Mr. Colm O'Gorman:

First, to clarify a couple of issues, we are not unconvinced of the work of the Human Rights Council. Our criticisms are for the Security Council, particularly the repeated use of the veto without any explanation, clarification or justification by some of the permanent members of the Security Council in situations in which there are significant concerns and in situations in which there is clear evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity. That is why we have called repeatedly for a Security Council reform that would at least see members of the Security Council having to account for their use of the veto and in some way be required to justify their use of the veto. I do not know whether any of the permanent members of the Security Council has supported the proposal that has come forward. I will check and come back to Deputy Smith on it. The proposal that they should voluntarily agree not to use the veto in such circumstances is a positive one and one that we certainly support.

On the Human Rights Council, our concern is that, too often, the reports of independent commissions, such as the Goldstone report into the situation in Gaza and in Israel, become politicised within the Human Rights Council. It is the nature of the council that certain issues can be highly politicised and then the council becomes increasingly ineffective. That is why we made that call for the council to not politicise or permit the politicisation of the latest commission of inquiry report and to engage with that and make clear recommendations and input around proper accountability for the crimes against humanity and war crimes that have been identified.

On Gaza, I have now been in this role for eight years and one of the first meetings I ever had with another government was an engagement with the Israeli embassy. I can remember at that time articulating Amnesty's position that the blockade on Gaza was an effective form of collective punishment of a population of 2 million people. That has not changed. Let us remember why the UN Security Council was established. Its purpose, after all, is to guarantee peace and security. Of course, one can never ensure that there is complete peace and security, but it is a significant issue when we see the escalation of conflicts across the world and when we see entrenched conflicts, such as the situation in Gaza and in that part of world, where the failure of the Security Council, particularly its permanent members, to act objectively to discharge their mandate is undoubtedly a significant part of the reason such conflicts rattle on. Gaza, with a population of 2 million, is half the size of County Tipperary and is blockaded into a space. I remember talking to a former Israeli ambassador in 2009. He denied that there was a humanitarian crisis in Gaza but said the situation was very difficult and that that was how it needed to be so that Israel would be safe. It is a tacit acceptance of collective punishment, and yet we have not seen any accountability for that, which, in itself, is a violation of international humanitarian law.

On the refugee crisis, the UNHRC has made it clear that there are more than 1 million refugees. It is the largest refugee crisis since the Second World War. There has been a failure to properly get to grips with that crisis. This is the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade. If we look at what is happening in the Mediterranean, only this year finally did we see some focus on the issue and, thankfully, the reinstatement of a humanitarian mission in the Mediterranean. One must remember that, until the latest round of tragedies, some European governments were saying they did not want search and rescue missions, because if people believed they might be rescued more of them might take to the seas, and that would be a pull factor for refugees trying to cross the Mediterranean. It is extraordinary that we live in a time when it seems necessary to remind governments that people have a right to protection and that states have a responsibility to provide protection to refugees. We can look, for instance, at the disproportionate spend by the EU on border protection versus reception for refugees. We looked at push-backs in Greece, which, as a front-line country, along with others, is coming under particular pressure because of the refugee crisis. In 2013 the EU provided €220 million for border protection in Greece and less than €20 million for reception.

That, in and of itself, says something about the European Union's attitude at the time to refugees and the refugee crisis. There was a desire to keep out the refugees rather than discharge our responsibility.

We have been calling repeatedly for the search-and-rescue and humanitarian missions since Mare Nostrum was stood down. It took an incredible loss of life in the first couple of months of this year for EU member states and the Union as a whole to act and put back in place a search-and-rescue mission. It is fair to commend Ireland on its role in that regard and the conduct of the LE Eithneand its crew over recent months. The crew have saved countless lives and are to be commended for it. In reality, the solution lies in providing safe and legal access routes for people seeking protection in Europe. That includes engaging in countries of departure.