Vol. 1029 No. 6
79. Deputy John Brady asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline the Government's advice to any football supporters travelling from Ireland to Qatar for the World Cup; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [57922/22]
144. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if additional diplomatic assistance is available in Qatar for the duration of the World Cup for any Irish persons who may have travelled and subsequently encounter difficulty in that state; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [57722/22]
I am looking for the Government's advice for football supporters who have travelled or may travel to Qatar for the World Cup. It is very difficult to get over the fact that the World Cup is being held at this time of year. Questions have been raised on how the tournament ended up being in Qatar. The questions are fairly obvious as regards FIFA. We are all aware of the treatment of women and members of the LGBTQ+ community in Qatar, as well as the disgraceful way migrant workers have been dealt with. We would probably all agree with Roy Keane in respect of the failure of some people to mark these issue.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 79 and 144 together.
My Department is liaising closely with EU and international partners to provide the most accurate advice possible for citizens travelling to Qatar for the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Comprehensive World Cup travel advice for Qatar is available on the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and citizens are urged to consult this for information on entry requirements, safety and security, local laws and customs etc. Before departure and during travel, citizens are advised to monitor this advice and to follow the Department on social media for the latest updates. The Government advises all citizens travelling to Qatar for the World Cup to obtain travel insurance prior to departure.
For the duration of the tournament, the Embassy of Ireland in the United Arab Emirates, UAE, which is accredited to Qatar, will have a presence on the ground in Qatar to provide consular assistance to any Irish citizens who may require it. Any Irish citizen requiring consular assistance while in Qatar, can make contact through the Embassy of Ireland in the UAE. Details of the phone number is available on the website.
We are putting a system in place that can help Irish citizens if they get into trouble or if they need advice on the ground. As ever, when travelling to a country that has very different customs and laws to what we are used to in Ireland, people should inform themselves before they travel. Of course, if there are difficulties on the ground, we will be there to help and support Irish citizens.
I welcome that. I get many football fans might see this as an opportunity to see Brazil play. I assume not too many will wish to see England play but who knows? It is obviously vital fans would monitor advice and it is good to see consular assistance will be in place. However, I will go through the questions again and ask about the view of the Minister and the Government. There is a certain element of dismay that the World Cup is in Qatar but FIFA has many questions to answer over many years. There are the particular issues in Qatar which include the treatment of women and the LGBTQ+ community and the absolutely disgraceful treatment of migrant workers. I will put it out there; is the Minister in agreement on what Roy Keane said? There probably was a failure by many from a football point of view, in that they could have at least marked this. There are particular issues that need to be dealt with.
I thank the Minister for his response. The reason I put down this question is my concerns about Irish citizens who might travel to Qatar for the World Cup and may not be used to the situation there. Even though we are not qualified for the World Cup, Irish fans may travel. There are very few sporting events around the world where one would not see a fella wearing a Kerry jersey. It is only a matter of time before we see one on the television screens and I share Deputy Ó Murchú's concerns. My first concern is over the awarding of the World Cup which I believe was born out of complete corruption. My second concern is over the treatment of women and the LGBTQ+ community at this World Cup and, of course, it goes with out saying, the treatment of migrant workers in the run-up to the World Cup as well. The Minister cannot solve those problems but I thank him for his response and it is obvious the Department has been proactive in putting people on the ground. It is welcome and certainly allays my concerns.
There are a number of human rights issues of concern with regard to Qatar including its treatment of migrant workers, as people have said, women's rights, LGBT+ people and, of course, the use of the death penalty. Promoting respect for human rights is one of the core principles of Irish foreign policy. In countries where we have concerns over human rights, including Qatar, we raise these concerns very clearly both in direct contacts with the governments of those countries and in the appropriate international forums. Officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs regularly raise concerns bilaterally with the Qatari authorities. Ireland regularly discusses these issues in various EU forums and works closely with other member states to ensure human rights issues in Qatar are addressed.
Since 2018, the EU has held four formal human rights dialogues with Qatar including, most recently, on 13 September in Brussels where the EU underscored the importance of safety for LGBTQI+ persons and labour rights in the context of the World Cup. The EU also liaises with the International Labor Organization, ILO, on these issues and I am pleased that the ILO office in Doha will continue to operate there after the World Cup. Ireland also addresses these issues in international forums, notably at the UN Human Rights Council.
In 2019, at Qatar's most recent universal periodic review at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Ireland called on the Qatari Government to abolish the exit permit requirement for migrant workers. I was pleased Qatar moved to end this requirement in January 2020. Qatar has made some notable labour reforms, including to its kafala labour system, but these reforms must be sufficiently implemented and permanent in order for them to be meaningful. Other issues raised at the periodic review of Qatar's human rights record included discrimination and violence against women, the death penalty and migrant workers' rights.
I absolutely understand the scepticism and concern that have been expressed in the context of hosting this World Cup but I can reassure the Deputies that we have raised the issues in the build-up to the World Cup on all of the platforms on which we have an opportunity to do so. This is not just an issue about the World Cup. Qatar is not the only country in the world where we have concerns with regard to human rights abuses and so on. However, of course, when one hosts something as enormous as the World Cup, one has to expect the international spotlight to be on one and on how one treats people and visitors. That is why Qatar is now under that spotlight.
I agree with the Minister. The one good thing that can come from this World Cup is that the spotlight is on Qatar, the human rights abuses there and whether we will have any movement on it. However, I wish to see a greater level of courage from some of the football associations and some of the footballers in particular. There was considerable talk beforehand about what they would do to highlight these issues. That has not happened. I welcome that the Government has drawn attention to the human rights abuses across the board on many occasions. That needs to happen. This will leave a deep stain. Western hypocrisy will be thrown out many times but it is straightforward to say I am not just sure Qatar is where this World Cup should be happening. I suppose FIFA has the biggest questions to answer but we need to highlight the changes that need to happen. That is the only good that can come out of this. Unfortunately, it will probably impact on the enjoyment of the World Cup as a football spectacle.
I appreciate the Minister has raised concerns about the broader issues at play here. My most immediate and pragmatic concern is that any Irish fans who travel, from this country or others, to the group stages or the subsequent knock-out stages in the coming weeks should, first, be well-advised before they travel about what is expected of them and the potential risks. Second, we have seen people get into trouble in countries such as Qatar through no fault of their own and support should be there. It is important the support remains on the ground right up to the end.
I encourage the Minister to engage with the Football Association of Ireland, FAI, with regard to disseminating some of the information to its grassroots level platforms and as many other levels as possible to reach soccer supporters who are based here and our diaspora. We certainly do not wish to see any of the Irish football supporters, who travel to that country to enjoy the World Cup, getting into trouble and finding themselves in difficult positions. That said, many people find themselves in trouble through no fault of their own in countries such as Qatar. We need to avoid that as much as possible.
Our consular team is ready and waiting to support people if they need it. The team is second to none internationally. We do not have an embassy in Qatar but we have an embassy very close by and a team on the ground in Qatar to help Irish citizens should that be required. With regard to the links between sport and politics on this issue, in some ways, it is unfair to criticise players. They are sportspeople rather than politicians. Of course if they wish to make a political statement, they should be allowed to do so, as should anybody else. However, it is absolutely extraordinary that FIFA has effectively chosen to lean on national football associations in different countries to prevent players wearing an armband to support LGBT+ rights. That is a political intervention by FIFA to limit freedom of expression, which is worthy of significant mention and criticism.
We will talk to Qatar about the whole other range of issues. That part of the world is very different from this part of the world and one will see these tensions when there is a clash of civilisations and so on. However, to say a player who wishes to wear a rainbow-coloured armband in the context of the concerns they may have about LGBT rights in that part of the world or, indeed, any other rights that are consistent with international law will be punished on the pitch is, from a FIFA point of view, pretty poor form to put it mildly. However, that is what we have seen in an effort to try to avoid even a small symbol of political concern in the context of some of the issues that have been raised in the build-up to this World Cup. It is very regrettable and shows FIFA in a pretty poor light to say the least.
80. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the actions that he has taken to date to protest at the suppression and violence being perpetrated on peaceful protestors in Iran; if he has summoned the Iranian ambassador to personally set out Ireland's abhorrence of these actions; the additional sanctions that Ireland is supporting or has proposed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [57819/22]
87. Deputy Holly Cairns asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will provide details of his Department’s engagement with the ambassador for the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning recent protests for women’s rights and the treatment of protestors by state security services. [57453/22]
104. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his plans to raise Iran's ongoing brutality and oppression against protestors at the next meeting of the UN Security Council meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [57645/22]
105. Deputy Gino Kenny asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the actions that he has taken on behalf of Ireland at UN level and EU level relating to the protest movement in Iran; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [57534/22]
Despite my longevity in this House, I am always confused about how questions are grouped. My question, Question No. 91, which was not in the previous group, deals specifically with LGBT rights for visitors to the World Cup in Qatar, yet it was not encompassed in that group.
I understand that is a matter for the Minister.
Is it?
It is not. It is nothing to do with me. The Acting Chair might be able to give us some guidance.
Am I allowed to speak?
How these things happen confuses me. I will move on to the questions. A number of Deputies have raised the issue of Iran. It was dealt with previously. It merits considerable focus in this House. Most of us are-----
There are four questions grouped.
Exactly. We have time to tease out exactly what is happening in Iran and the information being circulated by the Iranian ambassador here, which many of us will have received, and the ongoing struggle, as the Minister said, of young people and women in taking a stand against oppression. I am interested in the Minister's view.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 80, 87, 104 and 105 together.
While the protests in Iran started with the tragic death of Mahsa Amini in September, many more young women and men have died since, simply due to the fact they were exercising their fundamental right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. I wish to extend my condolences to the loved ones of all those who have died during the protests. The protestor's slogan of "Women, Life, Freedom" is clear and I know it is a message that has resonated with many people in Ireland and across the EU. The slogan was seen during the World Cup in a banner behind the Iranian goal at their first match.
In addition to my contacts with the Iranian foreign minister in September and October, as I said earlier, I summoned the Iranian ambassador on 20 October and condemned Iran’s oppression of peaceful protests and supply of weapons to Russia. I made it clear that Ireland expects Iran to uphold its international obligations, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. These instruments enshrine the rights of freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and the fundamental and inalienable rights of women and girls.
The EU has significantly expanded its human rights sanctions regime to target those involved in the death of Mahsa Amini and the response of the security forces to protestors. At the meetings of the EU's Foreign Affairs Council in October and November, the EU adopted sanctions against a further 40 individuals and seven entities. The EU also adopted sanctions on 20 October against Iranian individuals and entities involved in the supply of drones to Russia.
At UN level, the Security Council held a meeting on Iran’s transfer of drones to Russia on 19 October. The supply of drones to Russia is a serious violation of Iran's obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorses the Iranian nuclear deal. Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA, Iran is prohibited from the export of drones. As Deputies know, Ireland is facilitator of Resolution 2231 and we will present our final facilitator's report in December. There will also be a special session of the UN Human Rights Council on 24 November, which I mentioned earlier, which Ireland has supported, focusing on the situation in Iran.
Officials from my Department will continue to monitor developments in Iran and to raise our concerns directly with the Iranian government. We will continue to co-ordinate closely with our partners in the EU to ensure there is a joint, co-ordinated, and clear response to the actions of the Iranian authorities across a range of issues which, whether we like it or not, are interconnected.
I think this House should praise, without question, the bravery of Iran's national soccer team yesterday. While others did not take a stand, they risked their safety by taking a clear stand against their own government yesterday on a fundamental issue. The Irish Times reports that at least 58 Iranian children have been killed since the anti-regime protests began, following the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, including a 9-year-old, Kian Pirfalak, who was one of seven people killed last Wednesday in the city of Izeh. The individual stories and videos that we have all seen online demand our support and solidarity. The Minister called in the Iranian ambassador to Iveagh House. Will the Minister tell us exactly what he said and what the ambassador said to him? How will we deal with the misinformation that the Iranian ambassador is providing?
This is a serious issue. I attended a very civilised protest in Galway a few weeks ago. We were asked to ask the Minister, as a member of a Government which has a place on the UN Security Council, to call on the Islamic Republic of Iran to immediately stop the use of lethal force and unlawful suppression, to stop subjecting Iranian citizens to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and to stop unlawful and arbitrary arrests and detentions. The figures are rising. Deputy Howlin already mentioned some of them. Some 410 protestors have been killed, with a caveat that those figures are higher. Some 58 children have been killed in the unrest and more than 17,251 people have been arrested. According to media reports, in November, six of those detained in the protests have been issued death sentences. This number is expected to rise. Iran executes more people annually than any other country apart from China, although I understand that in the last week, Saudi Arabia executed 17 people.
I was concerned at what we were all seeing on our phones and television screens about what was unfolding in Iran, so I requested the Iranian ambassador to come in to explain what was going on in his country and to express my concern and condemnation for what I thought and still think is a violent response by police to predominantly peaceful protests. He said some of the protests were not peaceful and the Iranian Government had a responsibility to restore order to its streets and cities, which is what it was trying to do. I found that explanation less than credible, given the age profile and behaviour of many of the protestors, including children, girls and students. No country should look back at the management of protests and the death of nearly 60 children and say it was an effort to restore order. It was a straight discussion. I hope I expressed the concern, revulsion and condemnation of this House about some of the images we have seen.
I also asked the ambassador about the supply of drones to Russia following some of the images we have seen. From an EU perspective, it is part of a convincing body of evidence that Iran has supplied drones to Russia that are now being used to target civilians and civilian infrastructure. He gave a clear rejection of that and said that Iran has not provided drones to Russia before this war or during it. Since that meeting, I understand that Iran has accepted that it has supplied a limited number of drones to Russia in advance of this conflict.
It was a necessary, blunt discussion to express our concern at what I think is a shared criticism in this House of how Iran is behaving in responding to legitimate protests in its own country and the supply of weapons that have been directly targeting civilians in Europe.
The Minister is right in his contention no reasonable person would say the death of a nine-year-old or the deaths of 58 children could in any way be justified by the restoration of order. The Minister has told us, basically, that in that interaction with the ambassador, he was told falsehoods. That is very worrying. Has the Minister summoned him back since to ask him to correct and give accurate information? Surely the role of an ambassador is to ensure the presentation given to a host country where he has diplomatic status is factual at least? What are the next actions the Minister proposes to take to deal with what is ongoing, namely, a protest movement subject to brutal suppression, including the use of lethal force?
I welcome the fact the Minister has called in the ambassador and spoken to him, but since then we have all got a briefing document from the ambassador that clearly contradicts what we are being told on the ground. I have it here. Has the Minister's attention been brought to that?
Yes.
We all got it this week. On the Human Rights Council, I understand there will be a special session on the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran on 24 November. I understand also that we have observer status at that special session. Will Iran be represented at that? On the UN Commission on the Status of Women, there have been calls by countries, including America, to have Iran removed from it. I do not agree with that straight up because Afghanistan is represented on that, along with other countries that a have terrible record in their treatment of women. Has the Minister a viewpoint on that?
Returning to the first question on Palestine, we must have a credible, consistent approach to all countries when they breach human rights law. It is extremely important. I took back the weasel words. They were not necessary and I should not have used them, but we need a consistent voice and we are not consistent.
On Palestine, which we often talk about here, we are pretty consistent. Ireland is one of the most consistent countries in the world when it comes to what we say about Palestine. I have certainly tried to be during the five years I have been in this job. I point to my very clear criticism of settlement expansion, of demolitions, of forced evictions, my criticism of the human rights situation that is allowed to continue in Gaza, my strong criticisms of the targeting of civilian infrastructure in Gaza when that has happened, as well, of course, as rocket fire out of Gaza, of which I have been very critical. I have travelled to Israel and Palestine many times in those five years. I would like to think I am being consistent there and I hope I will continue to be.
As I said, my involvement with Iran has been an unusual one in recent years because of the specific responsibility around the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA, and the Security Council. This has allowed me to have many more conversations with two consecutive Iranian ministers of foreign affairs than I would normally ever have. This has permitted me to have very direct conversations on more recent concerns.
What happened with the meeting with the ambassador was he gave me a written document on the official response from the Iranian Government on the accusation of Iranian supply of weapons to Russia. To be fair to him, he just handed it over and that is, in many ways, the role of an ambassador. We have of course challenged the accuracy of that document since then.
On the Human Rights Council, we have been very supportive of having a debate on 24 November at the council on the developing situation in Iran.
81. Deputy Brian Leddin asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position regarding progress stemming from COP27 on climate finance for the developing world for climate mitigation and adaptation measures, including a loss and damage facility; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [57846/22]
What is the position on progress stemming from COP27 on climate finance for the developing world for climate mitigation and adaptation measures, including a loss and damage facility?
At COP27 I met representatives from developing countries who outlined the existential threats to their societies as a result of climate impacts. The key priorities for Ireland in international climate negotiations are finance for adaptation to climate change and financing to respond to loss and damage associated with climate impacts.
On loss and damage, Ireland was engaged in advance of and throughout COP27. Our delegation took a leadership role within the European Union and in the EU’s negotiations with other countries. The Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Ryan, played an incredible role in that. We worked hard to build consensus on an outcome that addresses the needs of the most vulnerable countries and communities. We were pleased the outcome last Sunday included provisions, for the first time ever, for financing mechanisms around loss and damage. These will include, but are not limited to, a new fund. Modalities for a new fund will be agreed over the next year. Critically, the mechanisms will be targeted primarily towards the most vulnerable and there are provisions to broaden the donor base. That was a key part of what Ireland and the EU pushed for from the very start on this. We are really proud to have played a key role in driving through the deal and that particular aspect of it.
On adaptation finance, progress was made on a call by developing countries to establish a dedicated space to develop a roadmap for meeting the COP26 target to double the level of adaptation finance for developing countries. The Department of Foreign Affairs has been taking a leading role on enhancing the quantity and quality of adaptation support. Our climate finance is mainly focused on adaptation. Ireland is a founding member of the international Champions Group on Adaptation Finance. It is important to state that years before it was the main focus of attention with climate finance, Ireland pushed this in particular, and to rebalance that situation between the finance for mitigation and the finance for adaptation. As far as where we need to be is concerned, adaptation is what we must focus on. It is within that context that loss and damage will come in because there are whole aspects in terms of the ability of developing countries to access the adaptation finance. It is the key and what we must work on.
I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I take the opportunity to commend the Department officials on the sterling, incredible work they did in the last two weeks at COP. They are a credit to the Minister and Minister of State, to the Department, the Oireachtas, the country and the EU. They have shown the power of small countries as well. The influence this country has on the international stage is a point the Minister makes frequently, but we saw evidence of that in Egypt. It was a historic agreement and a first step towards addressing this key issue of loss and damage.
I welcome the Minister of State's answer. He said Ireland's focus will be on the adaptation. The challenge is so vast but we are going in the right direction now. Back in 2015, €100 billion was pledged by 2020. For context, that is 37 days' worth of profits for the oil and gas industry if we take an average over the past 50 years.
I might take 30 seconds and the Minister of State may wish to come in again. I put on the record of the House the achievement of Ireland and especially of the Minister, Deputy Ryan, at COP27. He was instrumental and central in finding a compromise wording that came from the EU that ultimately was the basis of brokering a deal. There is often criticism of the size of delegations and so on. Consider what was achieved by Ireland at COP27 and at COP26 as well. It was there that the Minister, Deputy Ryan, became the central figure in co-ordinating the EU approach towards loss and damage.
He built on that this year. There were other important contributions at COP27 from the Taoiseach, the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and others but I do not think this has gotten sufficient focus in Ireland. The role the Minister played politically, with a competent team of people around him from multiple Departments, including my own, was instrumental in getting the initial EU agreement and the subsequent global one on what will now become a loss and damage fund over time.
I welcome the comments about the Minister, Deputy Ryan. I share the view, and I am sure it is shared across both Houses, of the Minister's influence on this key subject. History will show that this was a turning point. COP26 and COP27 are a turning point in how we address the damage being caused to countries that have not caused this problem. We have caused the problem, in the West in particular, and it is only right that we seek to pay damages to help adapt to the serious consequences of climate change, as well as to mitigate climate change. As I said, we are only at the very start but I think it is a very good start and a positive step forward by this country and by the European Union.
I reiterate that we are only at the start. There is a mechanism there which we must ensure the success of. To repeat something important I said at COP, we have played an incredibly strong role. The Minister, Deputy Ryan, has played a strong role and the European Union has come to us in terms of what we can do. Implementation is key. When talking to the actors right across COP and outside it, there is one thing they will say to us. The challenge, particularly for developing countries, is to take the two weeks of COP and ensure we progress it so that when we next meet at a COP summit, we are not restating what was stated before. There is such a level of achievement in what the Minister has led on with loss and damage. If done right, it will enable quick access to finance, which was a critical thing that was missing for developing countries. That is key but we must do the implementation.
82. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the outcome of his most recent discussions with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in relation to properly dealing with legacy issues; the status of the Stormont House Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [57737/22]
109. Deputy Pauline Tully asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will give a commitment to take an inter-state challenge directly to the European Court of Human Rights if the British Government enacts the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill, as called for by an organisation (details supplied); if preparations have begun to take an inter-state challenge given that this needs to be commenced within a four-month timeframe of the Bill becoming law; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [57826/22]
It is utterly deplorable that the British Government has made a unilateral decision to abandon the Stormont House Agreement. That was a solemn agreement made between the British and Irish Governments and the political parties represented in Stormont. That agreement had the capacity to make progress in dealing with very important and sensitive issues. Progress on legacy has been delayed for far too long. It is a retrograde step that the British have proposed legislation that is totally unacceptable to replace the Stormont House Agreement.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 82 and 109 together.
I met with the Secretary of State most recently on 2 November and the progress of the UK's Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill was one of the topics discussed. In all of our discussions, I have been frank in my view that this Bill, as it stands, is not fit for purpose. It represents a clear move away from the Stormont House Agreement. There is near universal opposition to this Bill in Northern Ireland, including from the five main political parties, those representing victims, their families and survivors, as well as a wide range of other groups. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has expressed serious concern about the Bill, as has the UK Parliament’s own joint committee on human rights. The Government has serious doubts about whether this Bill is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. We have raised our profound concerns about this Bill directly with the British Government, at official and political level, and in the relevant multilateral fora, including the Council of Europe and, most recently, at the universal periodic review of the UK by the UN Human Rights Council.
Chief among those concerns is that the Bill provides for the granting of immunity by the proposed independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery for gross violations of human rights and the remarkably low threshold for the granting of this immunity. The proposed immunity has profoundly upset families, with many believing that this legislation would protect the perpetrators and deny victims a path to truth and justice, particularly where evidence may exist. The Bill provides for the proposed "independent commission" to conduct "reviews" rather than investigations of legacy cases. The status of these reviews, the significant powers invested in the commission and the chief commissioner, and the role of the Secretary of State raise questions of independence. All remain matters of serious concern. Under the proposed legislation, all criminal investigations and inquests that are not at an advanced stage and civil actions would cease.
The Government will remain fully engaged on this issue. I have discussed the matter with political parties in Northern Ireland and in my recent engagements with senior US politicians in Washington DC. I also recently met with the Northern Ireland Commission for Victims and Survivors and members of the Victims and Survivors Forum. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has indicated that he is open to addressing concerns raised about the Bill and to increased engagement with all stakeholders. It was agreed at the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference in October that officials would meet and discuss the main elements of concern. However, I have been clear that any amendments would need to be radical and fundamentally change the substance of this Bill for it to address our concerns.
The Government is aware of calls for consideration of the initiation of an interstate case against the United Kingdom before the European Court of Human Rights in relation to this legislation. Any future examination by the European Court of Human Rights as to whether this Bill, if enacted, is compliant with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights will depend on the precise terms of the legislation as enacted and the factual circumstances pertaining at the time. In this light, a decision as to the referral of an interstate case to the court by Ireland concerning the Bill, which remains subject to amendment, is, in the Government’s assessment, premature. However, the Government continues to keep this matter under review. The Government’s approach to legacy and reconciliation has always been that it should be a victim-centred approach, taking the Stormont House Agreement as its starting point. This is a process that was agreed by both Governments, and most political parties in Northern Ireland, with the support of victims' and survivors' groups.
I have had a constructive discussion with the new Secretary of State on this issue. I do not know whether it will be possible for us to come to an agreement on amending and changing this legislation fundamentally. On an issue as sensitive as legacy, given the trauma and pain that it is linked to for so many thousands of families, this is something the two Governments, working with parties in Northern Ireland and with victims' groups, should try to agree a common approach on. Unilateral action and moving ahead without the support of virtually anybody is a real mistake by the British Government, if it chooses to do it. I welcome the conversations I have had with the Secretary of State, Chris Heaton-Harris, who has shown a willingness to look at possible change. I hope that will be possible.
I thank the Minister for his reply and I welcome the Government's ongoing strong opposition to this deplorable legislation. It has united all the political parties on this island, all advocacy groups and all groups that have worked with victims over the years. As the Minister quite rightly said, it is perpetrator-focused. It is not victim-centred. We cannot successfully deal with legacy issues unless it is victim-centred. It has to be victim-focused. I welcome the recent statements by the archbishops of Armagh, who made a very cogent and strong argument against the legislation. This British legislation proposes that perpetrators of heinous crimes, be they murderers from paramilitary organisations or murderers from the British state forces, be able to give themselves an amnesty from the most heinous crimes, including murders, bombings and maimings of innocent people.
Any legislation of that sort cannot be accepted.
I agree. I have been holding the line on this issue because I believe that not to do so would be to dishonour the commitments we have made to victims on all sides. I have repeatedly said to victims' families that we cannot support legislation that shuts off the opportunity to take a case should there be an evidence base that allows for that to happen in the future. The idea that we would effectively introduce an amnesty so that people who perpetrated awful crimes could potentially talk and write about that, glorify those actions in the future and have no possibility of a case being taken is not protecting victims or helping Northern Ireland to move on into a period of reconciliation. Privately and publicly, I have appealed to the British Government to work with us on this. We will try to accommodate some of its concerns, but it needs to listen to victims in particular.
I appreciate the Minister's very strong words. I commend the work of Joanna Cherry MP, other MPs and Members of the House of Lords in the context of their strong condemnation of the British Government's proposals. The Minister will recall that we had many discussions in private, in the House and at committee regarding the Dublin-Monaghan bombings of 1974 and the terrible bombing at Belturbet in my constituency in December 1972 in which two innocent teenagers were murdered. I, along with families, have campaigned for decades to get to the truth. People have gone about with great grace and dignity to try to get the truth about who carried out murders and serious crimes against their loved ones. Under no circumstances could any democratic government put a proposal to families that they abandon everything they fought for over the years and decades. Some people have been fighting for half a century.
I want the Government to continue its strong opposition to the proposal in question. We cannot accept a situation whereby murderers would be given a de facto amnesty. The Bill should be dropped entirely. We should go back to the Stormont House Agreement that has the potential to deal with the campaigns for justice for the Dublin-Monaghan and Belturbet bombings and the families we all want to assist.
On behalf of the Government, I would like to work with the British Government, victims' groups and political parties to ensure we could have an approach to legacy that involved the provision of information, the taking of cases and cross-Border co-operation on the island and in Great Britain in order that we could respond to the concerns expressed by many in the unionist community regarding the activity of gangs that operated across the Border and so on. If the British Government moves ahead with what it is doing, however, we cannot and will not support it. On that basis, we cannot provide the cross-Border co-operation that is needed to establish truth and justice for people who are seeking that where it is possible to do. For many reasons, we need the British Government to rethink its approach in the space. If it does, it will find that the Government will work constructively to help it.
84. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he expects a resolution in respect of the current difficulties with the Northern Ireland protocol; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [57643/22]
123. Deputy Cathal Crowe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will provide a report on the latest developments on the Northern Ireland protocol. [57567/22]
132. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the current position regarding negotiations between the European Union and the UK regarding the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [57303/22]
137. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will detail the Government's response to recent developments in respect of the Northern Ireland protocol; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [57918/22]
I understand that technical negotiations between the UK and EU on the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol have recommenced. As we know, this issue is linked with efforts to get the Executive up and running at Stormont. The House will appreciate if the Minister could update it on those negotiations.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 84, 123, 132 and 137 together.
I will leave my notes aside and give the Deputy as straight an answer as I have on this.
A number of questions are grouped.
We have a bit of time.
We are finishing at 10.32 p.m. I ask for your co-operation.
There is more optimism now than there has been for some time that, with a new Prime Minister, Secretary of State, Foreign Secretary and a relatively new look British Cabinet, there may be an honest effort by the current British Government to work with the EU negotiating team, led by Vice President Maroš Šefčovič, to try to address the outstanding issues linked to the Northern Ireland protocol once and for all. We know the EU side has been willing to compromise; it has already shown that. We need a similar spirit of compromise from the British side. If that is forthcoming, then we can find a way between now and the end of the year, or shortly thereafter, to get a middle-ground position in terms of landing zones on some of the outstanding issues that are very problematic, such as how we treat goods coming in from Great Britain into Northern Ireland that we know are staying in Northern Ireland in terms of purchase and consumption. We have to treat such goods very differently from that we know are in danger of travelling on to other parts of the Single Market. As Vice President Šefčovič said, by working to try to make checks virtually invisible, we can resolve the issue. That is the kind of thing that many in the unionist community have been asking for, namely, that we respect trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the greatest extent possible, while protecting the integrity of the Single Market and how it functions. That is the core of the deal.
Other issues need to be resolved around VAT, state aid, the role of the European Court of Justice and so on, but the core of the deal is to dramatically reduce checks on goods that are staying within the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and are not at risk of travelling on to other parts of the Single Market. Is it going to be easy to do that? No, it is not. If it was, it would have been done long ago.
The difference is that we now have a Prime Minister who wants to negotiate a solution. I am not convinced that his two immediate predecessors were in that space, particularly because of the pressure they were under internally within their party and the fact that the politics of tension with the EU have not always played well.
There are other considerations in terms of economic and cost-of-living pressures. The partnership approach between the UK and EU is something that both sides are looking to develop positively. On the back of the conversations I have had, there is a definite effort from the British Government to improve relations with Ireland and the Government here. We are responding positively to that.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Thankfully, there is now political stability at Westminster and a more pragmatic mood prevails. As the Minister said, there is some optimism that agreement on the protocol can be reached.
The Minister dealt with the issue of trade, but the Northern Ireland protocol also deals with commitments concerning the non-diminution of rights under the Good Friday Agreement. There are obligations concerning the functioning of the single electricity market. The protocol also specifies the need to maintain the conditions for North-South co-operation on the island of Ireland. These two matters need to be monitored. Are these commitments being considered as part of the current negotiations?
I am conscious of the fact that there is a provision for the Northern Ireland Assembly to vote on the protocol in 2024. All of these issues are becoming more urgent. I welcome the positive tone of the Minister's response and how relations between Britain and Ireland are developing in respect of these matters.
We are all working on the basis that Britain needs a deal and that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak be offered a deal, regardless of what he means about not looking for a Swiss-style relationship with the European Union. We could rise and fall on the basis of comments from British politicians over the past number of years.
We all want to see matters being streamlined and the protocol issue being taken off the agenda in terms of there being no possibility of a hard Border and, beyond that, facilitating unionism to get off the hook it made for itself. I will be quite honest about that. There are outstanding spectres, such as protocol legislation, the Nationality and Borders Act and, as the Minister said, legacy amnesty legislation.
The difficulty there is I do not believe Britain is ever going to want to address its involvement in its dirty war in Ireland.
There were many sides to that dirty war. It was not just one side. Our focus now has to be on trying to be positive about getting to solutions. That is my focus and the Taoiseach's focus. There is not a proposed deal from Prime Minister Sunak. There has been a variety of commentary about Swiss-style arrangements and so forth, much of which is not accurate. Time and space are required for two experienced negotiating teams to work through the areas, which both sides understand very well, in regard to reaching landing zones using pragmatism and flexibility within the confines of the protocol, because the legal wording of the treaty, which is now international law, is not going to change. However I believe the protocol can be implemented in a way that is different from what many people perceive to be a negative impact on trade from Great Britain into Northern Ireland. We can improve the implementation of the protocol significantly. I believe the EU is willing to do that but it needs a partner that is also willing to compromise and to ensure there is proper, real-time sharing of data and so on, in order that the risks the EU has to manage in regard to the integrity of its own Single Market - this is not just about Ireland and Northern Ireland but about the Single Market for all 27 countries in it - can be managed as well. Unfortunately, time is dragging on and running out. There are not that many weeks left between now and Christmas, by which time many people had hoped we could get a deal. In many ways, the less megaphone diplomacy we have on this issue and the more honest and detailed interaction between the two negotiating teams in London and Brussels, the better at this stage. What is needed of course is a green light politically to both negotiating teams to get the job done through sensible compromises.
