Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I might answer some questions about Ursula von der Leyen more broadly, because it was the feature of many contributions. The then Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, made clear his disappointment and the fact that her statements at that time, in the very beginning in October, did not reflect the Irish position and went too far. They did not represent the competence that she as President of the Commission had on foreign policy, which is a different question. He made that clear, both publicly and directly to her in meetings at that stage. I would say that since then the position in Europe has evolved and come towards the Irish position. The language in the April Council meeting was the Irish position and contained unanimous agreement in the text that there would be an immediate ceasefire. That was not the case in the months prior to that. The unhindered humanitarian access was reiterated in this Council meeting, in the language about the implementation of the International Court of Justice judgment. I might say to Deputy Harkin that it started out with the Council describing it as a recall of the judgment. The Irish position and the position of the Taoiseach, Deputy Harris, brought that language much further with regard to the implementation, with a direct call to Israel to allow that access to happen.

There was significant withholding of funding from UNRWA by the Commission, not by Ireland, which immediately committed additional funding at the relevant time to UNRWA as a core funder, which is what UNRWA had asked for. There has since been not just the release of that funding but an additional €68 million of funding by the Commission to UNRWA. At the most recent Council meeting, the nominated President-elect, Ursula von der Leyen, specifically made the point about the funding of the Palestinian Authority and the work that she was attempting to do to advance substitute funding for the Palestinian Authority in circumstances where I understand that 75% of the funding is provided by Israel and 10% by the EU, and the threat to that 75%. She was proactively trying to find solutions to that. That was part of the discussions at the European Council meeting. I appreciate that this debate has focused on those initial comments. I totally understand respect the Deputies' perspectives on that.

I heard Deputy Gannon say there is disrespect of the Irish position, that they did not write back to us and so on. I understand what he is saying, but it is not reflective of the scale of work done by Irish politicians and Ministers to bring that European position to the Irish one. Along with Spain, we have raised the trade agreement and the importance of how that is perceived and operates in the future. We operate consistently from a place of international law being the guiding principle of all things, which is why we are trying to keep trade in the EU competence, because it is not consistent with international law that we would enact the occupied territories Bill, for example. We are trying to do it at a European level because that is consistent with international law. We have not had a response and we are not satisfied with that. We raise it at every opportunity, including European Council and Foreign Affairs Council level, and I raise it at General Affairs Council level.

If the Deputy was sitting there also, he would have visibility of this. It is my job to relay that to him. That is the purpose of this debate. He is right; there is insufficient time to have a back and forth discussion where more detail can be provided on the matters raised.

Many Deputies raised this issue so I want to answer it as fully as I can. The Deputy is correct in respect of former Prime Minister Kallas. The neighbourhood question is important. This includes support for the African Union through the European Peace Facility, which I referenced here ten days ago, work regarding the Balkan area and neighbourhood issues more broadly. It is also important to reflect that the scale of the focus everywhere from Finland to Romania is on the eastern threat because of its scale and what is happening, such as the scale of cyberattacks and infringements on sea and air space by the Russian military. It reflects the scale of that risk not just to that flank but to us as well, which is reflected in our renewed work in a range of ways. I will take further questions rather than continuing.

See this speech in context