Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 Feb 2017

Vol. 940 No. 1

Other Questions (Resumed)

I welcome the speaker and look forward to seeing him tomorrow, when we will have an opportunity to discuss a number of matters. He is very welcome to our jurisdiction, as the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has said.

What the international community is anxious to do and what the European Union wishes to do is to assist in our commitment to an inclusive political settlement in Libya. The situation is very challenging and unstable. It is important that we work together at EU level and with the wider international community to ensure we can bring about a political settlement. That is under the framework of the Libyan political agreement. The European Union has reaffirmed its support to the United Nations support mission in Libya. I want to see political stability in Libya but, in the meantime, the European Union offers help and assistance in the form of a co-operation package focused on civil society and assisting. The focus of any arrangement or any assistance to Libya must, by definition, deal with the transit of persons and migration.

Libya is an example of how disastrous western intervention in other countries can be at times. Libya is an ungovernable country and the administration there has very little control over vast swathes of it. I am not sure, from the Minister's answer, whether the EU is moving towards a formal EU-Libya migration deal that will involve turning people away from EU countries and resettling them back in their country of origin, which is Libya in this instance? If we are not, that is fine. If we are, we need to know about it and we need to debate it and see the terms of it. That is what I really wanted to get to the nub of. We want to assist Libya and the Libyan people. The EU also wants to do that. Is that just a disguise for stemming the flow of refugees into Europe and southern Europe in particular? I want to hear definitively today if there is a deal on the table. If there is not, that is fine. If there is, do we support it or not?

The important thing is that the European Union continues to engage. We have already committed certain funds to the matter of capacity building. That will continue and its advancement will be dependent on the political situation in Libya, which is under ongoing review. The Deputy's concern is about the migration situation. It is important to recognise the fact that, in 2016 alone, 181 irregular migrants were detected on the central Mediterranean route. The vast majority of these people reached Italy, which has reported an 18% increase in arrivals. This is a very challenging issue and it is important to note the vast majority of these migrants are unlikely to meet the criteria allowing them to qualify for refugee status. In the first instance, we should look towards achieving political stability in Libya. However brief my acknowledgment might be, it is very important to acknowledge the grave role of the Irish Naval Service in the Mediterranean region, with particular reference to tens of thousands of migrants whose lives have been saves by dint of Irish intervention.

Northern Ireland

Darragh O'Brien

Ceist:

28. Deputy Darragh O'Brien asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will report on his recent meeting with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. James Brokenshire; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8547/17]

Seán Crowe

Ceist:

51. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will report on his meeting with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. James Brokenshire, in Dublin on 15 February 2017; if he raised concerns over the British Government’s approach to Brexit and the way it might violate the Good Friday Agreement; if he discussed ensuring that Northern Ireland receives special designated status in the EU; and if he raised concerns surrounding the British Government’s unhelpful approach to legacy issues. [8687/17]

Michael Moynihan

Ceist:

52. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he or his officials have spoken to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland since the Assembly election was called. [7366/17]

Paul Murphy

Ceist:

53. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will report on any contacts he has had with the leaders of parties in Northern Ireland and the British Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8765/17]

The Minister has covered some of this. I want to ask him to report on his recent meeting with the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. James Brokenshire. Will the Minister bring us up to date on that? It was the subject of a priority question earlier and that is why it was not grouped. Was the matter of the Dublin-Monaghan bombings raised with the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? The Minister has mentioned other items and has put information on the record of the House. Could we stick specifically to that item for the purpose of this response?

I propose to take Questions Nos. 28 and 51 to 53, inclusive, together.

I wish to apprise the House of my meeting with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, James Brokenshire, on 14 February. I did deal with the issue of Brexit, particulars of which we probably have already discussed.

On the current political situation in Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State and I shared the view that it was of the utmost importance that the conditions would be in place for a power-sharing Executive to be established as soon as possible following the Assembly elections next month. I emphasised to the Secretary of State that, as co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement, both Governments had a role to play in supporting the effective operation of the devolved institutions and in upholding both the letter and the spirit of the agreement as a whole.

I also discussed with the Secretary of State last week the imperative of dealing with the range of issues related to the legacy of the Troubles in a way that meets the needs and expectations of victims and survivors and of wider society through the comprehensive legacy framework provided for under the Stormont House Agreement. I reiterated my determination that this be established at the earliest opportunity.

Regarding engagement with the political parties in Northern Ireland, I have in recent months been in regular contact with the leaders of each of the main parties as the crisis in the Executive has deepened. I met last month with the DUP leader, Arlene Foster, and a Sinn Féin delegation led by Martin McGuinness and spoke by phone to the leaders of the SDLP, UUP and Alliance Party. I also had the chance to hear from and engage with members of Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party at last week's civic dialogue plenary meeting in Dublin Castle and at the successful sectoral dialogue on human rights in Maynooth university last week. The Taoiseach has also been actively engaged and was in direct contact with the British Prime Minister, as well as with the leaders of both the DUP and Sinn Féin.

I have agreed with the Secretary of State that both Governments should continue to work closely together in the weeks to come, looking ahead to the post-election period when a new power-sharing Executive will need to be formed. We have also urged the parties to conduct their election campaigns in a calm and respectful way, conscious that polarising rhetoric and frayed relationships will damage the prospects of forming an Executive after the votes have been counted and the results announced.

We must all be mindful that effective devolved Government, underpinned by a genuine spirit of partnership, is what the people of Northern Ireland voted for in 1998 and what they expect their politicians to deliver. After the election, it will therefore fall to the parties to form a power-sharing Executive, and this will require the parties to find a way forward on issues which contributed to the calling of the election in the first instance. The Government is always ready to support and assist the parties in any way we can. Our commitment as a co-guarantor of the agreement is a constant one.

I assure Deputy Darragh O'Brien that I specifically raised the issue of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. I acknowledge the fact I go to these talks, discussions and meetings fully armed and conscious of the Dáil motions on this issue that have been passed, in particular the motion of 25 May last year following the 42nd anniversary of the bombings on 17 May. I assure the Deputy that I will continue to raise this issue. I will continue to engage directly on the matter of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and pursue all possible avenues to achieve progress on this issue, consistent with the mandate given to me being in the form of a request by the Dáil. I hope we can bring some measure of closure to this. I have not only raised and discussed this issue regularly with the Secretary of State since his appointment last summer but I can tell the House that there have been regular meetings at official level between my officials and the officials of the Secretary of State with a view towards coming back with an element of progress that I am sure everybody in the House wishes to see advanced.

I will take supplementaries from the Members present who tabled questions to which the Minister can give a composite response.

I thank the Minister for that update and also for raising the matter of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. While we have many issues to discuss with our British and European counterparts, it is important these items do not go off the agenda. I, too, along with my party leader, Deputy Micheál Martin, met James Brokenshire just over two weeks ago. We have restated to the British, as I am sure the Minister has, that there will be no parallel bilateral negotiations with Britain post the lodging of the Article 50 letter.

I also stated to James Brokenshire my party's belief, and that of the Dáil, that Northern Ireland should be afforded special status as part of any arrangement, that this should be the negotiating position of the Irish Government, and that the British Government should advocate for the same. The British have rejected that and, unfortunately, the Minister also rejected it. Following a vote on a Sinn Féin motion, however, which was amended by Fianna Fáil, supported by others and carried in the Dáil last week, has the Minister since advised the British of that Dáil vote and that it is the view of the majority of the Members of Dáil Éireann that, at the very least, our negotiation position should be that Northern Ireland should be afforded special status and that we advocate for the hundreds of thousands of Irish citizens who will remain outside the European Union post Brexit?

I am primarily interested in finding out if the Minister raised concerns over the British Government's approach to Brexit and how it will impact and potentially violate the Good Friday Agreement, particularly with the North being forced to leave the EU against the express wishes of its people, and that it will also represent a major setback for the political process in the North. While I am conscious that the Minister mentioned the needs of victims and referred to the three motions relating to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings that were passed in the Parliament, did he talk to the Secretary of State about his comments on the anniversary of Bloody Sunday when he sought to justify the impunity conferred on British state forces during the conflict and stated that investigations into the killings during the Troubles are disproportionately focusing on members of the police and army? Did the Minister outline that those remarks were completely unacceptable? Is he aware that members of those representing the victims of the McGurk's Bar bombing are in Leinster House today? Will he urgently raise this issue again with the British Government, given that it goes back decades?

I wish to follow up on the answers or non-answers by the Minister earlier to my raising of the issue of the Pitchford inquiry.

They were answers.

They were very evasive answers.

Cuir do cheist, a Theachta.

I will ask again what the Minister raised with the Secretary of State. He keeps saying he raised the concerns that we raised, but what concerns did he raise? I am not asking for him to repeat into the record the details or anything like that, but did he request the extension of the Pitchford inquiry to include Ireland? Did he ask or wonder about what on earth undercover British police officers were doing in this State? When I raised the question of the Minister making a statement on that, he suggested he had made a statement. I checked the website and, in the statement about the Minister's meeting, there is no reference to the British undercover police operation here or to the Pitchford inquiry. Therefore, has the Minister made a statement like the Taoiseach said he would make after that meeting?

I ask the Deputy to check the media sources because I certainly saw reaction in the media to comments that I made following the meeting. I do not have anything to add to the fact that I was asked to raise this issue, I did raise it, I raised the concern of the Deputy and I added to that my own concern.

I know this is an issue the Deputy has had ample opportunity in recent weeks to raise with the designated line Minister, my colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald. I can say to the House that my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, has raised this directly with her counterpart, the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd. If there are any further developments I would be happy to keep the Deputy fully informed.

Deputy Crowe raised an important point. I expressed my concern at the comments of the Secretary of State, James Brokenshire. I reaffirm to the House that I am committed to the architecture set out in the Stormont House Agreement, which provides the best framework for dealing comprehensively with the legacy of the past.

There are no amnesties for prosecution provided for in the Good Friday Agreement or in any other agreement, including the Stormont House Agreement. The Government would by no means look favourably on any proposal to introduce such a measure. The rule of law, including the requirement for effective investigations of unlawful killings, must be upheld by all responsible authorities.

Middle East Peace Process

Paul Murphy

Ceist:

29. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on the recent policy change by President Trump regarding the two-state solution in Israel and Palestine; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8762/17]

The previous US Government, in its last few months in office, agreed a new military deal with Israel worth €38 billion over ten years. Then President Trump came to office. Within days, the Israeli Government announced the construction of 2,500 new settler homes in the West Bank. Within a few weeks, Trump withdrew from the previous, at least verbal, support of the US for a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine. Is the Minister concerned about the impact of Trump's change of policy on the prospects for peace in the Middle East?

The two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and its Palestinian and Arab neighbours has been espoused by a consensus of the international community and supported by public opinion and responsible leaders in both Israeli and Palestinian society for many years. This support has been based on clear reasoning and analysis of the various options and alternatives, and these reasons remain valid, despite growing concerns about the possibility of achieving such a solution.

The inescapable fact is that a two-state outcome remains better than any other model that has been considered and is the only one which can deliver peace, security, freedom, justice and stability for the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.

An acceptable one-state outcome could only arise on the basis of full equality between all those living under its jurisdiction. Any belief that it will be possible instead to simply continue a version of the present occupation would be wholly unacceptable.

The recent remarks of President Trump have stepped back from the clear support for the two-state solution which previous US Presidents have given but without putting an alternative view in its place. The Administration has yet to enunciate a considered policy for the Middle East. I hope very much that when it does so, it will recognise the logic which has guided United States policy for many years.

The European Union has made clear that its support and advocacy for a two-state solution remain unaltered. The strong international consensus on this basis was expressed only last month at the Paris conference, which I attended, and in UN Security Council Resolution 2334 in December. We will continue to represent this view in our discussions with the new US Administration, both bilaterally and in the context of EU-US engagement, and to raise the issue at international forums such as the United Nations and the Quartet.

Does the Minister agree that the strategy of the Israeli right, which is clearly in power, is to invent facts? In 1977, 5,000 settlers lived in the West Bank. Now, however, 400,000 settlers live in the West Bank and 200,000 in east Jerusalem. There is an attempt to avoid any prospect of a viable Palestinian state and to undermine that prospect completely. This is now actively supported by the Israeli Government, as reflected in some of the laws it has passed. A one-state solution on the basis of the system of capitalism and imperialism would mean mass expulsions again from the historic Palestine area, a new Nakba and then, in reality, the imposition of an even more undemocratic apartheid construct within that one-state solution. However, this is what is now being driven by the Israeli elite, and Donald Trump has given it the green light with his comments that he can live with either a one-state or two-state solution.

The new US Administration of President Trump is very much in its infancy. It has not yet made clear its intentions on the matter of the Middle East peace process. There seems to be a degree of thinking aloud going on, which, in the circumstances, can hardly be regarded as greatly helpful. There are concerns in this regard. However, with every new US Administration, one must wait and see what it will actually do, what policies will be implemented and the manner in which this implementation will take place. To be fair, Secretary of State Tillerson has only just got his feet under his desk. There are, however, good reasons why the international community continues to be engaged in this issue. The international community has been strongly united in support of a two-state solution for many years. This support has been restated by the United Nations in Security Council Resolution 2334 and the declaration at the Paris conference. Deputy Paul Murphy makes an important point: those who doubt the feasibility of the two-state solution need to set out their own solution that provides dignity and freedom for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Trump's intentions are very clear from his statements about a one-state solution, his undertaking to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, his refusal to view Israeli settlements as an obstacle to peace and his decision to stop pressurising the Israeli Government to negotiate. This is in a context in which the number of demolitions of Palestinian homes in the West Bank is increasing yearly at an exponential rate - more than 1,000 last year versus just over 500 the previous year. The question is what the Irish Government will do about it. The Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, against what we think should happen, will meet Donald Trump on St. Patrick's Day. First, will he raise this issue then? Second, will the Irish Government fulfil its commitment in the programme for Government to a recognition of the Palestinian state? I agree that this would be symbolic. However, in this context, that symbolic value could be important.

Deputy Paul Murphy wants it both ways - he wants to have his cake and eat it. He has already stated on numerous occasions that he does not want Ireland to be represented on St. Patrick's Day-----

The Taoiseach is going to the US in any event.

-----at the White House. He is now producing a list of issues to be discussed in the event we are represented. On behalf of the Taoiseach, I assure the Deputy that he will fully air Ireland's interests across a range of issues. However, the United States makes its own decisions as it considers its options. We will be in a position to make our views known, with particular reference to the logic of the long-standing international position on this matter. At EU level, we will continue to be a strong voice on the issue, act nationally in our utterances and act together at every opportunity and at every level as a European Union in bilateral meetings, such as the one I had this morning with my French counterpart, at which this specific issue was discussed, and at international forums where Ireland is strongly represented in the United Nations. However, as far as we are concerned, the two-state solution is the only viable option.

Israeli Settlements

Eamon Ryan

Ceist:

30. Deputy Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will request the banning of trade from the EU with Israel in view of ongoing breaches of the Geneva Convention in the form of settlements which are illegal under international law. [8758/17]

Directly following on from Deputy Paul Murphy's question, I do not believe we can be seen as a strong voice when these settlement expansions are happening on an ongoing basis. I listened to the Minister's earlier answers on the same issue in which he said he does not want to make a symbolic gesture or take one measure or another. We are in effect taking no measures to stop what is clearly an illegal and unjust act. Where is our voice? We could have a voice if we made a strong stand and said we will not trade with Israel, which is what I am asking the Minister to consider with this question. However, the wider question is what we can do. If we are not going to take any options that are set out, how can the Minister say we have a strong voice when the illegal settlement patterns continue and, in fact, accelerate? This has happened for decades and nothing seems to be stopping it. How can it be stopped if the Minister does not take the kinds of actions I have asked for in our question?

The suggestion by the Deputy of trade sanctions against Israel is raised from time to time in this House. However, it is very clear that such a proposal would have no chance whatever of gaining any support, still less agreement, at EU level. Successive Ministers have stated this and, as Deputy Eamon Ryan will be well aware, this remains the case.

There are many countries around the world with which Ireland and our EU partners have serious human rights concerns. Trade with a country does not imply approval or support of its policies. Trade is not a reward for good behaviour; it is how our own people make their living and is crucial also to many ordinary people in the countries in question.

Our strong views and consistent opposition to the settlement project have been a key focus of my engagement on this conflict at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels.

I have pressed for a clear distinction in the European Union's relations with Israel and in the matter of relations between the European Union and the settlements. As has now been endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2334, the European Union has already taken various actions in this regard on which I have reported to the House and we will continue to consider what more can be done.

The Minister says we are interested and are trying to get support at EU level, that he will only do something if he gets that support and we cannot consider options unless we can be sure they will get over the line but he needs to answer my original question. Would he agree that all those measures are failing given what we have seen recently with the expansion of settlements and the expulsion of Palestinian people? Nothing is working to undo the fundamental injustice and the consequences across the region are huge. Rather than stabilising or improving, the position is getting worse. The consequences are even more serious with the possibility of an American Embassy opening in Jerusalem. At what point and in what way does he think we can change this development, which has severe consequences for the Palestinians and wider consequences, if we do not recognise that what is being attempted is not working and something more is needed? What is the Minister's plan to break that pattern?

There are several issues on which we can continue to engage but working with our partners in the EU is the most direct and important way to exercise real and lasting influence. The EU has taken several actions to differentiate clearly between Israel and the illegal Israeli settlements. I point to a ban on EU research funding going to settlements, to not accepting Israeli certification for meat from settlements, to advising against investing in settlements and to requiring accurate labelling of settlement goods. Moreover, other actions continue to be considered on an ongoing basis. We are also considering what steps to take about demolition of EU-funded structures in the West Bank. In many of these areas, Ireland continues to argue for an even stronger response. Our partners do not always all agree, as is the case in all negotiations. We also support local Israeli and Palestinian non-government organisations, NGOs, which seek to advance human rights, justice and stability on the ground in very challenging circumstances.

One further measure that has been promoted is a ban not on all goods from Israel but on those coming directly from the settlements. In his talks with the French Foreign Minister yesterday and with his German colleagues later today, did and will the Minister ask for a ban on specific products coming from the settlement territories in Israel? Has he made any progress on that and what does he think the chances are of such a selective, targeted ban on trade being agreed by our EU colleagues?

I have to be frank and say no, I do not envisage a situation in the near future where the EU will introduce the type of ban the Deputy speaks about. It is not possible to reach agreement on that. There are other areas upon which we can reach agreement with particular reference to the settlements. We will continue to engage at EU and international conference level, and I refer to the Paris initiative, as well as in our relations with the United States and other actors.

Undocumented Irish in the USA

Darragh O'Brien

Ceist:

31. Deputy Darragh O'Brien asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he raised the issue of the undocumented Irish during his recent visit to Washington; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8549/17]

Robert Troy

Ceist:

40. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the negotiations he had with the new Administration in the White House to try to regularise the position regarding the undocumented Irish. [8707/17]

Charlie McConalogue

Ceist:

41. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will report on his discussions with US officials on immigration reform and in particular the plight of undocumented Irish citizens in the United States of America; his plans to meet US officials in the near future to discuss this further; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8522/17]

Paul Murphy

Ceist:

58. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on the immigration policies of President Trump; his further views on policies that discriminate on the basis of religion and block access to asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8763/17]

Catherine Connolly

Ceist:

61. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he raised the matter of the executive order banning citizens from seven countries from entering the USA during his recent visit there; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8816/17]

Will the Minister report on his recent visit to Washington, D.C. and his discussions on the fate of the undocumented Irish? What issues or measures did he raise with his counterparts in America? Can he report any progress in that regard with the new Administration?

I propose to take Questions Nos. 31, 40, 41, 58 and 61 together.

As I made clear in my statement of 29 January 2017 concerning the executive order signed by President Trump on 27 January last, while US immigration policy is a matter for the US authorities, it is clear that this decision could have far-reaching implications – both on humanitarian grounds and on relations between the US and the global Muslim community. Accordingly, I share the concerns expressed by other EU partners regarding this development.

I have noted the clarification issued by the Embassy of the United States in Dublin on 31 January 2017 to the effect that the executive order in question does not restrict the travel of dual nationals to the United States, so long as they hold the passport of an unrestricted country and possess a valid US visa, if required. The US courts have since intervened and imposed a suspension on the implementation of the executive order.

Both the executive order of 27 January and the question of immigration reform in the United States were high on the agenda for my visit to Washington, D.C. from 31 January to 2 February last. I had a number of engagements with the Administration and congressional leaders, including the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, the House Majority Leader and the House Minority Leader among others.

In my meetings with congressional leaders, as well as with the now former US National Security Adviser, General Flynn, I expressed Ireland's deep concerns with regard to the nature and impact of the executive order of 27 January. In response, General Flynn outlined to me the rationale in terms of US immigration policy for these temporary measures while I pointed out their damaging consequences in humanitarian terms, as well as for the international reputation of the United States.

Achieving relief for the undocumented Irish citizens in the US and securing greater legal pathways for migration to the US remain key objectives for the Government. These priorities featured in all of my meetings in Washington D.C., including with General Flynn, Speaker Ryan and other congressional leaders.

Both the Administration and Members of Congress are fully aware of the importance of this issue for Ireland and appreciate our strong and continuing interest in securing immigration reform. The Taoiseach's forthcoming visit to Washington, D.C. for St. Patrick's Day, which is now widely welcomed in the House, will provide a key opportunity to raise the issue of immigration reform, especially the plight of our undocumented, directly with the US Administration at the highest level.

During my visit, I also met members of the Irish community in Washington, D.C. and reassured them as to the Government's commitment to immigration reform. I emphasised that while the political context in Washington may have changed, the Government's objectives remain constant, namely, relief for the undocumented and finding greater pathways for legal migration to the United States of America. I noted that we can only advance these objectives if we engage fully and articulate our views with the key decision makers in the Administration and in Congress. In addition to these contacts at political level, the embassy in Washington and our consulates across the United States continue to work with Irish immigration centres on a daily basis in providing support to Irish citizens in the US.

Our ambassador to the US held a workshop with key immigration stakeholders in the Irish community, from across the United States at the embassy on 12 January last. Ambassador Anderson and her team remain fully engaged. The Government and my Department are committed to providing practical support to undocumented Irish citizens in the US while also continuing to advocate for immigration reform. I acknowledge the work, commitment and engagement at every level of my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy McHugh, who is today on diaspora duties outside the jurisdiction.

I thank the Minister for that outline. For the purpose of the discussions the Taoiseach will have with President Trump, is the Minister exploring other options? The Obama plan for overall immigration reform is dead in the water under the new Administration and we cannot wait for a change in administration to find a new tack. Might there be reciprocal visa arrangements such as a bilateral arrangement between Ireland and the United States similar to that in place between Australia and the United States whereby the undocumented Irish could apply for some kind of temporary legal status?

The fact they are undocumented or illegal in America would not preclude them from applying. Are we looking at reciprocal visa arrangements or are we waiting for overall immigration reform in the United States? I put it to the Minister that we should move ahead with a specific bilateral deal with the US, or at least the possibility of such a deal.

My question was more general and was on whether the Minister raised the executive order banning people from seven countries, which has since been suspended. My serious concern is that the message the Minister is taking from this Dáil is that we welcome the forthcoming visit to America. While I believe the Taoiseach should go to America, I suggest he should carry with him the strong voice of this Dáil, which does not agree with what President Trump is saying. A report produced by Amnesty International refers specifically to the politics of demonisation, which shamefully peddles a dangerous idea that some people are less human than others and thereby strips away the humanity of entire groups of people. While the undocumented Irish are extremely important and near to my heart - I welcome the questions about them - the importance of this issue and this policy extends beyond Irish people in America and goes to the heart of what we want the Taoiseach to tell President Trump. It is simply not acceptable to ban people based on race, religion or a decision made on a whim by an American President. Since the suspension of the initial order, the US Administration has brought in a new executive order, which is equally worrying in respect of the undocumented Irish and all the other undocumented people in America. The Minister should familiarise himself with it. I would appreciate it if he could address the matters I have raised.

As we are unlikely to reach Question No. 32 in the name of Deputy Smyth, I will allow her to ask the Minister a question about the undocumented at this point.

My question does not relate to the undocumented. I was hoping to raise a different topic.

I assure Deputy Darragh O'Brien that the Government continues to offer active and comprehensive support to Irish communities abroad, particularly in the United States of America, where many emigrant support groups provide assistance to the large Irish community there. Issues relating to Irish people who are undocumented and whose status has not been regularised feature strongly in our emigrant support programme. We fund several organisations that provide a range of services in the US. I acknowledge the recent changes in respect of the J1 visa programme, which has been tremendously successful and has formed a strong basis of our relationship with US Administrations over the past 50 years. Almost 150,000 Irish third-level students and young people have participated in the programme over the years. Following an announcement that was made last week, an additional 2,600 J1 places will be made available this year. I have discussed at the highest level the need to explore a number of pathways and options that may be available to secure relief for the up to 50,000 undocumented Irish people in the US. It is important that every avenue and every opportunity is pursued. My understanding is that there may well be an initiative in the US towards the end of this year. That depends on scheduling and the speed with which legislation goes through the Houses of Congress. We have some direct experience of that here.

The answer to Deputy Connolly's question is "Yes". I availed of the opportunity to express the deep concern of the Irish Government and the Irish people with regard to the nature and impact of the executive order of 27 January. I assure the Deputy this issue was an agenda item at almost every meeting I attended. I gave a clear picture of this country's concerns regarding the executive order at a number of my engagements by pointing out its damaging humanitarian consequences and its damaging effect on the international reputation of the US itself.

I apologise to those whose questions could not be taken, particularly Deputy Smyth, who waited patiently all day. It is hoped that her question will be given a higher position in the lottery the next time.

Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.
Barr
Roinn