strong argument in favour of a broadly supportive gesture such as recognition.
I am continuing to weigh these and other arguments in relation to recognition on an ongoing basis and I will be very happy to keep the Deputies and the House fully informed.
I thank the Minister. The settlement issue shows a disregard, a disdain and an indifference to international law and also to the United Nations Security Council. The ongoing policy of settlement expansion has to be seen in light of the possibility of the two-state solution. The Minister was there, as was I. When one is there and sees the extent of the settlement building one gets a real sense of whether it is possible to have a two-state solution.
Palestine is where we were. We had land grabs in this country, with Britain taking the land from Irish people. We remember Cromwell's "to hell or to Connacht". It was an attack on the land. It was also an attack on our culture and our traditions. How can we support a two-state solution when our Government does not recognise one of those states as a state? If we are committed to the two-state solution, surely it is logical that we recognise Palestine as a state. I would like to know how emphatic we are at EU and UN level in condemning what Israel is doing with settlements.
I wish to assure to Deputy that as far as the latter is concerned, I will make it clear lest there is any doubt, these settlements are illegal, they actively undermine the prospects for a sustainable, negotiated two-state solution and the relentless expansion of settlements inherently involves injustice and provocation for Palestinians. The intention to proceed with new settlements in East Jerusalem only continues to call into question further the commitment of the Israeli Government to engage in meaningful negotiations aimed at achieving a two-state solution. The Irish Government fully recognises that the only objective manner in which a solution can be achieved is by means of a two-state solution. Ireland remains steadfast in its support for a comprehensive two-state solution which protects the future of both Palestinian people and Israelis.
The reality is that the settlements are continuing. I want to acknowledge the Israeli opposition to this as well. The vote in the Knesset was 60 to 52 and the Government's top lawyer has called it unconstitutional.
A number of Israeli NGOs are actively opposing this regulation Bill. I acknowledge the information that SADAKA has sent. Many parliaments have voted to recognise a Palestinian state but it is not followed up by the governments. It has to be asked if we are just paying lip service to the idea of a Palestinian state. The European Parliament also voted in favour of the recognition. Sweden has had the moral gumption to stand up and there are no signs of any deterioration in its relationship with Israel. Why can Ireland not also do that? As the Minister has said, it is violating international law and going against the United Nations Security Council. There will be nothing left for Palestine to call a state if we continue to do nothing.
That is precisely why this matter is under active consideration. I want to try to avoid lip service and ensure we can do something meaningful and positive. Recognition of Palestine would essentially be a symbolic step. It would not help slow the settlements. It would not prevent evictions or demolitions. It would not in any way hasten an end of the occupation. However, it would be a signal of support and hope to Palestinians at a time when the political process seems moribund. They are symbolic issues but important ones.
We need to ensure that Ireland makes a positive and constructive contribution. I am very pleased to engage on an ongoing basis with my EU colleagues. Ireland's position has been made abundantly clear not only in the European Union but also at the international Paris conference where I spoke on behalf of Ireland in January.
