Ivana Bacik
Question:1. Deputy Ivana Bacik asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the European Commissioner, Margrethe Vestager. [53391/22]
Ceisteanna - Questions
Taoiseach's Meetings and Engagements
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:2. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the European Commissioner, Margrethe Vestager. [53575/22]
Paul Murphy
Question:3. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the European Commissioner, Margrethe Vestager. [53578/22]
Neale Richmond
Question:4. Deputy Neale Richmond asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the EU50: Ireland and the Single Market conference. [56297/22]
Mick Barry
Question:5. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the European Commissioner, Margrethe Vestager. [56450/22]
Brendan Smith
Question:6. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the European Commissioner Margrethe, Vestager. [57857/22]
Rose Conway-Walsh
Question:7. Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the European Commissioner, Margrethe Vestager. [57859/22]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, together.
I had a short courtesy meeting with European Commission Executive Vice-President for a Europe fit for the digital age and competition, Margrethe Vestager, on 30 September. This year marks 50 years since the Irish people voted to join what is now the European Union, and Ireland and Denmark became members on the same day, 1 January 1973. Executive Vice-President Vestager and I reflected on the impact of European Union membership in our respective countries over those years. Our discussion also focused on topical European Union issues. We discussed Russia's escalating war against Ukraine, and the resolute response of the European Union. I expressed Ireland's strong support for Ukraine and its people, highlighting the generous response of the Irish people, and our support for Ukraine's application for membership of the European Union. We also discussed how to ensure continuing effective support from the European Union to Ukraine, including our humanitarian response as winter approaches, and how we can support its immediate and future financial needs. We discussed the impact of the war on energy supply and prices and we agreed the need for a co-ordinated and effective response at European Union level to ensure security of supply and support for citizens and businesses. I acknowledged the importance of the temporary crisis framework that was adopted by the Commission in March to enable member states to use the flexibility foreseen under state aid rules to support the economy in the context of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
We also discussed the economic outlook for the European Union and the risk of a sustained downturn. We agreed the need for the European Union to remain flexible in our response, while preserving its global competitiveness and the integrity of our Single Market. Next year will mark 30 years of the European Union's Single Market. Executive Vice-President Vestager and I reaffirmed the importance of the Single Market of over 450 million people, which is at the heart of today's European Union and is among its finest achievements. It enables free movement of people, goods, services and capital; reduces transaction costs for cross-border trade; facilitates the market-based competition that delivers greater quality and choice to consumers; and sets the strategic context and regulatory standards for innovation and productivity growth. I was pleased to have the opportunity on 27 October to deliver the opening address at the Ireland and the Single Market conference, organised as part of our national EU50 programme. In my remarks, I highlighted the strategic importance of the Single Market as a core foundation of Europe's peace and prosperity.
The Taoiseach outlined some of the issues discussed at the recent meeting. I want to follow up on two of them. The first is Russia's brutal war in Ukraine. There are reports today that the EU plans to confiscate the assets of Russian sanction evaders to provide support for Ukraine to rebuild. Will the Taoiseach consider removing the Government block on a Bill proposed by our colleague, Deputy Howlin, namely the Magnitsky legislation proposed by the Labour Party before the Russian invasion of Ukraine began? It would allow for the assets of those abusive of human rights to be seized. In particular, it would allow for assets held by Russians who are sanction evaders to be seized. Reports this year have stated that anywhere from €34 billion to €50 billion worth of assets are in special purpose vehicles in the International Financial Services Centre, IFSC.
My second point concerns energy policy, a key focus of Commissioner Vestager's visit to Dublin. In the context of the Cabinet finally agreeing plans for a windfall tax, which is welcome, can the Taoiseach confirm that the solidarity contribution announced today on fossil fuel companies will also ensure that there is a windfall tax on the profits of the Corrib gas field which will cover all of the windfall gains it has made this year? Was he lobbied in any way by Vermilion Energy on the rate of tax that will apply to Corrib and what the baseline profit rate would be?
At the weekend, there was further evidence of the desire of Fine Gael to abandon Ireland's neutrality with its resolution to get rid of the triple lock arrangement and, essentially, create more flexibility for the Government to deploy Irish troops in military adventures and conflicts. That is an outrageous attack on our neutrality and is not in line with what the majority of people want. Could the Taoiseach comment on whether he supports this line of thought? Will we remove one of the important restrictions on any Government abandoning our neutrality and further galloping towards the involvement of this country in NATO or the project of EU militarisation?
Does the Taoiseach agree that COP27 was a dismal failure and that, in the words of the UN Secretary General, we are still on the road to climate hell and politicians and big business continue to have their foot on the accelerator? COP27 failed, yet again, to commit to phasing out fossil fuels or to meaningful measures to reduce emissions. It could not even commit to a weak proposal to ensure that emissions peak by 2025. It has become a process used by leaders like the Taoiseach to turn up for a photo opportunity, make a fine self-serving speech and return home with no intention of changing their actions.
The one positive was the loss and damage fund. It took 30 years to make this small advance, but there is no admission of liability by the EU or US and no agreement on who will provide the funding, when it will be funded or who will fund it. It will be delayed again and again. We are headed towards absolute catastrophe. Will the Taoiseach take some action that recognises that?
The crux of the conference the Commissioner attended concerned the Single Market and the impact on the energy crisis we are facing, in particular. One area of the Single Market to which we are all well attuned is the access that Northern Ireland continues to have through the protocol. Once again, at the weekend we saw more internal party politics and messing across the water regarding negotiations between the EU and the UK. In the discussions the Taoiseach held, did the Commissioner lay out where exactly there would be grounds for optimism and when exactly we can expect the British Government to make some tangible suggestions regarding the protocol?
In July, The Irish Times wrote, in reference to the European Court of Justice, ECJ, hearings on the Apple tax case, that a spokesman for the Department of Finance said it was expected that the hearings in Luxembourg would be held in the autumn and it was anticipated that the court would provide between four and six weeks' notice once it had decided on a date to hear the case. This month, the Tánaiste told me in the Dáil, "I do not have an update on the timing in relation to those cases. That matter is handled by the Minister for Finance rather than me". I would have thought the Tánaiste might have a better idea of what is going on with the biggest tax case in corporate history, given that the State has a direct involvement in it. Incredibly, it is still trying not to take any of that money. Maybe the Taoiseach is in a better position to provide that information, having met Commissioner Vestager, and to tell the Dáil how things currently stand on this matter.
Commissioner Vestager is very accustomed to problems in the Irish insurance market, having overseen the investigation into the motor insurance industry over recent years for operating a cartel. That investigation and political pressure from Sinn Féin and Deputy Pearse Doherty led the Government to set out the 66 actions on insurance reform. The Government recently published a report claiming most of the actions have been, or are in the process of being, implemented. However, the director of the Alliance for Insurance Reform, Peter Boland, said all of the gains made are being pocketed by insurers and, in fact, premiums are increasing. This is particularly true for small businesses that are already being crippled by rising costs. Homeowners are seeing huge jumps in the cost of home insurance at a time when mortgage rates are going up and bills are skyrocketing. I am concerned about what is happening with home insurance. Construction inflation and the cost of rebuilding are major issues, but I am hearing about cases where insurance premiums have increased from €400 or €500 to over €1,000. Such increases negate all of the cost-of-living measures implemented by the Government.
On the reference to Ukraine by Deputy Bacik, that would be more immediate than the Magnitsky legislation. I discussed the matter with the Minister for Justice. The view was that the Bill, as tabled, would have no real effect. The Prime Minister of Estonia first mooted the idea of confiscating Russian foreign reserves in respect of rebuilding Ukraine. There is a lot of merit in that proposal, and we support such a measure because the damage done to Ukraine by Russia is enormous in terms of economics and the destruction of housing and residential blocks, factories, the public realm and buildings. The costs run into the billions. Russia needs to know it will have to pay for a lot of the reconstruction of Ukraine. That is a very important principle. It is quite complex from a legal perspective and the matter remains to be worked out. I will speak to the Minister again in respect of the proposed legislation the Deputy's party colleague, Deputy Howlin, brought before the House.
On the solidarity tax, it will include the Corrib field. Did Deputy Bacik raise that matter?
Yes.
Someone asked me to confirm whether I was lobbied.
Yes, by Vermillion Energy.
To the best of my knowledge, I was not lobbied in respect of the tax. I do not know whether an email was sent. I was not lobbied in any way. I met the company some months ago regarding its plans for the field in terms of carbon storage and a renewable future post extraction, something that is currently under way. That is the position on that.
Deputy Boyd Barrett referenced the Fine Gael Ard-Fheis and the proposal from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Simon Coveney. The Government has no intention of changing its current policy in respect of military neutrality. There is no galloping towards new alliances or anything like it. The Deputy consistently makes that false assertion in the House, but that is not the case.
He is visiting NATO bases for fun.
The Minister referenced the triple lock more in the context of the need for reform of the United Nations, in particular the veto Russia has at the Security Council. Let us be straight about it. The outrageous attack on Ukraine is, by any objective yardstick, an appalling, inhuman and immoral attack on the people of Ukraine, yet the country that is doing that is on the Security Council.
The US is too.
Is there a new attack rule?
I do not actually equate the US with Russia.
Was Iraq better?
There they go again. The "whataboutery" is a constant. The Deputies are against the pro forma but then they attack America. The bottom line is they attack America far more than they do Russia.
We never attack Russia.
My point is, without interruption, it is not tenable that this situation continues. There has to be reform of the UN and the Security Council. When we were on the Security Council, Ireland put forward a good proposal linking climate change with security. India and China were sceptical at the beginning. Both of those countries abstained. One country stopped what the overwhelming majority of the UN wanted, which was to link climate with security that Ireland was championing. All the small island states of the Pacific were pleased with Ireland following up on the commitments that we made in the election to the Security Council. Who opposed and vetoed it? Russia. There are issues. Deputies are putting their heads in the sand if they do not think there is an issue there. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is entitled to articulate a view on that. We still need a triple lock in regard to the General Assembly and so on. I have suggested that we need a citizens' assembly to discuss these issues in a more informal and deliberative way than has been the case to date.
I do not accept Deputy Murphy’s view that COP27 has been a dismal failure. He mentioned politicians. He is a politician just as I am a politician. He opposes carbon tax. Some would say that is a dismal failure on his part in respect of climate change. Many politicians are sincere about climate change and good progress was made. The Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, deserves a great deal of credit for the extremely hard work he put in over the past two weeks. All the Irish team, including the civil servants in the climate section of the Department of Foreign Affairs, deserve great credit on loss and damage. Ireland was a leader on loss and damage. We have allocated funding under the global shield towards loss and damage, which was one small, concrete proposal around trying to prepare for that. Ireland is committed to that area and we remain committed.
Deputy Richmond raised the issue of the Single Market. I raised the question of how can we expand the Single Market. There is work not yet done in respect of services, for example, in the Single Market. We need to widen the Single Market in regard to services, which could help insurance costs and so on in the country. On the protocol, we discussed it generally in respect of where we were. At that time. Members will remember British politics was in a different space. The European Commission stands ready under Vice-President Šefčovič to move on the protocol issue and to be flexible. We want intensive talks to commence between the UK Government and the European Union.
Deputy Barry raised the ECJ. We did not discuss the Apple tax case. That is now with the courts and remains to be resolved.
I asked whether there was any update whatsoever on the position.
The question is in the context of my meeting with Vice-President Šefčovič. It is important to put on the record that we did not discuss the Apple case. The updates are there to be had in terms of the proceedings of the court and the court's timetable. I can get the update for the Deputy and communicate that to him.
Deputy Conway-Walsh raised a separate issue on the motor insurance industry more generally. The cost of motor insurance has come down and the Government has implemented the vast majority of the recommendations of the group it established to make recommendations on the insurance industry. Now it falls to the industry to reduce premia in other areas of insurance that have not yet been reduced.
Departmental Offices
Mary Lou McDonald
Question:8. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach if a climate action unit has been established in his Department. [52772/22]
Christopher O'Sullivan
Question:9. Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the climate action unit in his Department. [54583/22]
Bríd Smith
Question:10. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Taoiseach if a climate action unit has been established in his Department. [54846/22]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:11. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if a climate action unit has been established in his Department. [54847/22]
Paul Murphy
Question:12. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach if a climate action unit has been established in his Department. [54850/22]
Ivana Bacik
Question:13. Deputy Ivana Bacik asked the Taoiseach if a climate action unit has been established in his Department. [57732/22]
Mick Barry
Question:14. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the climate action unit in his Department. [57748/22]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 to 14, inclusive, together.
The climate action unit is part of the economic division of my Department. The unit was established in 2019 and it supports me and the Government in dealing with the challenges of climate change and driving the necessary transition to a climate-neutral economy. The unit assists in co-ordinating a whole-of-government response to the climate crisis, including supporting the delivery of the Government's climate commitments as outlined in the programme for Government. It supports the work of the Cabinet committee on the environment and climate change, the Climate Action Delivery Board and a number of related senior officials' groups and interdepartmental working groups. The unit is responsible for monitoring implementation of the Government's climate action plan and prepares quarterly progress reports that are published on my Department's website following consideration by Government. These reports document the status of each of the sectoral actions that have been committed to by Ministers and Departments whether they have been completed on time or delayed, and the reasons for any such delays. The unit also supports the work of the Department's green committee established in 2019 to implement a range of actions to improve the management of energy, water, material and waste resources within the Department.
There are too many homes in the State paying dearly to heat the sky. It is clear that the Government's retrofitting plan is deeply unfair in its design. It prioritises those with greatest means over those with greatest need. A wealthy household can access €25,000 in publicly funded grants for the deep retrofit while many with far greater need cannot access basic measures such as attic or wall insulation. Places such as north Mayo have some of the highest concentration of energy poverty in the State but north Mayo will not have the largest share of the retrofits. The better energy warmer homes scheme is one of the better designed schemes that targets the most vulnerable but it has been under-resourced. There are 9,000 people on the waiting list and it will take up to 27 months for people to get the very basics of the retrofitting. The prioritisation of wealthier households serves to add to the growing delays of those living in energy poverty. It is important that the Government looks again at the retrofit plan and assesses, measures and evaluates it properly in regard to who is taking up the grants and, moreover, who is not taking up the grants, such as people who desperately need them but cannot afford to access them.
We have an ambitious target to reduce our emissions by 51% by 2030. Some in the House believe we should abandon those targets but I firmly believe we should focus all our efforts on reaching those targets and reducing emissions by 51%. A key part of that will be renewables and a key part of them will be both offshore and onshore wind but the pace at which we are rolling out wind energy is too slow. Part of the reason for that is issues such as foreshore licences. A myriad of foreshore licences are stuck in the system at the moment. We cannot even find out where they are and when a decision might be expected on them. I realise that the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, MARA, should be up and running in the early part of next year but these foreshore licences need to be decided upon. When MARA is set up and marine area consents are issued, applications will go on to An Bord Pleanála. I do not believe An Bord Pleanála is ready or resourced to deal with these applications at the moment. We need to ensure the board is resourced and that it has the right expertise to deal with these applications.
The Government says it wants more ambition on the limit of 1.50C at COP27 but that loss and damage was a major achievement. The real story of COP27 is the failure of measures to limit global temperatures. It is like saying to the people of east Africa, "We can starve 40,000 of you and give you a few bob" or to the people of Pakistan, "We can cause catastrophic flooding for 30 million of your people and give you a few bob to compensate". We come home at the weekend to find a gloating tweet from the Minister of State, Deputy Patrick O'Donovan. He wants to show his support for building a liquefied natural gas, LNG, facility in this State. The Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Éamon Ryan, before going to COP27 sanctioned a licence extension for Europa Oil and Gas, which said it hopes to extract about 1.5 trillion ft3 of gas. He gave the company the licence to do so. In the same week he also informed me that he will not allow the climate emergency measures to proceed on Committee Stage for fear it would cause existing offshore licenceholders to take legal action against the State such as Providence and Europa Oil and Gas. Does the Taoiseach accept the science that argues we must leave the vast bulk of fossil fuels in the ground to deal with this catastrophic scenario facing us, and that the real failure of COP was to reduce the limit of 1.50C?
I note the Taoiseach mentioned climate change and security. I wonder did he raise the point that the single biggest institutional emitter of CO2 emissions in the world is the United States military. Did he raise the point that major military powers are not even required to reveal their CO2 emissions? We count everybody else's emissions but we do not count the US military's emissions.
Then how does the Deputy know they are the biggest emitters?
Because there have been estimates done which suggest it produces about 51 million tonnes per year but it is not required to reveal that. I find it amazing that the Deputy would even joke about something as serious as that. Did the Taoiseach ask for that? How does he tally his commitment to increase military expenditure and the EU's commitment to increase military expenditure when there is a direct relationship between the size of military activity, armies and so on and the level of CO2 emissions and climate damage?
The Taoiseach says a lot of progress was made. It is just not true. The problem is seen if we look at the Taoiseach's speech in Egypt: fine words, and then he comes home and it is business as usual. I will give one example. The Minister with responsibility for local government has overturned the democratic decision of South Dublin County Council to ban new data centres for the duration of the next county development plan. It is a motion that was proposed by People Before Profit Councillor Madeleine Johansson and passed back in June. South Dublin is the data centre hub of Ireland and about half of all of the data centres in Ireland are there. We know that data centres in total are using 17% of our electricity now, more than all of the rural homes put together. To add insult to injury, the Government did not exempt data centres from the temporary business energy support scheme, TBESS, so we are going to be paying these data centres, which are consuming an inordinate amount of electricity, up to €30,000 a year, subsidising some of the biggest and richest corporations in the world. Does the Taoiseach not agree we need a moratorium? Will he not overturn the decision of his Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage and reinstate the ban?
Some progress was made at COP27, particularly on loss and damage, and Ireland played a key role in securing that. I welcome this. However, it was disappointing to see the lack of a commitment to cutting emissions faster and, once again, there was no agreement to reduce or even phase out the global use of fossil fuels despite the huge focus on the concept of a non-proliferation treaty for fossil fuels which had been so well flagged in advance of the COP27 meeting. The loss and damage fund is welcome and it promises financial aid from developed countries, but we have no sense yet of what level of money is involved. The question of who pays will not be agreed until next year and that is the critical issue.
What extra money will Ireland be committing to the loss and damage fund? What proceeds will we use for this? Will the Taoiseach be seeking agreement at EU level for member states to lead on this internationally, as the EU led on the concept of a loss and damage fund? Closer to home, can the Taoiseach confirm when our own climate action plan will be published and will we have time to debate it in this Dáil?
It is not often I quote a British Tory but I will do it today. Alok Sharma, the president of COP26, said with regard to COP27:
Emissions peaking before 2025, as the science tells us is necessary. Not in this text. Clear follow-through on the phase down of coal. Not in this text. A commitment to phase out all fossil fuels. Not in this text. And the energy text, weakened in the final minutes.
Of course, that is hypocrisy. His government signed up to the text. COP27 was a sure sign that the corporations that rule and rob the world and the governments that act as their puppets are part of the problem, not part of the solution. If the Taoiseach says any different, he can tell me this: why did the EU governments, fronted by a delegation led by the Minister, Deputy Ryan, sign up to this text? It is completely inadequate, so why did they sign up to it? Why did the Irish Government sign up to this text? Is that really the best it can do?
In response to Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh on retrofitting, I sometimes wonder, when Sinn Féin makes propositions, if it ever wants anything done at all. It is a very good retrofit programme and there has been a 130% increase in applications. It is about getting energy efficiency into our entire system. Its fundamental priority is energy efficiency and reducing energy waste. There are some very good schemes that are targeted especially at those on low incomes. There is an independent local government retrofit scheme for local authority housing and there is the better homes programme, which is for people on low incomes more generally, and that has expanded. There is the 80% grant for insulation, which is more general and is more for the first phase. There is also deeper retrofit.
The issue is really about getting capacity up in the industry. It is very important that we give that certainty to the industry over the next ten years in terms of getting all the skill sets in place and all of the capacity to get moving. A lot of work is being done. It is not about prioritising the wealthy. That is an outrageous assertion that is made. This is about prioritising energy efficiency and getting a well-balanced scheme that does that.
Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan raised the issue of our targets. I take his point in respect of the need to really get going at speed. That is why the new planning Act is endeavouring to try to streamline, codify and consolidate all of the planning Acts over the last number of decades and to have a more streamlined approach. The new Maritime Area Regulatory Authority Act is also coming in and between it, an Bord Pleanála, the local authorities and the courts, there should be a much clearer and more transparent system, with timelines in place for people who put in applications so they can expect outcomes within a specified timeframe. That is very important.
With regard to wind, we need to move faster than we are moving. I will check about the foreshore licences. I was informed by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine that things had improved in that regard. I look forward to engaging with Deputy O'Sullivan and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine on that issue because we need to move on it. Again, the European Commission is looking at a particular clause whereby it would be in the overall public interest to move forward on offshore wind and that would transcend other interests in terms of getting wind farms built. At the moment, it can take eight years from concept to the actual construction of a wind farm across Europe. That is not good enough, given the existential crisis that climate change represents.
Deputy Bríd Smith raised the issue of loss and damage. I make a general point. Ireland is not responsible for the world. One gets the impression from some of the contributions here today that somehow because COP did not reach-----
No, I am saying we should take responsibility for ourselves.
-----certain outcomes, it is Ireland's responsibility. Ireland makes a very progressive and constructive contribution to these international gatherings and takes it very seriously. Our officials and political representatives at COP apply themselves seriously to this to try to get agreement. An agreement is better than no agreement. I genuinely believe that.
I am talking about actions at home to keep emissions down. The Taoiseach knows that was my question.
With regard to loss and damage, we have made proposals. We have put forward a target of €225 million per annum by 2025. We are not there yet but that is Ireland’s commitment in terms of funding. We have to increase our funding significantly next year and the following year to reach that target, and we are doing everything we possibly can to reduce-----
I am sorry, that is the answer to Deputy Bacik’s question, not mine. I asked the Taoiseach why the Government issued licences for drilling.
I will come to that. Deputy Smith also raised loss and damage.
Yes, but the direct question I asked was the irony of giving licences for drilling.
For clarity, we have 30 seconds left and there are four Deputies awaiting answers.
I take that point but a lot of questions have been asked. I have dealt with loss and damage and I have dealt with the failure to limit general temperature. I was coming to the Deputy’s next point, which is the licence extension to Europa and existing licenceholders. I have other questions to deal with so I do not know whether we can get a few minutes extra.
I ask that we focus in.
On the extension, Europa already has a licence. There are legal constraints on the Government in terms of existing licenceholders. This Oireachtas decided to ban, or recommended the banning of, the issuing of any future licences. The Government has adhered to that and it is part of the programme for Government. However, in terms of existing licenceholders, of which there are just a few – one or two to the best of my knowledge – and in particular the case of Europa, the Department officials, independently of the Minister, examined that within the legal framework and we have to obey the law.
We cannot break the law.
The Taoiseach knows that the Bill to which I am referring would change the law.
I did not interrupt the Deputy.
It would change the law.
In terms of existing licenceholders, that is the legal position, and the vast majority of fossil fuels are being left in the ground in Ireland. That is the reality and the Deputy knows it. We are not entertaining any new licence applications.
But the Minister is extending licences to drill more.
With regard to Deputy Boyd Barrett-----
I asked about the military and emissions.
-----his absolute zealous focus on the US is noted. Without the US, last year there would have been no COP of any merit or substance. President Biden has brought about a significant change internationally to the whole climate change agenda------
Compared with Trump.
-----along with his representative, John Kerry, and several former American presidents, all of whom are focused on trying to get outcomes at these COPs. That needs to be acknowledged, unlike other big powers that are not making the same contribution at this stage to the international effort. The US has an awful lot more to do in general and not just in respect of its military. There is a far more polarised debate within the US on this issue, as the Deputy will be aware. It is far better that we commend and affirm those who are progressive in the United States, who make no issue about climate change and who are trying to advance progress on climate change-----
While their army just keeps-----
-----rather than decrying them all the time. For the Deputy, the US and nobody else is the big baddie of the world, in terms of his presentations. Deputy Paul Murphy raised the issue of data centres.
The Taoiseach totally ignored my question. He cannot answer it.
He referenced south county Dublin. First, because of the digital age, data centres are a reality, unless you want to de-digitalise the entire society and economy.
I want to reduce the number of data centres.
Does the Deputy want to de-digitalise it? He needs to be honest and front up on that.
Let us stop the algorithms that are targeting-----
We have a framework. The Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU-----
Let us stop surveillance happening.
-----has come up with a policy proposal that the Government is adopting. The Government has published a statement in respect of a moderate position on the utilisation of data centres and further data centres.
What about the 17% of electricity?
The bottom line, however, is that thousands of jobs depend on data centres.
That is not the case.
Many investment companies coming in here are saying it is not just one or the other, but the Deputy does not worry about foreign direct investment, FDI-----
There are not thousands of jobs.
-----because according to his party's economic model, it would not favour the FDI model.
It is not an interaction. We are already reduced to ten minutes for the next set of questions. If we could just get the answers to the questions, please. It is not an interaction.
Fair enough. I get constantly interrupted as well, which is fair enough. I do not have an issue with it.
Deputy Bacik referred to climate finance. Our commitment is €225 million by 2025 on a permanent basis. Within that, we allocated €10 million to the global shield. What are now required are concrete proposals and initiatives around climate finance that we can support. Our embassies, particularly those in Africa, are working bilaterally with governments and NGOs to see how best we can apply that money to climate finance issues. There is a need for integration across other files as well. We cannot deal with it in silos. It is difficult. The World Food Programme made the point that there is too much silo thinking across the entire aid programme now. We need more crop resilience and we need to invest more in all that. It is kind of part of climate finance. The food production systems are failing in many countries because of climate change. The question to be answered is how we can make their food production system more resilient. That is where some of our climate finance could usefully be applied and allocated. We need to work with NGOs and like-minded governments across Europe because the European Union remains the biggest donor in this respect. It is probably the most constructive contributor to COP more generally, along with others.
Deputy Barry again referenced Alok Sharma, the lead for COP26 in Glasgow last year, who did a fantastic job in what he achieved there. I do not believe his point in respect of corporations is correct. He referred to politicians acting as their puppets. I often wonder whether we have some useful puppets here for other jurisdictions, but that is another day's work because-----
Yes. You are a puppet for the Americans.
Who are you a puppet for?
Who do you think?
We will let people think, reflect and cast their own views on that.
Look at the record. Bertie Ahern was shaking Putin's hand when------
Your record for the past ten years, such as when you guys were neutral when Crimea was invaded, tells me for whom you are useful puppets-----
No, we were not.
-----as does your record in respect of what is going on in Ukraine as well.
No, we were not.
Yes, you were.
You were neutral when Chechnya was bombed to bits.
The point is the European Union governments are the most consistently constructive and proactive on climate change. Deputy Barry and his colleagues can never bring themselves to acknowledge that.
Thank you. We are over time.
All you guys can do is attack the European Union and the United States every single day, almost to the exclusion of anybody else.
Go raibh maith agat. Tá mé ag bogadh ar aghaidh.
European Council
Mary Lou McDonald
Question:15. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the European Council meeting held on 20 and 21 October 2022. [52773/22]
Seán Haughey
Question:16. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach if he will provide a report on the European Council in Brussels on 20 and 21 October 2022. [54587/22]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:17. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the European Council meeting held on 20 and 21 October 2022. [57446/22]
Paul Murphy
Question:18. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the European Council meeting held on 20 and 21 October 2022. [57449/22]
Bernard Durkan
Question:19. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent attendance at the European Council; and if he will refer to the items under discussion and their order of importance. [57727/22]
Ivana Bacik
Question:20. Deputy Ivana Bacik asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the European Council meeting on 20 and 21 October 2022. [57730/22]
Mick Barry
Question:21. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the European Council meeting held on 20 and 21 October 2022. [57749/22]
Rose Conway-Walsh
Question:22. Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the European Council meeting held on 20 and 21 October 2022. [57860/22]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 15 to 22, inclusive, together.
As I set out in my statement to the House on 16 November, I attended a meeting of the European Council in Brussels on 20 and 21 October. Issues discussed included developments in Russia's war on Ukraine and its wider impacts, supply and price challenges on energy, economic issues, and a number of external relations issues, including preparation of COP27 and the upcoming summit between the EU and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN.
On energy, we agreed steps to take forward work to tackle the price and supply crises urgently, including improving the functioning and stability of energy markets, addressing spikes in prices, saving energy and accelerating deployment of renewables. Given the extent to which the issue is having a negative impact on citizens and enterprises, it is important that the European Union and its member states continue to work collectively to create stability in the market.
We also discussed the latest developments in Russia's war on Ukraine, including its impact both in Ukraine and further afield. We condemned indiscriminate Russian missile and drone attacks on civilians and infrastructure, including the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, as well as the illegal annexation by Russia of Ukraine's Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions. The EU will never recognise these illegal annexations. We stated our intention to continue to provide political, financial and other supports to Ukraine for as long as it takes, and reaffirmed our commitment to hold Russia to account for its war crimes.
The European Council condemned actions by Iran in support of Russia's war and we welcomed sanctions adopted on 20 October 2022 in this regard.
We also called on the Belarusian authorities to stop enabling the Russian war of aggression by permitting Russian armed forces to use Belarussian territory.
Through its tactic of weaponising food in its war against Ukraine, Russia is responsible for the global food security crisis. To counter this, the EU-Ukraine solidarity lanes have made the export of Ukrainian crops, agricultural products and fertilisers possible. Leaders expressed support for the call by the United Nations Secretary-General for the extension of the UN Black Sea grain initiative.
On Iran, we condemned the unacceptable use of force by Iranian authorities against peaceful protestors, in particular against women. Women in Iran are being denied their civil and political rights.
The meeting also held a strategic discussion on the EU's relationship with China, which is an important and complex one.
We looked ahead to the EU-ASEAN summit taking place on 14 December 2022, which will be an opportunity to deepen our regional partnership in south-east Asia, and to COP27 on climate change, which I attended earlier this month, and COP15 on biodiversity, upcoming in Montreal in December.
I wholeheartedly welcome the fact that the Government finally agreed to address the situation whereby gas sets the overall electricity prices, including renewable electricity. Capping renewables at €120 per MWh is welcome but when we consider that the average wholesale price of electricity in August was €388 - it has gone down to €137 per MWh for October - we see how artificially high prices have been for such a long time. The question is: why have people not seen the reduction reflected in their bills? I first raised the need for this action last November when households and businesses were facing into a winter where energy prices were very high. I am glad the EU and the Government have seen reason but it should never have taken this long. When will the measure come into effect? Can the Taoiseach commit to keeping it in place for as long as gas prices remain high?
The capping of the price of non-gas electricity, on which huge profits have already been made this year, is a step in the right direction. Will the Government also bring forward a windfall tax on the excess profits electricity companies made in 2022?
European Heads of Government considered their approach to COP27 when they met in October. As it turned out, the EU played a crucial role at COP27. The Taoiseach addressed the conference on 8 November and outlined Ireland's position, which highlighted the importance of climate justice. As we know, COP27 has now concluded with a final agreement reached after prolonged negotiations. The agreement includes texts that finally recognise loss and damage caused by climate change. This is a breakthrough, although much work remains to be done in implementing the goal of setting up funding provisions. However, the final agreement, as we heard, contains nothing new as regards emissions targets or the phasing out of fossil fuels. The Taoiseach has already answered many questions on COP27 but does he agree that this latter point is disappointing? How does he view the outcome of COP27 generally? Does he agree that the EU Green Deal should continue to be central to our approach to these issues and that the block should be a leader globally in tackling them?
For the record, when Bertie Ahern was shaking the hand of Vladimir Putin, some of us were protesting outside the Russian embassy about Putin's bloody and murderous invasion of Chechnya. I did not see the Taoiseach there. We are consistent. He is right when he says we are against illegal annexations in eastern Ukraine by Russia. Nobody should facilitate such things; he is right. Next Tuesday, 29 November, is UN day of solidarity with the Palestinian people. Every single year, the UN General Assembly reaffirms its commitment to the Palestinian right to return of approximately 7 million to 8 million Palestinian refugees who are denied that right by the apartheid state of Israel. What sanctions will the Government take against Israel, or propose to the UN or the European Union, over their continued support to Israel, when it commits crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people and denies the vindication of their right to return under UN resolution?
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Coveney, has said that moving away from the triple lock on Irish neutrality would be "a sensible change". He and Fine Gael claim this is in response to Putin's disgusting invasion of Ukraine. The truth is that Fine Gael has been pushing for this for decades. In 2003, it produced a policy document, Beyond Neutrality, that supported moving towards participation in a common EU defence policy and abandoning the triple lock, which it described as a political straitjacket. Fine Gael has been trying to erode what is left of neutrality for decades and is opportunistically using Putin's invasion of Ukraine to do so. In fairness, the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Eamon Ryan, has at least stated that his position is the triple lock should remain. What is the Taoiseach's position? He did not answer the earlier question. He made a vague reference to the UN General Assembly but it is the UN Security Council that agrees on the deployment of peacekeeping missions. Does he support the retention of the triple lock or not? If he does not, will he at least give us a referendum on it?
From the Taoiseach's observations at the EU Council and COP27 meetings, does he detect an urgency on providing alternative energy in such a way as to make it possible in the short term rather than way off into the future? Has he observed whether there is a cohesive approach in the European Union to the aggression of Russia and the possibility that it might spread elsewhere? What action is likely to follow?
Putin's bombing of Ukraine is despicable. A little desperation is beginning to creep in. As we know, Putin is on the defensive against Ukrainian advances, in addition to the home front, which is an issue that is underreported. In recent weeks, many ordinary Russians have defied conscription, relatives of conscripts have held protests in at least six cities, some troops have refused to leave barracks and some soldiers have fragged, or killed, their officers. In these circumstances, the role of NATO is counterproductive. The larger the NATO shadow looms, the more Putin can point to foreign threat in an attempt to rally the population and cut across the anti-war revolt. Will the Taoiseach agree that this State needs to keep real distance from NATO and that this State has made a mistake under his leadership in being represented at NATO's Ukraine defence contact group over these last six months?
On Deputy Conway-Walsh's question, the Government took a decision on the solidarity tax today, which applies domestically, particularly in respect of the Corrib field. It is designed to make sure there will be no windfall profits arising out of the increased prices that have occurred. The Government has adopted the correct overall policy in respect of the cost-of-living package in that we did not go for what was proposed by the Deputy's party, namely, a cap to pre-2021 levels. We saw what happened in the United Kingdom fiscally and from a market point of view when that proposal was implemented by the UK Government; it had fairly devastating consequences for the UK economy. That is why the Irish Government did not go down that route in respect of the measures we took. On the issue of the wider windfall tax, that will come later as part of the European measures. The broader European measures will fall due to be completed but the EU energy market is very complex. We import most of our gas from the UK and Norway supplies the UK. It is not a uniform gas market but we welcome the decisions taken to try to decouple gas from electricity price increases.
Deputy Haughey raised the issue of climate justice and COP27 generally. One of the key takeaways from COP has been the fact that climate change is now here in terms of worldwide devastation. The presentation by the Prime Minister of Pakistan was one of two events I attended. One third of all crops or arable land has been destroyed by floods in that country. Significant levels of disease are coming from stagnant water throughout Pakistan and hundreds of thousands of pregnant women, just over 600,000, are without homes and shelter. There is huge economic damage amounting to €30 billion in reconstruction costs. The presentations by Somalia, Sri Lanka and all the small island states of the Pacific indicated they are facing real danger. If there is some message for this country, it is that we have to do more on adaptation. We also have to do more, not just to get emissions down, but to prepare for coastal erosion. We have to prepare a whole range of measures to deal with that.
I am afraid we are out of time.
On Deputy Boyd Barrett's question, it has to be said that no one has done more than the EU and Ireland to support Palestine through the UN Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, UNRRA, and a whole range of humanitarian supports. That is rarely said.
I dealt with the issue of the triple lock. It is not in the programme for Government to remove the triple lock. I do not believe in removing it. I believe we should have a citizens' assembly to discuss all these issues in a more informed way, which I have said. I understand the rationale put forward by the Minister, Deputy Coveney, in light of the Russian invasion and Russia's behaviour. It is now a problem that Russia is such a significant member of the Security Council. That the likes of Russia can veto any Security Council proposal, such as the one Ireland put forward on climate and security, is very retrograde. There is a problem there. We cannot put our heads in the sand.
We need to wrap up.
I have dealt with some of the issues raised by Deputy Durkan. There is a cohesive approach to Ukraine by Europe. We would like COP to be better and stronger but it is the only game in town, so to speak. It brings leaders together and we need to keep that momentum going.
On Deputy Barry's question, Ireland is not a member of NATO. We are not a member of a military alliance. That is the definition of our military neutrality, which has been consistent and remains the position.