Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Jan 2024

My question concerns support for Ukraine. The ongoing onslaught on Ukraine by Russia is a daily occurrence. There are so many terrible events happening in the world that sometimes our focus on Ukraine is diminished. However, it will need the support of the EU just to maintain normal functioning as a state. I am interested to hear the Tánaiste's view on whether that will come about.

Overall assistance to Ukraine pledged by the European Union and its member states to date amounts to approximately €85 billion, including financial, humanitarian, emergency, budgetary and military support. Discussions are ongoing at European Union level on a Commission proposal for a €50 billion Ukraine facility to cover the period 2024 to 2027. If agreed, this package will allow Ukraine to continue to pay wages and pensions, maintain essential public services, ensure macroeconomic stability and restore critical infrastructure destroyed by Russia. An agreement unfortunately could not be reached at the December European Council due to the decision of Hungary to use its veto. I am deeply disappointed by this failure to make progress. Ukraine urgently needs this multiannual, sustainable and predictable funding, and it is imperative that a consensus be reached at the first possible opportunity.

Ireland strongly supports the proposed Ukraine facility in its current form. I wish to see an agreement reached at the special European Council on 1 February. I raised this issue at the foreign affairs council in Brussels on Monday, where I emphasised the need for timely agreement on this new funding for Ukraine. I was encouraged to hear confirmation from the Hungarian foreign minister that he will meet foreign minister Kuleba and other Ukrainian senior officials in Ukraine next week. We need an early solution to break the impasse in order to get Ukraine the financial assistance it so desperately needs.

It is crystal clear that we cannot simply have a situation where one country, Hungary with Viktor Orbán, is simply blackmailing the rest of the European Union first for his own ends in terms of his unhidden support for Putin, but also to leverage other matters within the European Union so that there would be no sanctions against Hungary on the rule of law issues.

What specifically will happen if the Orbán blackmail continues? Particularly given the situation in Congress in United States it is not sustainable for Ukraine to continue without the promised multi-annual funding which is needed for its very survival.

I agree with the Deputy's assessment. For a number of months frustration has been building up over Hungary's position in respect of Ukraine. Hungary had originally identified some issues with Ukraine relating to the listing of one of its main banks. That was solved, or at least we thought it was resolved, when the agency involved delisted the bank and then there was a demand over its subsidiaries. An issue was raised over the treatment of minority Hungarian children in schools in Ukraine. There have also been talks on that but the goalposts seem to keep changing in respect of the demands from Ukraine. The Deputy will recall that at the last council meeting the Prime Minister of Hungary raised the ante suggesting he needed to look at the broader EU strategy towards Ukraine which had not been raised - certainly not at the FAC - for the previous two months.

I did detect from the Hungarian foreign minister on Monday a sense that there would be a genuine engagement with Ukraine next week in respect of this issue. The Deputy is correct. Europe has now modified its proposals - potentially it would be done on an annual basis, but even that has potential problems down the line.

I think most of us would agree that the objections of Hungary are contrived. The specifics regarding Ukraine are not real. It is a twofold attempt, first, to publicly manifest support for Russia and, second, to blackmail the rest of the EU Council into easing sanctions against Hungary over rule-of-law issues. I would be interested to hear the Tánaiste's view on that. I am also interested in hearing about the utterances of Prime Minister Orbán and his talks with the Slovak Prime Minister Fico over an alternative strategy for Ukraine. What does the Tánaiste know of that and how will that be dealt with?

I am not in disagreement with what the Deputy said. In addition, the aid package under the EPF has been held up because of Hungarian objection, which I think is serious in terms of the signal it sends because it strengthens Russia. Hungary has dependencies on Russia. One can draw conclusions from those dependencies. Are those dependencies influencing its position? It will vigorously deny that but nonetheless one has to consider that scenario because of its dependencies. I also take issue with the approach Hungary has adopted on Ukraine more generally. Russia violently violated the UN Charter. It is an existential threat for countries that neighbour Russia. We are geographically some distance away, but that is not the case for Lithuania and Latvia. I spoke to their foreign ministers on Monday. Their populations feel this sense much more now than at the beginning of the war.

I am not fully au fait with what is going on there. I think there is a bit of grandstanding. It was clear that Slovakia was going to support Ukraine but maybe in different formats than it did before. That was an interesting contribution to be fair. It is not at this stage obstructionist or stopping anything that is happening.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 86 together.

The Northern Ireland Executive was collapsed in February 2022, nearly two years ago. It is now more than 20 months since the ensuing Northern Ireland Assembly elections and the strand one institutions have yet to be stood up. Since assuming my current role, the restoration of the assembly and the Executive and, with them, the North-South Ministerial Council, has been one of my top priorities. To this end, I have engaged with the Secretary of State on more than a dozen occasions, as well as with the main political parties in Northern Ireland. To facilitate restoration, the Government gave space for negotiations between the European Union and the United Kingdom. The European Union stretched to agree the Windsor Framework with the United Kingdom nearly a year ago. This, I believe, offers a sound foundation for progress in Northern Ireland, and has provided the basis for the ensuing discussions between the United Kingdom Government and the Democratic Unionist Party. Unfortunately, last week, another deadline to elect a Northern Ireland Assembly Speaker and form an Executive passed without those talks delivering the necessary progress.

Yesterday, Westminster passed legislation to extend the window to form an Executive until 8 February. I know that Deputies across this House will join me in hoping that this short window is used to take the decisions urgently needed to restore the Executive. My officials and those of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are staying in close touch on these developments. Last week saw the launch of a major strike across Northern Ireland, involving workers from a range of vital public services. Those on the picket lines underlined their frustration at the impact that almost two years without a functioning Executive has had on their ability to do their jobs and on the quality of services provided to the public. I understand and share their frustration, as do ordinary citizens, business owners and the many elected representatives who want to see Stormont get back to work - those who want to see Northern Ireland working and working well.

The decision to continue the blockage in Stormont and to continue the deterioration of core services that has accompanied it belongs to one party. I appreciate that the issues at play involve deeply held views but I remain convinced that the best way to address them is with a restored Executive in place. I hope they use this latest window to enable the restoration of the institutions and the full functioning of politics in Northern Ireland. I am very conscious that the other parties elected to the assembly, each of which has a democratic mandate, are enormously frustrated at being prevented from doing the work they were elected to do. I am also conscious of the increasingly urgent need for decisions on issues that affect the day-to-day lives of the people of Northern Ireland. This situation cannot be allowed to drift indefinitely. The absence of power sharing creates and deepens challenges for all communities. The people of Northern Ireland need to see politics working for them. The early and sustained restoration of the power-sharing institutions would be the best way forward, underpinned by a strong partnership between the two Governments. The Government is ready to engage constructively with any new Executive to assist and to work together in areas where North-South co-operation could make a positive difference.

I thank the Tánaiste and his officials for the work that has been done in this difficult area. It is 23 months since the assembly in Northern Ireland collapsed and we now have had the strikes. There is uncertainty there. Anything that can be done should be done to try to get an Executive up and running. I know a deadline of 8 February has been set. If no progress is made between now and 8 February, what is the likely next route to be taken to get people working together there? The Tánaiste may not be able to give precise details. Obviously, we have engagement with the Secretary of State but there needs to be a fallback position as well.

I am wondering where we go from here. Twenty-three months have passed. Will we be in the same position this time next year? That is the concern.

I begin by condemning utterly the threats that were made against Jeffrey Donaldson and that he spoke about in the House of Commons yesterday. There is no room on any part of this island or anywhere else for threats of physical violence against any political person.

Does the Tánaiste agree with me that the Northern Ireland governance framework which was so hard-won over so many years has been totally undermined by the suspension for two years of a working assembly and Executive. I underscore the point as to what is plan B. We cannot have permanent pushback. The Tánaiste indicated that there is a further deadline of 8 February. Is he of the view that we should just keep pushing matters back or is this a real deadline? If so, what is plan B if nothing has occurred by that date?

I concur with what the Deputy said in respect of threats against Jeffrey Donaldson, the leader of the DUP. Those threats are absolutely reprehensible and unacceptable. Whatever one's views, I have been very consistent on the need to restore the Executive and the assembly, in line with Deputy Burke's comments. I have been assured by Jeffrey Donaldson that he also wants the Executive restored. He has made that point to me consistently since the collapse. From reading reports and so on, I am aware that there are challenges within the DUP in the context of bringing about a decision that would lead to the restoration of the Executive and the assembly. The failure to restore the institutions would be very serious in terms of the Good Friday Agreement and the architecture relating to it. From our perspective, and notwithstanding that it represents strand one of the three strands, it impacts significantly on strand two, which includes the North-South Ministerial Council and other bodies. Everything is limited and hampered by the absence of the North-South Ministerial Council and a fully working Executive and assembly.

More fundamentally, I passionately believe that once an election is held in any jurisdiction, it should be followed by the convening of an assembly or parliament and the formation of a government.

We will take it one step at a time. Clearly, there will be further engagement between the Government and the British Government and the political parties in Northern Ireland in respect of that. If we do not have results after 8 February, it will place the overall situation in considerable difficulty. The Good Friday Agreement provides for engagement and consultation through the initiative of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference to pursue matters. Again, it is an area we will deal with when clarity comes.

The other issue that is concerning is the strike that took place on 18 January. How can we move matters forward in that regard if something does not occur on 8 February? What will be the position after that date regarding moneys which have not been sanctioned in the context of the pay increases to which people are entitled? That is a big concern for people who are working in Northern Ireland.

Does the Tánaiste agree that the fundamental problem with the DUP and Sinn Féin in the build-up to a settlement is that neither will move on something fundamental and important if they feel that there is any segment of their own party who will not move with them? Others, particularly in Northern Ireland, took risks to move matters along, but those parties in particular seem determined to ensure that they will not lose any of their base. That is a perennial issue. Until we spell out a consequence for inaction, the stasis that is there will remain. Does the Tánaiste agree?

On Deputy Burke's point, the economic situation and the public finances dimension to it are both very serious. The fact that so many people participated in the strike action is an illustration of the frustration on the ground in Northern Ireland at the absence of an Executive and an assembly. People want action on health services, public service pay, education and so forth. This really is a crisis of governance in Northern Ireland. The strike, and the full participation in it, is a manifestation of people's anger and frustration at what is going on.

I agree with Deputy Howlin. That has been my view for a while. However, the election that took place should be validated insofar as the First Minister and deputy First Minister should be appointed in accordance with the outcome. After the restoration of the Executive and the assembly, if that happens, we have to look at reforming the situation. In the future, no one party, no matter how large, should have a veto on the formation of an assembly. I know that both parties involved have reservations about going down that road. However, if we look at the 25 years during which the Good Friday Agreement has been in place, we can see that the assembly and the Executive have been down for too long. That has resulted in lower levels of public esteem for both because it illustrates that politics is not working for people. That is a worry. We have to make politics work in Northern Ireland. The Alliance Party has put forward reform proposals in that regard, and I am very open to them.

The Tánaiste will be aware that continuing to provide funding to Ukraine has become quite a contentious political issue. In the United States, hardline Republicans are opposed to continuing to fund Ukraine. As the Tánaiste indicated to Deputy Howlin earlier, it appears that there are some within the European Union who are concerned about providing €50 billion in funding over the next three years. Has consideration been given to providing financial support to Ukraine by using the Russian assets that have been seized, particularly in view of the fact that Russia has inflicted enormous economic damage on Ukraine?

I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 and 52 together.

I thank the Deputies for raising this important issue. Ireland has supported effective implementation of strong sanctions in response to Russia's illegal actions in Ukraine. I have repeatedly emphasised that Russia should be held accountable for the appalling damage caused by its illegal invasion of Ukraine. In December 2023, Ireland welcomed the adoption of the EU's 12th sanctions package, which focused on addressing circumvention and strengthening implementation. Ireland supports the continued use of EU sanctions to maintain pressure on Russia. Ireland also supports the work of the European Union's special sanctions envoy, David O'Sullivan, to tackle circumvention.

Ireland has been actively involved in discussions at European Union level exploring the use of extraordinary revenues stemming from immobilised Russian sovereign assets to cover the costs of reconstruction and recovery in Ukraine. In December, the European Council repeated its call for decisive progress on this matter. Discussions have been ongoing regarding the legal, financial, economic and political feasibility of this proposal. In these discussions, Ireland has highlighted the importance of co-ordination with international partners, including the G7, and of careful consideration of all applicable laws in this process. We have also underlined the need to take into account the views of the European Central Bank on financial stability and the potential impact any decision could have on the international role of the euro.

Considerable progress has been made in recent months. This is in keeping with similar work ongoing at G7 level. At the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday, Ministers reached political agreement on a proposal that we hope to see finalised shortly. I also joined efforts in calling for further sanctions against Russia. Ireland will continue to work with partners to hold Russia to account for its actions.

I welcome that response.

In fact, this is something we discussed at a Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party meeting early last year so I am pleased to see there have been developments in respect of it. We need to take into account that it is calculated there are approximately $350 billion in Russian Government assets that have been frozen since the invasion back in February 2022. Of course, these are enormously significant funds. We know from a Belgium-based financial services company, Euroclear, that it holds approximately $214 billion in such assets and it has to date generated interest of about $3.26 billion.

We need to take into account that although the issue of the continued funding of Ukraine has become a contentious political issue, there is an avenue down which we could go, which I think would get widespread public support. I was pleased to see that not only the Tánaiste but also the new Foreign Secretary in the United Kingdom, David Cameron, have indicated that this is something that should be looked at. Belgium has taken steps to ensure that those assets held in Belgium and the tax generated by those assets can be used to aid Ukraine. I do not know if this is something the Tánaiste thinks can be done on a national basis or whether we need EU-wide support to do it.

To date, Irish financial institutions have frozen about €1.8 billion of Russian funds and those funds relate to listed individuals and entities. The issue of interest or windfall gains that have accrued as a result of the freezing of the assets is now being considered more immediately in respect of the potential to use even the windfall profits from this for the reconstruction of Ukraine. There is a very serious issue here. Countries have to know that others cannot just come in and level a country, bomb its energy and civilian infrastructure, and everybody else picks up the tab afterwards and we carry on as normal. That day is over, in my view. I support this. It was the Estonian Prime Minister who started the ball rolling two years ago. The Deputy is correct that this has to be actively pursued and the EU is pursuing the initial steps with regard to the interest.

I am pleased to hear that response. There has to be a financial consequence. We have seen from other international disputes that where financial sanctions are imposed, it has a significant consequence. I have no doubt the very broad range sanctions that have been imposed upon Russia have affected President Putin and his support base, even though it may not be apparent to us at this stage.

It is worthwhile to look at the proposal that has been advanced in Belgium. There is a recognition of the question that if assets have been frozen, what is going to happen to them in due course. Are we going to return them to Russia? Obviously, if Russia withdrew from the invaded part of Ukraine and Crimea, the assets would be unfrozen, but there seems to be no prospect of that happening in the near future or, indeed, the long-term future. As a result, there needs to be a recognised financial penalty imposed upon a country that has been involved in the crime of aggression.

Another issue that we need to consider is bringing into Irish law the crime of aggression. There has to be a financial consequence for Russia when we look at the financial devastation it has imposed upon Ukraine. I think the cost to Ukraine to date is somewhere in the region of $400 billion.

I am in agreement with the Deputy on this. The destruction of Ukraine has been at shocking levels, and there has to be a financial penalty on Russia in respect of that and there has to be accountability. As I said earlier, otherwise, what is to stop Russia doing that to some other country in the neighbourhood? That is why many of the neighbours of Russia feel an existential threat to their very existence because of the aggression and because of the expansionist policies of Vladimir Putin. I would certainly support that.

On the crime of aggression, there are ongoing discussions internationally. It is difficult to get agreement on the precise form of an international tribunal to deal with the crime of aggression, so I think we should pursue this in domestic legislation also.

I think it is at my discretion. The Deputy knows that we were on a committee that tried to stop this and, unfortunately, those proposals have not been put before me so far. I hope they are because it would stop all of this uncertainty. I know the Deputy agrees with that. For the moment, I am going to exercise my discretion. I will take Deputy Boyd Barrett, then Deputy Bruton and I will then move forward to Deputy Jim O'Callaghan. I then hope to take Deputy Stanton.

We are not going to have a debate on it. It is not the Deputy’s fault. We are all unhappy with this. There was a sub-committee and recommendations were made that this would stop and if somebody was not here, the question would not be taken. Unfortunately, that has not been finalised yet or come back before us. I call Deputy Boyd Barrett.

Once again, I appeal to the Tánaiste, as we have been doing since the middle of November, to publicly support the case that has now been taken by South Africa against Israel for the commission of genocide where there is overwhelming evidence that it is committing crimes that are considered to be genocidal under the Genocide Convention.

I have no problem with that.

I have been closely monitoring developments in the case taken under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide by South Africa against Israel in the International Court of Justice. The public hearings that took place on 11 and 12 January involved the two parties to the proceedings, South Africa and Israel, and focused on the question of provisional measures. No other country has joined them yet as they cannot. I anticipate that the court will deliver its order on the provisional measures in the South Africa case tomorrow, Friday, 26 January. Any provisional measures ordered by the court will be final and binding on the parties to which the orders are addressed.

The court’s decision on provisional measures will be analysed carefully by the Government once it has been published. We will also continue to consult closely with our international partners, including South Africa. Following this analysis and consultations, the Government will consider whether to seek permission to intervene and, if so, on what legal basis. This reflects the fact that the statute of the court provides a narrow legal basis on which third parties may be permitted to intervene in such cases and the need for careful and rigorous legal analysis of the relevant issues.

As with all other similar cases that have come before the court, states normally seek permission to intervene in the case only once the applicant - in this case, South Africa - has filed its memorial, as occurred in the Ukraine v. Russia and Gambia v. Myanmar cases. If states choose to do so in the case, they do not “join” one side or another; rather, they submit a statement that asserts their interpretation of the provision of the convention at issue, or they must identify a specific legal interest affected by the proceedings.

Ireland has participated in two advisory opinion cases before the International Court of Justice regarding the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory to date. In 2004, Ireland submitted a written statement on the “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. In 2022, the UN General Assembly requested that the court give an advisory opinion on the “Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”. Ireland voted in favour of this resolution and submitted a written statement to the court last July.

The oral proceedings in this case will take place in February, and Ireland will participate.

The Government’s position on the current conflict remains that we need an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, the immediate and unconditional release of hostages, the end of Hamas’s rocket attacks on Israel, and rapid, full, safe and unhindered access for humanitarian aid to Gaza. These actions cannot wait for the court’s decision on provisional measures; they need to happen now.

As I have stated on several occasions in the House, the Occupied Territories Bill would not be compatible with EU law and would not be implementable. That is the clear legal advice on the matter. The Government will therefore not be taking it forward.

Ireland’s opposition to illegal Israeli settlements is grounded in international law. To adopt a unilateral approach that runs contrary to legal advice would undermine Ireland’s stance on this issue and our broader advocacy of compliance with international law.

Once again, the Government is dancing around its obligations under the genocide convention. Forget about all the other stuff the Tánaiste said. This is about the genocide convention. In November, the Tánaiste was asked in the Dáil to discharge his obligations under the genocide convention, which requires that all signatories, as soon as they hear of the possibility of a genocide taking place, examine whether they believe such a thing is taking place and take action to stop it. This has been in Irish law since 1973. The Tánaiste has not done that. Unless he is telling me now that he has done it. South Africa did it, but the Tánaiste poured cold water on what was being said. He suggested that it might not be a genocide and gave excuses why Ireland could not get involved. In November, we asked the Tánaiste to instigate action or to at least examine the matter. He did nothing. Even now, he will not issue a statement to the effect that he agrees with South Africa. Does he agree with what South Africa is doing? The world can see the genocide that is happening. Does the Tánaiste agree and will he support South Africa?

At another level, I understand what he is at in terms of the prism through which he sees the world. His idea is that he is the Holy Grail when it comes to supporting the Palestinian people. Internationally, people perceive Ireland and the Irish Government as being very strong supporters of the people of Palestine. The Deputy is wrong again in his approach. On the provisional measures that have been sought, we sought them. We have participated, as one of the few countries legally in the court, but we do things properly, rigorously and with analysis. For a person who talks loudly about wanton murder and destruction, why has the Deputy failed to condemn the Hamas attack that took place on 7 October? Why did the statement his party issued some weeks ago seem to almost implicitly condone that terrible atrocity? There is no consistency in the Deputy's approach.

I hold Israel responsible for the violence we have seen. That is my view. From 1948 onward. It is not just me who is saying that. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and every decent Israeli historian, including Ilan Pappé - we could go through the list - acknowledges this. You can go through the list, about decades of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, illegal occupation, apartheid, illegal settlements and a 16-year siege of Gaza. Inevitably, that produces violence. Now we are seeing the absolutely genocidal logic of the apartheid state, and the Irish Government stands by and does nothing. Whatever the Tánaiste may think about who is to blame, what is clear is that there is a genocide happening. It was clear in November when he was asked about the matter. He has obligations. He is still dancing around the obligation on states to act, including unilaterally, to prevent genocide. In two years’ time, it will be too late for the Palestinian people.

I would first make it crystal clear that while the litany of abuse against the Palestinian people is decades long, shocking and horrible, there is no excuse whatever for the wanton murder carried out by Hamas on 7 October.

My question is directly in relation to the provisional measures that will hopefully be announced tomorrow. One of the calls relating to those measures relates to an immediate ceasefire. If the provisional measures include a legal demand for a ceasefire from the International Court of Justice, what, in the context of international sanctions, will be the response of the Irish Government, the European Union and the world community to ensure that such a ceasefire comes to pass? Will the court's direction simply be ignored by Israel with the impunity it believes has been bestowed on it by the world community to do exactly as it wishes?

Deputy Boyd Barrett's failure or deliberate decision not to condemn Hamas is shocking and utterly inconsistent with what he is asking the Government to do in respect of other issues. Women were raped and subsequently murdered on 7 October. Children were killed or abducted. I saw the Deputy in a clip where he tried to protest that he did not quite know what happened that day. He was on a university platform. His position is absolutely reprehensible. He condones murder-----

-----because the Deputy is accusing the Government of dancing around. We are not dancing around anything. We have a strong record internationally. When we go before courts, they are not debating chambers. They are not places where you can dance around. Because that is the sum total of the substance that you bring to this issue. You dance around all the time. You accuse others of not participating. You accuse others of being complicit in crime. It seems that your main aim is to try to undermine other parties in this House-----

-----as opposed to dealing with the substance of the issue, namely, how we can help Palestinians in a practical sense.

Deputy Howlin's question is valid. The Israelis may very well ignore the provisional findings of the court. That is a concern and that is why, parallel with dealing with the court case - which we will and which we will do properly as we have done in terms of the advisory opinion with the UN, we will be participating at the court in February. Through international pressure, we have to get this war stopped because too many children are dying in Gaza. I condemn that too. I condemn what is going on in Gaza. I condemn the continuing bombardment of Gazans that is resulting in innocent women and children being killed. There is a consistency to the Government's approach. We will do it properly.

I apologise for being late. I thought the schedule would run on a bit longer. Will the Tánaiste update the House on the negotiations for new membership of the EU, which will include Ukraine, and the implications this will have for institutional arrangements such as membership of the Commission, qualified majority voting and so on?

I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 74 together.

Ireland is a strong supporter of EU enlargement, provided that candidate countries meet the necessary conditions for membership. The enlargement of the European Union has taken on renewed significance and urgency since Russia's further illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and has re-emerged as one of the EU's most important means of consolidating security and prosperity across the Continent and countering malign actors. The invasion of Ukraine has also highlighted the clear need for continuing and ever-closer co-operation between the EU and its partners in the western Balkans and eastern partnership regions.

EU accession negotiations featured heavily in December's General Affairs Council, which reiterated the Council's commitment to an enlargement model centred on fair and rigorous conditionality, as well as the principle of own merits and reversibility. The General Affairs Council called on aspiring members to step up their reform efforts, notably in the areas of rule of law, fundamental rights and justice reform, in line with the merit-based nature of the accession process and with the assistance of the European Union. Council members underlined the crucial importance of further deepening co-operation on foreign policy issues, and the Union's expectation of partners to align fully with the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy. They also stressed the importance of the Union, in parallel, laying the necessary internal groundwork and reforms to facilitate an enlarged European Union. In this context, the Council took note of the Commission's communication on the recently proposed new growth plan for the western Balkans which aims to accelerate socioeconomic convergence between the western Balkans and the European Union.

The subsequent December European Council meeting saw historic decisions to open accession negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova and grant candidate status to Georgia, as well as a clear signal that the European Union is ready to open accession negotiations with Bosnia and Herzegovina once the necessary degree of compliance with the membership criteria has been met. These were the correct decisions, based on the Commission's recommendations published in its annual package of enlargement reports. The Commission has committed itself to undertake further reporting in March on each country's continued progress as regards European Union reforms. It is my hope that this will facilitate additional steps in each country's European Union perspective.

The Granada declaration adopted by leaders on 6 October 2023 noted that the European Union needs to prepare in parallel with candidates for enlargement. Ireland's position is that we see the value of greater use of qualified majority voting for decision-making in certain limited circumstances where it would make decision-making more efficient and where the treaties make allowance for it. Further, there are current mechanisms that could be used to streamline decision-making while preserving the national interests of member states without necessitating treaty change, such as constructive abstentionism, the Passerelle Clauses, the emergency brake procedure and the Ioannina mechanism. The intention of the Commission to undertake a series of pre-enlargement policy reviews is welcome to see how the European Union's policies, budgets and institutions may need to be adapted to a larger Union. This will be an important exercise to inform this future discussion.

It is important that any changes in European Union institutional arrangements serve to facilitate EU enlargement and not to impede it. Likewise, it is important that candidate countries seize the current momentum on enlargement by continuing to make rapid and meaningful progress on accession reforms. Ireland will continue to support the enlargement process strongly and offer any practical assistance it can to candidate countries engaged in accession negotiations.

I thank the Tánaiste and I welcome the Government's position on this. On a matter of clarification, when the Tánaiste mentioned the conventional requirements of membership will apply is it expected that in a wartime society, which is the reality in Ukraine, the same standards will apply or will the system make some allowance for the challenges of that environment? Where is it envisaged that there would be change in the institutional arrangement to meet the fact there will be a much larger membership, will all the changes being envisaged be within the existing treaties?

People have been struck by the pace of Ukrainian reforms. In particular, the Commission has been very struck by the speed and degree to which Ukraine has gotten its act together in respect of many of the areas that had been identified by the Commission as requiring reform. Overall, I have a geopolitical view - I have been one of the strongest advocates earlier on at European Council meetings and as Taoiseach - that we should make sure we push strongly for Ukrainian accession to the European Union. The geopolitical issues piece is important because vacuums develop in states. Too many countries have been left hanging out there for far too long, such as North Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro and others which have made significant reforms. Very often what happens is the supportive population becomes less supportive as accession has not progressed. Ideally, we would favour changes within the existing treaty in terms of how the Union works in the context of enlargement. It would be more effective and efficient to do it that way but others are not ruling out treaty change.

George, the ambassador, is on everybody's speed dial at this stage. I know Georgia is at a different level to Moldova and Ukraine in terms of its pathway but it is making an enormous effort, both at political and civic level. We have met many representatives in Tbilisi. Are we at a positive place with regard to a possible embassy in Tbilisi?

In respect of Deputy Bruton's question, at the December European Council meeting it was decided to open accession negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova and to grant candidate status to Georgia. There was a clear signal to open negotiations with Bosnia and Herzegovina. Ukraine is proceeding rapidly and various timelines have been given. As for 2027 that would be very fast and that is the Ukrainian perspective. However, it is moving at pace and we will see steady progress with respect to Ukraine.

On Georgia, yes granting candidate status was significant. Georgia does need to do reforms. I met the foreign minister and there is work to be done there. As for Deputy McHugh's question about the embassy it is my view that we need to create a stronger footprint in the neighbourhood, both in the western Balkans in particular and in the eastern neighbourhood. Yes, I would favour - over time - having resident embassies.

Last week the Taoiseach and the Chinese Premier met. There was the result of a fantastic decision on behalf of Irish farmers that access for Irish beef was re-established into the Chinese market. However, there are major issues with China. We have millions of people in the Xinjiang province who are being treated barbarically by the Chinese regime. We have democracy within Hong Kong being completely flattened, with political activists, journalists and anybody standing up for democracy being jailed en masse. What is the Government doing in terms of its discussions with the Chinese Premier to make sure human rights are front and centre of our objectives?

Premier Li Qiang visited Ireland on 16 and 17 January, at the request of the Chinese authorities. The premier paid a courtesy call on President Higgins before being welcomed by the Taoiseach at Farmleigh House for a bilateral meeting and a lunch, which was also attended by a number of Ministers, including myself.

Meetings covered a range of topics including bilateral relations, human rights, European Union-China relations, multilateral engagement and regional and international issues. Premier Li expressed interest in growing relations, including in trade, green low-carbon development and sustainable agriculture. He announced the resumption of beef exports to China and a 15-day visa waiver to Irish passport holders travelling to China.

The Taoiseach communicated Ireland’s priorities for our relationship with China and recalled the values which underpin our engagement, including the global multilateral system. He welcomed the recent European Union-China Summit and set out the desire of the European Union, and Ireland, for a balanced, reciprocal trade relationship with China and a level playing field for Irish and EU businesses. The Taoiseach made clear that derisking is not decoupling.

The Taoiseach and President Higgins set out Ireland's long-held concerns around human rights. The Taoiseach raised concerns about the treatment of minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang, the national security law in Hong Kong and the case of Jimmy Lai. The Taoiseach also raised Russia's war in Ukraine and the conflict in the Middle East. A discussion on climate took place with agreement on the need to work in partnership to face this global challenge.

Ireland will continue to raise human rights concerns in our bilateral engagement with China as well as at multilateral forums. Earlier this week, Ireland delivered a statement at the Universal Periodic Review of China at the UN Human Rights Council, which focused on repression of civil society and freedom of expression, including in Hong Kong, the treatment of ethnic groups in Tibet and Xinjiang, and LGBTQI+ rights.

It is difficult to overstate the human rights crisis in China. It is estimated that more than 1 million Uyghurs have been put into re-education camps in China since 2014. Subjects there suffer torture, women are forcibly sterilised, women have forced birth control and forced abortions, and products are being made in slavery situations, with many such products finding their way into western society.

Mr. Pat Leahy reported in The Irish Times last week that the Irish Government’s approach to these issues in terms of raising human rights was very weak. He stated that one person he spoke to in the diplomatic corps said off the record that they "are mentioned briefly, essentially to allow us to say we have raised them. The Chinese know to expect it and move on quickly." Another diplomat said there was a "bit of a dance" and that, if the Irish mention human rights, the Chinese say they are in favour of them and everyone then gets down to business. Is that the truth? Is it the case that, in reality, we have a veneer of a discussion on the issue of human rights or is it a core objective of the Irish Government to ensure people in China are protected?

No, that is not the truth. I was in China in November. I met Mr. Wang Yi. We had an extended conversation on Xinjiang. Ireland is very concerned about the situation in Xinjiang and about reports of the treatment of ethnic and religious groups in the region. We welcomed the publication in 2022 of the assessment by the then High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding human rights concerns in Xinjiang and called on China to implement its recommendations and the subsequent special procedure’s recommendations. I raised that specific report with Mr. Wang Yi, both in Munich last year and in November, and we had a lengthy discussion on the issue. It was not a mention or a reference but a lengthy discussion. China robustly refutes the assertions, so it has no issue with discussing them. The idea we just mention them as if we are afraid to do so is not the case. China has its assertive position on all of these issues and we disagree. We were endeavouring to push home Ms Michelle Bachelet’s report. China dismissed that.

What the Deputy described is not in any shape or form a fair, accurate or true depiction of what transpires. Only this week, we again intervened on the Universal Periodic Review.

I understand that another diplomat, when he heard a report that the issue of human rights was mentioned, wondered how he had missed it because he had not noticed it at the meetings. The two pieces of evidence we have heard today are in contradiction.

The US has moved to ban imports from Xinjiang and to stop slave labour products made by Uyghurs from being sold in the US. The EU proposed to do the same but has still not done so. Whatever about the argument about how strong or weak the Government’s presentation on human rights in those meetings is, what material step has it taken to ensure we do not accept products from forced Uyghur labour into this country? Why is the EU on the back foot? Is it the case that commercial interests are more important on balance than human rights in China?

Contrary to what the Deputy says, Europe has taken a strong position on this. It has also reframed its relationship with China in terms of the derisking approach, ensuring economic resilience at home within Europe and ensuring there are no vulnerable dependencies. In a speech to the Royal Irish Academy last year, I outlined Ireland’s position on the derisking situation and that we had to be clear-eyed in our relationship with China.

There is a strong economic relationship between Europe and China. The world is now interdependent. Globalisation has been a phenomenon for more than two decades. It may modify, but it is not going to change any time soon. The idea of just dismissing economics and trade relationships is fanciful. They are a reality.

We must do everything we possibly can to avoid importation from anywhere in the world any goods and services that have child labour underpinning their manufacture. One of the most effective approaches the EU is seeking to take is to determine how one can go into these areas and develop them effectively. Ms Bachelet did a report and we have been strongly supportive of it. In the Universal Periodic Review of China, we highlighted people’s treatment. We went public on that. It is on the record.

President Putin deals with his political opponents either by poisoning them or imprisoning them. In the case of Mr. Alexei Navalny, he did both. He had him poisoned in August 2020 and imprisoned in January 2021. I am conscious of the limited powers we as a country have, but what are the views of the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs in respect of the ongoing detention of Mr. Navalny and other political prisoners in Russia?

I thank the Deputy for raising this important question. We are deeply concerned by the ongoing erosion of human rights in Russia – it is shocking – and the persecution of individuals for exercising their personal freedoms, including the rights to freedom of opinion, expression and peaceful assembly. The arbitrary arrest, prosecution and sentencing of Mr. Alexei Navalny and the subsequent instrumentalisation of the court system against him raise obvious and serious questions about the rule of law and the protection of human rights in Russia. Mr. Navalny continues to serve politically motivated sentences amounting to more than 30 years and endures persistent ill treatment, with great risks to his life. On 17 January, High Representative Borrell issued a statement on behalf of the EU calling for his immediate and unconditional release and condemning in the strongest possible terms all politically motivated rulings against Mr. Navalny for actions that constitute legitimate political and anti-corruption activities.

The decision in January 2024 to move Mr. Navalny to one of the most remote penal colonies in Siberia is a stark indication of attempts to further silence him ahead of the upcoming presidential elections as well as a broader trend towards stifling a wider political discourse that has intensified since Russia began its aggression against Ukraine.

Ireland and the EU have called for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners in Russia, including Mr. Yuri Dimitriev, Mr. Vladimir Kara-Murza, Mr. Ilya Yashin and several others. We also highlighted the situation of three lawyers defending Mr. Navalny who, last November, were added to Russia’s list of terrorists and extremists. They remain in pre-trial detention and face up to six years of imprisonment. Lawyers have a fundamental role in upholding the rule of law and the human rights of defendants. We will continue to work with international partners to keep pressure on the Russian Government to uphold the rule of law and protect human rights.

I commend the Deputy on raising this matter, as not too many others in the House have.

I thank the Tánaiste and welcome his response. It is also important we point out that, in February 2021, the European Court of Human Rights directed that Mr. Navalny should be released immediately. Of course, that direction was completely ignored by President Putin and the Russian regime.

It is important we keep highlighting the continued detention of individuals in Russia who are detained simply because of their political beliefs. Many of us with an interest in history look back at the Stalinist period and wonder how that happened and what the West did in response. Part of the defence people put forward is that they were not aware of the extent of the Stalinist crimes at the time, but we are fully aware of the type of regime that is being operated by President Putin. Although Ireland has a limited and small voice, it is extremely important we continue to express that voice and our opinion in opposition to the detention of people for their political opinions.

Sometimes, we take for granted the freedom we have in this country to express our political opinions. Other people in other countries would give their left arms for that. It is important the Tánaiste continues to express the concern this country has over human rights treatment in Russia.

I agree 100%. The Deputy is correct about the European Court of Human Rights granting interim measures in February 2021 on behalf of Mr. Navalny. In January and February of 2021, there were mass detentions and scenes of police violence across Russia during peaceful protests that were linked to Mr. Navalny’s arrest and imprisonment. Other domestic opposition leaders have been arrested and prosecuted on politically motivated charges. Legislation has been introduced to essentially shut down civil society in Russia.

I have noticed in this House and elsewhere that we hear a lot of whataboutery when it comes to Russia and Ukraine.

I have noticed it in the House and elsewhere in the debate. Here is a deeply repressive regime on a par with anything that happened in the past. The Deputy mentioned the Stalinist era. There is no question that Russia is a consolidated authoritarian regime where power is concentrated in the hands of Vladimir Putin. That is articulated in the 2023 study by Freedom House.

I am conscious we are limited in what we can do but the Russian people are suffering as a result of this regime. Historically, I do not think any people have suffered as much as the Russian people. They had 300 years of the tsars and the Romanovs, then they had 70 years of deranged Marxist-Leninists who controlled their thoughts and their operation, and that has been followed by 25 years of a dictator. We are limited in what we can do. All we can do is express our support for political opposition. People have to be allowed to express political opposition. It is great to be part of a country in which we have vigorous opposition and political debate. When you get to the stage where a political leader is not prepared to hear opposition, let alone countenance opposition taking control, that is when we have to speak against it. All we can do, and I commend the Tánaiste on doing it, is speak out and remind people of it. We live in a world of so many atrocities and issues of concern that people like Alexei Navalny can be forgotten about unless people in this House raise his case.

I commend the Deputy on raising it because the level of repression in Russia is extraordinary yet it does not excite the public anger in this country that it should. Civil society is shut down, media is suppressed and no one can speak out against the leadership. Politicians are arrested and lawyers defending people are arrested and just put into jail. That is why there was an exodus from Russia of many people of a liberal disposition. They simply got out of Russia, which is doubly depressing in that it copper-fastens the regime and the absence of any articulation of issues that might be contrary to the views of the President of Russia. That is what makes its invasion of Ukraine more sensitive and why the people of Lithuania and Latvia see this as an existential issue.

I wish to give the Tánaiste an opportunity to comment on the current situation in Sudan, the third largest country in Africa, with 49 million people there needing aid at the moment, 7.5 million displaced and tens of thousands killed in the ongoing war. Will the Tánaiste comment on that situation and Ireland's and Europe's reaction to it?

We are very concerned. What is going on in Sudan is shocking. It is a further illustration of how proxy wars are taking place across the world and malign influences are resulting in wars of this kind, which cause immense suffering for people. The people of Sudan are suffering hugely. The situation in Sudan has not received the attention it should because of everything else happening in the world, in Ukraine and the Middle East, for example.

We have provided aid and support. At the meeting on Monday of the EU Foreign Affairs Council, we had a discussion with the Arab states in respect of Sudan, particularly with Egypt, which gave us a good readout of what is happening there. Efforts are still being made within the African Union to try to bring this to a conclusion but there are no signs yet of any cessation or ceasefire. The prospect of potential regional escalation is very real. That relates to our migration debates. As long as there are wars and conflicts of this kind and jihadism arriving on the scene in other countries, in the Sahel and other areas, there will be people who want to save their families and get out of these horrible situations.

I thank the Tánaiste for his comment. Will the Tánaiste inform the House with respect to the sanctions put in place by the European Union to try to influence the awful civil war in Sudan whether there are plans to increase the sanctions on both sides? Will he comment on the alleged war crimes committed by both sides? Would he like to comment on the recent issue that Sudan has left the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, IGAD, which was set up to promote development among countries in that part of Africa?

We continually review our sanctions at EU level. I foresee further sanctions and we will continue support and aid. It is deteriorating rapidly. There are two opposing forces and it is becoming increasingly bitter. We will work with the African Union and other powers to try to bring stability and get a resolution. The European Union will do everything it can to bring stability with the neighbouring states of Sudan. That covers all three areas of sanctions, support aid and political resolution.

I understand these wars are being financed and that very complex financial networks are involved. Has any effort been made by the European Union to investigate these networks and intervene to stop the money driving these wars? The Tánaiste mentioned these were proxy wars, which leads to the question who is behind it. What countries are fighting this proxy war on both sides? Who is supporting the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudan army? Will the Tánaiste comment on the impact on the seven neighbouring countries? They are now putting up with and having to deal with refugees fleeing Sudan. As I said, 7.5 million people are displaced. Will the Tánaiste also comment on the aid needed? From what I have read, about 49 million people need aid in Sudan at the moment.

The conflict puts millions in peril due to starvation and famine. Ireland has supported various UN funds to ensure immediate aid gets in but also to ensure humanitarian corridors are created to facilitate aid to Sudan. These are also resource wars with people waging war with a view to getting their hands on resources. The link between this and migration is very strong. The neighbouring countries are feeling the pressure hugely. We just passed the Egyptian-European Union stabilisation agreement again, which will involve stronger supports for Egypt to deal with the migration issues, for example. Egypt has a stabilising role in that region in respect of migration. It takes people in. It is arguable that it may need stronger support from the European Union to enable it to deal with the resources issue.

I handed the Tánaiste a letter this week from Zak Hania's wife. He is an Irish citizen trapped in Gaza and is not being allowed out by Israel. She is appealing to the Tánaiste to assist him. Two other Irish citizens contacted me who are also trapped. They are in effect being held hostage by Israel. I want to know what the Government is doing to try to get them out and what it has said to the Israelis or European counterparts about the fact Israel is preventing Irish citizens from leaving the horror of Gaza. I also sent the Tánaiste an extensive list of people who are citizens of Ireland with family in Gaza who are appealing for assistance from the Government to allow them to exit the horror of Gaza. What is the Government doing on that?

Regarding the specific people, I will do everything I can to get people out of Gaza and that means engaging with the Israeli authorities. Our ambassador in Israel has engaged repeatedly with Israeli authorities and that resulted in very substantial numbers of Irish citizens and their dependants getting out of Gaza. If you had your way, nobody would get out of Gaza.