Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The Chair raised a number of points. I was alerted by my officials about his enduring interest in securing a consulate in Perth. I appreciate his view on that. We will keep it under review and there will be due diligence.

I take his point that eight months is a long time for foreign birth registration numbers, but it is a complex process because it involves a number of generations and therefore a large number of documents from many jurisdictions are often required. If a rare situation arises in which a child is not eligible for other passports, the application would be expedited. However, we have made great progress getting it down from 15 to 18 months and we aim to get it down further, below eight months. I would like to get it down to single digit figures, if we can eventually, in the fullness of time, for the bulk of them.

I appreciate his comments on the Middle East. Mixed views and opinions have been articulated on the Palestinian Authority on an ongoing basis. It has never really been allowed to thrive or develop. It has been one of my sustained, consistent criticisms of Israel, that it lacks a strategic approach to the region. It has always been my view that a moderate Palestine should have been supported and nurtured and there should have been far more capacity building. It would be in Israel's interest, as well as the interests of the wider Arab region and of course the interests of Palestinians. I was there in the past when there was a technocratic government. Fayyad was the Prime Minister. I met him. All the donors and external agencies were happy with his governance. When I met him, he said the Israeli Government was making life very difficult for him, because he was trying to build confidence among the community and so on and there would be a raid below in Jenin or something would happen in Hebron or Bethlehem and more and more challenges would be created for the authority.

That is going on all of the time. When I met President Abbas last September, before the war broke out, I was struck that he was very strong on a non-violent approach to the resolution of the issue, recognising Israel’s right to exist and very strong on no violence to achieve the two-state solution. That needs to be taken up more. I am struck that even in the midst of terrible provocation and in the midst of a terrible war in Gaza, the Palestinian Authority has held the line in respect of avoiding an implosion in the region and that cannot be easy. I say that knowing that all the presentations to us are that it is at boiling point in the West Bank because of the incursions, the violence and the killing of young people in the West Bank. The number of people killed in the West Bank is at the highest level in a very long time. All of that is not making it easy for the Palestinian Authority. There is a general acceptance that if, for example, there was to be a Palestinian Authority-type structure to oversee Gaza in the aftermath of this war, you would have to put a lot of technocratic capacity behind it and a lot of financial support behind it. I think that is understood. The Palestinian Authority is saying it is ready. Its view is that it never left Gaza; that the administration is still there; education is still there; departments it has funded and continues to fund. We have asked for elections and so on but elections could give different results. There should be elections when the climate is right and the environment is right. But in the immediate aftermath of this war, I agree with all the key partners here. Even the US is very clear that it cannot be Israel governing Gaza, there cannot be a displacement of Gazans, so there has to be an administration put in place into Gaza and there has to be a viable administration in the West Bank.

In terms of a Palestinian state, if the time comes for us to recognise a Palestinian State, we will be recognising the State as defined by the 1967 borders and UN resolutions. We continually discuss this with like-minded states in the European Union. There is an Arab peace initiative on the way. Ideally we would like to recognise the state of Palestine when it would give some support to that peace process that would lead to a two-state solution. That is the context where you could use that effectively. But we cannot keep going on allowing Israel to undermine the Palestinian Authority and not be strategically sensible about facilitating its growth and development. What has happened by supporting the settlers, as the Israel Government essentially has - and the IDF has been in support of the settlers and there have been some very violent far-right settlers in recent times, displacing Palestinians and attacking schools - has made the prospect of a contiguous Palestinian state very difficult with pockets of settlers are populated all across the West Bank. All the UN agencies are saying this to us. What happens then is Israel starts attacking the UN agencies and undermining them, not only UNRWA but also others. The UN agencies are saying that settlers being in the West Bank is now a big problem and most countries are saying that to Israel. Israel will say it is not responsible for the violent settlers and it decries their activities but there is very little evidence of that on the ground where all the Palestinian communities will say the IDF is in there supporting the settlers as they go about displacing Bedouins and various agricultural communities. I met some children in a school where the settlers went into the school with the children present and attacked the school. My view is that right now, the Palestinian Authority is the key agent to try to create some stability in Palestine. It will need support. There may very well be a need for international force to ensure security. Israeli security needs to be protected. I accept that and I think the Arab states accept there has to be security from an Israeli perspective. That was clearly evidenced by the 7 October attack. People are talking openly about an international security force to maintain security and to keep the peace.

On Ukraine, the focus on non-lethal aid is because of a programme for Government commitment, not necessarily a law. One could argue maybe even in the context of military neutrality that providing aid would not in itself constitute a breach of that because every country under the UN Charters are entitled to self defence but it is a debate that has not been held here. The programme for Government, which the three parties to the Government signed, said in the context of the EPF that we would not be supporting -----