Frances Black (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Tánaiste to the Chamber. I am pleased to see him back in Seanad Éireann. Given the limited time available, I will focus on three specific points. First, as he is aware, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement recently spent two days in Belfast meeting a number of community groups. Such outreach activity is a vital part of our work in dealing with the remaining legacy issues of the conflict and the visit was really impactful. I was blown away by it. In particular, I was blown away by the testimonies, especially on the Irish language. There are more than 6,000 children in Irish-medium education across Northern Ireland and for many in Belfast, it is such a central part of their identity. This issue is often politicised to the point where it is viewed mainly as a political football or an institutional stumbling block, but that is far removed from the ordinary concerns of those who speak the language daily and care deeply about its development. I was especially stuck by our meetings with Protestant, unionist and loyalist communities. I was delighted to speak to these groups that are often forgotten and marginalised. Their focus was on unemployment, housing, mental health and the legacy of the conflict. One could feel their passion for regenerating their communities, which was amazing.

While the Irish language is often associated with nationalism, the Lower Shankill Community Association actually runs a weekly class. One of the first comments from a participant was that the language should be neutral and belong to everyone and that it was often politicised far beyond that. I saw a real focus on social issues. In that sense the Irish language was not always the biggest priority. That was a huge shock to me also. Many were happy to see such classes being offered and were more concerned with the availability of housing and social and economic opportunities for their children. It really made me see that the political focus, particularly on the language, did not always reflect the reality on the ground. That was an eye-opener. What we hear in media coverage down here does not correspond with what was said at our meetings in east and west Belfast last month and I do not want those marginalised voices to be unheard. Is the Tánaiste willing to meet such groups and provide greater chances for direct engagement? They would love to meet him also. I noted previously my admiration for the fantastic work he is doing on this issue and know that the current situation in the North is something about which he cares deeply, especially in the context of Brexit. Such community engagement could only enhance it.

I wish to touch briefly on the situation in Palestine, about which we have spoken a lot. I welcomed the robust debate we had on the Occupied Territories Bill which I had tabled in January. I am pleased that the Tánaiste has committed to facilitating the use of Government time to resume the debate before the summer recess. Much of the focus was on our legal capacity to pursue such a policy on settlement goods. I am very happy to work with Oireachtas Members in outlining the strong, coherent legal basis of the legislation. I will be reaching out to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, in particular, as many members have a deep interest in the issue and the Bill, given that in 2012 the committee strongly endorsed a ban on settlement goods. During the debate the Tánaiste noted that his preference was for co-ordinated EU action on settlement expansion, something I would welcome strongly, but he also told the Dáil that there was no reasonable prospect of it happening. I have spoken to him on the issue previously and think it is at this point that we differ - when the question becomes how Ireland should react to gridlock in the European Union. I appreciate and recognise his position on the issue, but I believe we can show leadership on it. It was in that spirit that I tabled the Bill. We can and should be willing to act first if others will not do so in the face of injustice.

On the point about the European Union, Senator Mark Daly noted in the debate in January that the Tánaiste had made a commitment to raise the issue of settlement expansion at the Foreign Affairs Council last week. I would welcome an update on that point. Was the issue raised and, if so, what was the response of Foreign Ministers?

I will briefly raise a third matter. Last month the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade produced an extensive review of the Irish Aid programme and made a clear call for "enhanced oversight measures" in multilateral programmes. I am so proud of Ireland's aid work, but we must ensure agreements to which we sign up respect human rights and the humanitarian principles of this country. I am thinking, in particular, of the EU-Turkey deal on migration and the atrocious treatment of refugees fleeing persecution. We need coherence between our aid programme and foreign policy on issues such as this. Given the committee's report, will the Tánaiste agree to increased enhanced oversight of the multilateral system for which it called?

I reiterate the questions posed by my colleague, Senator Grace O'Sullivan, on joint procurement under the PESCO arrangement. How can we be sure nations with which we jointly develop or buy military equipment will not use it outside UN mandated missions? For example, Germany has troops in Afghanistan.

I thank the Tánaiste and look forward to hearing his response.