Matt Carthy
Ceist:7. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the engagements associated with his attendance at the United Nations seminar on Sustainable Development Goals. [41462/23]
Ceisteanna Eile (Atógáil) - Other Questions (Resumed)
Official Engagements
Gino Kenny
Ceist:13. Deputy Gino Kenny asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will provide an update on his recent engagements at the UN; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41807/23]
Willie O'Dea
Ceist:32. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on his recent attendance at the UN General Assembly; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41716/23]
I wish to be associated with every word the Ceann Comhairle has said and welcome our Ukrainian friends. Unfortunately, I was not able to meet them at the joint committee because of the timing clash with these questions, but they are very welcome to this Chamber and we are honoured to have them here.
My question is to ask the Tánaiste if he will report on his engagements during his attendance at the UN Seminar on Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs.
I also join in welcoming President Stefanchuk. We met in Strasbourg, I think, last year and in other locations. I salute his commitment and the extraordinary diplomatic work he and his colleagues have been undertaking. The Ukrainian Foreign Minister, Dmytro Kuleba, has been everywhere lobbying and advocating for the Ukrainian people against what is a terrible, immoral and illegal war and invasion.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 13 and 32 together. I travelled to New York from 16 to 20 September for a series of meetings as part of the 78th United Nations General Assembly, UNGA, high-level week, which included the 2023 Sustainable Development Goals, SDG, summit. UNGA high-level week, which takes place in September every year, is an opportunity to highlight our foreign policy priorities and engage directly with the UN system and partners on issues of mutual concern.
It is vital that we address climate change, global health challenges, food security and financing for sustainable development collectively. It is also essential that we commit as an international community to get the SDGs back on track, as well as to address global peace and security issues, including Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine, and defend the UN charter. Ireland was active on all these issues during UNGA high-level week. Ireland played a leadership role at the SDG summit as a co-facilitator, along with Qatar, to negotiate the political declaration adopted by the summit. Being asked to take on this role demonstrates the respect and trust placed in Ireland by the UN leadership and the 193 UN member states.
In addition to attending the opening of the SDG summit and the general debate, I delivered Ireland’s national statement to the high-level dialogue on financing for development. I addressed the high-level session on food systems transformation at the SDG mobilisation day on 17 September. I delivered keynote remarks at two events co-hosted by Ireland: an event on global solidarity with Afghan women, which was co-hosted by the Women’s Forum on Afghanistan, along with Ireland, Canada and Indonesia; and the women, peace and leadership symposium co-hosted by the International Peace Institute, IPI, and the Sasakawa Peace Foundation. At the global solidarity event, we heard directly from several Afghan women, both inside and outside the country, and listened to their perspectives on how the international community can continue to support the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan, including the right to education.
I also participated in an EU foreign ministers' meeting, in the International Peace Institute’s annual ministerial working dinner on the Middle East and at a ministerial event on the Middle East peace process to launch the Peace Day initiative. I signed a landmark international agreement on global ocean conservation on behalf of the Government, the Agreement on Marine Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction, BBNJ, the first global treaty on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity of the high seas. I also launched a new publication in New York, On an Equal Footing With All: Ireland at the League of Nations 1923-1946, which was developed in partnership with the Royal Irish Academy, the National Archives, the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media and the Department of Foreign Affairs as part of the Government’s decade of centenaries programme.
I also had an extensive programme of bilateral meetings and engagements with the Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, and the foreign ministers of Canada, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iraq, Lebanon, Türkiye, the United Arab Emirates, UAE, as well as with the President of the General Assembly, the director general and executive director of the World Health Organization, WHO, Samantha Power, administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, and former President Mary Robinson and her fellow members of the Africa Europe Foundation's women leaders network.
Along with the Taoiseach, I had the opportunity to briefly meet President Biden at a reception he hosted with Dr. Jill Biden, and I spoke to several members of the US Administration at that event, including in relation to Northern Ireland. As part of a programme organised by the Consulate General in New York, I also attended an Irish community reception and briefed a number of Irish-American leaders on the situation in Northern Ireland.
Ireland was also represented at many other events during the high-level week by the Taoiseach, Deputy Leo Varadkar, as well as the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications and Minister for Transport, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and the Minister for Health, Deputy Stephen Donnelly. The Taoiseach addressed the opening ceremony of the SDG summit on 18 September and delivered Ireland’s national statement during the general debate on 22 September.
I thank the Tánaiste. When he was marking the UN International Day of Peace last week, the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, said, "Peace is needed today more than ever. War and conflict are unleashing devastation, poverty and hunger and are driving tens of millions of people from their homes. Climate chaos is all around". We know the SDGs are one of the best tools we have not only to address inequality, poverty and global poverty, but perhaps the most constructive tool we can wield in response to the scourge of war and climate change.
Agreed in 2015, the SDGs were an important part of rededicating the international community to address these challenges. We know that one of the best ways Ireland can contribute to meeting these objectives is, of course, through development aid contributions. When will we get to the point of reaching 0.7% of our gross national income, GNI, being allocated as official development aid, as we have committed to?
I again pay tribute to our team at the UN, including Ambassador Mythen. I do not often mention particular civil servants, but I refer to John Gilroy, who was there in 2015 at the formulation of the SDGs and during the working up of that document. He was there again this time in regard to the rebooting and re-energising of the SDGs. This reflects respect within the UN system for Ireland and our values in respect of world hunger, in particular, given our own historical experiences.
We, that is the world, are off track significantly. Only about 15% of the 169 targets are on track. While recent crises have inhibited the achievement of the SDGs, progress towards the goals was already slowing down and uneven. The need for progress, therefore, is urgent. Ireland and Qatar worked to gain consensus. This was complex, but we managed to do it, especially concerning international finance. We will see significant moves, I would like to think, in reforming the international financial architecture to support developing states.
We are making progress here towards achieving our commitment to 0.7% of GNI. Our GDP rises more than most, but, nonetheless, we have made significant progress over the last two years and we will continue to do this. We are one of the few countries, in the context of the Ukrainian war, to maintain and increase overseas development aid separately from our commitments to Ukraine.
I reiterate the point that our development aid is the advertisement of our commitment. It is where people can actually put our commitment to the SDGs to the test. Another undertaking the Government has given concerns climate financing, which runs across the responsibilities of the Departments of Foreign Affairs; Finance; Agriculture, Food and the Marine; and the Environment, Climate and Communications. One of the difficulties, however, in assessing our progress in this regard is the fact that, according to my understanding, the 2022 workings in terms of the total figures concerning our climate financing position are not available. Will that change so that we can have more reliable and up-to-date reporting in terms of the figures concerning climate finance?
On humanitarian aid, I listened closely to the response by the Minister of State, Deputy Fleming, to an earlier question. I welcome the Government's support to Morocco and Libya. Is a mechanism being considered to streamline all of the measures outlined in the lengthy answer to Deputy Howlin? The Government needs to be much clearer regarding the provision of humanitarian aid and whether, if such aid is required at short notice, it can be released quickly and visibly.
There are two points to make. First, on climate finance, we have given a commitment that by 2025, we will be making an annual contribution of €225 million, which was a commitment I gave at COP26. The target is to reach that sum within that timeline. As a country, we have given a commitment. The Government formally took a decision on it. We need to see it realised.
On the broader issue, as the Minister of State, Deputy Fleming, referenced, the most effective way to contribute is through UN emergency funding. Ireland is one of the higher contributors to the UN's central emergency response fund. When a disaster happens, we do not see Ireland's name on the fund, because it is the UN emergency fund, but it is the right thing to do. Rather than making declarations and pledges when a disaster happens, it is far better that there be a UN mechanism. We have allocated funding to that mechanism, which facilitates immediate deployment of resources to a disaster area. We also have deployed goods and stocks, including tents and all sorts of equipment, in Dubai and Brindisi in Italy for onward movement to a disaster site, which can be done quickly when required.
Question No. 8 taken with Written Answers.
Northern Ireland
Peadar Tóibín
Ceist:9. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has discussed the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 with any of his counterparts in Britain; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41527/23]
Brendan Smith
Ceist:43. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the outcome of his most recent discussions with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Foreign Secretary concerning legacy issues, with particular reference to the totally unacceptable legacy Bill; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41854/23]
Jackie Cahill
Ceist:57. Deputy Jackie Cahill asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs what recent engagement he has had with the British Government on the legacy Bill; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41707/23]
The British legacy legislation is a devastating blow against victims and survivors. It will give murderers an amnesty for the most vicious and heinous murders. The Government has depended on a policy of diplomacy to try to stop the British Government proceeding. Does the Tánaiste accept this policy of diplomacy has failed? Will he give hope to the victims and survivors by declaring today that he will bring the British Government to the European Court of Human Rights?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 43 and 57 together.
I dealt with this issue earlier in reply to a question from Deputy Carthy. However, I will give the reply to this group of questions for the benefit of Deputies.
I meet regularly with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Chris Heaton-Harris, to discuss issues relating to Northern Ireland. Most recently, I met with him at the Northern Ireland Investment Summit on 13 September in Belfast, and at the British-Irish Association on 2 September in Oxford. At every opportunity over the 18 months since the British legacy Bill was introduced unilaterally, the Government has been consistent in expressing to the British Government our view that the legislation is not fit for purpose and will damage reconciliation in Northern Ireland. The passing into law of the Act on 18 September is a deeply concerning and retrograde step, which I believe runs counter to the British Government's international human rights obligations. This is a matter of particular concern as the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into Northern Ireland law was an explicit requirement of the Good Friday Agreement.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is well aware of my strong view that the British legislation is not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, I have highlighted our concerns around the granting of immunity for crimes amounting to gross human rights violations and the shutting down of all outstanding legacy inquests and investigations. I have emphasised the negative impact this will have on reconciliation in Northern Ireland. I repeatedly urged the Secretary of State to pause the legislation and return to the principles of the Stormont House Agreement, which were agreed by the two Governments, together with Northern Ireland leaders and with the support of victims, survivors and civil society. This is a message I have also conveyed to the Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, and, previously, as Taoiseach, to the Prime Minister.
A shared approach by the Irish and British Governments, which includes genuine engagement with people in Northern Ireland, has been central to all major successes of the peace process. That partnership approach remains fundamental to protecting peace on these islands. I greatly regret that the British Government has not engaged in a meaningful way with the many concerns expressed by victims. The amendments to the draft legislation introduced in June were an inadequate response to the issues raised, not only by the Government but also by victims and families in Northern Ireland and by international experts and observers. The voices and perspectives of those most directly affected by the Troubles were not heard and not reflected in the legislation.
The Government recognises that no perfect mechanism for dealing with the legacy of conflict exists, but one that was designed without taking account of the views and opposition of those who were most directly affected by the Troubles is illogical. Shutting down investigations and granting perpetrators immunity from prosecution without properly testing their account of events will not heal deep wounds in Northern Ireland. This Act will not draw a line under legacy issues but will instead ensure they remain a source of contention, suspicion and mistrust, undermining the reconciliation we have worked so hard to progress. It is a matter of deep regret that this is the space in which we now find ourselves. As I said earlier, the Government is awaiting legal advice from the Attorney General on what our next steps should be.
The Government has been consistent in talking, in giving its views and in diplomacy, but it has been completely opposed to action. In fact, this is a Government of inaction and inertia. It is a do-nothing Government when it comes to standing up for the rights of Irish citizens on this human rights issue. It is an incredible situation. The Tánaiste talked about a shared approach. There is no shared approach. The Tory party has embarked on a unilateral approach. It has given two fingers to the Government. Right through the process of the passage of the Bill through the Houses of Parliament in Britain, Aontú and I asked the Government at least to warn the British Government of an intention to take it to the European Court of Human Rights. We were told we must wait and, if the Bill goes through, then the Government will act. Here we are now, the Bill has passed, yet all we hear from the Government is talk of legal advice. Many people have had their loved ones heinously murdered in the North. They are entitled to the rule of law. They are entitled to justice and truth. Will the Tánaiste stand up for that and bring the British Government to the European Court of Human Rights?
I welcome the Tánaiste's statement on the total unsuitability of the British legacy Bill. It is appalling legislation. The only thing that can be done with it is to bin it in its entirety. It gives an amnesty to murderers belonging to the British state forces and to murderers from the paramilitary organisations. These people wreaked havoc on this island for too long. I said to the Taoiseach yesterday in the House that a further appeal must be made to the British Prime Minister, clearly stating that he must take cognisance of the united political view on this island, including from all political parties in Northern Ireland, from all in the Oireachtas and from human rights organisations nationally and internationally, that this legislation is absolutely reprehensible. It gives an amnesty to people who carried out vile and evil murders and other crimes. It will put an end suddenly to inquests and investigations. I have worked and campaigned with families who have striven for the truth for decades. The British Government is telling those people to forget about the work they have done and the very gracious and dignified way they have campaigned to get to the truth. I have said often in this House that the families I know and have had the privilege and honour to work along with are not looking for revenge and for somebody to be put in jail for years to come, if it were ever possible to get a prosecution. The minimum they want is the truth about who, in paramilitary organisations and in British state forces, carried out those heinous crimes.
As the Tánaiste knows, there is a unique agreement on this issue across all political parties in Northern Ireland, all political parties in this jurisdiction and all but one party in the UK. I cannot remember a time in my political life when there was such broad agreement on any issue pertaining to Northern Ireland as there is on this issue. It is unconscionable that the families who have campaigned for so long would be hurt in this way. The British Labour Party has committed to repealing the legislation. I hope it will be in government next year. Will the Tánaiste indicate the discussions he has had with Keir Starmer and the British Labour Party's new Northern Ireland spokesperson on this matter and what level of commitment he has that this awful legislation will be repealed?
I thank all the Deputies for their remarks. I do not agree with Deputy Tóibín's assertions, which are more in the realm of sloganeering, polemic and propaganda than a serious discussion of the issue.
We have been very clear as a Government. I support what Deputy Brendan Smith said in that this relates to all actors in Northern Ireland who perpetrated atrocities. Deputy Tóibín supported a party at a given time that committed the most appalling atrocities on people. The Deputy did, and through the Chair, I will not take lectures from the Deputy in respect of how I treat victims. I am very fair on these issues. As far as I am concerned I would be led in a victim-centred approach and we have always made it clear to the United Kingdom Government that the prospect of an interstate case was there but we sought that the British Government would pause the legislation. I met with the leader of the British Labour Party last year in my capacity as Taoiseach and we discussed the legacy Bill. He has made clear his position on the legacy legislation. Deputy Smith has raised a number of cases with me about victims of particular atrocities. Again, as a State we must do things with due rigour and diligence, which I am committed to doing. I would not be as dismissive as Deputy Tóibín about awaiting legal advice. If one wants to pursue a legal case of this significance it must be well grounded and there has to be significant due diligence done in advance. I do not believe in a sloganeering approach to these matters. These are very serious issues and matters of considerable weight. I will be guided in a victim-centred approach. I have met many victims of British state forces but also victims of the Provisional IRA and victims of loyalist paramilitaries. They have not got closure. This Act would end any chances of many of them getting closure, which is deeply regrettable.
Many victims of the Troubles will find it extremely sad that the Tánaiste has descended to whataboutery to defend inaction. On an issue where every single party on the island of Ireland is in unison we should have unity of purpose in relation to this. Aontú supports truth and justice for every single victim who has suffered wrong in the North of Ireland over that period of time. This legislation is the son and heir of the policy of cover up that the British governments were involved in right through the Troubles. The Act is a threat to what it means to be a liberal democracy, it is a threat to the foundation of law and it is a threat to the foundation of truth and justice. The Tánaiste said "if" the Government in the South should decide to challenge that threat. Where is the moral backbone in the Irish Government to ask the question "if" they should decide to put a legal case against the British Government in relation to the threat to the rule of law, in relation to the threat to justice, in relation to the threat to common decency? That should be something the Tánaiste is consumed with, and not considering for years whether or not the Government should do it. On this occasion will the Tánaiste give hope to the victims on both sides of the Troubles today and commit to bringing the British Government to the European Court of Human Rights to make sure that this legislation is stopped?
I have outlined to the House the steps that I intend to take in relation to this. The only person attempting to shatter the unity of purpose in this House is the Deputy himself in the language he has chosen to use and with the assertions he has made around the bona fides of the Irish Government. We have been very committed. I belong to a political party that did its fair share in achieving peace on this island through the Good Friday Agreement.
We are not talking history here. We do not need a history lesson.
We managed to persuade people like your good self not to endorse violence on a continuous basis and which caused so much damage, destruction and loss of life. The Deputy asked for unity of purpose. I have outlined it to the House. I understand where people are coming from here. I have made it very clear to the British Government that we reject the unilateral approach in respect to the legacy Act and what it represents.
Only in words.
We do not operate or run the British Government or the British parliamentary system-----
You are only rejecting in words. We need actions.
-----that is a process in itself. We have raised this at international level with considerable impact and effect, as I outlined earlier in replies to Deputy Carthy and others.
It has failed.
Question No. 10 taken with Written Answers.
Middle East
Brendan Howlin
Ceist:11. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will set out the matters discussed and the responses received in his discussions with the President of the state of Palestine Mr. Mahmoud Abbas; if the issue of the recognition of the state of Palestine by Ireland was discussed; if he raised the issue of holding elections in Palestine; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39899/23]
Will the Tánaiste set out the issues discussed with the President of the state of Palestine, Mr. Mahmoud Abbas in his recent visit, and if the recognition of the state of Palestine was discussed? Was the issue the holding of elections in Palestine discussed?
I could give the Deputy the verbal version but in short, I met with the President of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, in Ramallah as part of my visit to the occupied Palestinian territory. During my meeting with the President, we discussed a number of issues including possible future elections in the occupied Palestinian territory, international recognition, our strong bilateral relations, the prospects for peace negotiations, and the two-state solution.
I underlined the importance for Ireland of the Palestinian National Authority holding national elections as it has been 17 years since the last national elections. I emphasised that it is a critical moment to do so in order to enhance the Palestinian National Authority’s credibility as the representative voice of the Palestinian people, notwithstanding the challenges and constraints in relation to the holding of elections in East Jerusalem. It is my strong view that there is need to give voice to Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, through the democratic process.
President Abbas and I also discussed the issue of recognition of the state of Palestine. I outlined Ireland’s consistent position on this issue and we discussed Ireland's efforts at European Union level to raise the profile of the Israeli-Palestinian issue and seek more effective collective European Union engagement in pressing for a political horizon and a path to negotiations.
During our discussions, President Abbas briefed me on talks earlier this year between Palestinian and Israeli delegations, including the Aqaba and Sharm-el-Sheik negotiations, aimed at de-escalating tensions. I expressed my support for these talks and the importance of maintaining communications lines. We also discussed prospects for intra-Palestinian reconciliation with engagement on this issue ongoing and led by Egypt.
What response did the Tánaiste get from President Abbas on the election issue and on the holding of elections in Palestine?
One of the most disturbing things I have seen in recent times was the speech of Prime Minister Netanyahu to the United Nations, in which address he held up his view of the future that was a map of the Middle East. He said that with the new negotiations with Saudi Arabia, the extension of the so-called Abraham Accords, that this would be the look of the new Middle East. There was no state of Palestine. There was no notion that the Palestinian people could actually have their own state. They were simply obliterated from his vision of the future. In that context is it really worthwhile trying to pursue the notion of a two-state solution if the current Israeli regime is so dead against it? Can we take a stand by recognising the state of Palestine?
President Abbas's response was that because the Israeli Government refuses to facilitate the holding of elections in East Jerusalem - which is a critical issue for the Palestinian National Authority - they therefore cannot proceed with elections. He referenced the current level of aggression within the occupied territories. Fundamentally it rests on East Jerusalem being enabled to be part of any electoral process.
We believe there is a need to push because 17 years is a long time without elections. There is a view that sentiment has changed within the Palestinian occupied territories. There is much concern around the younger generations of Palestinians not being able, through the ballot box, to articulate their frustrations, their views and their perspectives on where they are now. We must continue to engage with all partners on this, including the Palestinian National Authority.
The current composition of the Israeli Government is deeply worrying.
Earlier I referred to religious fundamentalism as now being a part of the extension of policy, the manifestation of that being very aggressive settler expansion which is almost on biblical terms, justifications, etc. It is all very dangerous, highly violent and causing unacceptable escalation.
Israel, in all our discussions, reaffirmed its commitment to a two-state solution, but I do not disagree with the Deputy's basic tenet. The evidence of that is thin on the ground.
First, I strongly agree with the Tánaiste that there needs to be a new testing of the democratic will of the Palestinian people and I hope it can be facilitated. Fear of an election is not a trait we can accept anywhere in the world.
The more fundamental point is if the Israelis, in the Tánaiste's discussions with the most senior members, were of the view that they still support a two-state solution, that is not what they are saying internationally. That is not what is happening on the ground. They are every day making the creation of a state of Palestine more impossible with increasing settlements and dislocation of Palestinian people from their traditional lands. I would ask whether it is a sustainable policy for us and for the European Union and others to say a two-state solution is the way to achieve peace if that solution is a fiction now that it is being made impossible by the actions of the State of Israel. I would also ask whether we need to have a different approach by recognising the state of Palestine ourselves now and seek international support for that before it is too late and a viable state of Palestine is unachievable.
We have discussed with other European member states the prospect of recognising a Palestinian state. There is an argument for endeavouring to get critical mass to have impact. There is also a timing issue. There is a judgment call in terms of whether it advances the situation in respect of the rights and quality of life of Palestinians in real terms.
Watching as it makes it impossible is equally futile.
It is an issue we keep under constant review at Government level. I fully understand where the Deputy is coming from in respect of the question and the manner in which he has tabled it.
Coming back from the visit, there is deep concern across the region now as to how this situation is developing in a negative trajectory. It is very worrying and quite depressing in respect of the humanitarian consequences.
The scenario the Deputy outlined has implications as well. If you were to abandon, and if Israel were to abandon, a two-state solution, that has implications too. I put this to the Israelis. You cannot expel millions of Palestinians, and since Oslo, the Palestinian population has increased significantly also. There needs to be a logical resolution of this. I know every situation is different but there are interesting strands in the peace process in Ireland that could be applied in terms of confidence-building measures, etc. The Aqaba and Sharm el-Sheikh meetings were brokered by Jordan and they were not fulfilled even though Israeli interlocutors signed off on those agreements. They were not fulfilled by the Israeli Government or, indeed, followed through.
On the extension of the Abraham Accords and the Saudi Arabian-Israeli track, that is being discussed significantly with the United States' involvement. As to whether there is a loop back or a connection into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict remains to be seen. We would have to see fairly concrete evidence of that and that it might have a meaningful impact.
Questions Nos. 12, 14 and 15 taken with Written Answers.
Northern Ireland
Ruairí Ó Murchú
Ceist:16. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to report on the engagements with the British Government and the parties in the North on the resumption of the Executive.; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41330/23]
Brendan Howlin
Ceist:26. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will set out his views on the prospects for the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41903/23]
Would the Tánaiste give a report on his engagements with the British Government and the parties in the North on the resumption of the Executive? We are obviously in a period of drift which we all would have feared. All of us would acknowledge the fact the DUP should just find a way to get along with the rest of us from the point of view of delivering government which people need. Obviously, the Conservative Party has decided to add the leverage levels up with absolutely dreadful budgetary moves, which is not to be supported in any way, shape or form.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 16 and 26 together. I thank Deputy Ó Murchú for tabling his question.
It is deeply disappointing that almost 18 months on from the last assembly elections, Northern Ireland's political institutions remain blocked, and as a result the North-South Ministerial Council is also prevented from fulfilling the responsibilities mandated to it by the Good Friday Agreement. It is past time that the democratically elected representatives of Northern Ireland were allowed to take up their responsibilities and deliver for their constituents on the range of pressing challenges facing them.
I and the Government are working urgently to support a return of the institutions. I remain in regular contact with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland parties and have urged all representatives to allow for the restoration of the institutions. The recent British-Irish Association conference in Oxford, on 1 and 2 September, was a useful opportunity to exchange views with the Secretary of State and others present. Over recent months I have allowed space and time for the DUP to engage directly with the British Government, but I must be clear that the current situation cannot continue indefinitely.
People in Northern Ireland continue to be adversely affected by intersecting crises in public finances, the cost of living and health services. All of this points to the urgent need for those elected to take office to assume their responsibilities. The absence of a functioning Executive also has knock-on effects on the operation of strand two of the agreement. In the absence of regular meetings of the North-South Ministerial Council, the two Administrations on the island are not having the important conversations we should be having to address shared challenges and opportunities. It is vital the council is allowed to continue its work as soon as possible.
The Government is a co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement and that is a responsibility I take seriously. I will continue to work to secure the effective functioning of all of the strands of the Good Friday Agreement.
I accept what the Tánaiste has said. We all know a mandate was given for Ms Michelle O'Neill MLA to be First Minister and one party is holding this up at this time. That party was obviously given succour and support over many years by a particular British Government that was playing its own game in relation to the outworkings of Brexit. We all thought, with the Windsor Framework, we had moved into a better place. I think we have. The DUP has its own decisions to make, but there has to be a sufficient amount of pressure, on the British Government in particular, to ensure we make the correct moves from the point of view of dealing with putting an Executive in place that can deal with the issues, such as, as the Tánaiste said, the cost of living. The cost-of-living issues and the health crisis will get a lot worse on the basis of what the present Tory Government is imposing in the North.
The Good Friday Agreement is the bedrock of peace on this island. It is the lodestone we all go back to repeatedly. However, I think the Tánaiste recognises that is now being undermined by persistent prolonged inaction in terms of a functioning Executive and assembly in Northern Ireland as envisaged under the Good Friday Agreement. There is no accountability in Northern Ireland now for normal services, the bread-and-butter issues we have to deal with in health, education and the environment - we see what is happening in Lough Neagh. All of us are talking to individuals in Northern Ireland and there is a view that, despite all our hopes, the Executive will not function again this side of the next UK general election. That would be unconscionable. What is the Tánaiste's opinion, his take in an honest and open way, on the prospects for the restoration of the Executive and assembly this year?
First of all, there has been much speculation as to timings and approaches. To be honest, the Windsor agreement was a genuine response to the issues unionism raised in respect of the operation of the protocol. In my view, some of the issues that were resolved through the Windsor Framework were issues that unionism legitimately raised. Indeed, other parties in the North were quite okay with those issues being raised in terms of the smooth and seamless operation of trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, but for some reason unknown to me, unionism did not seize the moment. It had put pressure on. It raised issues it was told two years ago could not be resolved but they were resolved.
That is a significant lost opportunity. It is clear now that two tracks have emerged. The EU-UK track has been effectively significantly enhanced and changed – "transformed" might be too big a word – but Northern Ireland has stood still. Fundamentally, the mandate of the people is not being validated or realised. The people have voted. The outcome of that should be reflected in the convening of the Assembly and the formation of the Executive. We are also co-guarantors of the agreement. There is an integration there. Strand 2 cannot operate effectively if strand 1 is not operating. The fully functioning of the North-South bodies is impaired and undermined. Therefore, the Irish Government has a legitimate interest in pursuing these issues.
There has been a lot of speculation that it would be resolved before the next British election but we cannot wait that long. There are very significant issues on the budget front and the longer it stays out, the more acute those budgetary and fiscal problems become. We have very significant issues with the health services in Northern Ireland as well. We had heard all about July and the local elections and then September was identified as a date when these issues could be brought to a conclusion. There were outstanding issues between the UK Government and the DUP. However, it is very clear to most people involved that there is a limited timeline in which those issues can be resolved.
I agree that there is a limited timeline. We are in a period of drift which we would hope would not happen. I assume it has to be absolutely clear to the British Government, and even beyond to unionism, that there can be no return to continued direct rule as happened during the 1990s which I believe some of the DUP Westminster team may hope or long for. That is not the way things are. First and foremost, we need to see the Executive up and running and we need pressure maintained. We cannot allow this to continue.
I also add my voice to remarks made here earlier that we need to deal with the legacy Bill. It was set up in a particular way with a view to protecting British state forces. They have really limited the form of amnesty they are providing. None of us is looking for anything like this for anyone. It is not about taking away from the pain of all victims. This is an absolute disgrace which is not accepted by anybody. The State will have to look at an inter-state case. We cannot allow it go on forever. We will need to take action.
I am very clear that we need the restoration of the Executive and the Assembly as quickly as possible, in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland and as a validation of democracy. In any normal society or situation, when people go to the ballot box and vote in an election, it is followed by the convening of a parliament and the formation of a government.
We have made our position very clear on the legacy Bill. We are not waiting an undue length of time. There is a very set time which gives us significant timeframes in which to make a decision based on legal advice we will receive on any action on the legal front that we might take on an inter-state case. Any proper consideration of that has to await the passing through of the legislation. It only recently received royal assent. The fully completed Bill must be assessed in the interests of a comprehensive analysis.