Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 25 January 2024
13. Deputy Jim O'Callaghan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on how extraordinary revenues held by private entities stemming directly from Russia’s immobilised assets could be directed to support Ukraine and its recovery and reconstruction, consistent with applicable contractual obligations and in accordance with EU and international law; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3421/24]
View answer52. Deputy James Lawless asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on using seized Russian assets to support Ukraine; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3212/24]
View answerThe Tánaiste will be aware that continuing to provide funding to Ukraine has become quite a contentious political issue. In the United States, hardline Republicans are opposed to continuing to fund Ukraine. As the Tánaiste indicated to Deputy Howlin earlier, it appears that there are some within the European Union who are concerned about providing €50 billion in funding over the next three years. Has consideration been given to providing financial support to Ukraine by using the Russian assets that have been seized, particularly in view of the fact that Russia has inflicted enormous economic damage on Ukraine?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 and 52 together.
I thank the Deputies for raising this important issue. Ireland has supported effective implementation of strong sanctions in response to Russia's illegal actions in Ukraine. I have repeatedly emphasised that Russia should be held accountable for the appalling damage caused by the its illegal invasion of Ukraine. In December 2023, Ireland welcomed the adoption of the EU's 12th sanctions package, which focused on addressing circumvention and strengthening implementation. Ireland supports the continued use of EU sanctions to maintain pressure on Russia. Ireland also supports the work of the European Union's special sanctions envoy, David O'Sullivan, to tackle circumvention.
Ireland has been actively involved in discussions at European Union level exploring the use of extraordinary revenues stemming from immobilised Russian sovereign assets to cover the costs of reconstruction and recovery in Ukraine. In December, the European Council repeated its call for decisive progress on this matter. Discussions have been ongoing regarding the legal, financial, economic and political feasibility of this proposal. In these discussions, Ireland has highlighted the importance of co-ordination with international partners, including the G7, and of careful consideration of all applicable laws in this process. We have also underlined the need to take into account the views of the European Central Bank on financial stability and the potential impact any decision could have on the international role of the euro.
Considerable progress has been made in recent months. This is in keeping with similar work ongoing at G7 level. At the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday, Ministers reached political agreement on a proposal that we hope to see finalised shortly. I also joined efforts in calling for further sanctions against Russia. Ireland will continue to work with partners to hold Russia to account for its actions.
I welcome that response.
In fact, this is something we discussed at a Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting early last year so I am pleased to see there have been developments in respect of it. We need to take into account that it is calculated there are approximately $350 billion in Russian Government assets that have been frozen since the invasion back in February 2022. Of course, these are enormously significant funds. We know from a Belgium-based financial services company, Euroclear, that it holds approximately $214 billion in such assets and it has to date generated interest of about $3.26 billion.
We need to take into account that although the issue of the continued funding of Ukraine has become a contentious political issue, there is an avenue down which we could go, which I think would get widespread public support. I was pleased to see that not only the Tánaiste but also the new Foreign Secretary in the United Kingdom, David Cameron, have indicated that this is something that should be looked at. Belgium has taken steps to ensure that those assets held in Belgium and the tax generated by those assets can be used to aid Ukraine. I do not know if this is something the Tánaiste thinks can be done on a national basis or whether we need EU-wide support to do it.
To date, Irish financial institutions have frozen about €1.8 billion of Russian funds and those funds relate to listed individuals and entities. The issue of interest or windfall gains that have accrued as a result of the freezing of the assets is now being considered more immediately in respect of the potential to use even the windfall profits from this for the reconstruction of Ukraine. There is a very serious issue here. Countries have to know that others cannot just come in and level a country, bomb its energy and civilian infrastructure, and everybody else picks up the tab afterwards and we carry on as normal. That day is over, in my view. I support this. It was the Estonian Prime Minister who started the ball rolling two years ago. The Deputy is correct that this has to be actively pursued and the EU is pursuing the initial steps with regard to the interest.
I am pleased to hear that response. There has to be a financial consequence. We have seen from other international disputes that where financial sanctions are imposed, it has a significant consequence. I have no doubt the very broad range sanctions that have been imposed upon Russia have affected President Putin and his support base, even though it may not be apparent to us at this stage.
It is worthwhile to look at the proposal that has been advanced in Belgium. There is a recognition of the question that if assets have been frozen, what is going to happen to them in due course. Are we going to return them to Russia? Obviously, if Russia withdrew from the invaded part of Ukraine and the Crimea, the assets would be unfrozen, but there seems to be no prospect of that happening in the near future or, indeed, the long-term future. As a result, there needs to be a recognised financial penalty imposed upon a country that has been involved in the crime of aggression.
Another issue that we need to consider is bringing into Irish law the crime of aggression. There has to be a financial consequence for Russia when we look at the financial devastation it has imposed upon Ukraine. I think the cost to Ukraine to date is somewhere in the region of $400 billion.
I am in agreement with the Deputy on this. The destruction of Ukraine has been at shocking levels, and there has to be a financial penalty on Russia in respect of that and there has to be accountability. As I said earlier, otherwise, what is to stop Russia doing that to some other country in the neighbourhood? That is why many of the neighbours of Russia feel an existential threat to their very existence because of the aggression and because of the expansionist policies of Vladimir Putin. I would certainly support that.
On the crime of aggression, there are ongoing discussions internationally. It is difficult to get agreement on the precise form of an international tribunal to deal with the crime of aggression, so I think we should pursue this in domestic legislation also.
I know it is a little unfair on Members who have come in because they thought the list had collapsed. I can do my best for those who have come in. In this order, I am going to take Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett-----
On a point of order, if a question is passed over, what do Standing Orders say with respect to how it is to be done?
I think it is at my discretion. The Deputy knows that we were on a committee that tried to stop this and, unfortunately, those proposals have not been put before me so far. I hope they are because it would stop all of this uncertainty. I know the Deputy agrees with that. For the moment, I am going to exercise my discretion. I will take Deputy Boyd Barrett, then Deputy Bruton and I will then move forward to Deputy Jim O'Callaghan. I then hope to take Deputy Stanton.
My question was not due until 10.15 a.m.
We are not going to have a debate on it. It is not the Deputy’s fault. We are all unhappy with this. There was a sub-committee and recommendations were made that this would stop and if somebody was not here, the question would not be taken. Unfortunately, that has not been finalised yet or come back before us. I call Deputy Boyd Barrett.
