Vol. 1035 No. 4
76. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the extent to which he continues to promote the concept of power sharing and the continuation of working at and improving the peace process in Northern Ireland in a way that clearly demonstrates the economic and social benefits of a broadening and deepening of the principles of the Good Friday Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13630/23]
78. Deputy Aindrias Moynihan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his engagement to date with the DUP in getting the party's agreement on the recent Windsor Framework proposal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13665/23]
101. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will provide an update on efforts to restore the Northern Ireland Institutions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12537/23]
112. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on his recent engagements with regard to restoring the Northern Ireland Executive; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13498/23]
116. Deputy James O'Connor asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the position regarding ongoing negotiations to restore power sharing in Northern Ireland in view of recent progress on the Windsor Framework; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13207/23]
As we approach the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, it is a good time to review the endeavours we have made in the past and to which we might go in the future in order to engage with the communities in Northern Ireland and to continue to grow the Good Friday Agreement in the best way possible, in a non-aggressive and non-threatening way and in a way which might bring on board people who are at the present time not fully committed.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 76 , 78 , 101, 112 and 116 together.
The full and effective operation of all of the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement is a key priority for this Government, across all three strands: the power-sharing institutions in Northern Ireland; the North-South Ministerial Council and the cross-Border bodies; and the east-west institutions. The agreement is designed so these institutions support and reinforce one another.
As a co-guarantor of the agreement, together with the British Government, we have a particular responsibility to see these institutions operate as effectively as possible and delivering to the collective benefit of all of our citizens. The people of Northern Ireland are entitled to a functioning Assembly and Executive. Their vote in last May's Assembly elections must be respected, so that the political leadership required if the urgent issues facing communities and families are to be addressed is there. These issues include improving access to healthcare, educational attainment and other core service delivery issues.
The last several weeks have seen positive momentum which must now be harnessed. It is understandable that Assembly parties will require time to study the Windsor Framework, but this can be done in parallel to delay getting the institutions up and running. I remain in regular contact with political representatives in Northern Ireland, reiterating the urgent need for a functioning Assembly and Executive.
The absence of a functioning Executive also has knock-on effects for the operation of strand 2 of the agreement. I am deeply concerned that the work of the North-South Ministerial Council has been severely disrupted in recent years. In the absence of regular North-South Ministerial Council meetings, the two Administrations on the island are not having the important kinds of conversations that we should be having to address shared challenges and opportunities.
It is vital that the council is allowed to continue its work as soon as possible. I am in regular contact with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with restoration of the institutions being a core focus of our discussions. I have also reiterated the importance of the principles of consent and of parity of esteem, and the enduring need for close co-operation between the two Governments on any matters that might touch upon the delicate balances that underpin the Good Friday Agreement.
The Secretary of State and I also met at the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference under strand 3 of the agreement in Dublin earlier this year. In all of our contacts, we discussed the importance that both Governments attach to the full functioning of the institutions provided for under the Good Friday Agreement.
I will meet the Secretary of State a number of times in the weeks ahead. We remain in close and regular contact.
I emphasise the importance of the east-west strand as a locus for practical co-operation, including as a focal point for practical co-operation between the various jurisdictions of these islands. The British-Irish Council addresses such issues as climate, energy and broader sustainability concerns. The most recent council summit took place in Blackpool on 11 November 2022, where I met the UK Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak. The 39th British-Irish Council summit is due to be hosted in Jersey later this year. These regular engagements are positive and I look forward to our administrations continuing this important work.
I assure the Dáil that this Government will continue to work with our Northern Ireland and UK counterparts across all three strands of the agreement. I am also conscious that interparliamentary links are strong and that many Members of this House met their Northern Ireland and UK counterparts at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly extraordinary plenary to mark the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. On behalf of the Government, I commend them on their important contribution, in doing that, to building east-west and North-South relations. Working together, the Government of Ireland, the British Government and the Northern Ireland parties can help to build a peaceful, prosperous, and stable Northern Ireland and strengthen ties across these islands. Part of this includes the continued development of a closely integrated all-island economy, which is one of the key dividends of the peace process and remains a priority.
Building on the stability provided for by the Windsor Framework, the Government will continue to work to create an enabling environment for businesses, North and South, to grow cross-Border trade and further unlock the potential of the all-island economy. The Government will continue to work closely on a North-South and east-west basis in support of the devolved power-sharing institutions in Northern Ireland and the full implementation of all strands of the Good Friday Agreement, as well as subsequent agreements. It is important to stress the interdependence of strands 1, 2 and 3 of the Good Friday Agreement and, in the context of the implementation of the Windsor Framework and working with the UK Government and the European Commission, we are clear the agreement arrived at between the European Union and the United Kingdom has to be implemented in good faith and consistent with the terms of the EU-UK agreement. Notwithstanding what I said earlier, there is a need to restore the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement for the people of Northern Ireland, who deserve their mandate to be validated. The continuing frustration of the rights of the people of Northern Ireland in that respect is not satisfactory.
I thank the Tánaiste for his detailed reply and for his commitment, both as Taoiseach and as Tánaiste, to the concept of the pursuit of the best possible continued outcome of the Good Friday Agreement. However, an opportunity arises at this time to further the ambitions of the agreement in a meaningful way that reassures all the communities in Northern Ireland by way of continued engagement with them. It can also reassure them in a non-threatening and non-aggressive way that they have nothing to fear from closer association but they have a lot to gain. Unfortunately, a survey was carried out a few years ago to the effect that, in the South, people were not prepared to pay more in their taxes for a united Ireland. That is the question that was put at the time. We need to proceed more in that area and progress it for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland and southern Ireland, both economically and socially.
The Windsor Framework is very much about Northern Ireland and, in putting it together, it is clear the views of many elected representatives and of those in business and society across Northern Ireland were taken on board. It offers hope of a new chapter in EU-UK relations. It would be valuable for everybody to have time and space to look at it and arrive at the most informed decision on it. I understand that DUP members are doing that and that they are continuing to meet and debate it, including tomorrow, when I understand they will meet with a specific focus on the Stormont brake and possibly voting against it. Has the Tánaiste been engaging with it on its views and concerns and what impact a vote against could have on the overall framework?
The DUP has clearly linked two issues, the Northern Ireland protocol and the restoration of the Stormont institutions. Following extensive negotiations between the EU and the UK, a new Windsor Framework has been agreed. European ministers agreed to aspects of the Windsor Framework today and the EU-UK joint committee meets later this week to advance it further. The DUP has set up an expert panel to consider the Windsor Framework further and is committed to voting against the Stormont brake in the House of Commons tomorrow evening. It is to be hoped the DUP will give its agreement to the Windsor Framework in due course, but the negotiations between the EU and the UK are over. The protocol and the restoration of the Northern Ireland institutions, at the end of the day, are separate issues. What extra measures can the Tánaiste take or what can he do to get the institutions up and running as we prepare to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement?
I refer to what has been said by my colleagues and I refer to the DUP and its ongoing opposition to progress when it comes to the Windsor Framework. Have the Department or the Minister explained to the DUP the potential damage this could do, not alone to its reputation but to the stability of the peace process in Northern Ireland? It is very unfortunate the DUP seems to be the only major power broker that is fighting this continuously. It makes no economic sense and little political sense, given the recent assembly elections. Has that been explained?
On Deputy Durkan's points, the opportunity does exist. The 25th anniversary is rightly to celebrate the courage of all those involved in arriving at the Good Friday Agreement 25 years ago and marking the fact that a whole generation grew up in peace and not in conflict in comparison with what had happened prior to that. Equally, it is an opportunity to pivot to the future, and the appointment of Joe Kennedy as an economic adviser by the United States President, Joe Biden, is an important signal that the United States is anxious to support economic development and opportunities for Northern Ireland. The Vice-President of the European Commission, Maroš Šefčovič, has been consistent in saying to me and Northern Ireland parties that the Commission wants to support Northern Ireland economically and to create investment opportunities, in the context of the 25th anniversary. That makes sense and the shared island initiative has also been a positive development in dialogue, research and, above all, substantial funding for a range of significant projects and research between universities and for the Ulster Canal and so forth.
Deputy Moynihan made a point on the Windsor agreement. Time and space are being given and it is no secret that unionism sought a mechanism to deal with what it would describe as a democratic deficit in new EU law, EU law more generally and its application. It is taking a position in tomorrow's vote which I find surprising in that context because that is why the Stormont brake was designed in the first instance. This was done in negotiations between the European Union and the United Kingdom Government. We did not get involved in that specific measure. However, we want to ensure the implementation of that Stormont brake was done in good faith to the agreement arrived at between the European Union and the United Kingdom Government, and consistent with the architecture of the Good Friday Agreement, which is important.
Deputy Haughey is correct that the negotiations are over between the EU and the United Kingdom in that context. On extra measures, we have to wait to see what happens and the DUP has to make a decision on this at some stage. That decision will be critical in the validation of the outgoing election.
On Deputy O'Connor's points, we have had quite consistent and regular engagement with the DUP and with all the political parties and their leadership. Everyone is conscious of the implications of decisions they take in respect of the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement.
I again thank the Tánaiste for his detailed replies. So many years on, we tend to forget the difference the Good Friday Agreement made. Generally, that would be the case across the country. We need to reaffirm our views as to what it did. It brought about peace. We need to support that concept in a way we have never done before. We have this opportunity, which the Tánaiste has already referred to, to take it further and to work on the agreement in such a way as to reassure all communities on the island of Ireland that there is nothing to fear from the closer co-operation that should and will come and is part of the Good Friday Agreement.
It is vital for the people of Northern Ireland that power sharing be re-established. I am conscious that the DUP has asked for time and space to assess the framework. However, it has been indicated that it will be voting against an aspect of the Windsor Framework tomorrow and it also has been suggested that the DUP would not re-enter power sharing in Stormont. What can be done to alleviate these concerns? Are there avenues open to the Irish Government to assist in any way?
I appreciate that all the effort now must be in getting the institutions up and running. However, has the Tánaiste given any consideration to what might happen to the Belfast Agreement-Good Friday Agreement in due course and the reform of same? That has been discussed from time to time, particularly after the Assembly elections. If worst comes to worst and we cannot get the institutions up and running, has the Tánaiste discussed with his British counterparts what would need to be done then and what other measures could be put in place with regard to the governance of Northern Ireland?
We must reiterate in this House the international focus on the DUP's actions and why it needs to change its position. The President of the United States will be in Northern Ireland in less than three weeks. It is imperative that people realise, not just in the North but across the European Union, within the United Kingdom and here in Ireland, that they need to just get on with the business. This is not about the politics of the Troubles or the Good Friday Agreement in itself but about providing a viable economic future for young people in Northern Ireland. Young unionists who work here in Dublin tell me they are sick and tired of the DUP's political actions. That is a message that needs to ring through and not just here; I heard it in Washington last week. There has been very positive engagement from world leaders who are trying to push on what is best for the people of Northern Ireland, its society and its economy. It is important that we put on record that we feel the DUP is wrong in this. It is not the right thing to do and hopefully it will change its view.
I think Deputy Durkan is correct that many people forget the enormous impact the Good Friday Agreement had at the time. I was a youngster when the Troubles started. I witnessed many atrocities, as we all did, regularly with daily news bulletins and so on. When the breakthrough came, when Albert Reynolds and John Major announced the Downing Street Declaration, it was something people never thought they would see. The violence went on for far too long. There is no question but that terrible atrocities were committed. There is a whole young generation that do not quite realise what went on before. The Deputy is correct on that. We have to take the opportunity of the 25th anniversary to try to reboot and pivot to the future.
As regards Deputy Moynihan's question about the avenues open to the Irish Government, at this stage the focus is on the restoration of the institutions. We are not speculating on what might happen if that is not done. We will have to deal with that when the time comes if that is the case but I am of the strong opinion that the Windsor Framework deals comprehensively with all the issues that were raised with us and others in respect of the operation of the protocol. It is a comprehensive agreement and it deals with all the issues that were raised.
Deputy Haughey asked about the reform of the institutions. My consistent position is that the election to the Assembly has to be vindicated in the form of the election of a First Minister and deputy First Minister, in accordance with what the majority decided, before any reform is contemplated. The institutions have to be established in line with the election. After that, I am open to looking at the next election in five years' time and how those institutions could be reformed to make sure there is a viable Government into the future that is effective and would operate on behalf of people. There has been too much stopping and starting since the agreement was initiated 25 years ago.
On Deputy O'Connor's question, at this stage there has been a lot of discussion and engagement. We have to allow the space for a decision around going back into the institutions but that is a decision the DUP will have to come to. It is under no illusions as to the views of all the political parties in the North, the Irish Government, the British Government and the European Union or what the desire of the international community is but it is further considering some of these issues.
79. Deputy Paul McAuliffe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his response to the recent Council of Europe decision on Northern Ireland legacy issues; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13508/23]
115. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline his most recent engagements with the UK Government on its Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill following the recent decision adopted by the Council of Europe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13614/23]
This question relates to the recent Council of Europe decision on Northern Ireland legacy issues. I welcome the opportunity to hear the Tánaiste's views on that decision by the Council of Europe. I ask him to give an update on the Government's role in opposing the legacy legislation that has been brought forward and is due to become law later this year.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 79 and 115 together.
The Good Friday Agreement says we can best honour those who died or were injured, and their families, through a firm dedication to reconciliation, tolerance and mutual trust, and to the protection and vindication of the human rights of all. This has framed the Government’s approach to the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. The needs of victims must be core and all relevant human rights obligations must be met. Dealing effectively with the past will allow the achievement of a more reconciled society.
In Stormont House in 2014, the two Governments and most of the Assembly parties agreed a way forward on legacy which would meet the needs of victims, uphold human rights and contribute to reconciliation, an approach endorsed again in the Fresh Start and New Decade, New Approach agreements. However, in May 2022, with the publication of its Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill, the United Kingdom Government decided to move away from the Stormont House Agreement and take a unilateral approach to dealing with the past. Since the publication of that legacy Bill, the Committee of Ministers has on four occasions - in June, September and December 2022 and again this month - expressed its serious concerns about the Bill and its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. While the process itself is confidential, my officials have briefed Council of Europe member states regularly on our concerns and have made the Government's views clear in formal sessions.
The United Kingdom Government published amendments to its Bill in January and February. However, the Committee of Ministers in its decision last week expressed the "serious concern that those amendments do not sufficiently allay the concerns about the Bill". Other major international human rights actors have also made their views known. We have heard the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights express his concerns with the Bill, in particular its immunity scheme, and he has called on the United Kingdom to reconsider its approach.
It is important to recall that the legacy Bill does not have the support of any political party in Northern Ireland or of victims’ groups. Enactment in its current form risks severely damaging trust and setting back reconciliation efforts. I know from my own direct engagements with a range of families directly affected that as the United Kingdom’s legacy Bill progresses, the anxiety of victims and communities in Northern Ireland about the prospect that other avenues to truth and justice could be closed to them grows. Every family deserves and is legally entitled to an effective investigation and access to justice for their loved one. This is a point I have repeatedly made to my counterparts in the British Government and I will continue to do so. I have urged, and continue to urge, them to pause this legislation and return to a partnership approach on this vital issue that goes to the heart of the process of reconciliation.
The decision of Strasbourg’s Committee of Ministers also referred to the recent High Court decision on the Pat Finucane case, which declared that there has still not been an Article 2-compliant inquiry into Mr. Finucane’s death.
The committee "exhorted the authorities to provide their full and clear response to the Supreme Court judgement as soon as possible". It has been the consistent and firmly held position of the Government that a full and independent public inquiry, as provided for under the Weston Park Agreement in 2001, is the right way forward on this case and the best way for the UK Government to uphold its Article 2 obligations. I reiterate the need for the UK Government to take this step.
As we have heard, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill is due to become law later this year. There has been widespread opposition to this Bill from the Irish Government, from all of the political parties in the North, from victims' groups and their families, and from several human rights organisations. The Bill was published unilaterally by the British Government and is a departure from the Stormont House Agreement of 2014. In response, the British Government brought forward some amendments, as the Tánaiste said, but these do not go nearly far enough. The Council of Europe has stated that the proposed legislation will not be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights and that it will not allow for effective investigations into all outstanding cases. Will the Tánaiste assure the House that he will keep up the pressure on the British Government to withdraw this legislation? It is deeply offensive to so many people. What else can the Tánaiste do in this regard? Will he reassure the Members that everything will be done to try to persuade the British Government to withdraw this legislation?
One of the very few occasions in my long service here where I attended a meeting with a viewpoint that was supported by every political party of the island of Ireland was at a meeting in Belfast City Hall during which the legacy Bill was opposed. I have never signed a document that was signed by every shade of opinion, nationalist, republican and unionist, North and South, in opposition to this Bill. The Tánaiste obviously warmly welcomed the decision of the Council of Europe and its Council of Ministers. It is the fourth iteration of its concerns. The proposals the British Government made are not compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights.
In the improved relationship with Britain, does the Tánaiste feel there is a real prospect now of moving it away from the enactment of this legislation? I am interested in hearing the Tánaiste's opinion on that. Is it a situation where the unthinkable might happen where the United Kingdom, one of the founding members of the European Convention on Human Rights, might resile from that convention?
First, on Deputy Haughey's questions, again we have been strong and robust in our exchanges with the UK Government in respect of this legacy Bill. We think it is a wrong thing to do; it has no agreement within Northern Ireland. I met with victims who are extremely angry about it and are very concerned about its implications. I will marry Deputy Haughey's question with that of Deputy Howlin in saying that there has been a degree of unilateralism in the conceiving, and the writing up, of this Bill and its passage through Parliament. In the context of the Good Friday Agreement, unilateralism does not work and is not appropriate to it. We are co-guarantors of the agreement and I have always been concerned during the prime ministership of Boris Johnson about that trend towards unilateralism emerging on a number of fronts. There has been an improvement under the government of Rishi Sunak and far better engagement on these issues. To take the Deputy's point, however, there has not been improvements on the legacy Bill. There have been some amendments but they go nowhere near our red lines. I detect that not everybody within the UK system, if I can put it that way, or in the UK Parliament, is satisfied with this. The Deputy is correct in pointing out that, historically, the UK Government had the least to fear from the European Convention on Human Rights. Those in Strasbourg will tell you that the least number of cases are taken against the UK Government.
It is a founding member of it.
It is a founding member but this seems to be pandering to an election mandate, manifesto and so on. It shows significant disregard for the plight and the wishes of victims in Northern Ireland in respect of their having the capacity to have investigations into the cases of their loved ones carried out and closure brought to their situations.
To answer Deputy Haughey's question, we will continue to engage with the British Government on this. It is engaging with our officials on this but we are awaiting further amendments. We think the best thing to do, and we have said this to the British Government, is to pause. We are raising this at every international forum because it is a fundamental matter in respect of human rights but also in respect of the Good Friday Agreement.
I raise another legacy issue, which is the issue of the Omagh bombing in 1998. Last month, in response to the finding of a High Court judge, Lord Justice Horner, the British Government announced that it intends to establish an independent statutory inquiry into the 1998 Omagh bombing. This bomb, which was planted by the Real IRA, killed 29 people, including a woman pregnant with twins, and injured hundreds of others. It is suggested that there were security failings in the lead-up to the attack. Has the Irish Government been contacted about this inquiry announced by the British Government? Have the terms of reference been finalised? How will the Irish authorities engage with the inquiry? Will any Garda files on the matter be made available to the inquiry, for example? Any further information the Tánaiste could give me in that regard would be appreciated.
In terms of having a strategy to stop this Bill being enacted, has the Tánaiste had discussions with other parties in the Westminster Parliament? They could be with the Labour Party, being the largest party of opposition, to see how it can work towards stopping it or with the House of Lords in terms of its input, which has been effective in terms of Brexit negotiations in the past. My second question is on the compliance with the convention in relation to the Pat Finucane case and whether there has been any progress in ensuring that the requirements of the decision of the Council of Europe in relation to that case will be complied with by the British authorities.
I accept the Tánaiste has been robust in his dealings with the British Government around this legacy Bill, amnesty Bill or whatever one calls it. I have my own view. I have said to him previously that this is a British Government that will never accept a certain element of truth and justice for victims in the sense that it sees that as the British state having to admit to being involved in running death squads in Ireland. I accept that many things happened during the conflict which we all wish did not happen. That is a fact. I ask about the Tánaiste's engagement at an official or a governmental level. I accept that things have improved and that the mood music has improved as regards Rishi Sunak. The Tánaiste said he wants this paused, wants amendments and wants this ended on the basis there is no support for it. What is the engagement in this regard? What is he getting back from the British Government? If it is a disaster and the British Government ploughs ahead, are we looking at any alternatives from a legal point of view or whatever else?
In terms of the Omagh bombing, we have to keep saying that what happened in Omagh was an unspeakable act of barbarity and cruelty. The terrorists who carried the bombing out had no sense of any humanity and they displayed a complete and shocking disregard for human life. We welcome the announcement of the UK that it intends to hold a public inquiry. We got a heads-up and there was engagement with the Secretary of State in terms of his decision to go ahead with this. I have discussed possible next steps with the Minister for Justice, in particular, and with my Government colleagues in terms of how we take this further. We are awaiting details from the UK Government about its proposed inquiry in the first instance, which will then help inform our deliberations, essentially as regards the terms of reference and so on and how we then respond to that.
On strategy, we have been in contact with the British Labour Party and others. Our officials and I, both in my previous capacity as Taoiseach and as Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, have met Labour Party representatives. We have also taken soundings in the House of Lords. There is much concern in the British Parliament about this legacy Bill. I have raised it directly with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has indicated that there will be further amendments and has kept us informed.
Regarding compliance with the investigation into the death of Pat Finucane, there have been no further developments. In addition, there has been no further progress in the UK Government's response.
In response to Deputy Ó Murchú, we have engaged on a range of issues, particularly with regard to the Kenova and Denton investigations. It is our view that they should be exempt from this legislation and allowed to complete their work. I accept that this was in response to a British Government commitment in respect of security forces, which I do not accept. I put it to the Deputy that Sinn Féin needs to do more for truth and justice for victims of atrocities that the Provisional IRA carried out. I have met many victims who cannot get satisfactory closure in respect of atrocities carried out by the Provisional IRA, which were endorsed by Sinn Féin.
We are over time.
They continue to be endorsed by Sinn Féin. I respectfully put it to the Deputy that there is an issue which Sinn Féin needs to deal with, because it undermines its credibility to attack the British Government for its failure in respect of some security issues and then for victims still not to get answers.
We are against this legislation across the board. That relates to all victims.
80. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline the engagement that Ireland's representatives on the UN Security Council have had regarding Palestine; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13669/23]
Will the Tánaiste outline the engagement that Ireland's representative on the UN Security Council has had regarding Palestine? It is fair to say, even if we just look at it from the 1990s, particularly in the past while, that we have seen Israel move in a right-wing direction. We know the demographics have changed. We know that on some level, there is no degree of cover by the Israeli Government at this point. We need to put pressure on. We would like to work with others but there is an element of having to use what tools we have to put pressure on the Israeli state.
I thank the Deputy for the question. As the Deputy is aware, Ireland completed its term on the UN Security Council at the end of 2022. During the term, the Middle East peace process was a key priority for Ireland. The United Nations Security Council discusses the situation monthly, and Ireland used these opportunities to underscore the importance we attach to the effort to secure a just and lasting peace. While there is significant divergence of policy on this file among the Security Council members, Ireland nevertheless spoke with a consistent voice for our principled position on the issue. In particular, we emphasised the importance of adherence to international law and international humanitarian law. Ireland advocated for the international community to help create the circumstances where the parties could return to a peace process.
Throughout our term, Ireland supported a range of initiatives aimed at furthering progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For instance, in June last year, Ireland co-chaired a meeting of the UN Security Council’s informal expert group on women, peace, and security, which discussed for the first time the situation of women in the occupied Palestinian territory. Following the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh, Ireland organised an informal meeting at the UN Security Council on the protection of journalists. Our engagement at the council also focused on illegal settlement expansion. In December, our last month on the council, Ireland repeated our call to Israel to immediately cease all settlement activity, in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2334. Ireland also highlighted that 2022 was the deadliest year for Palestinians living in the West Bank since the United Nations began recording fatalities in 2005. We led a joint press statement with a number of other council members noting this tragic milestone and called for timely, transparent and independent investigations into all civilian casualties.
Although Ireland is no longer a member of the Security Council, the Middle East peace process will remain a priority for us at the United Nations more broadly. I met the United Nations Secretary General, António Guterres, while I was in New York last week and confirmed to him Ireland's commitment to uphold international law and to continue to support a negotiated solution.
The Tánaiste spoke about the fact that we highlighted many issues, which, to be clear, include illegal settlement activity and a murderous campaign against Palestinians by the Israeli Government. We have seen the recent moves and the repeal of the 2005 law on dismantling further illegal settlements in the northern West Bank. I do not think Israel really cares about putting up any sort of front about what it is doing at this point. Netanyahu's Government seems to be far more right-wing than ones I would have considered to be beyond right-wing. We would love if we could deal with friendly countries, whether in Europe or internationally, on taking concerted action to make sure Israel understands that this is not acceptable, to put it on the back foot internationally to a certain extent and to give it the pariah state status it should have. We need action and some of that will happen at state level.
I am conscious that there is general consensus in the House about having a two-state solution and of the concern that Members have about this particular Israeli Government, with its very-far-right members who are articulating-----
Racist.
-----outrageous and racist comments in respect of Palestinians which, in themselves, represent an incitement to attacks on Palestinians and almost an endorsement of what happened in Huwara with the appalling attacks on Palestinian citizens there. The strategic approach has to involve working with those in the neighbourhood in the first instance who are endeavouring to de-escalate and to see if, internationally, we can put pressure on Israel to get back to a two-state solution, and then to use any other measure that we can at international forums, such as our decision to support the referral for an advisory opinion on Israel's behaviour in respect of the International Court of Justice. It was not well-received by Israel but we have been prominent on this issue.
The Tánaiste will get a chance to come back in.
Those are strong words on the fact that Israel is involved in racist action. The question has been put to the Tánaiste before of whether he sees Israel as being an apartheid state, as it is seen by many in the international community at this point. Apartheid South Africa was put under severe pressure by becoming a pariah state. International action was taken against it. It looks like, for many reasons, there will be a requirement of individual states to be brave. We have a general agreement on the fact that there should be a two-state solution and that Israel is absolutely wrong in how it deals with the Palestinian people. We need to make a stand. We need to look at recognition of the Palestinian state. Beyond that, we have to look at some means of operating the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018. This is a Bill that the Tánaiste's party sponsored on Second Stage not so long ago.
Ireland plays a leadership role at European Union level in taking a consistent, clear, firm position on the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory. I work closely with EU partners to ensure that the Israeli and Palestinian conflict remains central to the EU's foreign policy. At the Foreign Affairs Council on 23 January, EU foreign ministers had an exchange with the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mohammad Shtayyeh, and Palestinian foreign minister, Dr. Riyad al-Maliki. We gave them the opportunity to brief EU ministers on the up-to-date situation. That resulted in the commitment that we pushed, with other like-minded states, to set up a high-level political dialogue between the European Union and the Palestinian Authority. The Foreign Affairs Council discussed the issue again yesterday. The EU issued a joint statement, which is encouraging, on behalf of all member states on recent developments in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory, which stated unambiguously that Israel must stop settlement expansion, prevent settler violence and ensure the perpetrators are held to account. The best way forward is to try to build a critical mass within the EU and internationally. It is easy to take a brave stand independently but we have to ask whether it has an impact.
82. Deputy John Brady asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will respond to a UN report that argues that socioeconomic conditions are driving young Africans into extremist militant groups, given Ireland’s role in UN and EU missions in Africa; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13679/23]
Deputy Lawless is now present, so I do not know whether-----
That is decent of Deputy Brady. I would have ploughed ahead.
I will plough ahead then. My question was to ask the Tánaiste, given Ireland's role in UN and EU missions in Africa, to respond to a UN report that argues that socioeconomic conditions are driving young Africans into extremist militant groups. Will he make a statement on the matter?
The Government is deeply concerned by the continued threat posed by terrorism and violent extremism to peace and security around the world, including on the African continent. The recent UN report referred to by the Deputy makes the case clearly that terrorism and violent extremism, in addition to destroying lives, undermines development gains and threatens to hold back progress for generations to come. The report also notes the unique role for development projects in addressing structural drivers of poverty, food insecurity and conflict. Ireland prioritises such a comprehensive approach through our international development programme and in our bilateral engagement with partners in Africa, at the UN and as a member of the European Union. We believe that efforts to address terrorism and violent extremism in Africa require integrated approaches that seek to address the drivers of violence and root causes of instability. Communities affected by conflict, poverty, inequality, discrimination, poor governance and human rights violations are clearly more vulnerable to radicalisation and recruitment. We also recognise the links between climate change and conflict, and that terrorist organisations exploit those in vulnerable and precarious conditions for recruitment purposes.
Ireland works to ensure that the protection of civilians, humanitarian need, and development for local populations are at the centre of EU and international efforts. We demonstrated this consistently during our term on the UN Security Council, and we are continuing to work closely with the African Union and African subregional organisations. Humanitarian needs in parts of Africa remain acute, and Ireland continues to respond through our development programme. Irish support continues to target those most in need. Last year, for instance, we provided a total of €100 million in assistance to the Horn of Africa. In addition, Ireland supports UN and EU missions in Africa and is currently contributing personnel to three EU peace support missions on the continent.
Since 2020, there has been a 130% increase in violence in the Sahel region. In excess of 8,000 people were killed there last year as a result of militant Islamic violence. As the Minister of State outlined, temperatures are increasing as a consequence of climate change and are rising one and a half times faster than the global average. According to the UN development programme, with no way to make a living, as I outlined in my opening remarks, many young men in sub-Saharan Africa are being driven into the arms of Islamic terrorists. We are talking about countries such as Cameroon, Chad, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia and Sudan. Sub-Saharan Africa is described by the UN as the new global epicentre of violence and extremism. In 2021, 48% of global deaths from terrorism occurred there. There is a major crisis there which needs serious intervention. We have seen the military experiment in the region by the EU fail. There needs to be serious investment, given the fact that the World Food Programme is being cut. Immediate action is needed.
Regarding the Sahel region and western Africa, I visited Senegal with the President of Ireland, Michael D. Higgins, earlier this year. It was a very productive visit in terms of his and our relationship with the 34 African nations represented at that meeting. We have a very strong record of supporting development work in the Horn of Africa and dealing with the humanitarian challenges in Somalia, and especially in Sudan. I intend to visit Malawi in the next week or so for a week to see first-hand the level of poverty and the areas of vulnerability relating to the issues discussed by Deputy Brady. We will have a continued presence on the ground. For example, we recently opened an embassy in Dakar in Senegal and we intend opening further embassies in Africa. Ireland will be much closer to all of these situations and will be able to respond to them more comprehensively.
