Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Jun 2024

Will the Tánaiste confirm to the Dáil whether it is really the Government's intention to support today the reappointment of Ursula von der Leyen as the President of the European Commission considering her actions in supporting unequivocally the State of Israel in its ongoing assault on Palestine and grievous breaches of international law?

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. At the informal European Council meeting on 17 June, leaders reflected on the outcome of the European Parliament elections and focused on the new EU institutional cycle, which included the position of President of the European Commission. There was an acknowledgement that the outcome of the European elections should be respected and reflected in the composition of the senior positions. President von der Leyen was the lead candidate of the European People’s Party and that party was returned as the largest single political grouping in the European Parliament. An arrangement has been agreed between three of the major groups. There may be an additional group joining involving the socialist group and the Renew Europe Group. The anticipation is that this will result in President von der Leyen emerging as the candidate for a second term as President of the European Commission; António Costa as the chair of the Council; and Kaja Kallas as the High Representative.

At the meeting of the European Council on 27 and 28 June, Ireland will support the nomination of President von der Leyen for a second term as President of the European Commission. The European Parliament must then approve that nomination. I believe Ireland and the EU have been well served by President von der Leyen in her first term. She has been a strong advocate for the protection of Irish interests throughout the Brexit process. I am sure the Deputy would acknowledge that himself, and his party did so at the time. President von der Leyen also provided important leadership in the European Union and support to Ireland during Covid-19. She has provided consistent leadership on the European Union's multifaceted response to Russia's aggression in Ukraine. As I have said previously, I did not agree with President von der Leyen's response to the conflict in Gaza and Israel. There is now a better understanding and there has been a significant change across the Commission of the perspective of Ireland and like-minded member states, including by President von der Leyen. The EU's policy now includes a call for an immediate ceasefire, the unconditional release of hostages and full, safe and unhindered humanitarian access, in line with Ireland's priorities.

I find the Tánaiste's statement deeply cynical and worrying, to be quite frank. To say that Ireland and the EU have been well served by the Presidency of Ursula von der Leyen shows disregard for the seriousness of her actions in giving unequivocal cover for an unfolding genocide. Yes, Ursula von der Leyen did the right things on Brexit and, by and large, on Covid. However, what she did in greenlighting the blatant disregard for every norm of international humanitarian law of the UN Charter when she stood alongside the leader of the State of Israel and said Europe stood with Israel at a time when it had announced it was going to starve the people of Gaza of electricity, food and water goes beyond anything else. There is nothing else we can put alongside that in her CV. I have to say again that the Government should not be supporting her nomination.

First, I acknowledge the Deputy's acknowledgement of President von der Leyen's role in Brexit. It should not be understated. I believe the Deputy's party was very supportive of President von der Leyen at the time in respect of the role of the Commission with regard to Brexit and its impact on Ireland, and, indeed, on Northern Ireland in particular and all of the issues relating to the Good Friday Agreement. I also make the point that, in terms of the realpolitik of Europe, the far right is complaining as well about what is emerging from the EU Council. President von der Leyen is seen, across the board, as a very competent president, and has been for four years. I think President von der Leyen got it wrong in respect of Gaza but Europe is divided on Gaza. The European Union has different perspectives. What has happened since the beginning of the war is that people's positions have changed. People's positions have moved for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in line with Ireland's priorities. We have used our persuasion and advocacy for Palestine very effectively at the European Union. We have not been stymied in that advocacy for the Palestinian cause and that has resulted in the recognition of Palestine by a number of EU states, such as Slovenia, Ireland and Spain.

The Tánaiste says that Europe is divided. Yes, there are two sides within Europe in respect of the approach to Palestine and Israel. There is the side that it is in full, unequivocal support of international law and there is the other side, which is represented by Ursula von der Leyen, that is willing to turn a blind eye to international law in a way that will have dire consequences for humanity in the years to come. However, what Ireland is doing today is turning sides and saying that we are going to support the nomination of somebody who, even to this day, is blocking a review of the EU-Israel association agreement. The Tánaiste says the discussions will take place reflecting on the European elections that have just taken place. I do not know how he can say that with a straight face considering his candidates campaigned in the European election, and many of them were elected, on the basis that they would not support Ursula von der Leyen's nomination. For him then as party leader, Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to say because of others things she has done, we are going to completely ignore the fact that she gave a green light to a genocide that continues to unfold and to undermine the role of the multilateral institutions-----

When I say that the European Parliament elections should be respected and reflected in the composition of the senior positions, the bottom line is that the European People's Party, EPP, was returned as the largest single political group, followed by the socialist group and the liberal group. Just as in the aftermath of a Dáil election, parties get together and make decisions. That is what has happened here. There is a balance here. It is not one side or the other. There are multiple sides in the European Union with different perspectives and there is a wide spectrum. The socialist group, through António Costa, is expected to get the President of the European Council, replacing Charles Michel. The liberal group, through the Prime Minister of Estonia, is signalled to get the post of High Representative. President von der Leyen, as the lead candidate of the European People's Party, is to get the job of President of the Commission. That is a reflection and the manifestation of what transpired in the election.

There are other groupings. The ECR is annoyed, but I am sure its views are not views Deputy Carthy would agree with. That is the reality of the situation. We must now focus on making sure that Europe in all its institutions is competent and coherent over the next five years, with a proper balance of perspectives and views, as reflected by the multiparty system there.

As we approach the tenth month of the conflict in Gaza, the utmost priority remains the need for an immediate ceasefire, the release of hostages held by Hamas in Gaza, and full, safe and unhindered humanitarian access.

I welcome the three-phase ceasefire plan outlined by President Biden at the beginning of this month. This has since been endorsed by the UN Security Council in UN Security Council Resolution 2735. The need for the international community, including the European Union, to exert meaningful pressure on all parties to accept and implement the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 2735 was a key focus of my discussions with my EU counterparts earlier this week.

Ireland's engagement with all partners, including the United States, has consistently focused on the obligation of all states to comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law. This was a key message conveyed by the Taoiseach to President Biden in March of this year and remains a central focus of our ongoing engagement with the United States.

Consistent with concerns that I have been raising for several months, there is a growing body of reporting and evidence indicating that breaches of international humanitarian law, by both Hamas and Israel, are continuing with impunity. The International Court of Justice has ordered Israel to immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. The ICJ has also ordered Israel to open the Rafah crossing to allow for the entry of humanitarian aid.

It is, therefore, incumbent on all of our partners, including the United States, to consider their obligations and responsibilities under international humanitarian law. In my view weaponry should not be sent to Israel until we have an immediate humanitarian ceasefire.

International law has gone out the door. In the past ten months, over 45,000 people have been murdered by the Israeli state, including 15,000 children. It is hard to believe. What we see daily on our news screens is almost impossible to comprehend. This is akin to what the Nazis were doing in occupied Europe. Joe Biden was welcomed with open arms in this country, in some ways embarrassingly. His hands are dripping with blood because 70% of all arms that go to the State of Israel come from the United States, 25% comes from Germany and the rest is from elsewhere. The bombs raining down on children have nothing to do with this conflict, are being made in the USA and are killing innocent people. America is called the land of the free and yet it stands for the out-and-out destruction of the people of Palestine. How can this Government make a stand against what is happening in Gaza?

There is no doubt that there have been breaches of international humanitarian law and it continues on a systemic basis by Israel and by Hamas. I note the Deputy has not called out Hamas in his comments. I think he should do so because it could also lay down arms right now and contribute very significantly to a ceasefire. It could release the hostages. We need to be equally strong in calling on Hamas to lay down its arms and to release the hostages. It is unconscionable that people going about their daily lives can be captured and taken as hostages in situations like this.

The commission of inquiry report by the UN human rights office - the Volker Türk report - in its presentation to the Human Rights Council confirms what the Deputy and others have said about the violations and reported continued breaches of international humanitarian law and international human rights law by all parties. That has likewise been confirmed further by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights who published a detailed report on 19 June, which strongly indicates that the Israeli Defense Forces have systematically failed to comply with several fundamental principles of international humanitarian law in its conduct of the hostilities in Gaza since 7 October.

I want to see all hostages released. We all want to see peace and a settlement in the Middle East. The Minister may not agree with this, but those resisting Israeli occupation in Gaza and the West Bank have a right to engage with the Israeli Defense Forces. They have a right because they are being occupied, murdered and slaughtered. It is an incredible statistic, but since 7 October $23 billion worth of American armaments have gone to Israel. It is unbelievable. We have not seen this level of destruction since the Second World War. There are 1,000 pound bombs being dropped in suburban areas. Phosphorous is being used in south Lebanon. These are war crimes against the ordinary people. How can the civilised world, including Ireland, stand and say it can do nothing about this? Of course, we can do something. Has the Minister spoken with his counterpart from the United States? Has he spoken with the US ambassador to say this destruction has to stop and it is not in our name. We want peace and a settlement to this issue.

I have repeatedly condemned the bombardment of Gaza. We in Ireland have taken a number of steps to move towards a political pathway and a ceasefire. We have worked with the Arab partners like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Qatar and others to try to develop a peace process and a proper peace initiative. They have published that. We have engaged with them and also with the European Union to get that advanced and to support the humanitarian side of the equation. Ireland has been quite effective with regard to the UNRWA and support for the Palestinian Authority and Prime Minister Mustafa. We have also worked and engaged with the Americans on that ceasefire and political approach. As the Deputy knows, this is a complex issue that goes back decades. There has been a historic link between the United States and Israel. We may not agree with the unconditional support that flows from the United States to Israel. Likewise, some European Union states have historic connections because of what happened in the Second World War. However, in our view, in the current context people should view this through the prism of international humanitarian law.

I acknowledge the tremendous efforts of the Passport Office staff, particularly at this time of the year. Will the Minister tell me the number of passport applications on hand for various lengths of time? What measures are his Department and the Passport Office enacting to ensure there is a speedy processing of all applications during these peak summer months?

I thank the Deputy for acknowledging the performance of the Passport Office and the passport service.

The passport service has issued more than 625,000 passports this year. Virtually all complete passport applications are being processed within or before advertised turnaround times with the majority of adult online renewal applications issuing within two working days. There currently no backlogs and 95% of applicants apply through passport online. The passport service is well-staffed to meet the current level of demand. In terms of the specific numbers requested by the Deputy, 169 applications are with the passport service for more than three months, 85 applications are with the passport service for more than six months, and 65 applications are with the passport service for more than 12 months. This makes a total of 319 applications that have been with the passport service for more than three months. These are complex or sensitive cases that may involve citizenship, guardianship or legal issues. These require thorough examination by experienced staff and can take longer to process. There are often multiple interactions between the passport service and the applicant or their guardians during this time, as well as with other Departments and agencies if required. These complex cases are dealt with by a dedicated case officer and are prioritised for processing once the application is complete.

There are in addition more than 25,000 applications in the system for three months or more that require action from the applicant. Once the applicant has submitted their application online, they may still be required to submit supporting documentation to complete their application. The passport service issues more than 2,500 emails per week to remind applicants to submit their documents.

I have put on the record of this House on a number of occasions that when the passport service works, it works incredibly well. We have all heard people describe their surprise with the speed at which a renewed passport in particular arrives through their letterbox. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that there are incidences where there are problems. The particular issue about which I am contacted, as I am sure TDs are across the House, is when an honest mistake is made. It usually relates to either a photograph or a wrong date being put on a submission relating to verification of a child's identity. When that happens it appears that not only does the application go to the back of the queue, but that it will take the entire estimated length of time. That is deeply unfair because in many instances people will have submitted in good time for whatever travel plans they have. Has the Tánaiste discussed that particular issue with the Passport Office with a view to streamlining that process?

We keep the whole service under constant review. The passport service is in third place in the Henley global passport index as it provides our citizens with visa-free access to 193 countries. We are up there as one of the best passport services in the world. We ran a multimedia campaign again this year reminding citizens to apply for their passports on time and online. The successful campaign focused on the benefits of applying online and encouraged citizens to check their passports in advance of booking foreign travel in 2024.

I turn to the issue of photographs, dates and the use of An Garda. Fundamental to that rating is the integrity of the Irish passport. That cannot be taken lightly. It has to be taken seriously because we have a strong international reputation. The witnessing of passport forms is a vital element of the identity verification process. We have taken moves in the past to remove areas that could be a block. Civil registration of births and so on became seamlessly integrated into our system. We continually review to make it better.

Everybody values the Irish passport. It is one of many people's most prized possessions, particularly those who have had to leave our country and move elsewhere. It is a source of pride to display the passport with the harp anywhere in the world and see the value that is attached to it by others. It is also an entitlement of every Irish citizen to have a passport, and there is a responsibility on the State to provide one. As I have acknowledged, for most people particularly when it comes to renewals the experience with the Passport Office is a positive one. However, it has to be acknowledged that there are issues every year. I am regularly contacted by people about issues, and I am sure it is the same for the Tánaiste and his Deputies. Their phones are probably buzzing daily with different passport issues. Again, the Passport Office can be supportive of emergency cases or those that need an extra eye. However, the truth is that people should not have to contact their politician in order to get a passport. There should be a mechanism to secure passports in an urgent manner rather than an emergency manner, when people have to travel, need a passport quickly and there is an anomaly. There has to be a mechanism. I have raised this a number of times, but it does not seem to be addressed.

To be fair, the passport service has a system in place whereby applications do not go to the back of the queue, to respond to a previous question, following a request for further documents. When the passport service receives the required additional documentation from the applicant, the application is prioritised for checking and, as a result, does not go to the back of the queue. Online applications for which additional photos are requested are processed within a maximum of ten working days of receipt of the new photo. All other requests for further documents are processed within 15 working days of receipt of the additional documents for both paper and online applications.

As the Deputy knows, we do get calls, although the vast majority of people put up their hands, say they have made an awful mistake and that they cannot believe what they have done, and ask whether we can do anything for them. There is the one-day appointment service counter, where applications can be turned around in a day for urgent issues that arise when people make those mistakes.

I am sure the Tánaiste and the Minister of State have been tracking the concerning developments on the Lebanon-Israel border. Will they update the House on what contingency plans are in place, or what planning has been done, for any potential evacuation of Irish citizens from Lebanon in the coming weeks should that scenario materialise?

I thank the Deputy for raising this very important issue. I am deeply concerned by the rising tensions along the Israel-Lebanon border. It is vital all parties work to de-escalate the situation. We strongly support international efforts to mediate a resolution between Israel and Hezbollah. Since October, I have raised my concerns and the need for urgent de-escalation on several occasions with regional leaders and members of the Lebanese Government, including during my visit to Lebanon in May.

My Department has undertaken significant contingency planning to prepare for a possible consular crisis as a result of an escalation in Lebanon. In October, my Department updated its travel advice to strongly advise against all travel to Lebanon. We continue to advise Irish citizens to leave Lebanon by commercial means while it is still possible to do so. We reiterated this advice earlier this week.

The Department has undertaken an extensive review of our citizens' register for Lebanon, including an outreach exercise to establish contact with citizens, confirm their stratus as present in Lebanon and reiterate our travel advice. We are in regular contact with those registered Irish citizens who remain in Lebanon. Of the Irish citizens remaining, many are long-term residents and do not plan to leave unless the situation deteriorates significantly. This does not include Irish military personnel assigned through UN tasking as UNIFIL. An evacuation of civilians, including Irish citizens, from Lebanon is likely to be a complex and difficult operation and will require extensive co-operation with key partners.

My Department is working closely with EU and other partners to exchange information and co-ordinate our consular response to emergencies, including for Lebanon. As part of our contingency planning for the evacuation of Irish citizens from Lebanon, my Department has also been working with colleagues in the United Kingdom, with whom we expect to co-operate closely in the event of an evacuation.

I thank the Tánaiste. I appreciate the response. It is reassuring to know there is a citizens' register in Lebanon. The Tánaiste may not have these details to hand, but approximately how many Irish citizens are there? Are we talking hundreds or thousands?

An interim arrangement is in place in case the Government needs a jet to go to Brussels or wherever, as is completely appropriate. Has consideration been given to extending that interim arrangement to have some kind of aircraft available to get to Beirut if necessary?

In case civilian airspace is closed and only military aircraft are allowed to land in Beirut, has consideration been given to preparing an Air Corps aircraft on the military register to be able to be deployed if appropriate or if it becomes necessary?

On citizens, our advice is clear that people should leave Lebanon. There is an ongoing danger of significant escalation. An estimated 100 Irish citizens and dependants remain in Lebanon, many of whom are long-term residents and, as I said, do not plan to leave unless the situation deteriorates significantly. If it does deteriorate significantly, in essence if there is a war between Hezbollah and Israel, our aircraft options will be very limited, by definition, because that could become a war zone very quickly. Part of the co-ordination and the work that is under way is looking at all mechanisms and approaches that could be taken. That is working with all our partners, such as the Government of Cyprus, which has activated its ESTIA action plan, which puts in place the mechanisms needed for Cyprus to act as a transit hub for third-country nationals fleeing Lebanon, and we also have memorandums of understanding with the UK and other countries. This will be a co-ordinated approach.

As the Tánaiste knows, I always recognise progress when I see it. I recall that some months ago he signed a €68 million contract for a new military transport aircraft, which is being built in Spain as we speak. It was initially expected to be delivered to Baldonnel in 12 months, which was positive enough. I assume that is still on schedule. Does the Tánaiste have an update on it?

It looks as though an escalation is likely to happen, and we should make maximum use of the available time between now and everything kicking off. I am reassured to hear that at least some contingency planning is taking place. In the medium term, it is good that we will have that military transport aircraft, the Airbus C-295, in 12 months but we need to work on some kind of more formal interim arrangement in order that we will not be caught unprepared if something kicks off.

I have no updates on the procurement of that aeroplane, which is on schedule as far as I know, given that I have heard nothing to the contrary. Again, because of the nature of Lebanon and of any attack that could take place if a war happened, it seems the air option would be very limited because of the dangers and so on. The best advice, therefore, that we can give to citizens is to leave through commercial options now while they have the opportunity and to register with us, and we are continuing that outreach with Irish citizens in Lebanon. Of course, many of them have made their lives there and so forth.

Everybody is aware of what could happen and the potential for something happening. There is increased concern now about the possibility, from which, by the way, I would urge both sides to step back. There has been enough killing, death and destruction and it is civilians, such as women and children, who suffer the most. The last thing Lebanon needs now is a war. We are working with EU partners and the United Kingdom to make sure we can get out our citizens.

It is phenomenal, but the chief prosecutor of the ICC has indicated that he is seeking arrest warrants for the Prime Minister and the defence minister of a state, namely Israel, with which we have preferential trading, economic and diplomatic relationships. What actions will Ireland take in the event that the court issues those arrest warrants for the aforementioned ministers?

As the first permanent international court with the power to prosecute international crimes, the ICC has a crucial role to play globally in fighting impunity for atrocity crimes. The court provides a means of bringing to account the perpetrators of these crimes. In this way, it promotes and upholds the international rule of law and contributes to the cause of international peace and justice. Ireland has consistently valued the vital role played by the ICC and has provided strong political, moral, practical and financial support to it since it was established.

The situation in Palestine was first referred to the court prosecutor in 2018. The pretrial chamber confirmed the jurisdiction of the court in 2021 and the prosecutor then opened his investigation into the situation in Palestine. That investigation continues and covers any crimes committed from or in Gaza during the conflict that began there on 7 October.

On 20 May, the ICC prosecutor announced that he had applied to the pretrial chamber for arrest warrants in respect of the situation in Palestine, including warrants for the leadership of Hamas and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and defence minister Gallant. The chamber’s decision remains pending.

As with any case, if, in due course, Ireland were to receive a request for the arrest and surrender of a person who is subject to an ICC arrest warrant, it will be dealt with here under the relevant provisions of the International Criminal Court Act 2006. In this context, let me emphasise the critical importance of respecting the independence and impartiality of the ICC. The Government and I have condemned all recent threats against the court and its officials. It is essential that they be allowed to carry on with the tasks entrusted to them under the statute.

I welcome the Tánaiste's response. He will know that I have been somewhat sceptical and concerned about the apparent slowness of the ICC investigation into what has happened in Gaza in comparison with the apparent haste with which other investigations have proceeded, particularly to the point where arrest warrants were issued.

I agree with the Tánaiste's remarks regarding the need to respect the independence and impartiality. I also agree with him in the context of condemning any threats against the court or its officials from any quarter. It is important, therefore, that we be unequivocal in saying that if the court issues arrest warrants and should any state, particularly the State of Israel, fail to comply, we will take action. Of course, we must ensure the arrest of any person in respect of whom an arrest warrant is issued should they enter the Irish jurisdiction and of any individual who gives them cover. Would there be implications beyond the individuals concerned, in other words, for states which protect those individuals in circumstances where-----

This is challenging for the court. We have long been supportive of the court. Ireland committed additional voluntary funding to the ICC of €3 million to assist it in its work across all situations, including with regard to Palestine. At the Munich security conference earlier this year I met the ICC prosecutor in respect of the challenges the prosecutor and the team face. Ireland also made a voluntary contribution of €3 million to the ICC in 2022. We also make an annual assessed contribution, which this year will be €1.5 million. The ICC needs those resources to pursue cases.

The independence of the court is extremely important. Some countries are not signatories to the court and do not accept its jurisdiction. We do accept its jurisdiction and were one of 93 states party to the Rome Statute to make a joint statement this month reaffirming unwavering support for the court as an independent and impartial judicial institution.

These are challenging times and the ICC faces a challenging situation. It also must be a challenging time for the European Union. I do not know if the EU has ever had a preferential association arrangement with a state whose civilian and military leadership are the subject of ICC arrest warrants. The question has to be asked of European and, indeed, Irish leaders as to how it came to pass that we would have these types of preferential arrangements with a state in respect of which the ICC has, reluctantly perhaps, is advocating the issuing of arrest warrants. We have to outline that this is a serious game-changer in terms of the relationships we have with the State of Israel.

I ask again for the Government to undertake a whole-of-government review, Department by Department, to identify potential sanctions that are within our competency to impose in order to send out a very clear message that not only do we abhor Israel's breaches of international law but that we will also ensure that there are consequences for same.

The EU is quite steadfast and strong in supporting the ICC and in respecting its independence. That was again very evident at the Foreign Affairs Council meeting on Monday. I make the point that, as the Deputy knows, the application for arrest warrants in respect of Prime Minister Netanyahu and defence minister Gallant has elicited a very negative reaction from Israel and the United States. As a direct response, on 3 June the US House of Representative passed the Illegitimate Court Counteraction Bill, which requires that the President impose sanctions on any foreign person and their immediate family members or legal entity that engages with or materially assists the ICC in its investigations. I urge the Deputy and his party to engage with any contacts they may have on Capitol Hill in the US and urge them to refrain from taking this action, which would lead to the independence of the court being terribly undermined. There is a long way to go before that happens. The ICC has called on European member states to implement and apply the EU's blocking statute in respect of the Bill. The blocking statute was last adopted in 1996 in response to US secondary sanctions on Cuba, Iran and Libya. We need to be very vigilant in respect of this matter because the independence of the ICC is essential.