Vol. 1086 No. 2
4. Deputy Sinéad Gibney asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if she is aware of concerns regarding the investor court system established in the CETA deal, particularly the potential need for EU-wide consent for the termination of CETA as well as the possible 20-year post-termination obligations that Ireland would still face. [38316/26]
I will answer this question on behalf of the Minister.
The ratification of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, between Canada and the EU is an absolute priority for the Government. The 2025 programme for Government contains a specific commitment to ratify this important free trade agreement and the Government is committed to delivering on it. The ratification of the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement is an important part of Ireland’s diversification strategy in reducing concentration risk among our trading partners. The ratification of CETA is also a key priority for Canada, which has been repeatedly raised with Ireland by Canadian partners, including with me last weekend.
CETA took seven years to negotiate and the deal that was agreed at the Council of the European Union followed extensive engagement and debate among EU member states. It is now close to ten years since the agreement was signed, with the European Parliament giving its consent a number of months later. The EU's new approach to investment protection includes the investor court system, which will replace the old, long-standing investor state dispute settlement, or ISDS, mechanism. The EU and all of us are keenly aware of the criticisms of the old system. To overcome those shortcomings, the EU and its member states have put forward new reforms which address the concerns head-on. The new, progressive system contains investment protection provisions that are very much balanced against the State's right to regulate in the public interest.
In relation to the termination clause the Deputy referred to, we have collectively agreed, through the democratic process at EU level, to have a trade and investment agreement with our ally, Canada. It makes absolute sense that it would involve a collective decision of the EU to terminate it. I cannot envisage circumstances in which the EU and Canada would want to end this agreement. In the case of Ireland alone, we have seen bilateral trade in goods and services increase from €3.2 billion in 2016 to more than €12 billion in 2024. This significant increase in bilateral trade between Ireland and Canada supports thousands of Irish jobs and benefits large and small Irish businesses throughout our country.
The Government is currently progressing the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2025 through the Oireachtas as part of ongoing efforts to take forward ratification of CETA. The Bill, which amends the Arbitration Act 2010 to deal with concerns addressed in the Costello case, is currently before the Seanad.
Farmers, workers and consumers have been left totally confused by the CETA deal. Although the Minister of State describes the extensive debate at EU level, that debate has not been reflected here in the Oireachtas, where the Bill is being rushed through and pre-legislative scrutiny has been essentially suspended on it. The EU is not rushing us to ratify and given that France has shown extreme reluctance, I do not understand why we are pushing this through. We have all of the benefits of the trade we want with Canada without the investor court system. Essentially, we are selling out to this system by forcing through this Bill. It is such a threat to our sovereignty as a country. It is a threat to future legislative powers of this Dáil that we are choosing to go with investors courts and not just settle for and work with what we have, which is a positive trade agreement.
In relation to farmers, citizens and consumers, they are the ultimate beneficiaries of the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. They benefit. We are not selling out; we are buying and selling goods and services. This is mutually beneficial. CETA is not a threat to our sovereignty. Every time an agreement is reached with another entity or country within the EU, there is a sharing of sovereignty in order to get bigger benefits for all of our citizens. I do not accept that the legislation is being rushed through. The Bill is just over two pages long. There has been extensive debate and there continues to be extensive debate about it.
I absolutely reject this notion we are selling out the country. This type of language about a trade agreement is damaging to politics. It is not the case. There is no imposition on the State's right to regulate, as I have extensively explained to the House during this legislative process. If we do not ratify this or make a decision not to ratify this, as the Government's regulatory impact analysis says, it would collapse the entire agreement.
The Bill is two pages long but it will have an immeasurable impact on this country. As I said, we can continue our current arrangements with Canada without the investor court mechanism which undermines our regulatory ability. I will focus on the real dangers these investor courts present to us. They would hear cases from X against Ireland if we were to ban their undressing AI software. We have seen the prioritisation of big polluters' profits in Mexican investor courts and it is explicit that companies will be able to sue for loss of future profits because of regulation. That is not just in the area of climate; it is in areas like workers' rights as well. It is possible that the State would have to pay off X for the privilege of protecting the children of this country. Will the Minister of State accept that the introduction of investor courts is a serious danger to people's well-being and their rights under the European Charter of Human Rights?
The idea that we would have to pay off X to protect the children of this country is simply the latest scare story about CETA. It is unbecoming of the debate to start going into this. By stating that, Deputy Gibney has completely ignored the terms of CETA, the joint interpretative instrument and the fact that there are no precedents for this investor court system she can rely on because it is not in existence yet. The safeguards are in place. The agreement is there to enhance our economies, and it has done that.
If we take the route the Deputy is suggesting, the entire agreement between the EU, its member states and Canada would collapse. That is simply a fact. The Deputy cannot say we can retain the benefits without having the overall agreement because that is not factually correct. These examples that keep getting thrown out here in the Dáil are getting more and more extreme. The facts do not bear out what the Deputy is saying. The Deputy and the opponents of this treaty simply refuse to read the actual text of the agreement and the interpretative instrument.
That is not true.
5. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade whether she is aware of very serious concerns about the fairness of the prosecution and trial of an Irish citizen (details supplied) in Germany, alongside concerns about the conditions of detention; whether she has raised concerns with the German Government; whether she will send an observer to the trial; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [38665/26]
Today, the world is rightly expressing disgust at the treatment of Irish and other activists trying to bring aid to the besieged people of Gaza at the hands of the Israeli regime.
However, Germany, a European country, is treating another Irish citizen, another pro-Palestinian activist, in an equally outrageous way. There is a show trial going on and the basic rights of an Irish citizen are being absolutely flouted as he and the other detainees are being prosecuted as criminals and terrorists for protesting against Germany's complicity with Israel's genocide in Gaza. Will the Government send observers to the trial to protect the rights of an Irish citizen, Daniel Tatlow-Devally?
I thank the Deputy. I am obviously aware of the case he has mentioned. It is important to stress that my Department, and in particular my team, have been providing consular assistance to Daniel since September 2025. We have a dedicated consular office in the consulate general in Munich which has been assigned to provide consular assistance to support Daniel but also his family, because I appreciate this is a difficult time for them. Staff in the consulate, including the consul general but also the deputy consul general, have undertaken four consular visits, the most recent on 10 April, and another visit is to be carried out next month.
It is important to stress that the very clear readout I have received on this states Daniel did not raise any complaints about his treatment. He reported that he has been treated relatively well, both physically and mentally, and that he is able to avail of the facilities and activities in the prison. His visiting conditions have been relaxed. He is able to have video calls and in-person visits with family members, and I understand that other visits may be possible as well.
It is also important to stress that in the prison Daniel is in, he is the same as any other person. It is a normal or regular pre-trial detention facility. The reports I have directly from our ambassador, who is dealing directly with him and engaging with him and will have a further visit later this month, are that he is being treated well and has access to the facilities he needs. Again, it is the same for any other person in his situation.
I assure the Deputy, because I appreciate this is very difficult for Daniel and his family, that my Department will continue to provide all appropriate consular assistance. We have to do this in line with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963, which specifies the functions of our consular officials. It is obviously subject to limits permitted by international law, so we cannot interfere in the domestic affairs of the receiving state. While consular officials have a role in assisting citizens, including by helping them to find lawyers and visiting them in detention, consular officials cannot give legal advice or intervene in the judicial process or internal affairs in the receiving state. Throughout the trial, when it happens, we will of course continue to engage directly with Daniel and his family and make sure the assistance continues.
I actually cannot believe my ears. Daniel's family are appealing for the Government to send observers because they fear a show trial situation. The detainees are being prosecuted under anti-organised crime legislation. They are being tried in a high-security court, not a normal court. They are being denied access during the trial to their own legal team. They are brought in handcuffed and put behind high-security glass. They have been kept in more or less solitary confinement – since last September in Daniel's case, or eight months. It is completely unprecedented.
Daniel's legal team has called for the judge to be recused, such is the level of bias that has been directed against those on trial, the "Ulm five". To remind the Minister, they were protesting. It was an act of civil disobedience but there was no threat of violence. They videoed themselves. They handed themselves up for arrest peacefully because they were protesting about Elbit Systems or Germany providing arms to Israel for the commission of genocide. Their families are saying the trial is a show trial and that they should be released, and that the Irish Government should send observers to watch the trial to ensure that their rights are upheld at it, given the manner in which it is being conducted. Is the Minister going to do that?
First, it is essential that any Irish citizen who finds himself in this situation be provided immediately with consular assistance, and that has been the case. I have said very clearly that our consular team on the ground cannot provide legal assistance. That is not the position it has. However, it is our role-----
I did not ask for legal assistance; observers are what I asked for.
Absolutely. It is our role and duty to make sure the detainees are treated in the appropriate way. Daniel is in a pre-trial facility. He is being treated the same as others. I appreciate how difficult this is. The most important thing is that the facts of the trial are borne out. The Deputy has outlined some of what has happened. It is for the trial judge and the system itself to make sure all the facts are borne out. While the Deputy might not agree with the particular legislation under which Daniel has been charged, it is for the trial to ensure the facts of what happened are borne out and for a decision to be taken in that regard.
We will ensure that there is fair oversight of this trial. I can assure the Deputy of that. I will be meeting my German colleague this week and I will reiterate that point when I meet him. We will ensure that we continue to have direct engagement and provide consular support to Daniel. We will make sure the trial, which I hope happens soon because I agree this should not be drawn out any further, is subject to direct oversight and that we have full sight of what is happening in it.
This points to the duplicity of the Government. It says it is appalled at the treatment of flotilla activists at the hands of the Israeli regime. The flotilla activists, before they were detained, or kidnapped, urged for a vote in favour of the sanctions Bill to sanction Israel but the Government condemned it, said there should not be business as usual and came in here and voted against sanctions. We are getting the same duplicity in the case of Daniel.
Will the Minister send observers to the trial, which is what the family are asking for, because it is a show trial? It is absolutely outrageous. Why are the detainees even in custody? They are not a threat to anybody. They are being kept in solitary confinement before their trial in a high-security courthouse behind a glass cage, having been brought in handcuffs. The judge is speaking about them as if they are terrorists when they are actually peace activists opposing German complicity with the genocide in Israel via Elbit Systems, which provides Israel with weapons.
Is the Minister going to send observers? I am going to try to get an all-party group to go across to the trial. We will see whether all the parties will send someone. I know the Opposition will, but will the Government do so? Even German MPs are being refused access to the courtroom by the judge. That is how much of a show trial it is.
I cannot be any clearer in what I am saying here. It is our role and responsibility to make sure that citizens, when they have been arrested and detained, have access to consular assistance. I am saying very clearly to the Deputy that this has been happening. There has been direct engagement with Daniel with a view to making sure he is in good health and is being treated well. That is exactly what he has conveyed and relayed.
This is the duplicity of the Government.
He is in a pre-trial detention facility. I fully agree with the Deputy that this should not go on indefinitely. However, as the Deputy and every other Deputy in this House well knows, it is not for me to determine when a trial in another country should take place. What I have said to the Deputy is that I will raise this directly with my German colleague when I meet him on Friday, but I cannot, nor can any Deputy here, intervene in respect of when a trial is set and how its outcome is presided over. What I can be clear on, however, is that we will make sure we have sight of what is happening in the trial and that we are in direct communication with Daniel and ensuring his welfare at every stage.
Le cead ón Dáil, bogfaimid siar anois go dtí Ceisteanna Uimh. 1 agus 2, atá á dtógáil le chéile. Glaoim ar an Teachta Ó Laoghaire ar dtús.
Ba mhaith liom leithscéal a ghabháil leis an gCathaoirleach Gníomhach agus an Aire mar go raibh mé déanach. Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach Gníomhach as teacht ar ais go dtí mo cheist.
1. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to outline the current progress on the drafting of the Israeli settlements (prohibition of importation of goods) Bill 2025; if she will outline the recent advice she has received from the Attorney General; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [38408/26]
2. Deputy Duncan Smith asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to provide a detailed timeline for introducing the Israeli settlements (prohibition of importation of goods) Bill 2025; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [38523/26]
The scenes in the last few days – I have a further question on the Global Sumud Flotilla, so we can perhaps discuss that further – underline the fact that the international community has allowed Israel to behave with absolute impunity. It continues to act accordingly. It continues to breach all the international laws dictating what is right and wrong. There have to be consequences. The occupied territories Bill needs to be a part of that, as far as I am concerned.
I am asking this question on behalf of Deputy Duncan Smith. The world is rightly outraged at what we saw yesterday but none of us should be surprised. The Government made a solemn commitment at the time of the election and published legislation last year but has done nothing since. It has rebuffed every single legislative effort brought before the Dáil and Seanad. Will the Minister level with the Irish public now? Is she abandoning the Israeli settlements Bill she introduced? If not, she should please set out a timeline for it, because the Irish public and indeed Palestinians and everyone across the world deserve nothing less. We need to have clarity from this Government as to what its position is.
I thank both Deputies for raising this matter. I do not believe there is a single person who saw the footage yesterday who could not but be appalled by what they saw. The Deputy is right that this is just another act by the Israeli Government among a string of acts we have seen over recent weeks, months and, indeed, years.
The Irish Government has been consistent in its approach, and I, as Minister in recent months, have been consistent in mine. I have said very clearly that I will commit to bringing forward the occupied territories Bill. The Government approved the general scheme of the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory (prohibition of importation of goods) Bill last June. The main purpose, obviously, is to prohibit the importation of goods into the State from the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory.
I have been clear with this House that since it was published, a number of questions needed to be asked of the Attorney General and that information has come back and forth to me. What I can say is that I will bring forth legislation in the coming weeks. We, as a Government, and I, as a Minister, have said that we will fulfil our commitment. That has not changed just because of this week. I have been clear that I believe the best way to bring forward legislation is to do so with our colleagues. I have been engaged with my Dutch and Belgian colleagues and, more recently, my Slovenian colleague, whose Government is going through a particular change process at the moment. While introducing this is the right thing to do, and I will, as I have said clearly, bring forward legislation in a matter of weeks, I also firmly believe that bringing forward changes at a European level will have a much greater impact. I have been working on that, too. For the past number of months, I have been engaging directly with my colleagues. I have been engaging directly with the High Representative to ensure that we can put this back on the agenda at a European level. It has not been on the agenda since last summer before a ceasefire was agreed.
What we agreed last week at the Foreign Affairs Council was, for the first time, a Commission proposal that has been on the table since last year to impose sanctions on violent settlers, and for it to be agreed. It had been prevented because of the position that Hungary had taken. Thankfully with a new government in place, Hungary lifted that ban. Last week, there was an agreement from the EU that we would impose sanctions on violent settlers, members of Hamas and anybody who supported these types of actions in the West Bank. What I have subsequently done, and did clearly at the most recent meeting, is to advocate for a further vote at the next Council meeting.
A second Commission motion has been on the table since last year to ban or suspend the trade element of the EU-Israel association agreement. Israel as a whole gets preferential treatment through that trade agreement. It is worth billions to the Israeli economy. It is not a blanket ban like the ban that was being voted on last night. The reason we voted against that is that it is a sanction on every single person in Israel. That is not an approach we have taken in any sanction placed on Russia or any other part of the world where sanctions have been imposed by the EU. I believe that the European Union should agree to the proposal that we suspend the Israeli association agreement and, in particular. its trade elements.
I have also advocated for a second proposal to ban trade within the West Bank and with the settlers. That is the most appropriate approach to take. It is in line with what has been said internationally. This is what we have been advocating for. It would be in tandem with our occupied territories legislation. This is the principle and the right thing to do. At home in Ireland, we have always taken that approach, from recognising Palestine to the humanitarian aid we have provided and raising the issue at every Foreign Affairs Council, and every single Council that we can. I will also, for the first time, ensure the matter is raised this week at the trade Council. The only way we can pass this at European level is where there is qualified majority voting, QMV. That is why we have focused on trade. It is why we have focused on the suspension of the trade agreement. Instead of needing unanimity, QMV is needed. I will be raising this directly with colleagues at the trade Council on Friday this week. I will be pushing for this to be put to a vote at the Foreign Affairs Council. I spent an hour and a half with my Jordanian colleague yesterday. That is somebody who is on the ground and sees what is happening. His view is that Europe needs to respond collectively in this kind of way and I have been advocating for that for months.
Separate from that, I say clearly that we will fulfil our commitment in the programme for Government. We will bring forward legislation because it is the right thing to do. However, I also want to make sure that the actions we take have a knock-on impact and change the actions of the Israeli Government. That is what has to happen here. The actions we saw this week were despicable. We all agree that this is just one action in a string of actions that we have seen over recent years.
I will use the phrase "the occupied territories Bill" as shorthand. I appreciate the Government's Bill has a different title, but that is what it is commonly understood as. The Minister's statements are difficult to reconcile. She has come here and said we will have something in a couple of weeks. What I interpreted from her interview with Virgin Media during the week was that we will see what happens at a European level and then might act. There have been contradictory statements over the course of the past couple of years. If you look at it in terms of a timeline, there were commitments in parties' manifestos before the general election to pass the occupied territories Bill. There was no qualification or equivocation about trade or services. The programme for Government and the Department of foreign affairs strategy to 2028 include references to the enactment of the occupied Palestinian territories legislation by 2028. This year's strategy talks about progressing the occupied territories Bill by 2029. The Government is putting it back by a year and talking about progressing rather than enacting. There seems to be constant watering down. The Minister is talking about a couple of weeks, but I am not sure she would have said that at the start of this week if we had not seen those scenes.
It was February 2024 when the Irish Government first brought the EU-Israel trade agreement to the European Council. It is now two and a half years later and there has been zero action. What I am hearing today is a strategy of crossing the fingers and toes and hoping other countries keep up with us with regard to the plan to outlaw trade from illegal settlements. What I am hearing today, which is more worrying, is that the Government is now narrowing its intent. It is going after violent settlers. It is not going after all trade from the illegal settlements but violent settlers. I would like to hear the clarification on that point. Ireland has a proud tradition of diplomacy and using our voices and words. The time for voices and words is over. It is a time for economic action and sanction against a government that is acting with impunity. There is no point continuing to talk and hoping that the rest of the world will catch up. We need to take a lead here and ensure that we send a clear signal that the disgraceful acts we saw yesterday are not tolerated.
That is exactly what we are doing. We are taking a little time to build a consensus. At a European level, I have been sitting around the table for the past few months. Months ago, there was no discussion of how we would move or impose sanctions. There was nothing. Sanctions have been on the table at the Commission since last year. I have, with colleagues from Slovenia and Spain, over recent weeks and months, pushed for this issue to be put back on the agenda. Because of that, what we agreed last week was sanctions on violent settlers in the West Bank. That was one sanction that was on the table, and not before time, but there are more. The next sanction on the table is that we would suspend the trade element of the EU-Israel association agreement. That is for all of Israel and not just the West Bank. It would have a significant economic impact on Israel. That is something we should have done before now, but Ireland has called for it. We have been at the table and calling for this, but others have not agreed. What I have been trying to do is to build a consensus.
I have also asked for a proposal that would ban trade with the illegal settlements, separate from the ban on violent settlers that we have already agreed. That is in place, has been agreed and will be followed through on. I want action at a European level because that is how we have the greatest impact. Yes, Spain has already imposed its legislation, but I want to ensure that we move collectively and have legislation individually.
In response to Deputy Ó Laoghaire, I am not confused at all in what I have said this week. I have said we should move both. I have said that if this does not happen at a European level, it is all the more reason we should have this other legislation. We have lots of legislation in our programme for Government and not all of it gets implemented in the first couple of months or the first year. We have to work through it. I have worked with the Attorney General because we need to make sure that we have legislation that can be implemented and can take effect. That is what everybody here wants. There is an element of making sure that we do what is principled, and I believe that Ireland has always taken that approach when it comes to Palestine, Gaza and what is happening in the West Bank. However, as Minister, I also want to make sure that our actions have a positive impact on the people on the ground and the best way I believe we can do that is by Europe taking a strong stance. I believe we are in a much better place in that regard than we were a couple of weeks ago and that is because I and other people in other countries have been working to build consensus. We are not sitting on our hands and saying nothing. We have been trying to get people to this point within Europe so that we will have a vote at the next meeting. I reiterated that point to High Representative Kaja Kallas again this morning and said that we need to have a vote at the next meeting because we have discussed it long enough. This week's actions show us exactly why we need this.
I agree with that last point. However, my interpretation of the Minister's interview was different from what she is saying. I do not think we were going to hear anything about legislation in the next couple of weeks. It seems to me that what we have seen may have lit a fire under the Government, as has often been the case and as was the case in the first place when manifesto commitments were given for the occupied territories Bill. If that is the case, it entirely justifies the actions of people who are taking up initiatives such as the Global Sumud Flotilla. They highlight these issues and make it clear that governments have to act. Activists out there are having to take initiatives such as that to force governments to act.
I absolutely recognise that if the European Union could act in concert in a way that delivers actual results and puts pressure on the Israeli Government, I would welcome it, but clearly it has taken three or four years for the Union to move an inch. There is legislation there and no reason not to enact it. The arguments in relation to services are paper thin. It is clear that the Spanish have been able to move on this. Will the Minister give a commitment that we will be debating the legislation on Second Stage before the recess?
If the Dutch and other governments the Minister called out do not move, will Ireland still move ahead? I am hearing two things here: I am hearing "the next few weeks" and I am hearing that the Government wants to move in concert. Frankly, that is not clear enough. The reality is that 70,000 people are dead. Over 900 people have died since the October ceasefire. We saw the scenes yesterday. God only knows what is happening to the countless nameless Palestinians who are behind bars at this point in time and who are facing the death penalty. I am still not clear about the intentions of this Government. The reality is that if the Israel-EU trade agreement is suspended, it still does not fully deal with illegal trade. Yes, it puts a prohibitive set of tariffs on it but it still does not fully ban that trade. We need a crystal-clear message from this Government as to its intentions.
I cannot be any clearer in saying that what I am advocating for and what I have been advocating for is that there would be a full ban on trade with the illegal settlements. That is not a proposal that has been put on the table by the Commission before now. The proposal on the table is that we would suspend the trade element of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. That did not have full support last year but that is now what we are discussing and it is very much what we discussed last week at the Council. However, I want a further proposal on the table specific to the West Bank and to the illegal settlements because we very clearly set out that this is illegal occupation. It has been agreed by all of us; therefore, we need to follow through. This has not just come about because of this week; Ireland has been saying this consistently. However, we cannot move on this on our own. Even with QMV, it is 55% of the Council or 65% of the overall population but that is manageable and something I believe we could achieve. Certainly, looking at the different kinds of comments we have seen in the past few weeks around the table, there are countries that are moving and countries that perhaps would have had a different position only a few weeks ago.
As to where we are now and in terms of our own work, again, I cannot be any clearer in saying that as regards the work I am doing with European colleagues - say, my Dutch colleagues and others - they have made it very clear. My Dutch colleague at the last meeting said that they were bringing forward legislation, and I have been engaging with them as to the timeline in order that when we do introduce this, we can have a stronger voice around this. If, however, they decide not to do this, we will still continue with ours. I am being very clear about that and very clear in what I say. The approach here has always been to make sure that everything we do has an impact. Yesterday, when I saw our citizens and other people with their hands tied behind their backs, I thought, if this is how they are treating Irish citizens and other people, how are they treating Palestinians, people we cannot see? I think we all think that and we can all imagine exactly what has been happening. That is why we need to do everything we can over the next while, in the coming weeks, myself at the Trade Council this week and then in the coming weeks, to make sure that Europe moves. I am pleased to say that the statements and much of the actions we have seen across Europe and internationally have been to condemn these actions and to call for some form of accountability from Israel.
3. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade her view on the need for international pressure to vindicate the right of Western Sahara to self-determination, and the Government's relations with the SADR; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [38409/26]
From one occupied territory to another, albeit one that probably has received less attention, maybe one of the least discussed occupations in the world. It certainly does not get enough attention. I refer to the issue of Western Sahara, or the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. It is considered to be a non-self-governing territory but it is largely occupied by the Kingdom of Morocco. The Irish Government needs to continue to take a firm position in defence of international law on this. Unfortunately, many other countries are moving away from that.
On 31 October 2025, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2797, extending the mandate of the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara, MINURSO, for one year until 31 October 2026. Ireland is not currently a member of the United Nations Security Council but has taken note of Resolution 2797. Ireland's position on Western Sahara has been and continues to be guided by the aim of achieving a just and lasting political solution that will provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara.
Ireland's engagement on this issue will also continue to take account of the role of, and the insights provided by, the Personal Envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Western Sahara, Staffan de Mistura. Any outcome should be consistent with the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, including the fundamental principle in international law of the right of peoples to self-determination. It is in this spirit that Ireland will continue to support UN-led efforts to achieve a solution to this long-standing dispute.
Officials at the headquarters of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and in the mission network continue to be in contact with relevant parties to the dispute in this regard. Ireland shares the concerns expressed by the Personal Envoy of the Secretary General for Western Sahara, Staffan De Mistura, and MINURSO, the UN Peacekeeping Mission in Western Sahara, concerning the recent attacks by the Frente Polisario near Smara. The Personal Envoy, Staffan De Mistura, has emphasised that this is a time for dialogue and negotiations, not a time for military escalation.
Any relevant developments will continue to be kept under close review, including in the context of EU and UN discussions. The United Nations recognises Western Sahara as a non-self-governing territory under international law, specifically Chapter XI of the United Nations Charter.
The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is 50 years old now. To put on record the context here, it is currently occupied by the Kingdom of Morocco. MINURSO was set up in order to safeguard and facilitate a referendum. That was in 1991. There has been no referendum. Discussions in the early and late 2000s about a referendum delivered no referendum. The fundamental principle here is that of self-determination but the Sahrawi people, the vast bulk of whom are in exile, with the bulk of the population living in refugee camps in southern Algeria, have been denied that right to self-determination for decades, for generations. I appreciate that the Irish Government has taken the right position on many resolutions but it may need to take a more robust position because the positions of other governments are beginning to slide away from that principle of self-determination. That needs to be challenged by the Irish Government.
I would like to pick the Deputy up on that last point because I think in all our discussions we always try to find areas of agreement, even when there are certain areas of disagreement on technical matters. This is one area that is really concerning for us. We have a very clear process in place. I appreciate the Deputy's thoughts that it is going far too slow and that in some persons' opinions it is not fully engaged with the Sahrawi people in the broadest sense, be they resident or non-resident, or, as he rightly says, in refugee camps. However, the position is consistent with international law and has been respectfully pushed at a UN level. Ireland absolutely stands by that position and will absolutely make sure that support for the UN resolution and, crucially, the implementation of international law will be updated. I would be more than happy to work directly with the Deputy to see where we can push back against any backsliding in that regard.
I appreciate that and appreciate the sentiment, and I believe that where we can work together we should do so. As regards people feeling that progress is not fast enough, there is no progress. There is no process, in truth. The only process that exists is the peacekeeping mission that, in theory, is to facilitate a referendum but there is no sign of that. Ultimately, the Moroccan Government believes that it has got away with this, that it has ultimately succeeded in its objective, that it has occupied the territory and that that will not be in any way affected. I believe, therefore, that the Irish Government and like-minded governments need to begin to escalate this issue. The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is a full member of the African Union. It is recognised by dozens of countries around the world. I ask the Irish Government whether it considers that the national council, the legislative council, of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is considered the legitimate representatives of the Sahrawi people. Does the Government recognise that?
Yes, the progress towards a referendum or any process of self-determination has been painfully slow but it is not straightforward simply to engage with the people because there are very clearly conflicting opinions here and, as a country outside that seeks to be supportive crucially of what this really is, it is a peace process. What went before 1991 was a brutal conflict that cost many lives, and what has come after may be frustrating and may not be the true fulfilment of what certain people want, but I would argue it is better than what went before. The process is sadly at risk based on isolated and sporadic incidences of violence in the region. Certainly, from an Irish Government point of view, the most important thing is not making binary choices and not making declarations; it is upholding the very real process, particularly in a wider context. We are at a time when international law and the rule of law are under threat.
We have a UN process, we support the UN process and we will continue to support that and make sure that process leads to an outcome that continues and maintains what is, to some extent, a relatively fragile peace.
6. Deputy Catherine Callaghan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade for an update on the level of support being offered by her Department to the ongoing situation in Sudan; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [38554/26]
Listening to the debate today it is very clear, even in the modern world, the one thing that remains is that man's inhumanity to man is quite staggering sometimes. I ask the Minister of State for an update on the level of support that is being delivered by his Department in response to the humanitarian crisis that is currently unfolding in Sudan.
I am very grateful to the Deputy for raising this. I acknowledge the consistent effort by both Deputies Ó Laoghaire and Smith to raise this in a constructive manner. The conflict in Sudan, which has continued for over three years, is causing devastating levels of hunger and displacement. This year, two out of every three people in Sudan are in need of humanitarian assistance. We are seriously concerned by the escalation of violence in the Kordofan and Blue Nile states, and the expected intensification of conflict in North Darfur. I attended the third international Sudan Conference in Berlin on 15 April. The EU and its member states, including Ireland, pledged over €812 million in humanitarian assistance to support people in Sudan and to respond to the regional refugee crisis. Ireland will significantly increase our humanitarian assistance this year, from over €14.3 million provided in 2025 to somewhere in the region of €21 million this year. Our assistance is channelled through trusted partners, including the UN, international organisations, Irish aid organisations and, crucially, their local partners. Findings from a visit by Department officials to the Chadian-Sudanese border in January will help shape our response in addressing the complex humanitarian needs of those affected. This includes a continued focus on providing assistance to vulnerable people who are hardest to reach, including women and girls, who are seriously affected by sexual and gender-based violence.
"Sexual and gender-based violence" is a term we use in these discussions but we rarely go into the detail. Having sat and met a number of survivors from the region on a visit not so long ago to the Horn of Africa, it is the most devastating conversation when you have to listen to someone who bore witness to seeing their 13-year-old niece raped by 15 men at one time in the face of their family being used as a tool of war. This is what sexual and gender-based violence is. We have a proud record in this country, led by the Minister, Deputy McEntee, in her time in the Department of justice, of clamping down on domestic violence, but we are seeing it harrowingly used as a tool of war in the most depraved manner in the most vulnerable situations. That is why, in addition to addressing the humanitarian crisis and ensuring the protection of civilians and humanitarian workers, it is vital to explore all avenues towards an urgent, credible and inclusive Sudanese-led political situation.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit for that response. It is harrowing to hear that level of violence towards women and girls. I commend the principled and robust measures Ireland has undertaken in this conflict. The increasing used of armed drones in Sudan and the targeting of civilian infrastructure such as the health facilities and Khartoum's international airport, are indicative of a conflict that is widening at an alarming rate. While the fighting rages, it is becoming more and more difficult to tend to the dire humanitarian needs of the Sudanese people. Just under half of the entire Sudanese people, as the Minister of State said, or some 21 million people, are facing crisis levels of hunger because of this conflict. That is why it is imperative that we, as members of the EU, use every lever at our disposal to not only advocate for financial and humanitarian supports to be made available, but to call for a negotiated and enduring ceasefire. How does the Department intend to utilise its position as Chair of the EU Foreign Affairs Council during Ireland's Presidency to ensure peace in Sudan remains firmly on the agenda?
Over the past three years, Ireland has been consistent at a Foreign Affairs Council level, be it the full Council, the development formation in which I sit, or the defence formation, in making sure Sudan is on the agenda and that does not slip from the focus of European partners. What is happening in Sudan will end up on our doorstep in due course, when we see mass movement of people, the real impact on the wider political situation and the fragility in the area, but also when we see the spread of energy and food insecurity and how that feeds in. Ireland will ensure going forward, as we take over the Presidency on 1 July, that this remains a key issue for Europe and that Europe stands by the political pressure to bring peace to the area, to ensure the blockage embargo of weapons going into the region is upheld - something that is undermined greatly, including by EU member states, I regret to say - but also, crucially, to ensure the finance from the European Union, as well as bilaterally from member states, is maintained.
That is very welcome news. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit. Latest figures show that almost 7 million people have been displaced by fighting in Sudan; the largest number of internally displaced people globally. Neighbouring countries impacted by this emergency such as Chad, Egypt and South Sudan, are hosting large numbers of refugees and internally displaced people on insufficient levels of humanitarian funding. To compound the problem, there is the downturn in aid funding from other countries. I acknowledge that Ireland has continued to increase funding, and the Minister of State mentioned contributed €21 million towards Sudan and towards aid this year but the overall downturn we are seeing in the international community means that dealing with displaced refugees will only become more difficult for these countries in the region. At at time some of the most developed countries in the world are slashing aid budgets, I am heartened, as we have mentioned, by the principle role Ireland continues to play in funding humanitarian causes. Is this something the Minister of State intends to build on going forward?
The short answer is "Yes" but I will give a little more detail to the context of how we do that. In recent years, Ireland's humanitarian support has included funding to the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, OCHA, country-based pooled fund, the UN population fund and the International Rescue Committee to target people most in need, particularly women and girls for aforementioned reasons. OCHA's Sudan pool is our largest partner in humanitarian response. This fund is a rapid and flexible funding mechanism, which supports national and international aid organisations and UN agencies to work in co-ordination with local partners to respond to chronic and emerging needs. The fund has received a major injection of funding from the US Government of €200 million. Our support to Irish Aid partner organisations including GOAL, Trócaire and Concern has enabled life-saving assistance to reach the most vulnerable communities, and we work consistently with the UN Refugee Agency, the International Committee of the Red Cross in Chad, Sudan and South Sudan. Ireland will continue to be a trusted partner. When we see development budgets being slashed by other member states it has a very real consequence. We have famine in Sudan due to the conflict there, but due to the cuts in aid and development it is harder to get a humanitarian response to starving children. We see an ebola outbreak in the DRC that is spreading in a virulent manner that is being affected by health systems that have been absolutely destroyed due to aid cuts. Our actions, or the inaction of our partners, have very real consequences that we will be dealing with for years to come.
