Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I could get it out of the way quickly at the start. I have met the families as the Deputy probably knows. We need to make a decision before 20 June and we will as a Government but we are still waiting on a final piece of advice from the Attorney General's office because this is not a standard or normal appeals process. Anyone who follows this case will know it is a referral process as opposed to an appeals one. It has never happened before. We need to get some legal guidance and that is what we are getting. We will make a decision in the next few weeks. I will be away next week and will miss the Cabinet meeting so it will probably be the following Tuesday.

There were a lot of questions there and I will try to go through them. On Gaza, the Deputy said we need to do something. I agree and that is why I have spent more time on the Middle East peace process than on any other issue outside of Brexit and other EU issues and Northern Ireland. I do not think any other Minister in the European Union has been there three times in nine months. Perhaps there is. We are trying to do as much as we can. What I did not want to do was respond in an emotional way by doing something we would regret a few weeks later because it would limit our capacity to build on the kind of relationships that I and my team have worked hard to try to build in Washington, Ramallah, Jerusalem, Cairo and hopefully in Amman and to try to help to make progress on the broader challenges we face which for the moment is to try to de-escalate the violence taking place and the tragedy on the back of that, particularly for Palestinians.

When one listens to what most parties said last week, with the exception of Sinn Féin and a few others who were calling for the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador and a range of other things, most parties expressed outrage but also said we need to think about how Ireland can contribute in a constructive and positive way and in a way that can help Palestinians who are incredibly vulnerable, particularly in Gaza. They are living in impossible conditions. I was in Gaza in January. It has a highly educated, young population. There are 1.8 million people living in a tiny space. Many of the young people are in and out of Internet cafes and on their phones, just like we are here. They know exactly what is going on but they are unable to make any progress in their own lives or their own country, as they see it. That has led to a pressure-cooker effect that has built frustration and antagonism. That is what drives young teenagers into radical responses which is the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. That plays into the hands of dark forces that are trying to encourage some people into violent responses and so on. We want the opposite. We want to be talking in a positive sense about what is possible in Gaza and what is possible for a state of Palestine in the future in the context of a two-state solution through politics as opposed to through other ways of lashing out. Lots of people, not only me, have predicted what has happened.

Without political initiatives, some progress and new thinking, living conditions in Gaza have continued to deteriorate. I am talking about basic things such as power and water, not to mention employment opportunities - a lack of which makes life impossible. The build-up of protest has been a response to frustration. We need to be honest. There were some devious elements in the protest, which encouraged violence but, by and large, the protests were driven by utter frustration. Most people wanted to make a political point through protest rather than be part of a violent uprising.

We want to continue to pursue what we have been pursuing for the past ten months, which is engagement, persuasion, argument and blunt and direct discussions to challenge the existing policy direction, whether that is in Washington or in Jerusalem, Ramallah or Tel Aviv. If it turns out to be a futile exercise and it becomes clear that no one is listening or cares what Ireland thinks, we may need to look at changing our policy approach. The European Union has unity on a number of things such as insisting on any new initiative being based on a two-state solution, which is shared across all 28 member states. There is a common view in respect of the criticism of the expansion of settlements and an acceptance that this is illegal and there is also a view that the humanitarian crisis, which is continuing to build in Gaza, needs a much more comprehensive response than it has received to date. The EU is willing to put a lot of finance behind new initiatives such as a desalinisation plant and new energy projects and we have committed €10 million to a new solar energy project, which we negotiated with both Israelis and Palestinians. It will be a large solar panel project to power a desperately needed water purification plant.

The Deputy suggested that we were not doing anything. We are not seeking headlines which may look good for two or three days but which do nothing to improve the lives of Palestinians. We are lobbying for, and trying to instigate, a new peace initiative that is acceptable to Palestinians and Israelis, with parity of esteem on both sides around the negotiating table and a credible roadmap to a two-state solution. In the meantime, we are focused on the humanitarian situation and the misery in the West Bank, especially in Gaza. This year we will spend €12 million or €13 million on humanitarian support programmes with Palestinians and we will continue to support UNRWA. We will add an extra €10 million with the energy project in Gaza and we are looking to do more. I have made this issue a big priority for the Irish Government. I accept that Irish interventions have not resulted in any political progress yet but we do not help what we are trying to do by taking actions that may be popular for 48 hours or a week while undermining what we have been trying to do for the past year.

If any member has new thinking on this, or wants to speak to me privately about it, I am all ears. We have met many experts on the Middle East peace process and I always try to educate myself on how we can progress our objectives. My only objective here is to respect and support Palestinians and Israelis in the context of a fair outcome to a peace negotiation which, unfortunately, looks to be a long way away right now. We will continue to build alliances, particularly with some of the neighbouring Arab countries. Egypt has a strategic role to play in terms of Palestinian reconciliation, which is a hugely important part of the aspiration to have a Palestinian state controlled and managed by one governance bloc, that is, the Palestinian Authority. It is difficulty to do many of the things we want to do in Gaza while Hamas continues to control it. Egypt has been trying, largely on its own, to bring Fatah and Hamas together in a reconciliation process, which is hugely important work in which Ireland wants to assist. I am happy to take some political risk to help and support the process if it is thought useful in light of Ireland's experience of reconciliation processes and the integration into politics and peaceful dialogue of people who were formerly committed to violence.

I feel very strongly about Israel and Palestine. The easy thing would be to do what many NGOs advocate, which they are right to do because this raises the profile of issues. If we did this, however, the Government would be seen in the same way as an NGO. I am a politician and a Government Minister and I need to interact with other politicians and Ministers in order to find political ways forward, rather than engage in actions that are just about protest or solidarity.

I have been vocal on Iran and I strongly disagree with the US decision. I think they have made a mistake. The US sees the Iran nuclear deal in a very different way from the way we see it and it is important to understand their reasoning. We see the nuclear deal as a nuclear deal, isolated from other issues. Congress in Washington sees the Iran nuclear deal as part of a broader approach towards Iran. They say they cannot agree to the continuation of the deal while Iran continues to have a ballistic missiles programme, to sponsor Hezbollah in Syria and to contribute to other conflicts in the region. This must stop and the US has taken an absolutist approach by imposing sanctions but I believe this approach is not likely to be successful and will be destabilising.

The EU's approach is that, given that it took years to put a deal together to prevent nuclear armament in Iran, we need to make sure the deal remains intact. All the indications from the inspectors who go into Iran on a regular basis, in an onerous inspections system, are that the commitments Iran made in the joint comprehensive plan of action, JCPOA, nuclear deal are being fulfilled. I do not think that even Washington disputes this. We have similar concerns to the US over Iran's influence on other issues but we believe they are separate issues which should be dealt with separately.

Currently, the discussion is focused on how the EU - along with the countries that signed up for it - protect the nuclear deal in the absence of US support. As members know, once US sanctions are implemented, the secondary sanctions effect will have an impact on the ability of businesses not only in Iran but also those at home with businesses investing in Iran. That is why we have seen companies like Airbus, Maersk, Total and other big European entities making decisions about pulling out or potentially pulling out of Iran because of the secondary effect of sanctions. The countries where the companies originate are still committed to the deal but because they have a footprint in the US or a licensing issue that could be compromised, they are not willing to take the risk. It is why the matter has become so complicated and difficult. It is not just a case that everybody else, with the exception of the US, is remaining true to the deal. The impact of US sanctions is very difficult to avoid, particularly in Europe, given the interconnectedness between the US and EU economies. It is the same with China.

I have been very vocal on the matter and we are very much supporting the EU line led by Ms Federica Mogherini, who was personally involved with getting this deal across the line a few years ago and is as a result very committed to it. So too are France, Germany and the UK. Interestingly, despite Britain being a very strong military ally of the US, it has been very clear and vocal on the matter, as has the European Union as a whole. That said, we cannot force our companies to do anything that does not make commercial sense for them. There are consequences here that will be difficult to cope with.

Presidential and legislative elections are due to take place on 23 December 2018 in the Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC. However, there is still some doubt over whether they will take place, and if they do, whether they will be free and fair. Ireland is also a strong supporter of the UN's Central Emergency Response Fund, CERF, and is currently the eighth-largest donor to the fund since its inception. Already in 2018, the CERF has disbursed over €60 million to the DRC. We are contributing quite a bit of money for development supports and through the European Union we are trying to support free and fair elections. It remains to be seen as to whether they will develop in a way we would like to see.

The was a question on Ireland's role in Syria. We must be realistic about what we can do. We are a small country and I said before that I decided to prioritise two big policy areas outside the obvious issues of Brexit, Northern Ireland and EU and US relations. The first is the Middle East peace process and the second is Africa. We spend most of our €700 million of development aid in Africa. That is not to say we are not really interested in what is happening in Syria but if we are to expend political capital as a country the size of Ireland, we must pick and choose where we can try to make a difference, politically, through negotiated outcomes or solutions.

The Geneva process for Syria is UN-led and we support it. It is not a country-based process per se, and there are some efforts going into parallel processes, particularly driven by Russia. This is not the direction anyone in the UN wants to go. That is why I mention the Geneva process over and over again. Ultimately, the conflict will have to be resolved by the great powers, to use an outdated term. It is the US and Russia that will need to agree to try to use their influence and persuasion to bring about a lasting ceasefire. There are other big players involved but those two happen to be on different sides of the conflict. In the meantime, countries like Ireland and many others need to contribute significantly in a financial way, which we are doing, to support refugees and, in time, the rebuilding of Syria. We must also advocate politically for sense to prevail in the context of what happens in the Geneva process and elsewhere in bilateral discussion and dialogue.

Elections are due in Turkey on 24 June and we have called on Turkey to ensure June's elections are free and fair, with all parties and candidates given the opportunity to campaign equally and without limitations on freedom of expression. Turkey has so far failed to address the recommendations of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in its reports on the general election of November 2015 and the constitutional referendum of April 2017. A state of emergency is ongoing in the country. Ireland shares the EU concerns and believes it is necessary to support a climate of free and fair elections; that is not currently in place in Turkey. I would like to visit Turkey with some of these issues in mind and I have not had the chance to do that yet, apart from flying through Istanbul on my way to Africa. There is a real concern across the European Union about the shift towards a more authoritarian approach to governance there, as the Deputy mentioned. It is a worry. I am sorry about the long answers, particularly on the Middle East matters.