Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

There were a lot of very important issues, so let me try to take them. First, in response to Deputy Haughey, on the day on which I assumed this office, I spoke to the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, to outline to him Ireland's ongoing support for the people of Ukraine, for their territorial integrity and for the European values of freedom. I had further discussions with European colleagues in Warsaw and Brussels on the importance of Europe continuing to stand in full stead behind Ukraine.

The Deputy asked specifically about Iran and Israel. It is right and proper that the Tánaiste and I, on behalf of the Government, have condemned the large-scale attacks by Iran on Israel. These reckless attacks were a significant escalation of the situation. They were a flagrant threat to international peace and security and we continue to call on all parties to show maximum restraint because the stability of the region is at grave risk. As any further escalation will have catastrophic consequences for millions of civilians, both Ireland and the European Union should be using our voices and influence for restraint and de-escalation.

As for the recognition of the state of Palestine, it is my intention, as well as those of the Tánaiste and the Government, that Ireland will recognise the state of Palestine. I had two opportunities to meet the Spanish Prime Minister last week, including when I welcomed him to Government Buildings last Friday, where we had a detailed discussion in this regard. It is the position of the Government that we wish to recognise the state of Palestine. Both the Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, and I agreed last Friday that we would continue to co-ordinate our efforts to recognise a Palestinian state, alongside a number of like-minded countries. It is important that recognition should be done in a way that can have the most positive impact on the situation on the ground. I do not wish to put a specific timeframe on the record of the House now other than to state my own assessment, which is that time is coming much closer. I believe that if a number of countries were to recognise a Palestinian state at the same time, it would give weight to that decision. Tomorrow, I will travel to Brussels for the European Council, which will be held on Wednesday and Thursday, where I will continue to have an opportunity to engage with Heads of Government of like-minded countries. We do not have a published list, which Deputy Ó Murchú asked for, but indeed, he has mentioned a number of countries that have indicated publicly a similar open-mindedness to perhaps recognising the state of Palestine.

As a country, we are and always have been clear that the only way to achieve lasting peace and stability in the region is through the implementation of a two-state solution with Israeli and Palestinian states living side by side in peace and security, with Israel having a right to security, peace and safety and Palestine having a right to safety and peace as well.

On the specific question on the association agreement, my predecessor, Deputy Varadkar, signed a letter, again with Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, to the President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, asking the European Union to review the association agreement with Israel, specifically from the point of view of human rights, as well as compliance with international human rights law. That is an appropriate thing to do. This is a country that values international human rights law. When I met President von der Leyen last Thursday, I took the opportunity to raise this issue with her directly. I outlined to her the rationale behind that letter. Our point was that because we all want to see a ceasefire, we therefore should always consider all the levers at our disposal to help bring about the pressure to create a ceasefire. A collection of other countries have done similar. I believe the US and the UK have both given consideration to a similar review. I think the President will reflect on my comments but she also pointed out that it is open to foreign affairs ministers to consider these matters at the Foreign Affairs Council, FAC, which I believe is due to have an engagement with the Israeli foreign minister shortly. I will continue to keep in close contact with the Tánaiste about this.

To be clear, Ireland and the Irish Government remain fully committed to our policy of neutrality. It is entirely possible, plausible, credible and, in fact, necessary that we, as a neutral member state, not excuse ourselves from discussions on defence and security. That is quite important. We have an obligation. The first obligation of a government is to the security of its state, its people and their safety. That is something that we should not shirk from and that is not the same as being militarily aligned. There is no question of Ireland’s eroding or leaving its position of military neutrality. That is not the position of the Government. I do not believe it is the position of this House and I do not believe it is the position of the majority of people in this country. Yet, I do think it is important that as a country we do not shy away from having a discussion about defence and security within those confines. I commend the Tánaiste on his leadership in this regard. On the triple lock, I support the direction of travel outlined by the Tánaiste because I do not think it is appropriate that a country like Russia can effectively have a veto on where we send peacekeeping troops. At the moment, we can either trust the Irish Parliament and the Oireachtas, or allow Putin to decide where we can send our peacekeeping troops. The Deputy and I have a different view on that but that is clearly my view. It is one that the Government will bring forward through legislation but it is important that we tease all these matters out in this House and that is certainly our intention.

See this speech in context