Vol. 952 No. 3
51. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and at European Union level in relation to ensuring that there will be no return to the Border of the past following Brexit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25601/17]
60. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the discussions he has had to date with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and at European Union level in relation to ensuring that cross-Border travel is fully maintained following Brexit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25602/17]
I understand the Minister is taking Questions Nos. 51 and 60 together.
Since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement there has been enormous progress on this island which has been particularly beneficial for Border communities. The people whom I have the privilege of representing in two of the southern Ulster counties will not countenance a return to the imposition of the restrictions we had in the past on the movement of people, goods or services. Has the Minister had any contact or discussions with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland since the commencement of the British general election campaign? The Secretary of State is in the very fine position in political life of having a safe majority of 16,000 so he is not under considerable pressure during an election campaign. I hope that he has been giving some time to the urgent need to have the Northern Ireland institutions restored and also to have ongoing contact and work done in the context of Brexit and particularly as it will affect our island.
I have spoken directly with the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. James Brokenshire, since the campaign in the UK commenced some weeks ago. I assure the Deputy and the House that the avoidance of a hard Border on the island of Ireland and the maintenance of the common travel area are at the core of the Government’s priorities in the EU-UK negotiations. As a symbol of and a dividend from the peace process, an open Border is essential to the social and economic fabric on the island and to the continuing normalisation of relationships that has been facilitated by the Good Friday Agreement. The Government is clear that the withdrawal agreement should create no impediment to the free movement of people on the island and should create no circumstance where the normalisation of peoples' lives that has accompanied the peace process is undermined.
The avoidance of a hard Border on the island of Ireland is a shared objective of the Irish and British Governments and our EU partners. This has been confirmed by Secretary of State Brokenshire and British Prime Minister May on her visit to Dublin earlier this year. It has also been confirmed by the European Council. The EU negotiation guidelines contain a very strong acknowledgement of Ireland’s unique circumstances, including the need to avoid a hard Border on the island of Ireland. The negotiating directives for the task force, adopted by the General Affairs Council on 22 May, fully reflect this acknowledgement. The European Parliament has also recognised the need to avoid a hard Border on the island of Ireland in a resolution supported by virtually all the main European political groups.
The UK Government notification letter, which formally triggered Article 50, placed a strong emphasis on the "unique relationship" between these two islands. The letter confirmed that the UK Government wishes to avoid a return to a hard Border, to maintain the common travel area and to uphold the Good Friday Agreement.
As laid out in the negotiating guidelines, the avoidance of a hard Border will require flexibility and creativity on the part of both the United Kingdom and the European Union. Ireland has made clear its expectation that there will need to be a political solution and not just a legal or a technical solution, given this represents a unique and unprecedented set of circumstances.
Achieving this objective will not be easy and compromises will be required by both the UK and the European Union, in order to find a solution that realises the shared objective of avoiding a hard Border, and one which protects Ireland’s obligations, interests and advantages as a continuing and committed member of the EU 27.
The maintenance of the common travel area following the UK withdrawal from the EU is a priority for both the Irish and UK Governments. The common travel area predates Irish and UK membership of the European Union and is not dependent on EU membership. The common travel area is particularly important in underpinning the Northern Ireland peace process and relations on the island of Ireland, and it has been acknowledged by our EU partners in the negotiation guidelines and directives.
As part of my engagement with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland during the discussions following the Assembly elections, I strongly emphasised the critical importance of forming a new Executive so that Northern Ireland's interests can be effectively represented as part of the process of the EU-UK negotiations. Additionally, I have been in frequent contact with all my EU counterparts, including my British counterparts, approaching 80 engagements over the past ten months.
In the negotiations, which will commence after the British general election, the Government will pursue an outcome that protects our headline priorities and Ireland’s fundamental interests, including avoidance of a hard Border and the maintenance of the common travel area. We are not under any illusions about the challenge and complexity of these negotiations and have engaged in detailed and ongoing planning in order to prepare for them.
As the Deputy represents a Border area, I assure the House that whether before the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence or in the course of plenary session of the House, I at all times welcome the observations of Deputy Smith on issues concerning the Border area. I look forward to the House fully engaging once the negotiations commence.
I thank the Minister for his detailed reply and I welcome his strong statements. I do not for one second doubt the Minister's absolute commitment and hard work in this area. I sincerely hope that work will continue into the future. The Minister basically outlined again what we discussed at our meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence last week and we will have another meeting during the course of next month specifically devoted to Brexit. That is very important.
Apart from that, there have been some unwelcome developments over the past few weeks from the Conservative Party in Britain. It has made several statements that, while not directly challenging the common travel area by name, undermine it by implication. I refer to a tweet from the Conservative Party that states "Brexit gives us an opportunity to get control of our borders but only if we get the negotiations right.". Broad and sweeping statements like this from the Tories are sending mixed signals, as many commentators see a clear and glaring conflict between the absolute commitment to "control our borders" while also supporting the common travel area, as EU citizens have the right to travel to Ireland. What is worrying is that the Secretary of State's party - the Tory Party - is more firmly committed to controlling the borders than positively maintaining the common travel area in its current operations. The Minister knows that with the common travel area we have heard references from British Government Ministers and others to keep it "as frictionless as possible" with "no return to borders of the past". Has the Secretary of State or the British Head of Government given to the Minister or the Taoiseach any indication of what is meant by those phrases?
Avoiding a hard Border on the island of Ireland, with the protection of the Good Friday Agreement in its entirety, remains an absolute priority for this Government. This is a position that has been well heard and is well understood right across the European Union. I am pleased to say it has been expressly reflected in the negotiating guidelines. As set out in the guidelines, imaginative and flexible solutions will be required. Our absolute priority and preference is to maintain the closest possible trading relationship, based on a level playing field, between the UK and the European Union, including Ireland. There is much negotiation yet to be done around trading arrangements, and by extension, any customs regime that might apply.
It is premature to set out detailed possible solutions, in particular when the negotiations have yet to properly begin. However, it is important that technical solutions do not anticipate or drive outcomes at political level. I agree with Deputy Smith. There has been an extensive level of engagement with and by our EU partners to understand this issue. Ireland will continue to work with the task force and our EU partners to find solutions in line with our commitment to the integrity of the Single Market but the UK has its own responsibilities. It will need to show with its actions the commitment to the stated objective of protecting the gains of the Good Friday Agreement and avoiding a hard Border.
I thank the Minister. The Tory manifesto put before the electorate contains a rather vague commitment with respect to the Northern Ireland position. It states: "As we leave the European Union, we recognise Northern Ireland's unique circumstances and will seek to ensure that Northern Ireland's interests are protected." The phrase "will seek to" does not reassure any of us, and I am sure it does not reassure the Minister. The Minister may not have had the opportunity to ask the Secretary of State what his party and Government mean by that phrase. I suggest to the Minister that with the negotiations taking place with the new British Government, the Irish people would want to know as soon as possible what is meant by "as frictionless" a Border as possible and the meaning of "no return to the borders of the past". Will the Minister ensure that at an early stage in the negotiations with the new British Government, he will be able to give the people I represent and all those on this island a commitment that there will be no return or impediments in any way for people travelling North or South or anywhere within the island following Brexit? We need a clear message for the people of this island that there will be no countenance of a return to the impositions on travel, whether affecting people, goods or services.
I agree with the Deputy on the need to ensure we can maintain the open Border and the bilateral arrangement of many years standing, the common travel area, in the context of the negotiations. In this regard, let me repeat that Ireland, in conjunction with and as a member of the EU 27, is pleased so far that our EU colleagues have recognised fully the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland.
However, as I said earlier, the UK also has its responsibilities and will need to come to the table with an open mind and show by its actions its commitment to its stated objective of protecting the gains of the Good Friday Agreement and the maintenance of an open Border. It is premature to begin setting out in detail possible solutions. I expect the negotiations will commence shortly after the conclusion of the British general election on 8 June. Ireland will work with the task force and our EU partners to find solutions in line with our commitment to the integrity of the Single Market, our priorities being the maintenance of the open Border and the full protection of the common travel area in line with our commitments, obligations and duties under the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent agreements.
I very much welcome the Minister's statement that the British Government will have to show its commitment early on. That is the message we need to get out to the electorate here, that our Government and its European counterparts will ensure we will not have meaningless phrases from the Head of the British Government or other members of that Government or at official level. This is the last Question Time we will have before the British general election and the resumption of talks on the need to have the Northern Ireland institutions restored. There is a huge urgency, as we all know, in ensuring that the Northern Ireland institutions are restored. They are critical to ensure we have the outcome to the Brexit negotiations that we all want and to try to limit the damage as much as possible to all of this island. I appeal to the Minister again to ensure that at Government level, after the formation of the new British Government, he repeats again the need for the British Government to show its commitment early on and to show clarity regarding what it would see as the arrangements that will exist between this island and Britain post-2019.
The Deputy raises two issues. First, regarding the Northern Ireland Executive, on behalf of the Irish Government, I look forward to being in Stormont on or around Monday, 12 June, in order to ensure there will be an appropriate level of momentum in the talks. There has not been a functioning executive in Northern Ireland this year. I believe it is long overdue and I believe there is a role and function particularly for the parties that have been elected to the Assembly to ensure we have a full work-out of the institutions. I believe that with the appropriate level of political will, that can happen before the statutory deadline of 29 June.
Regarding the second point, I reassure Deputy Smith that the Government has made clear our commitment to minimise the impact of Brexit on the Border region in particular. I do not accept what the British Prime Minister repeated again last night, that no deal is better than a bad deal. I believe it is fundamental to the process that both the European Union, of which Ireland will continue to be a member, and the UK negotiating team come to the table in a spirit of goodwill in order to do a deal. We are committed to ensuring that there will be no impediment to movement on the island of Ireland and that the withdrawal agreement will in no way create circumstances which will undermine the peace process and the normalisation it has brought to people's lives, as the Deputies, particularly those from the Cavan-Monaghan constituency, will be aware.
53. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will report on his recent meeting with his EU counterparts to agree a detailed mandate for the opening of negotiations with the UK; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25643/17]
67. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the extent to which he and his colleagues have impressed upon all the authorities at EU level, those directly involved in negotiations and otherwise, the absolute necessity to ensure that Ireland's position as a committed member of the European Union does not become in any way diluted by idle speculation which could undermine the strength of Ireland's position in the context of the Brexit negotiations; if the objective of an all-island customs market remains central to the negotiations; his views that, far from being in a weakened position in the context of ongoing talks, Ireland's position as a committed member of the European Union will continue to prevail to ensure that Ireland's access to EU and UK markets is not in any way diminished; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25605/17]
Will the Minister update us on the Brexit negotiations? I also wish to ask a question about a matter of fact. When the final decision regarding Brexit comes to be made, will it be made by qualified majority voting, QMV, or will Ireland have, as some have suggested, a veto on the final decision?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 53 and 67 together.
I thank the Deputy for her question. I reiterate the points I made in response to the previous question asked by Deputy Smith. My expectation is that these negotiations will commence in June. It is absolutely essential that both parties - the EU, including Ireland, and the UK - address these negotiations in a spirit of compromise but also of goodwill and constructive engagement. The negotiating guidelines make reference to Gibraltar within the context of the framework of the future EU-UK relationship, which is the subject of a separate negotiation. This is entirely distinct and separate from the Irish Government's priority, which is to ensure that the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, including the Good Friday Agreement, are recognised. The Good Friday Agreement is an internationally recognised treaty registered with the United Nations, and this is a key distinguishing factor of our unique position in Ireland. It is important to note that any future trade deal between the European Union and the UK is likely to have to be ratified by national parliaments as well as the EU institutions. This is where the European Parliament has a role to play along with the leading role of the EU Council, comprising the heads of state or government of the member states. It is important to note that these negotiations will not be concluded in their entirety until such time as there is a trade deal between the European Union and the UK. Any trade deal will, in all likelihood, have to be ratified by national parliaments, including Ireland's.
I asked the Minister specifically about the final Council decision of the heads of government of the EU. Will the decision be made by QMV or by individual countries having the right to exercise a veto?
My understanding is that the negotiations will be concluded. At this stage it is too early to speculate on any detail of the negotiations, but I encourage the European Union, including Ireland, to approach these negotiations with a view towards concluding a deal. Our wish and priority is that there will be as close as possible a relationship, ultimately, between the departing UK as a former member of the European Union and the remaining EU 27. This is why I do not agree with or subscribe to the view that no deal is better than a bad deal. I believe it is important that everyone approach these negotiations with a view towards reaching a deal in what will be a very difficult and challenging environment. No EU member has ever left the Union, which is why detailed negotiations over a period of two years or more need to be approached in as constructive a way as possible in order ultimately to give rise to an agreement on the part of EU heads of state and government which will be ratified by the European Parliament.
In the event that the final deal has elements which are unfavourable to, unacceptable to or difficult for Ireland, is the Minister suggesting Ireland will have a veto on the deal? It is a factual question about the rules regarding the final, final negotiation when the UK chooses to leave. This is important in the context of recent statements - as recently as last night - by the British Prime Minister that no deal and a simple exit would be better than a bad Brexit. This has profound implications. In a certain sense, I do not think we wish to see this happen. We do not wish to see Britain leave the EU at all, but Britain seems set on its particular course, and last night the Prime Minister reiterated again, admittedly in the context of a general election, that no deal is better than a bad deal. Therefore, when it comes to the final, final stage, which we have been told many times by the Taoiseach will be for the heads of state after all the different institutions and so on have had their say and their participation, will the decision be made by qualified majority voting, as has been suggested, or will Ireland as a country have a veto?
From an Irish perspective, as I have said we have been particularly clear that we are commencing these negotiations with our EU colleagues from a position of strength on the side of the EU 27. This provides us with the best opportunity to pursue our priorities.
Is there a veto or-----
I listened carefully to what the British Prime Minister said and I do not believe there are any circumstances in which walking away from the negotiating table or commencing negotiations in a way that can be seen as wholly negative is, in the circumstances, helpful. Any form of side negotiations between Ireland and the UK or any bilateral arrangements would, given the circumstances, be unhelpful. We are firmly on the side of the solidarity and support we have received from our EU partners. We are approaching the negotiations in a positive frame of mind and urge the United Kingdom to do so in a similar fashion.
54. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if his attention has been drawn to the European Commission's efforts to renegotiate a new protocol with Morocco; and the safeguards that the Government will require from the European Commission to ensure the negotiations are in full conformity with the European Court of Justice ruling of 21 December 2016 in Polisario v. Council, notably in terms of consent in order to avoid a costly and lengthy legal proceedings that the Polisario Front would undoubtedly relaunch. [25633/17]
As the Minister knows, I am extremely concerned about the efforts of the EU Commission to renegotiate or rebrand an adaption of the protocols of association agreement between the EU and Morocco. I am trying to find out the safeguards the Irish Government will require from the European Commission to ensure that negotiations are in full conformity with the ruling of the European Court of Justice on 21 December. What different approach will the Government be taking?
Ireland has taken careful note of the decision of the Court of Justice of 21 December 2016, in which it set aside the decision of the General Court to annul the EU-Morocco agricultural deal. The judgment upheld the validity of the EU association agreement with Morocco, but stipulated that it does not apply to the territory of Western Sahara.
Ireland has a long-standing position in support of the right to self-determination of the people of Western Sahara.
As a matter of practicality, almost all goods from Western Sahara are likely to be exported to, or via, Morocco. It would not be in the interests of the farmers, fishermen and other producers of Western Sahara wishing to sell their goods abroad if they were to be prevented from doing so due to the territory’s disputed status. However, the court has made clear that in order for the association agreement and related protocols to apply to Western Sahara, the consent of the people of Western Sahara will first be required.
The possible renegotiation of the association agreement, or modification of its protocols to provide for treatment of goods coming from Western Sahara, is currently under discussion at EU level.
Given the circumstances, this is obviously a complex issue which will involve finding a way of reconciling practical issues such as certifying the origin of goods and the monitoring of implementation, with matters of principle relating to the consent of the people of Western Sahara.
Any agreement entered into by the EU will have to be consistent with EU law, including the court’s judgment of 21 December 2016.
The Minister might remember that when the agreement was going through the House I raised concerns in respect of this matter at the time. People said it was not a concern at all and so on. Clearly, the European Court of Justice has difficulties with the agreement. It involves the issue of consent. My concern is that unless we talk to those who represent the people of Western Sahara we will be going down the same road. My concern is that the Commission is trying to rebrand the same agreement.
Can the Minister confirm that the Government will block any attempts by the European Commission to negotiate exclusively with Morocco and ignore the only legitimate and UN recognised representatives of the people of Western Sahara, namely, the Polisario Front? It seems obvious to me that the EU and the European Commission must speak to the Polisario Front urgently in order to find a viable solution and address the status of European companies and goods exported from Western Sahara. What different approach will Ireland be taking following the European Court of Justice judgment?
Ireland considers Western Sahara to be a non-self-governing territory. Ireland, as I have said, supports the right of self-determination of the people of Western Sahara. We do not have a view on the outcome of the court's decision, be it independence, integration, autonomy or some other legal or constitutional framework, as long as it is decided in what must be a genuine exercise in self-determination.
We have taken careful note of the court's decision of last December which upheld the validity of the EU's association agreement with Morocco. It stipulated that it does not apply to the territory of Western Sahara. Ireland, as the Deputy will be aware, has a long-standing position in support of the right of self-determination of the people of Western Sahara.
These are complex issues and a resolution will take some time. For example, the agreement on agricultural products was negotiated and agreed in the agriculture working group at the Agriculture Council. That was within the framework of the EU-Morocco association agreement that entered into force some 17 years ago. It was ratified by all EU member states, including Ireland. I wish to assure the Deputy that Ireland will continue to express an interest in this area and, ultimately, the issue will be a matter for the people of Western Sahara.
It will come down to a referendum. Would the Minister not accept that it is completely unacceptable that the Moroccans continue to export products from Western Sahara into the EU, as they did before the ruling of the European Court of Justice?
There are two cases pending before the European Court of Justice regarding the EU-Morocco fisheries partnership agreement. The agreement secures EU fishing rights in Moroccan and Western Saharan waters in exchange for Morocco receiving €40 million annually, nearly half of which was supposed to be spent on developing the fishing industry in Morocco.
The EU approved funding of specific projects, including projects in Western Sahara. This means that Brussels is directly assisting the Moroccan Government in developing its infrastructure in a territory that, according to the European Court of Justice, lies outside of Morocco's internationally recognised borders. Would the Minister not agree that this is wrong and should stop?
Any possible renegotiation of the association agreement or any modification of its proposals or protocols to provide for the treatment of goods coming from Western Sahara is currently under discussion at the European Union level. The question of the consent of the people of Western Sahara is forming part of these discussions. The manner in which this can be done ultimately remains to be seen. I agree with the Deputy that it goes the heart of the issue. Ireland will not be silent on this matter.
52. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the position regarding a person (details supplied) currently detained in Egypt awaiting a trial. [25656/17]
55. Deputy Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the correspondence he has had with Greek and other European Governments in regard to EU monitoring of the case of a person (details supplied) within the Egyptian court system. [25609/17]
I do not believe we are doing enough to secure the release of Ibrahim Halawa, who has been in court on 24 occasions without his trial finishing. One of the key moves we could make is to get our European Union colleagues to start monitoring his case and show a real interest in it. We made that case to the European delegation when we were in Cairo. We were led to understand that one or two countries, in particular Greece, were against such a move. What has the Minister done to get our European colleagues to agree to monitor the case, which is one of the levers we have to try to change the situation which is intolerable?
This matter was raised on the Order of Business today. I wish to assure Deputy Ryan that this remains a priority consular case in my Department. We are now running at just under 3,000 consular cases per annum. I can say without a shadow of doubt or fear of contradiction that this is the case that is receiving the most priority in terms of resources and interest.
I am very concerned about the ongoing situation. Since the last adjournment of the case, I have had the opportunity to raise the issue directly with a number of my EU colleagues in Brussels, in particular the High Representative and Foreign Affairs Council Chair, Federica Mogherini. I have raised this issue consistently with her over the past number of years and I know she has raised the issue directly with the Egyptian Government.
I also raised the issue as recently as last Monday week with a number of EU Foreign Ministers, in particular my colleague, Mr. Jean Asselborn, the Foreign Minister of Luxembourg and dean, or senior member, of the Foreign Affairs Council. I have also had the opportunity on a number of recent occasions to raise the issue with senior Members of the European Parliament which has adopted a resolution on this matter.
I am very concerned at the delay in bringing this trial to a conclusion. I acknowledge, however, that there was an element of progress at the last two hearings. Witnesses are being called, evidence is being heard and the case is proceeding. I regret that the next return date is not until July but I note that courts do not sit in Egypt during the Ramadan period. I look forward to an early conclusion of the case and assure the Deputy that I remain very active in relation to it.
I am afraid the Minister's activity is not working. Something needs to change. While the Minister says there has at least been some progress, there is no sign of this court case coming to an end. It is a mass trial of 480 people, including one European citizen from this State. Why is the European Commission delegation in Cairo not monitoring the case given that this is a European citizen? What has the Minister done specifically to change that so European Union monitoring takes place and the Egyptian Government knows that it is not just the Irish Government but the whole European Union which finds this situation intolerable? What has the Minister done to get EU monitoring of the case and why has it not happened? Our parliamentary delegation to Cairo could not have made it more plain to the European Commission that we wanted that monitoring to happen. It was one of the most heightened exchanges of our visit but nothing has happened since. What is the Minister going to do to effect that one lever over which we at least have some control rather than to say there is some progress and that some witnesses have been heard? Why is the European Union not in that court to see what is going on and to represent the European and Irish citizen in the case?
It is regrettable that Deputy Ryan does not acknowledge the fact that there has been an element of momentum in recent times in this case. The trial is proceeding. I regret, however, that it has not yet concluded. I assure the Deputy that the European Union has been a strong ally of Ireland on this matter. I refer to my representations to Federica Mogherini and her role, in particular, as well as that of her colleagues in the Commission who have advocated strongly and consistently on our behalf with the Egyptian Government.
We have been pursuing the question of EU trial monitoring at local level in Cairo. This requires consensus among all member states represented in Egypt. I admit that such consensus does not exist currently but we are continuing to follow up actively on the matter. We have made representations to a number of EU member state governments and continue to work to achieve a consensus on the issue. As the Deputy will be aware and as I assure him again, this is the No. 1 priority consular case in my Department. We will continue to actively engage on the issue until such time as our Irish citizen is released and home with his family to resume his studies here in the city of Dublin.
Does the Minister believe he will have a European Commission delegate at the next hearing to monitor the case? He has not answered the question. I may be wrong and I do not want to defame any particular country, but I understand that one of the obstacles to consensus is opposition from the Greek Government to such monitoring. Whatever about the Minister's meetings with Madame Mogherini and the Luxembourg Foreign Minister, what specific communication has he had with the Greek Government to overcome that key blockage to get EU monitoring of the case and increase the pressure on the Egyptian judicial system? Surely, we have the right to do that at this stage because our European citizen is stuck for the 24th time going to court without any case being heard or concluded in a mass trial of 480 people. What specifically has the Minister done with the Greek Government to overcome that block and does he believe there will be European monitoring of the case when it returns in July?
It is my hope that we will be in a position to have EU monitoring. I assure the Deputy in the meantime, however, the Irish Government and our representative in Cairo continue to be actively engaged and to attend at each and every one of the hearings to date. While we await the conclusion of the trial, I assure the House that every effort is being made to secure the health and welfare of our citizen while he remains on remand. The Government's strategy is under continuous review. We have engaged in continuous and constant consultation with the family of Ibrahim Halawa, the lawyers acting on his behalf here in Ireland and in Egypt, experts from civil society and NGOs which have shown an interest in the case. As I have said before, if any Member of the House believes he or she can be of any assistance, I am happy to speak to him or her. My officials have offered to brief any Member who wishes to discuss the case.
This is an extremely complex case as the Deputy will have seen on his visit to Cairo. This is not something which can be dealt with satisfactorily, positively or conclusively by, as has rather glibly been said, lifting the phone. This complex case is receiving very significant attention and resources in my Department. Resources have also been applied from the Department of the Taoiseach and members of the Government will continue to actively engage until the matter is finally dealt with.
56. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the details of the State's humanitarian response to the unfolding famine in east Africa and the measures being taken to help prevent its escalation with millions more persons at threat of starvation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25640/17]
My question relates to the current humanitarian and political crisis in the Horn of Africa where famine threatens in Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya and South Sudan. What measures is the State taking diplomatically and in the provision of humanitarian assistance to deal with that?
The Government is strongly committed to responding to the unprecedented humanitarian needs in east Africa, in particular in the Horn of Africa. Conflict, drought, severe food insecurity and now famine are causing massive population displacements and suffering throughout the region.
As a consequence, the humanitarian situation is continuing to deteriorate and 5 million people are classified as severely food insecure in South Sudan. Famine is affecting 100,000 people in parts of the country and a further 1 million people are now on the brink of famine. In Somalia, 3.2 million people are in crisis and the risk of famine remains extremely high. Over 10 million people in Ethiopia and Kenya are also now facing an acute hunger crisis.
As such, the continued provision of timely humanitarian assistance to avert a catastrophe in the region is essential. Through the Irish Aid programme, Ireland has provided €120 million in humanitarian assistance in the Horn region since 2012, including €29 million in 2016 and €17 million so far this year. Our assistance is supporting our UN and NGO partners in their responses with a focus on providing food assistance, treating malnutrition, providing shelter and protection for displaced people, and providing emergency services in water, sanitation and health care.
Last month, we airlifted over 100 tonnes of emergency relief supplies to Somalia while earlier this month a further 34 tonnes were airlifted to South Sudan for distribution to displaced families. We will continue to monitor this ongoing crisis closely and to provide additional life-saving humanitarian assistance to those most in need.
I commend Irish Aid on the work it is doing and has consistently done to address the humanitarian crisis in the region. It is of vital importance. Is the Minister aware also of the unfolding political crisis and the impact it is having on aid agencies? Aid agencies are now being targeted by some of the political actors in the region which is making it very difficult to carry out humanitarian work.
With the humanitarian crisis, there is breakdown in civil society and some of the official and unofficial bodies in the region are acting against the humanitarian agencies. We have embassies in Ethiopia and Kenya. What are we doing on the diplomatic front to try to ensure respect is given to aid agencies to allow them assist people without fear of attack?
This is an area of severe and consistent challenge, where there is severe drought following poor rainfall over the past two years. This is coupled with conflict and violence, as the Deputy has said, with particular reference to Al-Shabaab's insurgency. Inter-clan fighting has led to a very worrying deteriorating situation in Somalia and other countries in the region. Ireland's response is, in the main, by way of humanitarian assistance. This is delivered on the ground by our partners, in particular the UN Refugee Agency and the World Food Programme. Recently, I had the opportunity to visit the programme's headquarters in Rome, where I saw the great work done by everybody there, in particular scores of young Irish participants. I acknowledge the work of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the UN Children's Fund, the International Red Cross, the International Red Crescent and non-governmental organisations, in particular, Concern, Trócaire, Oxfam Ireland, World Vision Ireland, Plan Ireland and Christian Aid. These NGOs have the experience and capacity to deliver assistance to the most vulnerable of communities. Our partners, in particular, the International Committee of the Red Cross, are best placed to provide assistance in conflict situations and gain access to areas where other organisations are unable to operate, such as Syria, Iraq and South Sudan. I share the Deputy's concern. This is a real and serious challenge.
The Minister has outlined very comprehensively the humanitarian work being done, but there also needs to be diplomatic work and political intervention, perhaps in South Sudan where the civil war is ongoing and in northern Kenya, to ensure humanitarian workers do not become targets themselves and ensure they can deliver humanitarian aid because this is becoming a very real concern. It is unusual that they are becoming targets and this needs diplomatic intervention.
I do not disagree with what the Deputy has said. In the course of my earlier responses, I dwelt, in particular, on the humanitarian aid and assistance to which Ireland has been to the fore in contributing. We are very concerned about the unprecedented level of humanitarian need globally and the deteriorating humanitarian situation in many parts of the world. In respect of assistance towards the resolution of conflict, the international community, including the European Union, continues to strongly support the peaceful resolution of conflicts in the region. Those with influence on warring parties must bring it to bear on those involved in conflict and those in search of peace because without peace needs will continue to rise and millions more will suffer from acute hunger and famine. In addition to seeking political solutions, we must also urge respect for international humanitarian law so in the interim period humanitarian assistance can reach those in need. We must urgently scale up our humanitarian assistance to help those now on the brink of famine to avoid catastrophe, and encourage other donors to step up their assistance. I am proud of the response of Ireland in this regard.
59. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the efforts being made to address the denial of human rights to Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike; if diplomatic services in Tel Aviv and Ramallah have had discussions with the relevant authorities; and the engagement that there has been at European level regarding same. [25449/17]
My question relates to the Palestinian prisoners being denied basic human rights and forced to go onto hunger strike. The question is also about Ireland's role in bringing these concerns to the relevant authorities through our diplomatic services in Tel Aviv and Ramallah, and the engagement at EU level on this matter.
I refer the Deputy to my earlier reply to Question No. 49 and to the Topical Issues debate on 10 May, when I was able to address this matter in more detail.
I acknowledge the end of the hunger strike by Palestinian prisoners following an agreement reached at the weekend. It is understood a new arrangement for a second family visit per month, and possibly other understandings, were the basis for ending the strike.
As the hunger strike by more than 1,000 prisoners was entering its seventh week it was a matter of great concern, and I am relieved that it has been ended without death or tragedy.
We had spoken directly about the need to avoid a tragic outcome with the Israeli ambassador and in other contacts with the Israeli authorities. The EU missions in Palestine, including Ireland’s mission in Ramallah, issued a public statement concerning the hunger strikes, calling on Israel to respect fully the rights of prisoners. A further EU statement at higher level was being prepared when word came through of the ending of the hunger strike.
In expressing our concerns, I want to make clear we had to be conscious that many prisoners, including some of those on hunger strike, had been convicted of very serious and most violent offences, and that we could express similar or stronger concerns about prisoners in many other jurisdictions in the region, as well as in Israel.
We raised this matter in a rather low-key way for two reasons, namely, as I made quite clear earlier, we cannot support or encourage the use of hunger strikes as a means of exerting pressure and we are aware from our own history of the real risk of attitudes hardening on either side, leading to death and tragedy, and the danger of a hunger strike leading to increased tensions and clashes on the streets. We did not want to say anything that might increase the risk.
I will not comment any further on specific issues raised by the strikers. I have little detail on what has been agreed. However, I will state Ireland's essential position was that detained Palestinians should have the same protections and conditions that Israel affords its own citizens when detained.
I thank the Minister. I listened to his earlier reply. I also welcome the fact there has been resolution. The question has to be asked why do these men and women feel the need to go on hunger strike and take such a drastic decision, which could have had very serious repercussions on their health and lives if it had continued. When I saw what they achieved by going on hunger strike I asked myself whether that was all they were looking for. They were very basic rights, which other people would take for granted. Prisoners have human rights, and international human rights law guarantees them basic human rights, such as freedom from torture and freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. What they achieved was very simple, including landlines in prison, better health care, which one would assume would be taken for granted, and more regular family visits. There is a need to respect the rights of prisoners, regardless of where they are, and there are concerns about increasing use of solitary confinement.
I acknowledge and agree with what Deputy O'Sullivan has said about the role of international law. Under international law, it is fair to say Palestinian prisoners should be held in their own territory. After 50 years of occupation, there is not much of an excuse for failing to have adequate detention facilities in the occupied territory. I understand holding prisoners in Israel creates difficulty for family visitors, given how difficult and onerous it is for Palestinians to cross into Israel. For as long as prisoners are held in Israel, appropriate and expeditious arrangements should be made to facilitate family visits under reasonable conditions. I understand this has been part of the agreement reached with the prisoners to facilitate their ending of the hunger strike. However, there are no circumstances in which I would condone the use of hunger strikes to exert pressure or increase demands.
