Written Answers Nos. 93-112
103. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on any discussions with his Department and his counterpart in Colombia with regards to the operations of a company (details supplied) and the way that Ireland and Colombia work together to ensure the indigenous Misak people receive justice in their campaign to get their land back; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32947/22]
Amharc ar fhreagra105. Deputy Gino Kenny asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to a recent report published by Observatory of Multinationals in Latin America, SumOfUs and the Latin America Solidarity Centre that has highlighted serious socio-environmental impacts and human rights violations arising from Smurfit Kappa’s operations in Colombia; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33162/22]
Amharc ar fhreagra109. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been brought to a report (details supplied) which details the impact of the operations of an Irish-headquartered company on indigenous communities and their lands in Colombia; the engagement he or his Departmental representatives have had with representatives of this company on foot of the issues raised in the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33070/22]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 103, 105 and 109 together.
Ireland takes a very active role in supporting human rights defenders, indigenous communities and civil society space in Colombia and engagement on these issues is a strong component of our bilateral relations with Colombia and our support to the Colombian Peace Process.
Ireland is a longstanding supporter of comprehensive implementation of the 2016 Peace Agreement, including through engagement locally in Colombia, through our engagement at the UN Security Council, and by funding channelled through the EU, the UN and various non-governmental organisations. Tackling the issues related to land use and environmental rights in Colombia forms a key element of Colombia’s peace process.
I am aware of the situation and the recent report referred to by the Deputies in relation to the Cauca region of Colombia.
The situation in this region, as with many other rural regions in Colombia, is highly complex. Ireland has been actively engaged with all parties with a view to understanding the situation and promoting an inclusive, meaningful dialogue through which the issues may be resolved.
My Department has engaged with representatives of the community and the NGOs mentioned, with the company involved, and with the Government in Colombia on this issue. Officials in my Department met with SumOfUs, the Latin America Solidarity Centre, and an Indigenous leader from the Misak community last month to learn more about their concerns. Our Embassy in Bogota has spoken to the company and has visited the relevant areas of the Cauca region, meeting with local communities and visiting the land in question. The Embassy is due to meet representatives of the Misak community later this month.
In addition, my Department has engaged with the Colombian Government to support a process of dialogue between the authorities, the Misak community and the company to resolve their differences. I understand that the Colombian authorities have subsequently organised meetings with the company and local communities.
We continue to urge the parties concerned to engage in dialogue, to come to an understanding regarding the issues at hand in order to resolve their differences, and if necessary to pursue the relevant legal means to address their concerns. The Department remains open to supporting activities and engagement that will facilitate such dialogue.
106. Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the position of the Government in relation to the creation of a loss and damage facility to compensate countries in the developing world for the disproportionate effects of climate breakdown in those regions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33099/22]
Amharc ar fhreagraA key priority in my Department’s approach to climate diplomacy is to help build a coherent international response to climate-induced Loss and Damage. This will assist the responses of people living in the most vulnerable communities, particularly in Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States, to the effects of climate change on the places where they live.
I believe that there is need to scale up and improve climate finance to the countries on the front lines of climate change, in particular to help avert, minimise and address Loss and Damage when extreme weather events or sea level rise impact on lives or livelihoods, or cause mass displacement. Scaled up finance will require quick and agile finance flows, based on equity and human rights, which requires us to bring experience from humanitarian and development assistance.
The Glasgow Dialogue was established at the UNFCCC negotiations in 2021 to discuss funding arrangements on Loss and Damage, further to the specific request by developing countries that a new finance facility under the UNFCCC be established. Ireland believes that the Glasgow Dialogue will be key to identifying the most efficient and effective ways to respond to the urgent needs of countries most affected by climate change.
Ireland is participating fully in, and informing, the Glasgow Dialogue as part of the EU team. Ireland has also shown leadership by proactively bringing in civil society, humanitarian actors, women, youth and indigenous peoples to influence the Dialogue, and by organising a technical roundtable in May. These initiatives helped to set the stage for the first Glasgow Dialogue meeting which took place in Bonn earlier this month.
In addition to our role in the Glasgow Dialogue, my officials work within the EU team on the negotiations to establish the Santiago Network which will provide technical assistance for Loss and Damage. More broadly Ireland plays a leading role on Loss and Damage in development and humanitarian policy fora.
108. Deputy Thomas Gould asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to an international armed soldier presence on a ship in Cork city on 16 June 2022. [32977/22]
Amharc ar fhreagraVisits from foreign naval vessels are a long-standing and common practice in Ireland and worldwide.
Foreign naval vessels are granted permission by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to visit Irish ports on condition that they meet the necessary policy stipulations. In particular, these require that naval vessels visiting Irish ports do not carry nuclear weapons and do not engage in military exercises.
In this instance, permission was requested earlier this month for the Royal Navy survey ship, HMS Enterprise, to pay a routine visit to Cork last week. Permission was granted on the basis of the conditions that I have already outlined, i.e. that the vessel not engage in any military exercises or naval manoeuvres or carry nuclear weapons. These are the standard stipulations for any naval vessel to visit an Irish port.
Routine courtesy visits by naval vessels to foreign ports are a regular feature of international relations and help to further bilateral ties. Ships from the Irish Naval Service regularly pay such visits to foreign ports, including to the UK. On this occasion, the Irish Naval Service also availed of this opportunity to engage in a joint communication exercise with the British vessel in question outside Irish territorial waters.
Security arrangements for such visits are a matter for An Garda Síochána, with whom my Department consults before granting permission for a ship to visit.
110. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he accepts the assertions made by the United Kingdom government that it has been actively trying to make the Northern Ireland Protocol work; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32933/22]
Amharc ar fhreagra159. Deputy Neale Richmond asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on his recent conversation with EU Commission Vice-President; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32850/22]
Amharc ar fhreagra161. Deputy Alan Farrell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will provide an update on efforts to protect the Northern Ireland Protocol. [27390/22]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 110, 159 and 161 together.
As has been the case throughout the Brexit process, the Government continues to undertake a coordinated and consistent approach in support of our Brexit priorities, which includes working with the Commission to find jointly agreed solutions to the challenges around the implementation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
The Taoiseach, Ministers, and officials from Dublin and all our embassies continue to meet regularly with our counterparts and stakeholders in the EU Institutions and across Member States and globally.
I am in ongoing contact with European Commission Vice-President Šefcovic, who I spoke with on 13 June regarding the UK Government’s publication of draft legislation to dis-apply the core elements of the Protocol. It is clear from this conversation, as well as others I have had with my EU counterparts, that the EU retains its strong willingness to seek practical solutions that will work for Northern Ireland. The UK's unilateral action has concerned colleagues across the Member States of the European Union. The General Affairs Council this week took the opportunity to reiterate the full support of Member States for the Commission’s approach.
The tabling of this legislation marks a particular low point in the UK government approach to Brexit.
Brexit, and in particular the hard Brexit chosen by the UK Government, is the root cause of the uncertainty in Northern Ireland. The Protocol is the solution, jointly designed and freely chosen by the British Government to mitigate the challenges posed by their preferred version of Brexit.
The situation on the ground backs this up. Northern Ireland is growing faster than any other UK region, according to the UK’s own Office of National Statistics. The Protocol is a factor in helping protect Northern Ireland from negative effects of shortages and delays, as Northern Irish supply chains have added resilience thanks to its EU Single Market access. Foreign direct investment interest in Northern Ireland is at historically high levels. Northern Irish-based businesses consistently underline the importance of dual market access.
The message I hear from business in Northern Ireland has been consistent. There is a real desire to make the most of the opportunities the Protocol brings. They want continued access to both the EU and GB markets. They want predictability and stability. The UK Government’s unilateral actions undermine these objectives and create uncertainty for Northern Ireland businesses, as well as for their suppliers and buyers.
People and business across Northern Ireland have been clear: they want an agreed solution between the EU and the UK. They want the EU and the UK to work together to address the genuine concerns that have been raised.
A majority of newly elected Assembly MLAs have written to Prime Minister Johnson rejecting in the strongest possible terms the UK government’s reckless approach, as it, and I quote, “flies in the face of the expressed wishes of not just most businesses, but most people in Northern Ireland.”
Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefcovic, and his team have done commendable work engaging and listening to people and businesses in Northern Ireland. They have come up with practical and flexible means of implementing the Protocol that can address some of the real-world concerns that have arisen in relation to the movement of goods, and for enhancing Northern Ireland engagement around the Protocol.
These are bespoke arrangements that further demonstrates the flexibility and compromise the EU is willing to show - including an openness to further change its own rules. And importantly, the EU’s approach is not a take it or leave it one. The EU is willing to discuss these solutions with the British government.
However, the UK has not engaged in any meaningful discussions since February. Their unwillingness to explore the EU’s solutions in any real depth – taken together with their newly proposed unilateral legislation action – is the very disappointing and concerning.
I have said many times that these issues can be resolved if there is political will to tackle the issues together.
The UK Government continues to state that a negotiated solution is their preferred outcome. If that is true, the UK needs to demonstrate a show of good faith soon to avoid more polarisation on the ground in Northern Ireland and more harm to relationships between our two governments and between the EU and the UK.
111. Deputy James Lawless asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the United Kingdom’s use of necessity as a justification for abandoning the Northern Ireland Protocol; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32920/22]
Amharc ar fhreagra152. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on whether the United Kingdom’s legal rationale for seeking to override the Northern Ireland Protocol has any plausible basis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32936/22]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 111 and 152 together.
On 13 June, the UK Government published draft legislation in the form of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. The Bill proposes to disapply much of the Protocol without the agreement of the EU, including elements in relation to the movement of goods, VAT, excise and state aid, and the role of the European Court of Justice.
International agreements, such as the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol, cannot simply be rewritten by one party to the agreement. Yet this is what the UK Government propose. Their approach is wholly inconsistent with international law.
In its published ‘Legal Position’, the UK Government asserted that the doctrine of necessity can be invoked to lawfully justify non-performance of their international obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement and Protocol.
Necessity as a legal justification for non-performance of an international obligation is an institution of customary international law now codified by the United Nations International Law Commission in Article 25 of its Draft Articles on State Responsibility. This provides that necessity may only be invoked when it is the only way to safeguard an essential interest of the state concerned against a grave and imminent peril, and when it does not seriously impair an essential interest of the party to which the obligation is owed, or of the international community as a whole. Furthermore, it clarifies that necessity may only be invoked when there is no other remedy available, and that it may not be invoked by a state if the state has contributed to the situation of necessity.
The British government’s decision to table a Bill that sets aside international law and ignores the majority in Northern Ireland is deeply disappointing. The approach has been widely criticised by people and business in Northern Ireland.
I am in ongoing contact with our partners across the EU, including European Commission Vice-President Šefcovic. The EU’s remains deeply committed to Northern Ireland. Opposition to the UK’s unilateral action is uniform across the Union and support for the Commission approach remains steadfast. This was made clear again during discussions at this week’s General Affairs Council.
Despite the tabling of this legislation, the EU remains open to talks on finding durable and sustainable solutions. With political will, solutions can be found to the genuine issues of concern to people and business in Northern Ireland. Finding these solutions will allow Northern Ireland to experience in full the positive effects the Protocol can have on trade, investment, growth and employment.
I continue to urge the British Government to step back from their unilateral approach and to pursue a path of constructive engagement with the European Union to resolve the outstanding issues under the Protocol.
112. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the extent of any recent discussions with the UK/EU authorities in relation to ensuring the protection of the Good Friday Agreement and the attendant Protocol which was agreed internationally; if a particular procedure is required in the event of one of the participating parties taking a unilateral stance which might jeopardise any such agreement; if it is recognised that there may be far reaching consequences in such a case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33200/22]
Amharc ar fhreagra134. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the claim made by the United Kingdom government that the Good Friday Agreement is threatened by European Union action; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32931/22]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 112 and 134 together.
The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland was designed and agreed by the UK and the EU to protect the Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions, to mitigate the inevitable disruption arising for the island of Ireland from Brexit, and to protect the integrity of EU Single Market, and Ireland’s place within it.
The Protocol fully recognises the constitutional position of Northern Ireland and the principle of consent as set out in the Good Friday Agreement. It protects North South cooperation and the all-island economy, the gains of the peace process which benefit communities North and South, and ensures ‘no diminution of rights, safeguards, or equality of opportunity’ as set out in the Good Friday Agreement.
The fundamental purpose of the Protocol is to protect the Good Friday Agreement. Arguing that the Protocol and the Good Friday Agreement are incompatible is disingenuous and irresponsible. Taken together, they are a powerful expression of what negotiation and partnership can achieve.
It is Brexit, and in particular the type of hard Brexit pursued by the British Government, that is the major impediment to the free flow of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The EU has always been, and remains, committed to the smoothest possible implementation of the Protocol but this is only possible with cooperation from the British Government.
I maintain regular and ongoing contact with my British Government counterparts, including Foreign Secretary Liz Truss and Secretary of State Brandon Lewis, with regard to the Protocol. I also maintain ongoing contact with the parties and other stakeholders in Northern Ireland, as well as with Commission Vice-President Šefcovic, EU counterparts, and a range of US partners.
In contacts with the British Government, I have consistently set out the Irish Government’s deep disappointment at their decision to table legislation that would empower UK Ministers to unilaterally disapply core parts of the Protocol. Such unilateral action would, if enacted, breach international law. It damages relationships within Northern Ireland, across our islands, between our governments, and between the UK and the EU.
I underlined that people in Northern Ireland do not support this legislation. We have seen that 52 MLAs have written to Prime Minister Johnson expressing “in the strongest possible terms” their objection to it. Northern Ireland business is clear that they need certainty and stability and that this requires a negotiated settlement.
Both the Irish Government and European Commission have engaged consistently with Northern Ireland stakeholders, including the Unionist community, to understand their concerns. In October, the Commission presented proposals directly addressing these concerns, but the UK has not seriously engaged with them. Last week, in addition to relaunching infringement proceedings following the UK’s actions on the Protocol, the Commission outlined further detail on these proposals. We fully support the EU’s calm, measured and firm approach.
Only joint solutions can provide the long-term legal certainty and predictability which people and business in Northern Ireland need. The UK needs to reciprocate the flexibility shown by the EU. I urge the British Government to step away from the path it has chosen and engage constructively with the EU.
