Vol. 1089 No. 1
7. Deputy Roderic O'Gorman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if she will reconsider the exclusion of services from the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2026; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [50194/26]
8. Deputy Barry Heneghan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the specific progress that has been made following Ireland's calls at EU level to suspend the trade elements of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and to prohibit trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories; the further diplomatic initiatives Ireland intends to pursue to strengthen the protection of Palestinian civilians in the occupied West Bank; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [50178/26]
20. Deputy Joe Neville asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to outline the timeframe after the introduction of Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018; when Ireland will see the effects of the Bill; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [50268/26]
38. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to provide an update on recent engagement at EU level on the EU-Israel agreement and the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2026; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [49807/26]
60. Deputy Sinéad Gibney asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade her plans to end trade in services with the occupied Palestinian territories and bring Ireland in line with the International Court of Justice, ICJ, ruling; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [50248/26]
65. Deputy Louis O'Hara asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to provide an update on the Israeli Settlements (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2025; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [48950/26]
The questions in this grouping are in the names of Deputies O'Gorman, Heneghan, Gould, Neville, Ó Murchu, Gibney, and O'Hara. We will start with Deputy O'Gorman and then see who turns up.
As this House prepares to consider Report Stage amendments to the Government's version of the occupied territories Bill, with the Green Party and other Opposition parties seeking to include services within the Bill's ambit, is it not time for the Government to be frank and admit that the barrier to the inclusion of services is not a legal one but, rather, is based on a political decision taken by the Government?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 8, 20, 38, 60 and 65 together.
I thank the Deputies for tabling these questions. The Government approved the text of the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2026 on 26 May. The Bill was published on 29 May and was introduced in Dáil Éireann on 10 June. It is very much my intention that the legislation will complete the parliamentary approval process by the summer recess. I thank Deputies for working with me to ensure that we achieve that outcome. I am very conscious of the strength of not just interest but the feeling and the desire among members of this House when it comes to this Bill and what it is that we all want to achieve. I think we are all united by a desire to take action in response to the actions by the current Israeli Government that breach human rights and the unilateral actions that completely undermine the viability of the two-state solution. This has been evident during the debate in this House and when Committee Stage was debated at two meetings of the select committee last week. We will debate the Bill further next week and the following week.
The Bill fulfils our commitment as set out in the programme for Government. Most importantly, it will contribute positively to our compliance with our international legal obligations. This was identified in the ICJ's advisory opinion of 2024 in which it very clearly stated that obligation on states to take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in maintaining the illegal situation created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories. There are now almost 1 million illegal settlers in the occupied territories. These are not small villages or settlements, as we often think. There are almost 1 million people that have been placed illegally in settlements. This is absolutely impacting any possibility of a future two-state solution.
On the issue of services, I have set out, most recently on Committee Stage last week, that the Government has a responsibility to ensure that any legislation introduced is legally sustainable, enforceable in practice and capable of withstanding challenge. I was asked last week who would possibly challenge legislation like this. The answer is that simply anybody can. There is an obligation to ensure that any legislation that I or this Government introduce is not open to challenge immediately. This is particularly relevant in relation to services.
The Government sought and received advice from the Attorney General regarding the legal permissibility of an EU member state introducing restrictions relating to trade and services with a third country or a territory. There are two principal issues in relation to services, namely the legal basis under EU law and the practical challenges relating to the implementation and overall enforcement of this legislation. In the case of goods, a public policy exemption exists within the relevant EU framework governing imports. This was highlighted in the ICJ's ruling in 2024. It allows member states to adopt restrictions for public policy reasons. However, there is no equivalent broad public policy basis in EU law in relation to external trade in services.
Trade in services also differs fundamentally from trade in goods. Services are digital, they cross borders, they are intangible in nature and operate across multiple legal and regulatory frameworks, creating significant implementation and enforcement challenges. Introducing legislation that lacks clarity as to how it may be implemented or enforced is not something that Government does. We need to be conscious of that.
The Government must also ensure also that measures adopted are not only politically meaningful but also legally defensible and practically enforceable, as I have said. For those reasons, the Government's approach is to proceed with measures that can effectively be implemented and sustained in practice. I have made no secret of saying that we have also taken into account the possible implications for our own economy here, but that is not the main factor. I want to be very clear on that. We have had clear directions or indications from the US and other states. However, that would apply to any legislation being brought forward. I am very clearly bringing forward legislation. I want to ensure that this is enacted before the summer recess. Most importantly, I want to ensure that we can fulfil our ICJ commitments more broadly by ensuring that the EU moves as one.
I believe that the EU has not done enough and I do not believe that we have been strong enough in our response. That needs to change so I have been advocating for a number of months now that the Commission would bring forward stronger proposals than those on the table, but also proposals that we know might actually pass a vote. The suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement was proposed by the Commission last year. Unfortunately, there was very clearly not a consensus, which is what is needed to vote specifically to suspend the agreement. What I and my counterparts from a number of member states have advocated for is that there should be a ban on trade within the illegal occupied territories. This is something that can be voted on through the Trade Council , by means of qualified majority voting, QMV. For those who are not aware, QMV requires 55% of the overall population of the voting member states. Depending on what way states vote, it can differ depending on the matter being voted on.
I advocated for the Commission to bring forward these proposals and am pleased to say that at the most recent Foreign Affairs Council meeting, a commitment was finally given by the Commission to bring forward proposals before the next meeting. For our first Foreign Affairs Council as President of the EU Council the Commission has agreed to bring forward proposals, which we will discuss, and my objective is that we would debate them.
The reason services are not included in the legislation is because the legal basis is not the same as that relating to goods, and how it would be implemented is not clear. All of us believe that for the EU as a whole to respond collectively, we would legally have that basis. It would also have a greater effect in actually changing the Israeli Government's actions. Ultimately, that is what we are trying to achieve here. Whether it is recognising Palestine, whether it is the case that we are taking with South Africa in respect of the genocide, whether it is the work we have been doing to provide support in respect of the humanitarian catastrophe or whether it is the situation in Lebanon and the West Bank that we have raised time and again, everything that we are doing is to change the actions of the Israeli Government. The Israeli Government is heading in one direction and one direction only. By taking action at EU level, we will have a greater impact. That is the objective.
I fully appreciate the position of all Deputies present. I feel as strongly as they and other Deputies do about this matter, having visited the region and spoken to so many people and families on the Israel-Gaza border - I was not able to get into Gaza when I visited - who were on the outside and who wanted to get back in to see family and friends. I also spoke to those delivering aid and food.
The situation on the ground is not acceptable. It is not acceptable that the EU has not responded in a strong enough way. That is why we need the EU to respond collectively, which is what I have been advocating for while at the same time tabling the legislation that is going through the Houses.
The Minister spoke about the House being united by a desire to act, and that is true, but it is united by a desire to act effectively. The deep concern is that what is being proposed and what we will be voting on next week is not effective. When the Attorney General's original advice came in July 2024 on foot of the ICJ opinion on Frances Black's Bill, no distinction was made between goods and services in that detailed piece of legal advice. That distinction only arose in the programme for Government that was signed in January 2025.
The argument that there is a public policy justification to limit goods but not services does not stand up. There is a clear provision within EU law where member states can make decisions in relation to third states on foot of public policy. That distinction does not stand up and is not based within case law. It is a weak argument and deeply unconvincing, and we will investigate it further next week.
I have to agree with Deputy O'Gorman. Everyone in this House accepts the fact that Israel has been involved in genocidal and criminal actions that are unforgivable, whether we are talking about Gaza or the continuation of huge settlements that will break any possibility of a future Palestinian state. I have stated it many times that this is obviously what Benjamin Netanyahu wants to do, Sometimes, there can be an over-focus on Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. They are who they are and what they are, but he is the guy who put them in government.
The fact is that it is hard to see not including services in the occupied territories Bill, OTB, as being anything other than a sop to some of the pressure from America. We have to follow it further. In relation to the EU-Israel Association Agreement, will there be a vote at the Foreign Affairs Council? Will we be able to deal with the trade element of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which is beneficial to Israel and utterly disgraceful at this point in time? I accept that the Government has been forcing this issue, but we need to see action.
I disagree with Deputy O'Gorman when he says that it is not effective because over the last number of months, I have seen a number of member states advocating for a stronger response. Last year, when there had not been any kind of a ceasefire, more member states had started to change their positions, and that is why we had the suspension of the association agreement put on the table by the Commission as a possible option for member states to vote on. At that stage, a ceasefire was agreed, but we all agree that the ceasefire is somewhat in name only. While it has provided some relief, there are still people being killed every day and the humanitarian catastrophe has continued to worsen.
The effect it is having is that a number of other member states are now bringing forward legislation. I regularly engage with my colleague from the Netherlands. My colleague from Belgium is bringing forward legislation and we know that Spain has. Slovenia was on that path, but with a new Government, it is unfortunately now moving in the opposite direction. Norway is also bringing forward legislation. All of this, and the response from the Commission, is having an effect.
While not bringing forward legislation, other members states are asking me about what we are doing and engaging with us on what we are doing and bringing forward. It is building momentum, and that is the objective here. When we were recognising the State of Palestine, we said that we wanted to do it with other member states because it would have a greater impact. The same approach is being applied here and that is why we have taken this decision now.
In terms of the legal basis, the 2024 ruling had not taken place at the time. Since then, it has given ground to the public policy argument when it comes to goods. Deputies can say that they do not believe that, but if it were the case that the US was the only reason that we were not doing this, then we would not be bringing forward legislation, full stop, because the US has been very clear that it does not support any legislation. That is not what I am doing here and not what the Government has agreed to do. We are taking a twin-track approach to this. We are bringing forward our legislation, which sets out a clear message that we do not agree with and are completely opposed to the Israeli Government and its actions, that we are working to comply with the ICJ ruling, and that we fully comply with it by making sure that Europe responds in whole.
In her first set of remarks, the Minister said that there was a clear indication from the US in terms of its opposition to what we are doing, even the more minor approach that the Government is taking in the Bill. It is important to remember that, as well as changing in Europe, opinion is changing in the United States. This matter is not a fixed matter any more. You cannot win a primary in the Democratic Party now if you get funding from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, and if you take a pro-Israel line. We saw a long-standing congresswoman lose in Colorado earlier this week because she was seen as too closely aligned. Even in the Republican Party, things are changing as well.
My concern is that this Government is allowing fear of Trump's position on Israel to dictate our approach to the OTB. In many ways, the Government is fighting yesterday's war, and it is going to allow a weaker piece of legislation through this House on foot of that.
What we are looking for is quite simple, namely, that the occupied territories Bill be as strong as it can, which obviously includes services. Given what Israel has done and continues to do, be it in Palestine or Lebanon - those who want a greater Israel seem to be at the forefront of politics there at this point in time - we can all see that it is a matter of us ensuring that we play our part.
It is good to see that others who should have moved faster are now moving or considering moving. That is what we have always spoken about. We talk about apartheid and Mary Manning, and we all accept that what was technically a small move by not handling South African goods and forcing it on Dunnes Stores and then others changed things because it was part of a wider movement. However, we need to see an occupied territories Bill that is as strong as possible and that we take as many people as possible from across Europe and beyond with us.
I want an update on where the Minister sees the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which is a blemish on the European Union as we take up the Council Presidency. It is vital that there be movement there and that we play our part in maximising the chances of dealing with it, even if it is only with the trade element.
I want to outline where we are at the moment. The Commission already has a proposal on the table that would suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement. That was put on the table last year, but it has never been voted on. This is a vote that would require unanimity within the Foreign Affairs Council and, being honest, I do not believe there is that unanimity. There are a number of member states that have clearly said that they will not vote for this. That does not stop me or Ireland continuing to advocate for a vote on this or for member states to vote to suspend the association agreement.
We have also advocated for the trade element of the association agreement to be suspended at the very least. This would be far more significant than anything we, on an individual basis, would be able to do to impact and change the Israeli Government's actions. It would impact billions of euro worth of trade, and this is something that I advocated for.
What is also not on the table is a banning of goods within the occupied territories. I have been advocating, as other colleagues have, for this particular proposal to be put on the table for member states to vote on. This is a vote that could be put forward at the Trade Council because it is a trade matter. At our last Foreign Affairs Council meeting, the EU legal services gave us a clear legal direction that this was possible. There had been suggestions that we could not vote on this in terms of trade because of different reasons.
The EU legal services have been very clear that this is possible and that we could vote to suspend trade in the occupied territories. Following that discussion, I, along with at least 17 member states, if not more, asked the Commission to bring further proposals beyond the one that was currently on the table, which we know does not have a consensus. That includes the banning of trade in the occupied territories. The Commission gave a clear commitment that it would put forward proposals before the next Council meeting, which is on 13 July and is the first meeting that we will chair as President. I expect that we will get those proposals before then. There is no point in us getting them at the meeting when we have not had a chance to look at them, examine them and debate them ourselves, even within my Department and within the Government.
It is my ambition that we will be prioritising this during our Presidency, and I have spoken extensively to Kaja Kallas, the High Representative, about it. At every single Foreign Affairs Council, this will be on the agenda. We want to make sure that progress is made during our term and that we take stronger action. I cannot say this enough. I do not believe the EU has been strong enough on this. I do not believe that we have taken strong enough action. I believe that while we all agree that the only peaceful resolution for Israelis and Palestinians, and for the wider region, is the prospect of a two-state solution, that is becoming less and less likely the more we allow the Israeli Government to introduce illegal settlements into the occupied territories. I am advocating for this. I hope that by the next meeting, we will be able to take a stance or position on this.
9. Deputy Thomas Gould asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade whether she has held any meetings on the Ireland-Israel match. [49388/26]
I believe these games should not go ahead. There has been a call to stop the games. The Palestinians have said that there should be a ban on all sporting engagements with Israel. There should be an outright boycott until such time as the people of Palestine are given the freedom, respect and rights they deserve.
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue, which follows on from the discussion I have just had with Deputies O’Gorman and Ó Murchú. National governing bodies, NGBs, of sport and international sporting federations, including the FAI, are independent, autonomous bodies responsible for the governance of their own sports, including the organisation of sporting fixtures. The Government and Sport Ireland have no role in determining or supporting the organisation of such fixtures, and I have not had meetings to discuss Israel-Ireland soccer matches. We respect the decision made by the FAI and will continue to work closely with it, through the Minister for sport, and engage with it on any matters of concern.
Of course, we continue to have significant concerns about the worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza, with intolerable conditions that are only getting worse. Israel must immediately remove restrictions on aid access and facilitate essential supplies and services to reach people across the Gaza Strip. More broadly, it must completely cease the actions it is taking in the West Bank and Lebanon. We are deeply concerned by the sharply deteriorating situation in the West Bank, in particular the massive expansion of settlements and the rampant and escalating settler violence, which continues in an atmosphere of impunity.
Our voice has been consistent in our calls for appropriate actions in response to Israeli breaches of human rights and democratic principles, and we are trying to use all the tools at our disposal - political, legal and diplomatic - to advocate for peace, accountability and an end to the Israeli Government’s devastating policies in Gaza and the West Bank. In addition to supporting an EU-wide prohibition on trade, our long-standing position is that the EU-Israel Association Agreement should be suspended or, at a minimum, that the trade elements should be suspended. A number of member states have called for stronger collective EU action. I welcome the commitment by the Commission to bring forward a list of options for consideration at the July Foreign Affairs Council, which will take place on 13 July.
The Minister said that Sport Ireland and the Government had no part to play. That is not accurate. In 1999, the then Government put off a match against Yugoslavia. The precedent has been set, and the Government should step in. It is very unfair of the Government to put all the blame on the FAI and let it carry the can. The FAI has previously made clear its position on playing matches with Israel, but now it has been pushed into a corner. The manager of the team has said: “[I]t's unfair for the players to be in this position and us to be in this position.” Seamus Coleman, one of the longest serving and most decorated Irish footballers, a man who leads by example, said:
My views are very clear on the fact that Nathan and the younger players, and Ireland, the fans, the manager, it should not have landed on our toes to answer questions about this. It should have been dealt with above us
The Deputy is right in that sense, but “above us” is talking about UEFA. I fully accept that the FAI has pressed for the exclusion of Israel from UEFA, and it is its right to do so. However, there is a lack of consensus among UEFA members beyond that and, indeed, among international sporting bodies more generally in relation to the exclusion of Israel from international sporting competitions. Similar to the Council, where there is a very clear view from a number of member states, including Ireland, that we need to take stronger action and go as far as suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement, there are other member states that do not agree with that. For that reason, we have not been able to reach a consensus.
I know that other countries, such as Russia and Belarus, have been excluded from international sporting events, but this is because there was a consensus among the international sporting bodies. I believe it is for the organisations, working with their parent bodies and the international organisations, to raise concerns and to be able to discuss this and vote on it. What is very clear, though, is that there is no consensus.
I believe views and positions are changing, given what we see from the Israeli Government with the introduction of the death penalty, which is very clearly targeting Palestinians; the worsening humanitarian situation; and the continuing escalation of settler violence. Even with the discussions on the ceasefire in Lebanon, there is clearly still activity happening on the ground, where citizens are not able to return home. I believe that things are changing and that the view of many countries, including the US, as we have heard, is shifting. However, we cannot as a Government tell UEFA or the other sporting organisations what they should be doing. I fully respect and take into account the position of our own sporting organisations and the view that they have expressed. I fully support their actions.
I will finish the quote from Seamus Coleman when speaking to Tony O’Donoghue of RTÉ. He said: “I am a dad, I am a husband, I've got a heart, I know the difference between right and wrong.” The Minister said that the decision was with the FAI, not the Government. It is not. Deputy McEntee is the Minister. She is in the Government. It is up to the Government to make the decision and to take it away from the players and the FAI. A precedent has been set, but it should happen even if there was no precedent.
The Minister mentioned Russia and Belarus. That shows the double standards. She said that we had to have agreement between all of the other countries. No, we do not. The Irish Government needs to say “No”. We are against genocide. We are against people in the West Bank being driven from their homes and murdered. As the Minister said in response to a previous question, there are over 1 million illegal settlers in the West Bank. There is a genocide in Gaza that continues to this day, with over 70,000 people killed, yet we are waiting for consensus. Consensus from who? The Israeli Government has so much power in its lobby that there will never be consensus. Ireland needs to lead the way. Ireland needs to say that these games must stop, and all games with Israel must stop. We should not be involved in any sport or any economics. We should say to them that unless the genocide stops and the Palestinians are given their rights, Ireland will not take part with Israel. We should do everything to ensure that no other European country, or any country in the world, does that.
Ireland has led. The Deputy might not agree with me, he might not believe that, but Ireland has led and we are leading. I would say that the FAI is leading in that regard as well. It has made its position very clear, and I support the position that it has taken. I support the views that it has, but that is the position it has taken. It is not the position that UEFA as a whole has taken. It is not for the Irish Government to decide what matches happen, where they happen or whether they are cancelled or otherwise.
That is a decision taken by the governing bodies. My colleague, the Minister for sport, will continue to engage with those bodies and organisations. Our objective as a Government is to make sure that the action we take at Government, Council and European levels has the effect we all want. Of course we oppose genocide. Any suggestion to the contrary is so off the mark-----
I did not say that.
Of course we oppose genocide and what is happening on the ground. I do not think we can be any clearer about what is happening. We have joined the South African case. There is a court process and international legal process when it comes to recognising genocide. We have joined that because we believe that is clearly the right thing to do. One only has to look at the UN report on children, which was very clear that children were being targeted. We want to ensure that the actions of the Israeli Government are changed and we do everything we can in that regard.
I have made my view on the position taken by the FAI very clear. There is no consensus at European level that would ban or stop Israel from competing in these games. It is then a decision as to whether our teams would pull out. It is not for me as Minister to tell a team that it should not play or what it should do. That has to be a decision taken by the sporting body and players in the organisation.
10. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire 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); 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. [50321/26]
11. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade further to exchanges with this Deputy in Dail Éireann on 21 May 2026 with regard to the trial of a person (details supplied), the measures that have been put in place to ensure the fair oversight of the trial; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [50271/26]
Daniel Tatlow-Devally faces trial in Germany due to allegedly being on the site of a German subsidiary of an Israeli arms manufacture, Elbit Systems, and allegedly damaging property. I raised this issue with the Minister's predecessor. The conditions of the trial and detention are of huge concern, not only to Mr. Tatlow-Devally, but also his co-defendants. He is subject to 23-hour lock-ins, has been denied phone calls with his family and has limited access to lawyers. There is huge concern about the safety and fairness of the trial and the conditions of detention. It is important that the Government be vocal on it.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 11 together.
This matter has been raised on a number of occasions by the Deputy and other colleagues. At the outset, I assure the Deputies that my colleagues across our consular teams and I are closely following the case and engaging with Mr. Tatlow-Devally and his family on a regular basis. My Department, in particular our Consulate General in Munich, supported by our embassy in Berlin and the consular directorate in Dublin, has been providing consular assistance since September 2025 when we were first notified of the case. Furthermore, I have raised this issue directly with the State Secretary at the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, Dr. Thomas Steffen, when I met him in May.
A dedicated consular officer in the Consulate General in Munich has been assigned to provide consular assistance and support Mr. Tatlow-Devally and his family. Staff in the consulate, including the consul general and deputy consul general, have undertaken six consular visits to him in prison. The most recent visit was earlier this week on Tuesday, 30 June. These visits are an important opportunity to assess the conditions of the detention. I fully appreciate that the prison has a 23-hour lock-up. It is the same for all prisoners in the prison. At the same time, that is a substantial amount of time. The visits provide an opportunity for Mr. Tatlow-Devally when meeting with our team to raise any concerns about his treatment with us.
In turn, we have kept his family informed about these visits and remain in direct contact with them. I am not aware that he has been denied phone calls with his family. My last understanding was that there had been regular engagement and opportunity for engagement. Officials in the consular directorate of my Department and Munich are working to facilitate a visit to Mr. Tatlow-Devally by a number of Deputies. We have been advocating for and supporting him in whatever way we can in respect of engagement not just with the family, but also with others who wish to visit. We are liaising with the relevant German authorities with a view to obtaining the necessary visit permissions and will engage directly with Deputies in that regard. The decision as to whether to permit visits is one for the German authorities. It has been made clear to us that this is something that should be possible. We hope this would be followed through on.
My Department will continue to provide all appropriate consular assistance to Mr. Tatlow-Devally and his family. As I previously outlined, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations defines the parameters of consular assistance in international law, which is, in turn, reflected in my Department and our consular assistance charter. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and its embassies and consulates are precluded from intervening in the judicial and legal process of another country. However, when a citizen is on trial abroad, their rights and interests have to be represented, including by their defence lawyers, as I know is the case in this instance.
A number of trial dates have been set for the coming weeks. The last time we spoke about this in the House, dates had not been set and there was concern about that. Two hearings have taken place this week and further hearings are scheduled for tomorrow, 3 July. There will be subsequent hearings on 22, 24, 27 and 29 July. There are further dates out to January 2027.
My officials will of course continue to follow developments very closely. I have asked that they continue to keep me updated while ensuring that regular engagement continues with Mr. Tatlow-Devally and his family, whom I appreciate are under huge stress.
At the heart of this is an increasing trend, not just in Germany, but in other countries as well, of using legislation initially intended for organised crime to prosecute climate activists and Palestine activists and, in several respects, dampen down political criticism and protests. There is a similar situation in Britain with regard to Palestine Action. When the relevant legislation was introduced 15 years ago, people raised concerns and asked whether it could be used to prosecute Greenpeace and so on. Those concerns were dismissed out of hand by the Ministers at the time. Lo and behold, political organisations are now being targeted by that legislation. We see the same here.
The conditions in which Mr. Tatlow-Devally is being held are not acceptable. I am sure the Minister will agree with that. There is a knee-jerk assumption that European countries will have fair trials, and that is fine - that is the baseline assumption in these institutions. At the end of the day, there is a concern about a fair trial. The Minister said she had raised this matter with the state secretary. What response was she given? What is Germany going to do to ensure there is a fair trial and decent conditions in advance of that?
All of the evidence suggests that an Irish citizen, Daniel Tatlow-Devally, along with four others, is being denied a fair trial by another European state. I believe the Minister has a letter from a senior counsel. The letter refers to the fact that no audio recording of what is happening is permitted or provided by the court, there is no official stenographer, and the defendants cannot bring their own stenographer and have been refused permission to engage a professional note-taker. The letter went on to say that interpretations were electronically transmitted to the accused in a way that prevented their representatives and the court from hearing what was being said and that these communications were not merely secretive and kept from lawyers during the hearing, but were not recorded, so they could never be subsequently checked by anyone. The letter also stated that there was no way for prosecution or defence lawyers, the court, human rights monitors or the Government to check for translation accuracy and no way for the defence to correct mistakes at any time. There are limitations in terms of the communication of the defendants with their lawyers. At the very least, will the Government send legal observers to the trial tomorrow and on 22 July? The State needs to be represented there to observe what is happening to an Irish citizen.
Deputy Ó Laoghaire will appreciate that it is not appropriate for me to comment on the type of legislation or charges that are being taken in another member state. We expect that any other European country would follow fair procedures and rules. That has to be a given and is exactly what I have raised directly with my colleague.
Concerns have been raised with us. In terms of the response, my colleague, the Minister, has said he would engage and relay our concerns or raise the fact that we had raised this particular issue. I appreciate that the conditions in the prison are strict. The rules apply to all prisoners, not just the individual whom Deputies have mentioned or those who were arrested with him. They are all confined to their cells for 23 hours a day. I am told he has access to a gym, prison library and reading materials, as well as there being televisions in prisoners' rooms. I appreciate that this is not an ideal scenario for anybody, but he is in a prison and the conditions are strict and apply to everybody.
I am very clear that we are keeping a very clear focus on the trial and engage regularly with the family. Our consular teams have also regularly engaged with Mr. Tatlow-Devally to make sure that the conditions he has been kept in our, insofar as is possible, are appropriate.
Obviously, when someone is in prison, there will be strict conditions applying, but we want to ensure he is being treated in the most humane and fairest way possible. That engagement will continue.
In terms of legal representation, any issues that may be raised directly relating to the trial are a matter for the legal team to raise. That is what is happening and there is a legal team working to support Daniel. I am keeping a close eye on the situation and have asked my officials to engage regularly with me on it as the trial, which is only starting, proceeds. We will continue to keep in regular contact with the legal team.
The Minister said all prisoners experience the same conditions. In regard to telephone calls, I outlined my understanding of the situation. If it is not the case, I accept that. My understanding is that calls are constrained in terms of times when they can happen and there have been occasions when they have been denied. I will double-check that.
I am happy to get back to the Deputy on that if it is the case.
We can engage in correspondence. I might be mistaken but that is my understanding of the situation.
In relation to prison conditions and the situation for other prisoners, the question is for what reason those other prisoners are detained. Is it appropriate that Daniel Tatlow-Devally and his co-defendants are in a prison of this kind for damaging property? That is fundamentally the charge at hand but it has escalated because the authorities are using legislation that was intended for use against organised crime. That is the context, and the question is whether his detention under those conditions is appropriate.
The Minister said it needs to be a given that there be a fair trial. So many things hinge on that assumption. The question of whether countries have a fair trial system is part of the assessment process for new EU member states. Many regulations hinge upon it. However, what if it is not a given? That is the fundamental point. That is why having a State representative in place to monitor the trial is important. Will the Minister agree to that?
Fundamentally, I do not accept that the denial of the right of an Irish citizen to a fair trial is a matter just for his or her legal team. I just do not accept that. It is a concern of the State if an Irish citizen is, in effect, being railroaded through a show trial. The State needs to be represented by an observer at that trial to see what is happening. Deputy Boyd Barrett has been organising a delegation of representatives to go there on 22 July. Deputies Farrell and Duncan Smith are going, as are Lynn Boylan MEP and Senator Stephenson. I hope others will join them.
However, the State itself, and the Minister, need to be represented there in an observer capacity. The senior counsel I mentioned states in the letter I referenced:
It does not strike me from what I have seen that the trial is in conformity with either EU law or the European Convention on Human Rights. Obviously, the Government can take a different view but I do not see how that view can be properly formed other than on the basis of a first-hand observation since there is no independent record being created of what is happening. We need observers for the Irish State on the next occasions.
I stress again that it is not appropriate for me as Minister to suggest or dictate where somebody should be detained. I appreciate that people have a view on the prison this individual is in and the conditions under which he is being kept. It is the same situation for all prisoners in that particular prison. It is not for me or anybody here to dictate or decide whether somebody is appropriately placed or otherwise, and nor is it appropriate to comment on the type of legislation under which the person is being charged.
If there is a sense or a view that the trial is not being conducted appropriately, we will respond accordingly. My officials, whom I have asked to engage directly with me on this, are keeping a very close eye on the situation. We are engaging directly with Daniel and his family. As we know, he has direct engagement with his legal team on this matter and a trial is due to start soon. I will monitor the situation and engage directly with my officials on it as things progress.
12. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the actions she will take to expedite EU membership for Ukraine and Moldova; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [50086/26]
In congratulating the Minister as she embarks on our six-month Presidency of the European Council of Ministers, my question seeks to establish what she feels can be done to expedite Ukrainian and Moldovan membership of the EU. I ask this while welcoming the fact President Zelenskyy was front and centre at the celebrations of Ireland's accession to the Presidency yesterday. However, we must remember that Moldova cannot be left behind.
I acknowledge the colleagues who attended the opening ceremony yesterday. I hope President Zelenskyy's presence has shown not just our own citizens but the rest of Europe and the world that we fully support Ukraine and intend, through our Presidency, to do everything we can to continue that support and to put pressure on Russia. That includes supporting Ukraine on its accession path. I believe, as I think we all believe, that it is the only trajectory for Ukraine. The country is already defending every single one of us in its defence of itself. In so many ways, Ukraine is already part of our European community. It is about making sure we do everything we can to support the process for enlargement. We had that discussion at our bilateral meeting with President Zelenskyy. We discussed a number of things but particularly Ukraine's accession and how we can work towards that over the next six months.
Enlargement is a priority for us during our Presidency. We all know the benefits Ireland has experienced from membership. It is important that we support through the accession process other countries that want to join the European community and the EU. Moldova and Ukraine are two of the current candidate countries. They both applied for membership in 2022 and opened accession negotiations in 2024. Last year's European Commission annual enlargement report indicated that Moldova made the most one-year progress of all candidates during the reporting period. The same report described Ukraine's progress as remarkable. The Commission has confirmed that both countries are technically ready to open all the negotiating clusters.
It was very welcome that the first clusters opened for both Ukraine and Moldova two weeks ago. I acknowledge our colleagues in Cyprus and the work they have done to ensure that progress was made. From my visit to Ukraine earlier this year and from meeting representatives of Moldova, I am conscious of the very serious efforts both countries have been making to meet the challenge of aligning their laws with the EU acquis under unprecedented circumstances.
It is no wonder that Cyprus would be very sensitive to territorial integrity. As the Minister said, Ireland is committed to facilitating the opening of all remaining negotiating clusters with Ukraine and Moldova in the next six months. Enlargement is a merit-based process and, as recognised by the Commission, both Moldova and Ukraine have met the technical conditions for the opening of negotiations.
However, there were reports last week that, faced with renewed resistance from Hungary, the EU has been forced to change its plans and now aims to unblock two, rather than five, accession clusters with Ukraine and Moldova before the summer break. The suggestion is that the Union has scaled back its ambitions for Ukraine's accession talks and is now targeting the opening of just two negotiating clusters, not five, in July. That would be regrettable. The Minister fully appreciates how vital progress is to Ukraine in the context of the current conflict. She will also appreciate how equally vital it is to Moldova, which really reminds me of Ireland in the 1950s, that it not be isolated, that it move forward in tandem with Ukraine and that its membership be actively expedited.
As I was saying, great efforts have been made by both countries, particularly by Ukraine in what are unimaginable conditions, to make the changes they are making. That is why we want to support them in the best way we can. It is why, when I was in Ukraine earlier this year, I met with civil society groups that are playing a key role in advocating for and bringing forward those changes as quickly as possible.
The Deputy rightly pointed out some of the challenges we will face. For some time, under the Government of Viktor Orbán, we had significant challenges in reaching consensus to move forward on a number of supports for Ukraine, not least the €90 billion loan that was previously agreed by the Council leaders. That blockage has been removed and, thanks to the new Government under Péter Magyar, we have had the opening of the first round of clusters. Unfortunately, a potential blockage or issue has now emerged in regard to the opening of the remaining clusters. We are ambitious to open all five during our Presidency. That might not be straightforward but it just needs engagement and political dialogue. We need to work closely with all 26 member states to make sure issues of concern can be addressed and that we work towards opening all the remaining clusters.
I would, of course, like to see both countries moving together. They started this process together and they have worked together on getting to where they are now. We want to work closely with both of them in order to open the remaining clusters.
As we all know, once the clusters are opened that is the start of another process and obviously that takes time as well.
I think we are disappointed that the new government in Hungary is still causing some difficulties. I appreciate the need for sensitive negotiations with that new government so that it bring Hungary fully in line with European values, which would be very much supportive of this integration. The other matter is that there is a new government in Moldova, which has worked assiduously and has achieved great progress in preparing for EU membership. The issue of Transnistria, the occupied territory there, is a problem. Will the Minister assure us that she is and her fellow foreign ministers are conscious of this? Will she assure us that by continuing the occupation of Transnistria, the Russians are not going to be enabled to in some way frustrate the progress of Moldova moving towards full EU membership?
I am very conscious of the issue the Deputy has raised. Unfortunately, when we look at any of the countries on their path towards accession, nothing is straightforward for any country. Unfortunately, there are issues with individual member states and issues among those accession countries as well that still need to be resolved. That is why it takes as long as it does for a lot of countries. When I was in this role in European affairs ten years ago we were talking about Montenegro, Albania and other countries nearly being there. Now, ten years on, we hope to get Montenegro over the line later this year. We are working on the accession treaty. We hold the pen now for the next six months. We hope to close as many chapters as we can with Albania. Obviously, with Moldova and Ukraine we want to make as much progress as possible. We do have to work in consensus, and with all other countries to address concerns they may have, while at the same time supporting progress on the ground. Just because clusters have not opened, it does not mean the governments of Ukraine and Moldova cannot continue to make the reforms, whether in rule of law, civil areas and other areas, that need to happen, so that they are as ready as they can be. We will work to open as many of the clusters as we can, if not all of them, during our Presidency, and we will do that through consensus, working with all 26 member states and working closely with Moldova and Ukraine.
In terms of what this means for them, it is absolutely essential. In terms of our overall security and sending a very clear message to Russia that we fully support Ukraine and that it is part of our community, this is an important step in the process as well.
13. Deputy Thomas Gould asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the actions she will take to improve the all-island economy and bring forward a united Ireland. [49389/26]
I thank Deputy Gould sincerely for bringing forward this very timely issue. Supporting the all-island economy is a priority for the Government. This continues to grow, with figures for cross-Border trade now at over €17.2 billion. The institutions of the Good Friday Agreement help us co-operate with and understand one another, North and South, east and west, for the benefit of all the citizens of these islands. Since the restoration of the institutions in 2024, the North-South Ministerial Council has met 49 times across different formats to facilitate practical North-South co-operation in a breadth of areas. The Department of foreign affairs also continues to engage with business and stakeholders on North-South issues.
The all-island economy is also supported by the Windsor Framework, which protects the gains of the Good Friday Agreement and provides certainty for people and businesses across the island of Ireland. It ensures that Northern Ireland retains access to the EU’s Single Market for goods, and, crucially, avoids a hard border on the island of Ireland. The Government also invests in the all-island economy through the shared island initiative which is enhancing co-operation, connection, and mutual understanding. Since 2020, over € 1 billion has been allocated to a range of major cross-Border projects and programmes. Last week, the Government announced €377 million in shared-island funding, including for major infrastructure investments in transport, energy and health. The shared island initiative engages with all communities and traditions to build consensus around a shared future, regardless of whatever shape future constitutional change may take on the island, or between these islands.
The Government has always stated that in the event of a future referendum, within the consent provisions of the Good Friday Agreement, it will make all necessary preparations in accordance with the terms of the Constitution and the principles and procedures of the agreement. I look forward to working through some of these issues with the Deputy over the next few minutes.
The Minister of State spoke about all the necessary preparations if there is to be a referendum. It is nearly 30 years since the Good Friday Agreement. Now is the time to honour and commemorate the 30th anniversary by having these conversations. While I welcome Fine Gael's announcement about a blueprint for a unified Ireland, it is not a united Ireland. I recognise, however, it is a step in the conversation. Bringing forward a united Ireland is not just Sinn Féin's job; it is the job of all political parties and none. It is the job of all aspects of society to come forward with solutions. We want to engage with everyone - with unionists, loyalists, people of all different faiths and different politicians on the whole island. To move forward with a referendum on a united Ireland, we need to have the citizens' assembly. We are asking the Government to bring this forward. We will have Private Members' business in the Dáil next week and that will be a vital part of it. We are asking to engage with all members of the Government to bring that forward.
I will try to answer this as much politically as well as from a departmental and ministerial point of view. I acknowledge the Deputy's comments in relation to the Tánaiste's announcement in recent days. The name of my party is Fine Gael, or The United Ireland Party. I have been speaking about this for my entire political career. I go back to Dr. Garret FitzGerald's book Towards a New Ireland from 1972 and his work on bringing about an Anglo-Irish Agreement over 40 years ago that gave Dublin a say. I participated at many meetings of Ireland's Future. Just last week our former party leader and iar-Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, spoke at an SDLP conference, which was very well attended.
I do not disagree with the principle of a citizens' assembly. I believe that we will not oppose the Sinn Féin Private Members' business next week. There were two motions in the last calendar year in the Seanad and the Dáil that the Government did not oppose.
I believe a citizens' assembly should be held after the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has deemed that a poll is necessary. In that window, where the Secretary of State says a poll is needed and before that happens, we should have the citizens' assembly. We would use the workings of that citizens' assembly to make sure that when people go to vote in the referendum, there are two clear objectives. I am not looking to be confrontational or political about it but I fear that if we had a citizens' assembly now, there would 50% attendance and we would not have the richness of conversation as opposed having a citizens' assembly where people knew there would be a legally binding referendum and a vote. People would play their part and would know what they were voting on. That is my opinion on it but I would welcome a conversation on it, if that makes sense.
Our Private Members' business next week will move forward the conversation on unity. It will provide that the Taoiseach publish a Green Paper on the means of consultation with the people on the entire island. This would mean the Government setting out ideas on our vision for health, education, public service and the economy. What it would really mean would be the Government outlining the steps we would see for a united Ireland and what it would mean to people, North and South. We are not trying to impose this on people. We are trying to start a conversation and we want people to engage.
I hear what the Minister of State is saying in relation to waiting for the Secretary of State but if we were to wait on the British, we would not be where we are now. We need to move forward, not in an adversarial way but to lead. This needs to be led by the Government. I hope the Secretary of State will come forward but if we are waiting for the British to announce a poll and then react, that is too late. We need to be working in advance. If we work in advance and have these conversations, we hopefully will bring people together.
Thank you, Deputy.
I will finish on this. I know we will never get everyone to agree but if everyone feels they have been listened to and they are part of the conversation, they may think there is an opportunity to move forward. I believe the vast majority of people want a united Ireland.
Just to clarify, it is not a matter of waiting for someone. It is the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. Ultimately, the responsibility to deem whether a border poll is necessary lies with the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That is just a legal fact. Deputy Gould and I might not like it but we cannot fight it. It is not a matter of waiting. In my opinion, it is a period to use those two years to learn from the lessons of Brexit and the Scottish independence referendum and identify the issues.
I look forward to speaking on Sinn Féin's Private Members' Bill next week from both a personal point of view and a ministerial point of view. The conversation has long since started - we all know that - but since the post-Brexit years it has stepped into a very different space for a lot of individuals on this island, who perhaps were not at that stage and have been facilitated in more non-confrontational aspects to do that. From my party's point of view, that is certainly what we want to bring forward. Our vision of unity will probably be different from Deputy Gould's vision of unity but that is okay, and that is something people need to realise in due course.
To go back to the key point of the all-island economy and the here and now, that is where the Government has the immediate responsibility to develop those very tangible links such as when Senator Conor Murphy, as the then Minister for the Economy of Northern Ireland, and I set up the first all-island trade mission. These are the sort of things we need to work on in the here and now.
15. Deputy Aisling Dempsey asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade for an update on Irish aid to Nepal; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [50097/26]
56. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if more Irish aid will be provided to Nepal, especially to areas impacted by leprosy; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [50087/26]
I have just returned from a visit to Nepal. It was my second visit to that absolutely wonderful country. However, it is a country afflicted by dire poverty, where 20% of the population live below the poverty line. We have seen in March of this year the election of a new Government that promises to bring radical change to a country where there has been an unsettled political situation for quite some time. It strikes me that Nepal is one country where leprosy still exists as an indication of real and dire poverty. What can we do to help?
I am very grateful to Deputy Ó Fearghaíl for raising an issue and a country that, perhaps, never receives the sort of attention it deserves.
The Government's international development programme, Irish Aid, works globally to support the furthest behind first, focusing the major part of our official development assistance on the world's least developed countries. Nepal is classified as a least developed country. We have a number of multi-annual commitments in place for assistance in Nepal, and funding levels are expected to stay largely stable for the duration of these commitments.
Through the main funding mechanism for Irish-based international development organisations, Ireland's civil society partnership for a better world, we are providing €270,000 annually for Action Aid Ireland’s work in Nepal. This work addresses the structural causes of gender-based violence, promotes women’s empowerment and leadership and helps address the impact of climate change.
Through the civil society fund, we are providing €300,000 to support the work of smaller Irish organisations active in Nepal. These include the Irish Red Cross, the Nepal Leprosy Trust and the Social and Health Education Project. I have met two of those in very recent months when we brought the organisations specifically working on leprosy together at the Irish Aid offices in Limerick. Their projects focus on promoting social inclusion as well as improving health and well-being for the most vulnerable, including people affected by leprosy. Capacity-strengthening supports are also provided.
Through our partnership with Misean Cara, which supports missionaries working to empower those left furthest behind, Ireland also provides support to education. In 2025, just under €94,000 in Irish Aid funding was allocated by Misean Cara for projects seeking to address school dropout rates among marginalised communities and children with disabilities in one of the most isolated districts of Nepal, as well as providing education on non-communicable diseases.
Through the embassy in New Delhi, which is accredited to Nepal, support was also provided to five smaller projects. These were focused on empowering people with disabilities, mental health, women and girls, and promotion of local economic growth through environmentally sustainable work. In 2025, total development assistance to Nepal through these channels amounted to €700,000.
I thank the Minister of State for his response and sincere interest in this matter. It struck me when looking at this that 2,300 people migrate from Nepal every single day and 30% of the GDP of the country comes from remittances. There has been political chaos for a long time in a country populated by people of incredible dignity, who have an interest in education, who are committed to progress and peace, and there is a serenity about the people of Nepal that is quite something to behold.
Balendra Shah is the new Prime Minister. He is a young man of 36 years of age and a former mayor of Kathmandu. He promises to bring change but he will need support from countries like Ireland. Turning to our Presidency, I would appeal to see Ireland play a leading role during the course of our Presidency in encouraging Europe to do more.
It is really important to mention that over the last number of years Nepal has, unfortunately, been the victim of a number of very serious natural disasters. In 2023, a 5.7 magnitude earthquake struck, killing 153 people and injuring 400, at which time Ireland, through the Red Cross and Red Crescent, contributed to an EU aid package of €2 million. In April 2015, a more devastating earthquake of 7.2 magnitude struck just north west of Kathmandu. It was the worst in 80 years and over 8,700 people died. In response, Ireland directly provided €1.6 million in humanitarian response.
I note the Deputy's comment that, following very real youth protests and what was a sort of Gen z movement, we saw in March the election of 275 members and a new Prime Minister, a man younger than me, from the national independent party. I actually met his predecessor this week last year in Seville. The undertaking, regardless of who the leadership comprises in Nepal, is that Ireland will continue to be a partner at a bilateral level and also, crucially, at a European level and there is a great opportunity for that in due course.
I am delighted to see the Minister of State has such a sense of youth about himself. The thing that struck me as well about that recent election, when I was there to participate in a training programme organised by INTER PARES for new parliamentarians, was the huge number of young people, even younger than the Minister of State, who have been elected to that new parliament. The deputy speaker of the parliament is a 25-year-old lady who has never held any political office before.
To go back to my original question, can we please use our good offices to create some sort of system within Europe whereby Europe offers more genuine support to this wonderful country to help it make the progress that it is capable of making but which it needs support in achieving? Let us remember that this country still has the plague of leprosy in its diverse communities. They are living in the Himalayas, in valleys and mountains and in very dispersed locations. Can we please, through Europe, do more to help?
This will bring me to a broader section but I want to very much keep Nepal in the mind's eye because it is a key partner of the EU and one of the main areas where the EU provides supports is in the area of good governance, which would be of great support to the new, young parliament. Deputy Ó Fearghaíl described issues in relation to migration, remittances and poverty. There are over 3,000 Nepalese citizens here in the Republic and only 40 Irish citizens in Nepal, who are mainly doing voluntary and missionary work in the aid sector.
It comes back to the whole area of development co-operation, which is an area completely under attack. We are living at a time when the EU and its member states represent over 50% of global development co-operation and if we throw in Britain and Norway, that rises to two thirds. That is due not just to the decision of the United States but to many other actors and that is having a direct consequence. Over the next number of months, there is a real weight on the shoulders of Ireland to develop huge progress on agreeing an EU budget, the multi-annual financial framework. Key to that is making sure that the ring-fenced commitment to development co-operation and humanitarian aid is supported and that that, in turn, will support countries like Nepal.
16. Deputy Sinéad Gibney asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade her Department's position on the findings of the UN independent international commission of inquiry that Israel continues to commit genocide by targeting children in Gaza; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [50251/26]
40. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade her views on the findings of a UN commission of inquiry to the effect that Israel has deliberately targeted children in the ongoing genocide against Palestinians and that Israeli military operations have continued to cause “unprecedented death, injury and trauma” to Palestinian children; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [50285/26]
Despite Palestine fading somewhat from the headlines, the UN independent international commission of inquiry has found that Israel continues to commit genocide in Gaza by targeting children. All states have a positive duty to act to prevent and stop genocide, so what is the Department doing in reaction to this report and its findings?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 16 and 40 together.
Like the Deputy and everybody else who has seen this report or heard about what it contains, I am beyond concerned. The elements and the findings of the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory are absolutely appalling. I stress that because I know there have been attempts to suggest that this is some kind of targeted job, that there is an attempt here to undermine the Israeli Government or the Israel Defense Forces, IDF, or that facts have been made up. This is a completely independent inquiry on the Palestinian territory. It is the first such commission of inquiry report to focus specifically on children and it adds new evidence and analysis to previous reports. It is a significant piece of work and something we take extremely seriously. I want to stress that. I think all member states do and all countries should take it extremely seriously.
As I said, the findings are disturbing, in particular the finding that the Israel Defense Forces have deliberately targeted children. We have all probably seen footage or clips or heard accounts from doctors in particular, where there are children coming in with very specific injuries and where the view is very clear that they have been targeted directly. Importantly, and more horrifically, it suggests that post ceasefire, this action is still happening. It is absolutely devastating and has to be investigated further. We would fully support any further investigation by the UN or any other independent commission of inquiry in this regard.
Israel must respect international and humanitarian law, and this report very clearly shows that it is not doing so. Clear obligations exist, as set out under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. They must be adhered to. All state parties have to uphold the rights of children in armed conflict and this report very clearly says that is not the case. The report was the focus of a side event on 26 June hosted by the Palestinian mission in Geneva with Save the Children during the ongoing session of the Human Rights Council. We co-sponsored this event alongside Spain and South Africa.
The commission of genocide is ultimately a matter of law that must be determined by a court or a judicial body. South Africa has taken the case. I mentioned earlier that under the Genocide Convention, we have filed a declaration of intervention in that case specifically with the ICJ. We continue to follow the case very closely. We have also filed a detailed written submission with the ICJ as part of the advisory proceedings concerning the obligations of Israel in relation to the UN and other international organisations, as well as states, in the occupied Palestinian territories. We have vocally and consistently called for appropriate actions in response to Israeli breaches of human rights and democratic principles. We use all the tools at our disposal - political, legal and diplomatic - to advocate for peace, accountability and an end to the Israeli Government's devastating policies in Gaza and the West Bank. We fully support accountability for Israel's egregious breaches of international law.
To that effect, I have made it very clear in my engagement on this matter - and not just with the EU High Representative, Ms Kaja Kallas - that during our Presidency, this matter will remain firmly on the agenda. This is a matter in respect of which I believe the EU needs to do more. Our credibility is completely at stake, if not already somewhat on the floor, regarding this matter. We need to be stronger in responding to what are very clear international human rights violations. There is a report here that says children are being specifically targeted in a conflict and in a post-conflict environment. If this does not make other countries stand up and listen, then I am not sure what else will.
I have no doubt that at the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council which Ireland will host as part of its Presidency on 13 July other member states will reference this. It is something I will be strongly highlighting in our discussion with the Commission, when it brings forward - and I am assured it will have them before that meeting - proposals on how the EU could potentially respond collectively to what is happening. I know it is specific to the West Bank but, as far as I am concerned, any of the actions we take are in response to the West Bank, the situation in Lebanon, the disastrous humanitarian situation in Gaza and all of these reports that suggest what we thought and somewhat knew was happening prior to the ceasefire is unfortunately still happening on the ground.
Unfortunately, we are out of time. That concludes oral questions to the Minister for foreign affairs.
