Vol. 1043 No. 1
1. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government intends to take legal action to the European Court of Human Rights in response to the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill adopted by the British Parliament. [41427/23]
Our first question is simply to ask the Tánaiste if he will give us an update on the Government's consideration of taking legal action on the British Government's so-called legacy Bill.
I thank the Deputy for raising the question.
The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act received royal assent on 18 September. Amendments made in the course of its passage through the UK Parliament did not fundamentally alter the substance of the legislation. It is worth recalling that the new legacy Act represents a unilateral move by the UK Government away from the 2014 Stormont House Agreement, to which both the UK and the Irish Government recommitted in 2020. Such a unilateral approach is out of keeping with the spirit of partnership which underpins the Good Friday Agreement. This Act will not draw a line under legacy issues, but will instead ensure they remain a source of contention, suspicion and mistrust. The Government remains seriously concerned about the impact of this Act on the fundamental work of reconciliation in Northern Ireland, and about its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. The incorporation of the European convention into Northern Ireland law was an explicit requirement of the Good Friday Agreement. I have made very clear to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the Government’s strong opposition to the Act and our concerns about its compatibility with the European convention. In particular, we are concerned about provisions granting immunity for crimes amounting to gross human rights violations, and the shutting down of all outstanding legacy inquests and civil cases. Similar concerns have been shared by international experts and observers, including the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Importantly, these concerns are also shared by those representing victims of the Troubles and their families, who stand to be most affected by this Act but with whom the British Government has not meaningfully engaged at any stage of the process.
My approach to legacy issues has always been victim-centred and that will continue to be the case. The Government is fully aware that the initiation of an interstate case would be a significant step which would have to be done on solid grounds, and is not one which can be taken lightly. As the Taoiseach and I have stated, the Government has sought legal advice on this matter from the Attorney General. I look forward to receiving that advice in the near future and when it is received the Government will consider what subsequent action will be taken.
I thank the Tánaiste for the answer. As he rightly says, this is one of the few issues now on which there is absolute political agreement across all political parties, not only in the North but across the island. The Bill clearly and very blatantly reneges on the commitment to implement legacy mechanisms agreed in the 2014 Stormont House Agreement, of which of course the Irish Government is a co-guarantor. While I welcome the very strong position the Irish Government has taken and the language used with the British Government in setting out very clearly the opposition by virtually everybody on this island to this Bill, it is also crucially important that we send out a signal that we will do whatever it takes. When the Tánaiste says he expects the legal advice from the Attorney General fairly shortly, does he have a definitive timeframe for what that will mean in terms of the number of weeks? If the legal advice, as I suspect it will be, is that this is clearly in breach of EU human rights law, will the Government be proactive in then pursuing the case?
I thank the Deputy. He is correct in saying there is unity of purpose in this House in respect of this Act. I would like to think I will have that advice within the next ten days. Any actions we take have to be based on very solid grounds. This has to be done robustly, rigorously and with due diligence. I do not believe in doing things on political instincts alone. It has always been our view that there are fundamental issues here as regards compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights; that is the bar. These are the issues on which we have to be properly advised by the Attorney General who has also secured additional advices on this. When I get the full legal advices from the Attorney General, I will then discuss this with the Taoiseach and with the wider Government. It would have to go to the Government if a decision was to be taken on a particular line of action following the legal advice. Those will be the procedures. Obviously, we will revert back to the House at a future date on this matter.
I thank the Tánaiste. This is not just about political instincts, although political considerations are important. It is crucial that the Irish Government sends a very strong message internationally as to the seriousness with which we take the British Government's actions. There are also practical rationales. As the Tánaiste will know, six families of victims have already initiated their own legal actions and the understanding is that other victims' groups and other victims' families are considering doing likewise. The process and the ordeal for them is much more lengthy and turbulent than for a sovereign government to take a case. Therefore, in setting out a very clear signal that the Irish Government continues to stand with all victims and in order to relieve them of the cost and the trauma that would be involved in those cases, one can understand from their perspective why it is optimal that the Irish Government would pursue a case. I ask the Tánaiste to inform this House as soon as the information returns from the Attorney General and to initiate whatever further actions are going to follow from that as quickly as possible.
As I said in my original reply, I have been guided by a victim-centred approach from the very beginning of this. I have met with many victims' groups regarding this legislation. We have also raised the issue effectively in multilateral forums such as the United Nations and the Council of Europe, both politically and at an official level, since the publication of the Bill in May 2022. Most recently, we did this on 13 September at the 54th session of the UN Human Rights Council and very recently on 21 September at the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers. The committee expressed for the sixth time its serious concerns about the United Kingdom legacy Bill and its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. Throughout the UN General Assembly engagements last week in New York, I raised the issue of this Bill in all my discussions with our US partners and also with the officials in the state department and with members of Congress and the Senate, particularly during their recent visit to Ireland in August. We have worked hard to raise this issue at an international level and it has provoked a degree of concern all round. People genuinely have concerns about this Bill's compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.
2. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the contribution made by Ireland to address the humanitarian crises following the earthquake in Morocco and the floods in Libya; if our emergency response capabilities need to be upgraded in the face of growing climate disasters; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41906/23]
Will the Tánaiste set out Ireland's response to date to the humanitarian crises in Morocco and Libya? In light of the fact that we are going to face more disasters of that nature as a result of climate change, do we need to update our capacity to deal with such matters?
As everybody knows, on 8 September, Morocco experienced a major earthquake, which killed almost 3,000 people and injured 5,000 others. Two days later, Storm Daniel struck Libya, with flash floods affecting wide areas in the east of the country, including the city of Derna. It is estimated that over 5,000 people have died with thousands more missing and very significant numbers, running into several hundred thousands of people, displaced.
Ireland responded quickly by providing €2 million in humanitarian assistance for Morocco and €1 million for Libya. The funding is supporting work on the ground by the Moroccan and Libyan Red Crescent Societies. We have also provided assistance through pre-positioned funding with the International Federation of the Red Cross and the UN emergency response fund and through the World Health Organization fund for emergencies like these.
In the immediate aftermath of a disaster, Ireland responds by allocating humanitarian funding to trusted UN, Red Cross Movement and Irish NGO partners that can work at speed. In the face of an increase in the frequency of humanitarian disasters, Ireland's humanitarian funding has increased in recent years, reaching a total of €297 million last year. We are also working to help countries in crisis to adapt and build resilience to the impacts of climate change.
In response to crises, at the request of our international partners, Ireland also provides emergency supplies and stocks to affected areas to help the relief effort. Emergency stocks are stored in strategically located depots and hubs to ensure that supplies can be dispatched immediately. We also regularly deploy highly skilled and experienced individuals from the rapid response corps to work as surge capacity with United Nations partners in humanitarian crises. I will speak separately about the loss and damage fund, of which Ireland is very supportive, because it deals with the climate change issues the Deputy has referred to.
On the totality of the allocation to these two crises in Morocco and Libya to date, the Minister of State has said it comprises €2 million, €1 million and other moneys. Will he detail the totality of our contribution to date? The more important point I will focus on is our preparedness for the growing number of climate-related disasters we are certain to face. I will ask about our capacity to respond effectively to these crises, either as a nation or as part of the European Union, and to do so speedily because, in both Morocco and Libya, it was many days before some areas were reached by an emergency response and by the skilled personnel needed to provide resources and rescue. Do we have the capacity in Europe to meet demands like this in a speedy and accurate way in the future?
The Deputy will be aware that we do not have capacity and personnel permanently available on the ground to do that. We work through our European colleagues in all situations. With regard to the overall funding, Ireland has contributed €12.5 million to the UN central emergency response fund so far this year. We give it to the fund. Ireland has directly contributed €12.5 million this year so that it can be ready for accidents and emergencies as and when they arise, rather than having a discussion on the day. The extra funding we announced was an immediate and additional humanitarian response to the emergency at hand. It is in addition to the money we had already provided. We also provide funding to the World Health Organization, which has emergency medical stocks available in several locations around the world. We do that each year so that we can be ready for these crises. This was an immediate top-up on the day of the crisis on top of the funding we provide annually.
My particular focus is now on our preparedness for the future. The Minister of State has said that, as a nation, we do not have capacity to respond in that way. Will he and the Tánaiste take the lead on initiating discussion within the European Council to ensure that we can, as a Union, respond effectively and quickly to future disasters which are, unfortunately, bound to happen with the advent of climate change? Does the Minister of State feel we have that capacity now or do we need to beef it up? Will he take such an initiative?
We work closely with our EU colleagues in all of these situations. The way it generally works is that some countries are better positioned to help individual countries. This may depend on their diplomatic and political relationship over many years. Some countries are very willing to take assistance from certain countries within the EU immediately while choosing not to take assistance from other countries. We always use the most appropriate country to deal with the country in question. That does happen. I again stress that our work on the loss and damage fund ahead of COP28 will be key in respect of the issue of climate change. Ireland is very supportive of that fund. We cannot continue to deal with these issues on an emergency basis only. We have to look at the big picture and assist those countries that suffer the most when these climate issues arise. It is often those countries that contribute least to the emissions that are contributing to the overall situation. That is why it is essential for us to have that loss and damage fund. We have to do this on an ongoing basis rather than moving from crisis to crisis. Those funds are just top-ups to our pre-committed funds.
3. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the actions he proposes to take further to his visit to Palestine and Israel; and if such actions will include the recognition of the state of Palestine. [41428/23]
We followed very closely the Tánaiste's recent visit to the Middle East. He will have read the commentary that arose during that visit. On foot of that visit, what actions does he propose the Government should take?
My visit to Israel, the occupied Palestinian territory and Jordan was an important step in Ireland’s long-standing support for international efforts to achieve peace in the region. My insights from engaging with the situation on the ground will shape Ireland’s constructive role in promoting a sustainable political horizon.
During the visit, I highlighted my deep concern with the continued expansion of Israeli settlements, demolitions and evictions in the West Bank to the Israeli Government, including in meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu and the foreign minister, Eli Cohen. I discussed the importance of intra-Palestinian reconciliation and democratic legitimacy, including elections, with President Abbas of Palestine. I also had meaningful engagement on the conflict in my meetings in Jordan, including with His Majesty the King and the foreign minister, Ayman Safadi.
Since my visit, I have had the opportunity to raise the issue during my meetings at the UN General Assembly, where I was pleased to take part in the launch of the Peace Day initiative by the EU, the League of Arab States and Saudi Arabia. I reaffirmed the importance of reinvigorating a peace process and my concern at the negative trends I witnessed on the ground. I also attended a working dinner with Arab and European ministers, hosted by the International Peace Institute at the UN, to discuss options for progress and a more co-ordinated international engagement in respect of the conflict. I assure the Deputy that I will continue to work with partners in the European Union and internationally to ensure a continuing focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
With regard to recognition, the programme for Government states that the Government will:
Honour our commitment to recognise the State of Palestine as part of a lasting settlement of the conflict, or in advance of that, when we believe doing so will progress efforts to reach a two-state solution or protect the integrity of Palestinian territory.
Recognition is a step Ireland can only take once and doing so must be in the interests of advancing a peace process. The decision to recognise would potentially also have a cost to Ireland in terms of our ability to wield any influence in the process. The timing and context of any such decision would affect whether the resulting loss of influence would be matched by a commensurate benefit for the Palestinian people and a positive impact on the peace process and a two-state solution. My judgment at present is that this would not be the case in respect of unilateral recognition by Ireland alone.
I welcome the Tánaiste taking the time to travel to Israel and Palestine. If I have one critique, it is that I would have liked him to have visited Gaza. I do not know if that was considered in his deliberations. Notwithstanding that, it is important that Ireland shows leadership and an interest and that the Government reflects the interest the Irish people have in seeing a lasting peace settlement in the region.
The Minister spoke about our influence and the fact that recognition of the state of Palestine might impact on that influence. The very fact we cannot recognise the state of Palestine because apparently others in Europe are not doing so raises the question as to exactly how big our influence is. I would contend and I have contended for quite some time that, on this matter, the time for cosy chats anywhere is well gone. We now need nation states to make a stand and I would like Ireland to be among the first in making a very strong and definitive stand with regard to the occupation, annexation and oppression by Israel of the Palestinian people, which is not acceptable to the international community. I therefore put the question again, what actions is the Irish Government going to take to send that message to Palestine, Israel and the world?
What was interesting during the visit was that these were not cosy chats with our Israeli interlocutors, I can assure the Deputy, because the Israeli Government perception of Ireland is that we are one of the most - how do I put it - hostile states with regard to the Israeli position, if they even use that language, and that this State takes a position which is negative. That is how the Israeli state sees us. Across the European Union it would have identified Ireland as a country that takes a view which is contrary to the Israeli position. We stress to the Israeli Government that this is not an anti-Israeli Government position or anti-Israel position but rather that we look at the situation through international law and through the successive resolutions passed at the United Nations which affirm the Palestinian right to a homeland, to a state and to the two-state solution. All of our work in this area is genuine, bona fide and is in respect of the implementation of international law; hence our very strong condemnation of settlements.
What concerned me on the ground in the occupied territories is the growth of the very far-right dimension now to the expansion of settlements with the uprooting of Bedouin communities and attacks on schools. I met with a Bedouin family, and the young child explained to me that a young boy's school was attacked by settlers with arms, with displacement being the objective. There is a turn for the worse in respect of expansion of settlements and the nature of it, where religious fundamentalism is playing an increasing role. This adds an extra, dangerous dimension to all that is transpiring. There is deep concern across the world. I had subsequent meetings at the UN with people who are genuinely interested, where Ireland would be seen as a country which is genuinely committed to this to try to get a resolution and to prod people to a sense of a pathway to a two-state solution. Our focus right now is on the two-state solution. The issue of the recognition of Palestine is an issue that is constantly under review by us and we try to work with other European Union states to get a critical mass behind it.
With the focus being on the two-state solution, and then recognising that the two-state solution is becoming more and more unattainable as a result of the actions of the Israeli Government, to me point to a need for greater urgency. To repeat the point, this has to be followed by substantive actions because Ireland being considered hostile to the Israeli Government's policies is something I would not be one bit ashamed of. As the Minister rightly says, our position is in defence of international law which is being breached every single day by the Israeli Government at the cost of very significant suffering by the Palestinian people.
A number of initiatives have been brought to this House. One is the recognition of the state of Palestine, one is the occupied territories Bill, one is the illegal Israeli settlements divestments Bill, and on every one of those the Government always has a reason not to proceed just yet. There is always a waiting game involved. I will ask for the third time: what specific actions is the Government going to take, unilaterally if needs be, to send that very clear message that the ongoing expansion of settlements and the ongoing apartheid regime of Israel against the Palestinian people is simply not acceptable to us or, I believe, to the majority of humanity?
Again, I say to the Deputy that the Israeli Government is in no doubt about Ireland's position on this. It does not like it and does not waste time in articulating the fact that it does not like our position. This is not just about sending messages and sloganeering. The Israeli Government is well aware of our position. Behind it all, it accepts our genuine interest in a resolution of the conflict and there has to be engagement at all levels. It is important we retain and maintain engagement with the Israeli Government on these issues and that we argue issues through with it and with the Palestinian Authority, with whom we also must have engagement. The position in the Palestinian Authority is one of appreciation of the Irish position to date. This would also be the position in respect of Jordan and others who appreciate the principled stand Ireland has taken.
Within all of that, it is a complex issue and is not going to be resolved on its own by reducing it to a particular set of actions at any given time. We know that by now. Part of what was going on at the UN and the International Day of Peace initiative of the European Union was to try to galvanise countries to try to develop an approach which would engage with the Israeli Government on a track which could rescue the viability of a two-state solution and to get it onto a proper and peaceful pathway. I believe it is worth pursuing that at the moment.
4. Deputy Gary Gannon asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he used the phrase "apartheid" in any formal engagement during his recent visit to Israel. [41913/23]
I also want to ask the Tánaiste about his recent visit to Israel and Palestine. In particular I want to ask him if he used the phrase "apartheid" in any formal engagement during that recent visit.
I thank the Deputy for his question. Policies and actions that negatively impact upon the rights of the Palestinian people were a central focus of all my exchanges throughout my visit to Israel and to the occupied Palestinian territory.
In Israel, I had a full and frank discussion with President Netanyahu, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Eli Cohen, and the Minister of Strategic Affairs, Ron Dermer. I underlined our long-standing position that Israel cease illegal settlement construction and expansion, as well as our alarm at the accelerating rate of settler violence, which, alongside evictions and demolitions, are making the lives of Palestinian communities intolerable.
The Israeli Government is fully aware of our deep disagreement with its policies and practices in relation to the Palestinian people and views us as among the most critical of EU partners. I consistently emphasised to all Israeli interlocutors that our position is fully based on internationally agreed parameters and respect for international law, and is shared by a large majority of UN member states.
I also met with several organisations that are seeking to find a way to change the reality on the ground, which is our Government’s priority. I travelled to Lod in Israel, which saw severe intercommunal violence in May 2021, to visit a project funded by my Department delivering a programme for anti-racism instruction in Arab and Jewish high schools.
In Ramallah, I met with representatives of civil society organisations working in the area of human rights and accountability. I was also briefed by the West Bank Protection Consortium on the deteriorating situation in area C and East Jerusalem, including the worrying trends of settler violence, settlement expansion and demolitions of Palestinian and donor-funded property. I also had the opportunity to meet with a Bedouin Palestinian family at risk of displacement.
I am fully aware of the reports by civil society organisations such as Amnesty International which characterise the situation as one of apartheid. I also took careful note of the comments and reflections shared by The Elders following their visit to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory in June of this year. I had the opportunity during UN high-level week to exchange views with former President Mary Robinson, who led the June visit, on her views on the situation. Such contributions are increasing debate and awareness, including within Israeli society, of the discriminatory impact the policies and actions of its Government are having on the lives of ordinary Palestinian people.
The Government does not use the term "apartheid". Our focus is on identifying meaningful, impactful and substantive ways to change the reality on the ground in what is a deeply complex environment and multifaceted conflict.
I thank the Tánaiste for his contribution. I will begin by saying that I do not doubt for a second his care and passion for the issue and I do not believe anybody has a monopoly on such emotions in this Chamber. The term "apartheid" is not just a term but has meaning in international law which has been referred to most particularly in the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.
How does it benefit the people of Palestine and the people in Gaza and in any of the refugee camps if we do not use the term and if we do not recognise that what they experience is a form of apartheid? During the Tánaiste's recent visit to the Middle East did he witness the denial of their fundamental rights to millions of Palestinians solely because they are Palestinian and not Israeli? Did he witness this with his own eyes? Did he witness a system of domination and suppression forced upon one group of people over another? Did he witness state-sanctioned racial discrimination of one group over another? If so, what does anybody gain by not calling this for what it is, which is a system of apartheid? I fully appreciate the Government's position. I do not agree with it but I certainly do not agree with not calling something for what it is.
I appreciate where the Deputy is coming from. We are aware that the issue of apartheid has been raised in a number of reports, of which we have taken very careful note, from United Nations rapporteurs and civil society organisations. We support civil society organisations through vital funding despite the fact that some of them are designated as terrorist organisations by the Israeli Government, which is wrong in our view. We have funded civil society organisations in Israel and in the occupied territories. This is necessary in both jurisdictions to ensure freedom of operation for civil society organisations that call out injustices, discrimination, harassment and unacceptable practices on all sides. It is extremely important that we continue to affirm and support civil society organisations.
I referenced complexity. What is clear in terms of the Israeli perspective is the dominance of security in political discourse and electoral considerations. In our view, having had our own experiences of peace processes, having such a one-dimensional and singular approach to issues will never resolve a conflict of this kind where identity, sovereignty and a right to one's state are at the centre. The issue of terror and security from an Israeli perspective dominates all of their responses, which is creating a very unacceptable situation in respect of the treatment of Palestinians more generally.
We have had a number of exchanges on this issue. In a recent engagement the Tánaiste highlighted his predecessors in Fianna Fáil who took what I would argue was the brave position of being the first to call for the Palestinians' right to a homeland. In order to highlight where we have been brave in the past, and where some of the Tánaiste's predecessors were brave in the past, does the Tánaiste not think there is also a time for us to stand up unilaterally and say if the other 26 EU countries will not act in concert then we might need to go beyond it? I call for recognition of what is happening as apartheid. I would go further with regard to recognition of the Palestinian people. When will we act and demonstrate a bit of courage and call it for what it is?
Language is fairly straightforward.
Language is important.
I take Deputy Gannon's earlier point that apartheid is more than language. Using phrases such as "call it for what it is" is fairly straightforward to do. We could remove ourselves from the entire engagement and just call it what we think it is. Would it advance the situation? That is the call. We have continually remained engaged and that engagement is important. With regard to the work that UNRWA does in Gaza, the occupied territories and refugee camps in Jordan and elsewhere, Ireland stands strongly to support that which supports Palestinians in very difficult situations.
Even though some member states might not agree with Ireland's position, coming from where we are coming from they respect us as a country in terms of our perspective on human rights and compliance with international law. This carries some weight in the broader area of policies on a swathe of issues that arise in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a balance and a judgment call in terms of the particular track that one wants to devise as a Government in terms of how we engage on the issue. We are engaging on the issue with all parties involved with a view to seeing whether we can get this on a proper track with others towards a two-state solution. We are not giving up on a two-state solution. This is one of the outcomes of the visit. An issue discussed with many interlocutors was the viability of a two-state solution. We have not given up on that.
