Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 29 May 2025

Vol. 1068 No. 3

Ceisteanna Eile - Other Questions

Middle East

Catherine Connolly

Ceist:

169. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade further to Parliamentary Question No. 37 of 11 February 2025, the timeline for the passage of the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018 that incorporates a ban on imports and services from these areas, supported by the advisory opinion on the illegality of Israel’s occupation and settlements issued on 19 July 2024 by the International Court of Justice; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27350/25]

Paul Murphy

Ceist:

170. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to provide an update on the progress of legislation to ban trade with the occupied territories; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27406/25]

Brian Stanley

Ceist:

179. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will reconsider what he stated earlier in February 2025 and ban services in the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018. [26772/25]

Brian Stanley

Ceist:

185. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will define the timeline for the enactment of the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018. [26771/25]

Darren O'Rourke

Ceist:

191. Deputy Darren O'Rourke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will provide an update on the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018; the date on which the Bill will brought before the Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27335/25]

Paul Lawless

Ceist:

195. Deputy Paul Lawless asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the reason he will not implement the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018, in light of his comments that Israel is committing war crimes over the blockading of aid in Gaza. [24169/25]

I understand this question is in a group, such is Deputies' concern about the occupied territories Bill or, to give it its proper name, the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018, which incorporates a ban on imports and services from the occupied areas, supported by the advisory opinion on the illegality of Israel’s occupation and settlements issued on 19 July 2024 by the International Court of Justice. It takes on added meaning with Israel's announcement today that it intends to establish 22 further new settlements in the occupied West Bank.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 169, 170, 179, 185, 191 and 195 together.

I agree with the Deputy that the Bill takes on an even greater level of concern after the horrific announcement today of Israel's plans to develop further illegal settlements. The situation in the West Bank is deeply concerning. It is clearly unacceptable. I want to be clear that Ireland and the EU are strongly opposed to Israel's settlement policy and activities, including in and around East Jerusalem. In my intervention at the EU-Israel Association Council in February I called attention to our strong opposition to Israel's settlement policy and activities and to all actions that undermine the viability of the two-state solution, including extremist settler violence.

Ireland has strongly supported the sanctions adopted by the EU against both individuals and entities involved in settler violence and we continue to call for the imposition of further EU sanctions. At the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 20 May, Ireland called for the immediate adoption of further sanctions targeting violent settlers. At the same meeting, the Foreign Affairs Council agreed to carry out a review of Israel's obligation under Article 2 of the EU-Israel association agreement.

The situation in the West Bank, where Israel is conducting its single largest operation in 20 years, is extremely concerning. It demands our urgent attention and appropriate action. At least 40,000 people have been displaced since January. The UN human rights chief told the United Nations Security Council last month that the announcement that residents must not return to their homes for a year raises serious concerns about long-term mass displacement.

Combined with unprecedented levels of violence and record levels of settlement construction, there is a huge risk of further destabilisation. The UN human rights office in the occupied Palestinian territory has expressed alarm at the decision of the Israeli security cabinet this month to resume land registration in Area C of the occupied West Bank. The role of the international community, including the United Nations and diplomatic missions on the ground, remains indispensable in terms of monitoring and reporting on developments. I wish to put on the record that I was utterly appalled at reports that the IDF fired shots in the vicinity of a visit to Jenin on 21 May by a group of diplomats, including two Irish diplomats based in Ramallah. Fortunately, no one was hurt but this is clearly intimidatory behaviour that must be condemned in the strongest terms. A senior official in my Department has formally conveyed to the ambassador of Israel my strong condemnation and deep concern at this incident and has called for a full explanation and accountability for those responsible - those who decided to fire shots in the direction of diplomats. In line with its obligations under international law, Israel must ensure the protection of foreign diplomats. Our mission in Ramallah plays an important role in monitoring the situation on the ground in Palestine. Our diplomats do an excellent job and must be allowed to do their jobs.

Turning to the question of legislation, as this House will be aware, the previous Government carried out an extensive analysis and review of the occupied territories Bill late last year. The Government’s analysis was that substantive amendments would be required to most, if not all, of the Bill’s provisions in order to bring it in line with the Constitution and try to reduce the risk of an EU legal challenge. These considerations remain central to the Government’s approach. In this regard, the new Government, in the programme for Government, sets out a clear commitment to progress legislation prohibiting goods from the occupied Palestinian territory. The Government is also clear that any legislation regulating trade with illegal settlements will be advanced as a necessary step to comply with international law and it would be wrong for others to see it as a “boycott” of Israel because it is important that this Bill is clear on what it is and what it is not in terms of its legality.

Consistent with the position of the EU, Ireland has been clear in underlining the policies and measures that distinguish between the State of Israel and Israeli settlements, which are clearly illegal under international law. I am advancing with the commitment in the programme for Government and have engaged with the sponsor of the current Bill, which the Deputy has correctly named. I have made it clear to Senator Black that our approach is to bring forward our own legislation. I do not wish to speak for the Senator but I think her view is that she does not care who brings forward the legislation, once it comes forward and is advanced. The general scheme of that legislation will go to the foreign affairs committee in June. I am conscious the chair of that committee is present in the Dáil. I will endeavour to get the general scheme to the committee as early as possible in June.

I think we all agree that Ireland's trade with the occupied Palestinian territory is very limited. That is not a reason not to do this, and I am not suggesting it is. It is the right thing to do. However, all of us, through our various political movements, should be encouraging other countries to do the same. It would be a big benefit if a number of other countries were to join Ireland in passing legislation that we believe is compatible with EU law and we were to ground that in the narrow route that is the International Court of Justice advisory opinion and the Attorney General's advice that flows form that.

Before Deputy Connolly responds, there are six questions in this grouping. I will let the Deputy respond on the second round and let Deputy Murphy in now.

When questions are grouped, the Deputy with the first question gets 30 seconds and everyone in the group gets the same time, thereafter, one minute. No one is deprived of time.

Does the Tánaiste see the date on the occupied territories Bill? It is 2018. It is now 2025. I welcome that some progress has been made. However, it has taken the deaths and slaughter of 54,000 Palestinians, and that figure, which I read out this morning, is totally inaccurate. According to The Lancet, the figure is much higher than that.

At the very least, this occupied territories Bill needs to be pushed through before this summer to ban goods and services, if our word is to mean anything. I do not mind or care whether our trade is limited. This is something that needs to be done at its most basic level.

During the week the Government refused to vote to stop the selling of bonds in Ireland or, rather, the approving of the prospectus. It said to do so would not comply with EU law. I have a completely different view, if you look at EU law. I asked a question and the answer I got is really shocking. First of all, I asked a very specific question about all State investments in Israeli bonds. It took until the end to get the answer, namely, that the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund has invested in Israeli bonds. The most recent figures available are for the end of 2023. There are no figures for 2024. That entity now holds direct holdings in Israeli war bonds totalling €2.62 million.

What is now important is that we implement this Bill as urgently as possible and that we do it right. Doing it right does not mean excluding the majority of our trade with the occupied territories; it means including goods and services. I would like to get into, in some detail, what the Tánaiste says is the legal basis for excluding services is. He said we have a narrow legal pathway identified by the ICJ and the Attorney General. However, the ICJ makes no distinction between trade in goods and trade in services. It says that states are under an obligation to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings and prevent trade or investment relations with the settlements. Similarly, the Attorney General's advice, which has been leaked on The Ditch, and which Deputy O'Gorman has referred to, says there has been no reference to an issue around services in his very detailed legal advice. People can check that for themselves. Not including services seems to me to be a policy choice. The Tánaiste has said in the last few weeks that this is a legal decision but I would like to hear the rationale and basis on which this legal distinction is being made.

On a daily basis, we are seeing the latest version of the absolute horrors visited on Palestinians and the sheer loss of life. The estimates for those who are missing and crushed under buildings escalates every day. There is bombing of hospitals, schools, clinics and homes and the total destruction of Gaza and its infrastructure, roads, wastewater plants and everything else. It is clear what the Israeli game plan is here. It is the fragmentation and occupation of the West Bank. The news today was an escalation and expansion of that. It is clear that this is about wiping out not just the Palestinian state, but the Palestinian people. I appeal to the Tánaiste to have this Bill brought forward as quickly as possible and to include services in it. Services are estimated to account for 70% of trade. The ICJ ruling is clear as far as I am concerned. There is an obligation on us. We must do everything we can. It may not have a huge effect because the amount of trade is limited but look at what happened when the Dunnes Stores workers stopped selling South African fruit. Look at what that snowballed into. It brought apartheid down, or helped to bring it down.

Deputy Ó Murchú, are you speaking for Deputy Darren O'Rourke?

Yes. I have already brought up this particular issue. The Tánaiste is going to be dealing with the issue of services until we see delivery. The timeline is vital. I agree with Deputy Murphy. The Tánaiste has to elaborate to some degree on what the legal issues are. It cannot be beyond us to find a solution in order that we can deliver the occupied territories Bill as soon as possible and before we see the absolute end of the Palestinian people. Mahmoud Nawaja, when he was here, spoke about the need to see a tipping point. That tipping point is only going to be reached when states like Ireland take action and, as the Tánaiste said, we see action further afield that makes Israel feel like the pariah state it is as it carries out this genocide. Is the State looking at any means by which the Central Bank would not facilitate the sale of these war or genocide bonds?

I take the point Deputy Connolly makes around the date of the original Bill being 2018. That is, of course, a statement of fact. Respectfully, I make the point back that, for better or worse, trade is an EU competency, and I am happy to be in the European Union. It has been the position of successive Governments for quite a period of time that, therefore, any issues in that Bill were a matter to be dealt with at EU level rather than at member state level. The change, from the Government's legal understanding, was the ICJ advisory opinion. In my previous role as Taoiseach I asked the Attorney General to look again at the ability of a member state to do something in the context of the ICJ advisory opinion, which, as Deputy Murphy reminds us, reminded nations of their obligation to act in this space. The Attorney General helpfully and importantly came back and identified what I would describe as a narrow way forward. I am paraphrasing because I do not have the legal advice in front of me. It is not a risk-free way forward, which we are not looking for by the way, but a narrow way forward to progress legislation. When I and many others entered the general election campaign, it was on that basis that every political party or grouping in Dáil Éireann was committing to enacting legislation in this space. I take the point on 2018 but I want to outline on the record of the House why I believe the position is different now, at least legally, than it was in 2018.

Deputies Murphy, Ó Murchú, Stanley and Connolly all asked a very fair question in asking me to tell them the legal difference in relation to goods versus services. That is a perfectly appropriate question to ask. My understanding, which I am setting out without the benefit of having advice in front of me, is there is a clearer delineation of goods and services at an EU level for a member state to act. However, I intend to seek the updated advice of the Attorney General in relation to that. I take the point that Deputy Murphy made and I have heard Deputy O'Gorman make before relating to the Attorney General's advice that has been published. I do not have a policy difference with the Deputies. I am doing this, I hope, with all of them because we are horrified by the genocide we are seeing happening. We want to take an action and we hope it will inspire and motivate others and help bring about pressure on Israel to end what is happening in Gaza. Obviously, the position I occupy is that we have to make sure that it is legally robust. I think we all share that view.

I do not like invoking her name or speaking for her - she is well able to speak for herself - but when I spoke to Senator Black I made the point that the position of my Department, from a legal point of view, was that goods were potentially legally permissible but services may not be. I also said I was happy to be proven wrong on that. There is a practical implication around services that is not in the policy space. There is a practical implication as to how you would enforce the services issue rather than the goods issue.

The occupied territories Bill, however limited, has to be passed for goods and services. It is the least we can do. The constant refrain that Europe might take infringement proceedings against us is unacceptable. Let us face that if it happens. There is a genocide happening in our name while we stand here and talk, so we need to take action. The limited way that the Government is dealing with the Central Bank's role and its refusal to look at that is also part of this discussion. It is limiting it to the three Cs, namely, comprehensibility, consistency and some other C. The Government is not looking at the overall obligation on the Central Bank to comply with its own Central Bank Act. That Act says it must comply with European law, which lays down fundamental human rights. It is not even being measured against that, or public policy. It is similar with State investment. We are actually investing in war bonds. We have moved beyond asking the Central Bank to stop the role that it has and if it cannot do so, we should then bring in the necessary legislation. We now find out that we are investing public money in war bonds.

There is a significant weight of learned legal opinion which says the Government can do goods and services. The Tánaiste will have seen the letter from 350-plus of Ireland's most prominent lawyers stating that they do not consider there to be any insurmountable legal obstacles preventing the adoption of legislation prohibiting the import of goods and services produced in the unlawful Israeli settlements. Two of the UK's most prominent EU law experts, cited by the Attorney General himself, have taken the view that the prohibition of settlement services, to the extent that they fall within the scope of EU law, is also justified by reasons of public policy.

I think the Tánaiste effectively said that he did not have Attorney General advice saying he could not include services. The AG advice, in fact, does not mention anything. It says it is a political choice about whether the Government goes with the existing Bill or drafts a new Bill. Instead, it is up to the Department. In any case, this is all likely to end up in an EU court. It is likely the European Commission will challenge even a Bill that only focuses on goods. If there is a strong legal case, and maybe a case can be made both ways in terms of services, why do we not take the full belt and braces approach and defend it and then see what the ECJ says?

My hearing is not 100%. I wanted to ask about the Tánaiste's conversation with Senator Black and the tail end of that. I am not trying to be awkward but would he mind repeating that again, please? I was not able to pick up correctly what he was saying.

There are obviously different opinions out there and different legal opinion. This crisis puts a weight on us and many people are depending on us as a neutral company to act and show an example. The Palestinian ambassador will tell the Tánaiste this. People out in the street tell me this the whole time. People walking by Leinster House tell me. People on the streets down in County Laois tell me the whole time that we need to be doing more than we are. The old saying is that doctors differ and patients die. Solicitors and barristers differ but, my God, the level of death and destruction is absolutely horrific. I think we are all agreed on that. I have never seen anything like it. Will the Tánaiste clarify what he said? I apologise but my hearing is not 100%.

In the West Bank, people face regular slaughter and what is modern-day colonisation and land grabbing. In Gaza, the Palestinians are facing wipeout. Time is not on our side. Legal minds' belief that it is possible to include services is already in the public domain, whatever the Tánaiste's conversations are going to be with the Attorney General. Those conversations would need to be positive but they need to happen as soon as possible because we need to have this done.

I agree with what Deputy Connolly has said. Whatever about the fact that we have an insufficient amount of divestment from firms that are involved in Israel and the occupied territories, it is not in any way acceptable that we would be investing in these war bonds. Have we looked at any means by which the Central Bank would not facilitate the sale war bonds that are facilitating genocide? I know the arguments that have been made but infringement proceedings from the EU are not a good enough reason.

As the Deputy can imagine, I will be engaging with the Attorney General as we seek to advance this general scheme.

In response to Deputy Stanley's request, that was the point I was making. In the previous Government, I had conversations about whether it was possible to move forward with an occupied territories Bill.

I accept that the line Deputy Murphy is quoting regarding political choice is accurate, but from being in the briefings with the Attorney General and hearing the now Taoiseach when he was in my role addressing the foreign affairs committee, it is the clear legal view of the Government that the current Bill would not have been legally permissible. That is genuinely the legal advice available to me.

It could be amended.

Deputy Murphy is right. That was an option. It could be amended line by line or section by section. Our view was that bringing forward a new Bill was a better way of doing it.

I am open to persuasion on the issue of services. It is not a persuasion that needs to be done from a policy point. Rather, I am open to persuasion as to whether it would work in this Bill. I am not afraid of infringement proceedings. There are much more important things going on in the world. However, I want to pass a Bill that is robust, practical and legally enforceable. I cannot pass legislation that I believe not to be legal.

Question No. 171 taken with Written Answers.

I am moving on to question No. 172. Deputy Lahart is taking this on behalf of Deputy Cathal Crowe.

I will wrap the two questions together if that is okay with the Chair and the Minister.

Deputy Lahart is taking question Nos. 172 and 173.

Ukraine War

Cathal Crowe

Ceist:

172. Deputy Cathal Crowe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he has had any recent discussions with his Ukrainian counterpart; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26984/25]

Cathal Crowe

Ceist:

173. Deputy Cathal Crowe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if any further sanctions will be imposed on Russia; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26983/25]

Has the Tánaiste had any recent discussions with his Ukrainian counterpart and will he comment on that? Will he update us on whether any further sanctions will be imposed on Russia?

I propose to take Questions Nos. 172 and 173 together.

I thank Deputy Lahart. I am committed, as is the rest of the Government, to working with our European and Ukrainian counterparts to maintain our solidarity with Ukraine and to ensure Ukraine gets the support it needs to defend itself against brutal Russian aggression. This remains a key focus of my engagements, both bilaterally and at the European Union. Ukraine, as the Deputy can imagine, features prominently on the monthly agenda of the Foreign Affairs Council. We are regularly - in fact, almost always - joined by the foreign minister of Ukraine, generally virtually, to hear directly about the situation on the ground and Ukraine’s most pressing needs. This is an important forum for discussion on what more the EU can do to ensure Ukraine gets the support it urgently needs to defend itself and to deter future Russian aggression.

One of my earliest engagements as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade was an introductory phone call with the Ukrainian foreign minister. During that call, I reaffirmed our country's commitment to providing much-needed diplomatic, political, humanitarian, economic and non-lethal military assistance to Ukraine. On 15 February this year, I met the minister on the margins of the Munich Security Conference where we had a detailed exchange on recent developments and how Ireland could further strengthen its support. I have also had a number of phone calls and engagements with the minister since then.

In September 2024, I visited Kyiv and saw at first hand the appalling impacts of Russian aggression. On that occasion, I signed with President Zelenskyy a bilateral agreement on support and co-operation, which underlined Ireland’s unwavering commitment to continuing to support Ukraine and pledged us both to deepen our co-operation and partnership.

Most recently, it was a privilege to be joined virtually by the Ukrainian foreign minister when he addressed the Global Ireland Summit on 6 May. The minister pointed to the global ramifications of Russia’s full-scale invasion, including by undermining the multilateral rules-based order on which we rely for peace and prosperity. Ireland’s position is clear - this war and the threat posed by Russia are not only existential issues for Ukraine but also a major challenge to the security of Europe. I look forward to further close co-operation with my counterpart to strengthen our collective response to these shared challenges.

Specifically on the issue of sanctions, Ireland has consistently supported strong sanctions against Russia in response to its unprovoked and illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The scale and speed of the sanctions adopted by the EU in response to Russia’s brutal aggression have been unprecedented. The broad range of sanction measures put in place are having a tangible impact on the Russian economy. They are making it harder for Russia to access battlefield goods and to generate revenue to pay for its illegal war. Given Russia’s continuing aggression in Ukraine, while refusing to accept a ceasefire and continuing to target infrastructure, it is important that we maintain and increase this sanction pressure. That is why Ireland strongly supported the adoption on 20 May of the 17th package of sanctions against Russia, including its particular focus on measures to counter the shadow fleet. The listing of a further 189 shadow fleet vessels will limit the revenue Russia is able to generate from oil exports. I also welcome that consideration is already being given to a further set of sanctions measures.

We will continue to work closely with EU partners to ensure we are doing all that we can to exert maximum pressure on Russia to end its illegal war of aggression. In addition to imposing new measures, it is also critical that the sanctions we have adopted remain in place. We have been clear that the lifting of sanctions by any country or by the European Union should only ever be considered in the context of a lasting peace agreement.

I appreciate the combined answer there. I have a couple of comments. The Tánaiste will be aware of this and the briefings he gets will be far more sophisticated and informative than what I would be privy to, which is reading some of the international newspapers today, but it looks like Russia is mounting a further offensive into Ukraine. There is a lot of commentary in the press about what the US President's next step will be. The US President had said if Russia did not take certain steps, then he would not just consider sanctions but issue them. I do not know what the latest commentary is on that. We in the foreign affairs committee will be hosting the Ukrainian ambassador as well and doing our small piece in keeping that high on the agenda. I will be very keen and interested to hear what the ambassador has to update us on. I wonder about the unrealistic ultimatums that emerge from the US on a daily basis and how difficult that must be to deal with diplomatically. I imagine the uncertainty of that and the lack of a direct path make diplomacy quite difficult.

There was an impression at the outset of the new US Presidency that the President enjoyed a special relationship with the Russian President but now there are public clashes, so it is very foggy and unsteady from day to day. The US President is taking a very unsteady approach to diplomacy.

On sanctions, I am interested in what the Tánaiste is saying about the shadow fleet and I ask him to say a little bit more about that.

On global diplomacy, will the Tánaiste give us an insight into his view on the direction of travel of this conflict?

To start with the Deputy's last point, that is a huge concern because, in fairness to President Trump, he has been very clear that he wants the war to end. He wants peace and the President of the European Commission, President von der Leyen, has welcomed some of the interventions President Trump has made in that regard. There has been significant dialogue between a number of senior European leaders including the British Prime Minister, the French President, the President of the Commission, Prime Minister Tusk and others who have met a number of times. As the Deputy will have seen, there were phone calls back and forth between them and the Oval Office in endeavouring to get to a position of a ceasefire and, one would hope, a negotiated, just, lasting and enduring peace.

What we are now seeing is that there are two Presidents - although there is only aggressor - involved in the war, President Putin and President Zelenskyy. President Zelenskyy has said very clearly and categorically that he is willing, as is the Ukrainian Government, to accept a full, unconditional ceasefire but President Putin is not. Every day we hear from Russia and its proxies and there is always another hurdle, another if, but or caveat while, as the Deputy rightly says, we hear reports of further advances of the Russian offensive into Ukraine and the continued targeting of civilian infrastructure and crucial energy infrastructure as well.

Far be it from me to try to predict what the US President will do, which is a challenge, but one would hope that he would join with European friends and allies in trying to maximise the pressure on Russia. If he is saying that he wants peace and he wants parties to get around the table, then there has to be, in my view, sanctions for the party that is refusing to get around the table, particularly when that party is the aggressor in the brutal, illegal war.

We are continuing to engage. I should acknowledge that the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, was in Odesa recently and the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, was in Lviv. We are in constant contact and engagement, bilaterally and at EU level, in terms of to Ukraine. The sanctions Europe is putting in place are appropriate and an important part of keeping the pressure on Russia. The sanctions are being enforced in Ireland. EU regulations have direct effect in Irish law so it means they must be complied with in the same way as domestic Irish legislation. As such, a natural or legal person who contravenes the provisions of an EU sanctions regulation would be guilty of an offence and liable to prosecution.

We have seen an unprecedented scope of sanctions adopted by the EU since February 2022 in respect of Russia's illegal aggression in Ukraine. This has required an increased level of co-ordination and co-operation on sanctions across Government. My Department chairs the cross-departmental international sanctions committee, which monitors, reviews and co-ordinates the implementation, administration and exchange of information on sanctions. At EU level, co-ordination among member states has also increased to ensure that sanctions are implemented in a harmonised way. What we really need to see now is European unity on continuing the sanctions and the rollover of sanctions. Hungary must play its part in this, but regardless of Hungary's position, we are going to keep the sanctions in place. We also need to prepare an 18th package of sanctions.

I will provide the Deputy with a further note on the shadow fleet, given his interest in it.

Trade Agreements

Martin Kenny

Ceist:

174. Deputy Martin Kenny asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the reason he or a representative from the Government did not attend the meeting organised by France of EU member states with concerns regarding the Mercosur trade deal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25622/25]

Cathy Bennett

Ceist:

176. Deputy Cathy Bennett asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will outline his engagements and position regarding the Mercosur trade agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27331/25]

I ask the Tánaiste to outline his engagements and position regarding the Mercosur trade agreement. We know the issues that exist for Irish farmers in this regard. They are afraid of 100,000 tonnes of South American beef entering the EU at the expense of deforestation. That means our farmers will need to do more while receiving less from the CAP. We are talking about this in the context of the Irish Government's failure to deliver a workable forestry framework. I attended a meeting with the IFA recently. Its representatives had been in Brussels and spoke about the feeling they had, no more than when we got the briefing last week from the Commission, that this was a done deal. They believe they are being sold out because they are being told they will have to accept this if they want anything on the derogation, which is obviously unacceptable.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 174 and 176 together.

I thank Deputy Ó Murchú. His party is working him hard today. I assure him that my officials and I remain in ongoing and close contact with a number of like-minded countries, including France, which the Deputy referenced in the question, on our opposition to the current EU-Mercosur trade deal. Indeed, as I stated in response to an earlier question, I held a bilateral meeting on 14 April with my French counterpart, the foreign minister, Mr. Barrot, at which we discussed international trade developments, including the Mercosur agreement.

Regarding the meeting referred to in the question, I hope the Deputy appreciates that it is not possible for the Government to attend every meeting but Ireland is very active in this space. As a small, open economy, we depend for our prosperity upon good two-way trading relations with the nations of the world. That is an important context. Ireland has traditionally always been a supporter of free, fair and open trade, in particular via the EU's free trade agreements. That is why I sought approval for legislative change at Cabinet this week that will allow us to ratify CETA, the free trade agreement with Canada. We have always been clear, however, that such agreements must defend our vulnerable sectors and that our farmers’ livelihoods must not be undermined through weak or ineffective environmental standards in other countries. Our position is clearly outlined in the programme for Government, which states that the Government will work with like-minded EU countries to stand up for Irish farmers and defend our interests in opposing the current Mercosur trade deal. In our trade negotiations, we have always been guided by standing up for and defending the interests of Irish farmers, along with securing enhanced market access opportunities for them and agrifood exports from our country.

On 6 December 2024, the European Commission announced that it had concluded negotiations with Mercosur. Since then, officials from my Department and other Departments have been carefully analysing the text of the additional legal instrument addressing sustainability commitments. My officials and I have continued to engage at EU level at every opportunity, with both the European Commission directly through the trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič and with counterparts in EU member states, including France, to voice our concerns with the agreement and to interrogate the outcome of negotiations to assess if our concerns have been adequately addressed. I am not convinced they have been.

While our engagements with the Commission and counterparts in other EU member states are continuing, Ireland’s position on the EU-Mercosur agreement remains as clearly outlined in the programme for Government.

The Tánaiste is well aware of the fears in rural Ireland and particularly among farmers. I was worried when we had that briefing in the AV room where it was stated that, to a degree, all deals were done. It is unacceptable if this is a take it or leave it-type scenario, which is the way it was proposed. I ask for detail on the engagements that are happening. What are the engagements with the European Commission at this time? What are we looking at? We all know the issues, which have already been stated, around South American beef. We all understand that, to a degree, what is being done here is a deal to facilitate the sale of German cars and other goods. While that is obviously going to be part of any trade deal, we cannot be the whipping boy and Irish farming cannot suffer on that basis. We also know that there will be issues in terms of food security into the future.

We are always talking in this House about the sustainability of family farms. We have worries about the maintenance of the derogation. Some farmers have been impacted by the loss of the previous nitrates directive derogation. What is the Government's plan in terms of engagement with other like-minded countries? What are its plans for what can be done? What has the engagement with the Commission been like? The Minister mentioned that there had been a meeting on 10 April with other EU countries that opposed Mercosur that Ireland did not attend but he said that there had been a significant amount of engagement. What are the plans coming out of that engagement? What has the engagement with the Commission been like and, more importantly, what answers have been given by the Commission?

I had a significant one-on-one meeting with my French counterpart specifically about Mercosur. Our links and engagement with France on this remain intense and ongoing.

Our position within the European Commission is very well understood. I do not think other member states would be in any way surprised by Ireland's position. What happens next is important. At the moment, the agreement is undergoing a legal scrubbing, after which it will be translated into all the EU languages.

It is worth repeating that there is still a degree of uncertainty over what form the final Commission proposal to member states will take. There is one of two ways it can go. It can go as what is called a mixed agreement - this would require unanimous member state approval, which clearly does not exist; or it could go as a split agreement, with the trade elements applied on an interim basis, which would require approval at Council under qualified majority voting. That is where the question arises as to whether there is a blocking minority, for want of a better phrase.

My sense of the situation is that a number of member states remain resolute in their opposition. An acknowledgement from some countries that the Commission has made steps to try to make improvements around the sustainability agenda and other important aspects, including empowerment of women and making the climate provisions of the Paris Agreement much more binding, would be helpful. There have been good efforts but I am sure we have not reached the level of clarification and assurance we in Ireland require. That work continues. I am also sure that is the position of a number of member states. There are some who seem to have a position that is somewhat evolving on this situation.

In the interim, my Department and other relevant Departments are continuing their own detailed analyses, continuing to consult with other member states and seeking further clarification and information from the Commission. It is expected that the Commission will present the final agreement package either late in quarter 2, which could be next month, or early in quarter 3, which would be after the summer recess.

The Tánaiste has indicated that we will have some element of clarification by the end of quarter 2 as to what the agreement looks like but we still do not have clarity as to how agreement is to be determined. The Tánaiste is promising the State will be resolute in the sense of what we understand this agreement to be. Mercosur is utterly unacceptable and I cannot see how there will be any movement in that respect. I assume, on the basis of what the Tánaiste said, that the European Commission has not offered, by way of this clarification, that there can be real wins from our point of view. Beyond that, it is a case of maintaining a relationship with those member states that have similar positions and ensuring we look after Irish farming and opposing any agreement that would be detrimental to it. At this point, we have a promise from the Tánaiste and the Government in that regard.

The Tánaiste made reference to CETA. Most of the parts of that trade agreement are in operation. Our big fear is the investor court system and the chilling impact it has had across the board.

I will say more on CETA another time when we can have a proper debate. If we cannot ratify a free trade agreement with Canada in the middle of all the turbulence that is going on in the world, I am concerned. I cannot think of a better, less offensive nation to trade with and have a trade agreement with than Canada. Let us have that debate when the time comes. It is for another day. The Deputy provoked me there.

I want to make a broader point regarding Mercosur, which is that free trade is a really good thing. I say that as Minister with responsibility for trade. The IFA is a member of the Government trade forum. Most of what Irish farmers produce is exported and I want them to have lots of places where they can sell their produce. It is some of the best produce in the world, we are proud of it and it is an important part of our economic model. I made the point at the recent working lunch of the Foreign Affairs Council's trade configuration that Europe, including its member states and the Commission, must get better at working out how we can engage with farmers and the agriculture sector earlier on in the process. Otherwise, this issue will arise time and again as we seek to make other free trade agreements.

Our position on Mercosur is outlined in the programme for Government. I am not changing it or deviating from it. I ask the Deputy, please, not to think I am. However, as we go forward, we must look at how we can involve farmers and the agriculture sector in protecting their interests much earlier in the process in order that we do not end up with a trade agreement that has good elements but leaves us asking, "What about the farmers?" That is not a clever way for us to proceed. We will want and need more free trade agreements and we must think about how we bring farmers and their interests with us from the start of the process rather than getting to the end and wondering whether there is any way to make it work for farmers. That sequencing is completely wrong.

We will continue to engage on Mercosur with like-minded countries. Our programme for Government commitment still stands. The IFA is on the Government trade forum, which gives it a seat at the table in terms of trade policy and stakeholder engagement as we go forward. Europe really needs to crack this issue because we need more free trade agreements and we need to work out a way of bringing farmers with us, not just in Ireland but across the European Union.

Dublin-Monaghan Bombings

Shane Moynihan

Ceist:

175. Deputy Shane Moynihan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will report on his recent engagement with the British Government regarding the Dublin and Monaghan bombings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27324/25]

As we have discussed previously, 51 years have passed since the dreadful events of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in which 33 people lost their lives and hundreds more, including family members of constituents of mine, were injured both physically and mentally. In a week when we spoke in the Dáil about the importance of seeking truth and answers for loved ones, it is very much a fact that the families of victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings do not have justice and do not have the full truth. I look forward to hearing how the Tánaiste is engaging with the UK Government on this matter.

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue and for consistently keeping it on the agenda in his time in the House. It is important that is done. Earlier this month, as he noted, we marked the 51st anniversary of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 17 May 1974. Those brutal attacks claimed the lives of 34 people, including an unborn baby, injured hundreds more and shocked the country to its core. More than five decades on, it remains deeply regrettable, to put it mildly, that no person has been held responsible for the attacks.

This House has unanimously supported four all-party motions calling on the British Government to allow access by an independent international judicial figure to all original documents relating to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. The absence of a substantive response from the British Government to date in respect of those requests is a matter of great concern. I raised this directly with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at our first in-person meeting here in Dublin. It was also raised by the Minister for Justice and me on 24 April at the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference at Hillsborough Castle. I will continue to raise this issue and take the clearly expressed will of this House forward in all future engagements.

In line with the commitment in the programme for Government to address the legacy of the conflict in this jurisdiction, the Government remains committed to finding truth and justice for the victims' families and the survivors of these heinous attacks. We continue to make every effort to facilitate co-operation with legacy investigation bodies outside of this jurisdiction, such as Operation Denton and Operation Newham under the Kenova body of work. We eagerly await the publication of the Operation Denton report in the coming months in the hope it will provide families and survivors with long-awaited answers. It is important to reiterate that the investigation into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings remains an open case in this jurisdiction. Any new evidence that comes to light, from whatever source, will be fully and rigorously pursued by the Garda authorities.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Tánaiste as a fhreagra. As he noted, four all-party motions were passed by the House, in 2008, 2011, 2014 and 2016, urging full co-operation from the British Government. It seems the citation of national security as grounds not to enable that co-operation is held up as a flag. He mentioned Operation Denton, which is a welcome development in terms of investigating unresolved killings during the Troubles. I note that An Garda Síochána has co-operated with Operation Denton. It is important that this co-operation be reciprocated by the British Government in terms of the access to documents and details that is needed. The victims of these tragedies have gone for decades with unanswered questions about the truth of what happened on that dreadful day, which does not help them in any way to find closure for their grief. I urge the Tánaiste to continue his engagement with the British Government and to challenge its citation of national security as a grounds upon which not to co-operate with the investigation into these killings.

I agree with everything the Deputy said on this matter. I fully acknowledge that very country has a right, even an obligation, in regard to its national security. However, that cannot become a cover for not providing assistance that could and should be provided. This House and successive Governments have constructively put forward proposals as to how that access to information could be provided. Not much is unanimously agreed in here but the Dáil has unanimously adopted four all-party motions calling on the British Government to look afresh at our urgent request. We did so in 2008, 2011, 2016 and 2024. The motions called on the British Government to allow access by an independent international judicial figure. We thought that was the way forward.

My colleague, the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, and I continue at every opportunity to pursue this matter. The Deputy is right that we want to get to an agreement in terms of a framework on legacy, whereby truth, reconciliation and justice can be accessed by people right across this island. It would be extraordinarily helpful for the British Government to recognise the express wish of this House and come forward with that information.

The Tánaiste is entirely right. Government and Members of the Dáil owe it to the victims of those attacks to continually press the British Government on its use of national security as a shield for withholding that documentation. Will the Tánaiste directly challenge the British Government in his interactions with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and other members of the British Government on its use of national security to withhold documents? Will he give an assurance that victims' voices remain central to any engagement with the British Government regarding not only this set of tragedies but the wider legacy piece and if the Government has been given access to any preliminary findings from Operation Denton or any further insight into when the report of Operation Denton will be published?

I do not have specific insights into provisional findings from Operation Denton. I know it is hoped the report will appear in the coming months. We all hope this provides families and survivors with much-needed answers. I will continue to make the point, as will the Minister for Justice, regarding the importance of this information being provided and, more broadly, the issue of legacy. The Irish Government wants two things to happen with regard to legacy. We want a legacy infrastructure that is human rights-compliant and we want something that can bring victims and survivors, or at least as many of them as possible, with the process. Neither of those circumstances exist with the Legacy Act. There is really good and intensive engagement between the two Governments - my Department and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn. I am hopeful - it is not guaranteed - we can try to reach a landing zone in the coming weeks that could see us take an important step forward on legacy, which would be so important to so many people across this island.

Question No. 176 taken with Question No. 174.

Northern Ireland

Brian Stanley

Ceist:

177. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the efforts being made by his Department and the Government to put pressure on the British Government to get a public inquiry in place around the murder of a person (details supplied) in Bellaghy, County Derry. [26774/25]

Ruairí Ó Murchú

Ceist:

243. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to report on his recent engagement with the family of a person (details supplied) and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27220/25]

What pressure has been put on the British Government regarding a public inquiry into the murder of Sean Brown, a GAA official, on 19 April 1997 at Drumanee Road in Bellaghy when he was closing the GAA club? This was a hard-working member of the local community who had done significant voluntary work on behalf of the GAA and in the community and was highly respected. I know from people living on Drumanee Road at the time that there was shock and horror in that area and the wider Bellaghy area at what happened.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 177 and 243 together.

I met with Sean Brown's family just over two weeks ago on what was the 28th anniversary of his murder. I was struck by Bridie Brown and her family and the anguish, pain and hurt they have been put through. The family have shown enormous strength and resilience in pursuing this case. I commended them on their tireless campaign for truth, transparency and accountability over the past 28 years. I reiterated to them that I will continue to use any influence I have, now and at every point, and that of the Irish Government to bring about a resolution that is acceptable to them. They want a public inquiry, they deserve a public inquiry and they need a public inquiry.

The various investigations conducted since the murder have failed to provide the answers needed by the Brown family and they have waited too long for the truth. I raised the case of Sean Brown with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in our first call after I took office in January as well as in a number of subsequent calls, most recently at the end of last week. I also discussed the issues with Secretary of State Benn at the meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference at Hillsborough Castle last month.

As I said when I was in Belfast last week to meet with the party leaders, it has been the long-established position of the Irish Government that the Brown family must have access to a mechanism that is compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is something that has never been provided to them. This is not just my view. It is also the view of the courts. The courts in Northern Ireland have made clear their view that the Independent Commission on Reconciliation and Information Recovery as established by the UK Legacy Act cannot offer that remedy and that a public inquiry is currently the only mechanism available that can do so.

This case is exceptional in a number of respects. I know there is a lot of hurt and a lot of victims and unanswered questions in terms of truth, justice and accountability in Northern Ireland, but this case has exceptional characteristics. These include the rulings of the Northern Ireland High Court and Court of Appeal which identify a public inquiry as the only remedy; the material released by the Coroner's Court linking agents of the UK state to the murder; and the repeated frustration of a thorough investigation of the case by state agencies. These are important elements. My Department participated in the supervision of a review of the case following the report of the Police Ombudsman, which did not receive the information subsequently found by the coroner. Information was withheld from the various investigations to date. I will continue to raise this case with the Secretary of State in my discussions with him and to keep in close contact with the Brown family, their representatives and political representatives in this House and Northern Ireland, for whom I know this is an issue of the utmost importance, as it is for me.

I am happy to hear about the Tánaiste's engagements on this issue. I mentioned that Sean Brown had a great reputation locally as a hard-working member of the local community and throughout the country with regard to the GAA. I commend the GAA on taking up this issue and the thousands of people who filled the roads and streets around Bellaghy in recent weeks. There was evidence of collusion. He was abducted and carried in a convoy that passed under cameras at Toomebridge RUC station. This fits in with the British counterinsurgency strategy that was set out by Frank Kitson 30 years earlier. It is sad to say that. It was the tail end of it. You were put up against the Good Friday Agreement. It was a clear strategy to lower the demands of the nationalist community. It would carry out these actions but keep them at arm's length. Great credit is due to the family. I urge the Tánaiste to throw everything he can at North-South meetings and intergovernmental conferences. Will he confirm whether the Taoiseach has taken it up with Keir Starmer? We do have proper relations between Great Britain and Ireland with the new British Government, which is welcome. It is better than it was. A number of matters are now being dealt with that had not been dealt with for a number of years.

Up to 25 people, including British state agents, could be linked to this murder. We know that surveillance was lifted for agents under surveillance. We know there are a significant number of issues regarding absolute collusion. I agree with what was said earlier. This was British state policy in Ireland. It was a matter of taking out Irish citizens. We commend the family of Sean Brown, Bellaghy GAA and the wider GAA. The Tánaiste is talking about supporting a full public inquiry as directed by the British courts. When the Taoiseach spoke about this previously, he conflated it to some degree with repealing the British Government's action with regard to the Legacy Act. This would not be sufficient for the family and a number of us in here. I welcome what the Tánaiste said so could I get some reiteration regarding that? How will we put pressure on the British Government regarding delivering for Sean Brown and his family, who have been failed over many years?

I join the Deputies in commending Bellaghy GAA and the GAA more widely. The president of the GAA, Jarlath Burns, attended the meeting with the Brown family when they came to see me. Sean Brown was a good, decent man locking up his GAA club when he was brutally murdered 28 years ago. Not only have no answers been given to his family and no Article 2-compliant investigation established, there have been clear active efforts to suppress information. It is also very clear from the rulings of the High Court and the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland that a full public inquiry is required and the involvement of agents of the UK state with regard to the murder of Sean Brown needs to be answered for. The family needs those answers. The Taoiseach and I are ad idem on this. I am quite sure the Taoiseach has raised it with the British Prime Minister and the Taoiseach and I have discussed it on a number of occasions. The Irish Government feels very strongly about this. At the moment, it is a statement of fact there is no available mechanism that is Article 2 human rights-compliant other than a public inquiry. Bridie Brown is in her late eighties. She deserves answers about the murder of her husband.

I will continue, as will the Government, to make that point at every opportunity in our engagements, including all our engagements with the UK Government.

As regards legacy more broadly, I hope that in the coming weeks we can reach a framework such that the two Governments can say, "This is a good way forward on the issue of legacy across this island." That will be a very significant moment for victims and families. I met a number of victims' groups yesterday on this. I met all the parties in Northern Ireland on this last Monday in Stormont, and we are working intensively to see if we can find a way forward.

Is féidir teacht ar Cheisteanna Scríofa ar www.oireachtas.ie.
Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.
Roinn