Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, to the House. This is an unusual commencement matter in that the Senator has submitted it previously. I have reviewed the transcript of the engagement between the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, and Senator Higgins and it seemed that all of the information that was available to the Department was not conveyed in the response, which is why I have asked that it be resubmitted by Senator Higgins.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for coming in to deal with this very important question. I put it originally on the day before the decision was to be made. Now I am merely asking what decision has been made and for further details in relation to it. In October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union, CJEU, annulled the application of the EU-Morocco trade deal in relation to Western Sahara because the Sahrawi people had not given their consent. The court gave the EU a one-year deadline to try to bring its actions in line with international law. It ruled that the consent of the Sahrawi people had to be sought, explicitly or implicitly, and that there would need to be tangible benefits for the Sahrawis which did not give rise to obligations. During this one-year period the European Commission did not consult with the Polisario Front which, according to the CJEU, is the privileged interlocutor and the only recognised legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people.

The text of the European Commission's proposal reveals an approach which, rather than taking a step back in terms of international law, threatens to embed further the situation whereby there has been illegal occupation and exploitation of the resources of Western Sahara, without a mandate, by Morocco. Again, the current proposal from the Commission will be preferential tariffs for goods from Western Sahara, albeit with a labelling requirement, and investment in Western Sahara, all of which will benefit Moroccan settlers and Moroccan companies that have been operating outside the law in the extraction of resources, value and profits. This is literally akin to saying that we will intensify and give even greater benefits to settlers in the West Bank. This is the analogy, effectively, and it is true in terms of settlers in the West Bank. The proposal is that settlers will be able to profit and that is how we will engage with the issues.

Ireland has been clear on the issue of occupied territories. You do not embed or intensify occupation or create a scenario where the situation on the ground becomes impossible for the people of that place to reverse or act upon, but yet this is the proposal that seems to have been agreed. Right now, the proposal is in provisional application even though the European Parliament had not been informed on it, which was an obligation. The dates do not add up. The Commission got the mandate to negotiate on 10 September and suddenly the negotiations were over on 18 September. That is an eight-day negotiation, which seems extraordinary. Was the Commission negotiating without mandate previous to that time? What was the basis there?

We are told not to worry, that the Sahrawi people are going to get something. They are going to get humanitarian aid, which should never be linked to a trade deal. They are getting €9 million in humanitarian aid and, meanwhile, the bilateral trade between the EU and Morocco is worth €60 billion annually. That is the context in which I pose a number of very specific questions.

What position did Ireland take at the meeting? How did the Irish designated officials vote on the proposal? Did they ask the Commission whether negotiations had been taking place prior to a mandate being given by the Council? Did they seek to influence that mandate? Do they accept that the idea of a unilateral definition by the EU on investment without differentiation annexed to the agreement could incentivise occupation? Did they press for an explicit rather than implicit approach to consent? This was the opportunity to leverage the referendum we have been told is long awaited and that Ireland and the EU supports. Surely this was an opportunity to press Morocco to support a referendum and allow explicit consent from the Sahrawi people. Does the Minister of State accept that humanitarian aid is not a benefit under international law and cannot be withheld in that same way and the giving of it cannot be seen as a benefit within trade relations for a people?These are key questions. I would also appreciate if the Minister of State could comment on the timeline. There seems to be confusion, even within the Irish Government, in relation to the time. There is great concern in the European Parliament about the timeline now, where it is not being consulted in advance of provisional application.

Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am very grateful to Senator Higgins for raising this Commencement matter. I genuinely welcome the opportunity to clarify the concerns raised by the Senator about information provided to the House in the debate on Commencement matters on 3 September. At that time, the Senator asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to update the House on Ireland's position regarding the amendment of an agreement between the EU and Morocco. I wish to underline that the process to conclude the Council's decision concerning the opening of negotiations on the amendment of the 2018 agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco is nearing its conclusion. I also wish to clarify that the references to the negotiation process in the information provided to the House on 3 December referred to both the negotiations between the European Commission and Morocco and to the consideration by member states of that agreement.

On 4 October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union upheld the ruling of the General Court of 29 September 2021 annulling the Council decision on the conclusions of the 2018 agreement, in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco. This decision required a negotiation of a new agreement between the EU and Morocco. The court set a deadline of 4 October 2025, in that it maintained the effects of the existing Council decision until that date.

In July 2025, the Commission submitted to the Council a recommendation for a Council decision concerning the opening of negotiations on the amendment of the 2018 agreement, in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco. The negotiations on the replacement agreement commenced in September, with a view to meeting the deadline of 4 October 2025. On 10 September 2025, the Council adopted, via a written procedure, a decision authorising the opening of negotiations with the Kingdom of Morocco on the amendment of the agreement with the results of the negotiation between the European Commission and Morocco reflected in several documents shared with member states on 22 September via the Customs Union group. The Commission presented the proposal at the Mashreq-Maghreb working party on 25 September. Having been initiated by COREPER I on 1 October, member states were asked to finally vote, via written procedure, on the adoption of the decision on 2 October.

The EU and Morocco signed the amended EU-Morocco agreement on 3 October and its provisional application began. The formal process is currently nearing its conclusion. At the time of the Commencement matter on this subject on 30 September, member state negotiations on the replacement agreement had not yet been fully concluded in Brussels. Discussions were still ongoing at official level as regards the decision. As Ireland had not yet taken a final decision on our position on the proposal, and as the vote via written procedure had not yet taken place, it was indicated to the House that negotiations on the replacement agreement had not yet fully concluded in Brussels. This was entirely accurate at that time. I can now confirm that Ireland voted in favour of the Council decision via written procedure on 2 October, indicating that Ireland would not stand in the way of EU consensus and in order to ensure that the EU complied with its legal obligations. However, Ireland also registered procedural and substantive concerns about the Commission's handling of this process. Ireland made clear that we expect to receive regular updates from the Commission on key issues as the agreement is implemented. Ireland also reiterated our view that the compatibility of the agreement with the fundamental principle in international law of the right of people to self-determination should be paramount in the implementation of this agreement. Needless to say, as the Senator would expect from me, I maintain that humanitarian aid should never be viewed as a benefit to any agreement.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issue is that what remained was the vote. The content had been determined at the time I was speaking, so I was asking specifically what position Ireland would be taking. I am disappointed to hear that Ireland did not take a stronger position. This goes absolutely against the position that the Attorney General and the International Court of Justice have taken on the occupied territories in the West Bank. The view is that occupation should not be entrenched.I would like concerns in relation to that to be addressed. Was the issue of explicit consent not being sought versus implicit raised? What were the substantive and procedural concerns raised by Ireland? These are significant matters and of concern to me, all members of the foreign affairs and trade committee and all of those concerned about international law being diluted.

Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is fair to say that the handling of this matter fell below the standard we would expect across these Houses and within the Government. The late submission of documents by the European Commission so close to the 4 October deadline left member states in a difficult position. I wish to reiterate to the Senator that Ireland's long-standing position on Western Sahara is one of full support for the UN-led process to achieve a political solution to this long-standing dispute and full support of the right of the Sahrawi people to self-determination. We endeavoured at all times to provide accurate information to this House on a complex legal and diplomatic process, including in the Commencement matter. I appreciate that some of detail provided today serves to clarify matters for the House. However, I would welcome the opportunity to continue engagement, perhaps in writing, with the Senator because some of the technical detailed questions need to be replied to on paper so that both of us have them to hand accurately. I look forward as ever to continuing that discussion with the Senator.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issue that the Senator raised at the time was in relation to the conclusion of the negotiations. It was coming up the following day for a decision by Ireland and other member states. The answer led us to believe that negotiations were still ongoing. The process might have been ongoing, but it appeared that the negotiations had all but concluded. The concern about the people of Western Sahara and their-----

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They did not get negotiated with at all.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That was an issue that was also raised. Phraseology and language are important. The decision was the following day, but it was not even alluded to in the answer. I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House. I thank the Senator for raising that issue.