Taoiseach's Meetings and Engagements

Tuesday, 30 April 2024

Questions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)

Bernard Durkan

Question:

1. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Taoiseach to report on his recent visit to Paris. [10816/24]

View answer

Seán Haughey

Question:

2. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the recent conference on Ukraine in Paris. [14153/24]

View answer

Jim O'Callaghan

Question:

3. Deputy Jim O'Callaghan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the recent conference in Paris on the invasion of Ukraine. [14156/24]

View answer

Richard Boyd Barrett

Question:

4. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach to report on his recent visit to Paris. [15146/24]

View answer

Paul Murphy

Question:

5. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach to report on his recent visit to Paris. [15149/24]

View answer

Seán Haughey

Question:

6. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent discussions with the President of Ukraine. [16771/24]

View answer

Bernard Durkan

Question:

7. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Taoiseach to report on his recent conversation with President Zelenskyy. [16766/24]

View answer

Oral answers (22 contributions)

The Taoiseach

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, together.

The former Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, travelled to Paris on 26 February to attend a high-level meeting on assistance to Ukraine convened by President Macron and attended by leaders and representatives from EU member states and other like-minded countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. The meeting in Paris was a valuable opportunity for Ukraine's friends and allies to come together to assess Ukraine's needs, both military and civilian, and to ensure that our collective effort in support of it are as comprehensive and effective as possible.

I spoke to President Zelenskyy by phone on 10 April and reiterated Ireland's unwavering commitment to Ukraine's freedom, democracy and territorial integrity. I also said that Ireland would continue to advocate strongly for Ukraine's membership of the European Union and offered my support to President Zelenskyy's peace formula. He told me of the severe pressure that Ukraine is under as Russia continues to attack cities such as Kharkiv and vital civilian infrastructure, including energy and heat plants. He also emphasised Ukraine's wish to see formal negotiations with the EU on its future membership open under the Belgian presidency. I said that I and the Irish Government support that goal.

Following on from my conversation with President Zelenskyy, I also spoke with the Prime Minister of Ukraine yesterday. We discussed how best partners can support Ukraine with its immediate needs in terms of energy infrastructure, which has been a target of Russian missiles in recent weeks, and we looked ahead and spoke about the reconstruction of Ukraine.

At the special European Council in Brussels on 17 and 18 April, I called for these negotiations to begin as soon as possible. This is an important message to the people of Ukraine, and to President Putin, that Ukraine belongs in our European Union family.

From my meetings with European leaders during my recent visits to Brussels and Warsaw, and from discussions at the special European Council, it is clear that colleagues are very concerned about the current situation in Ukraine. It has very significant military needs if it is to prevent Russia making further advances into its territory. It also urgently needs further air defence systems to help protect cities other than Kyiv. I, therefore, welcome the recent decision in the United States to confirm further aid for Ukraine.

The agreement by the European Union in February to provide €50 billion in grants and loans to Ukraine in the period to 2027, and the decision in March to provide an additional €5 billion under the European Peace Facility, EPF, are both important sources of our continuing support and a signal of our commitment to continuing to stand with Ukraine. Ireland's share under the EPF uplift amounts to more than €125 million. We will continue providing non-lethal assistance to Ukraine, including in areas where we have expertise, such as demining and cyber. It was clear from my conversation yesterday with the Prime Minister of Ukraine that Ukraine sees enormous value in the work Ireland is carrying out in demining. We need to ensure that we provide Ukraine with what it needs in that area as urgently as possible.

Unfortunately, Ukraine’s demining needs will be considerable for the foreseeable future. The Defence Forces have already delivered a number of training modules, including in demining and combat casualty care, together with EU partners.

An Ceann Comhairle

I call Deputy Durkan.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I do not have the relevant sheet in front of me. I have all the other sheets.

An Ceann Comhairle

We will come back to the Deputy in a moment.

Deputy Seán Haughey

I was interested to hear the details of the Taoiseach's phone conversation with President Zelenskyy and with the Prime Minister of Ukraine, as he has outlined. As we know, the Russian offensive is continuing and Ukraine is under pressure. The EU is providing financial, humanitarian, emergency, budgetary and military support to Ukraine. Ireland is also giving bilateral support through stabilisation and humanitarian mechanisms.

I welcome the recent agreement by the EU to provide an extra €5 billion for Ukraine under the European Peace Facility. For Ireland, this will amount to around €128 million, having regard to our gross national income. Of course, this will involve non-lethal military support in our case. The EU must continue to support Ukraine for as long as it takes. The future security and defence of Europe depends on it, and I suspect that is what President Macron had in mind when he organised the conference in Paris.

I want to ask the Taoiseach about EU sanctions imposed on Russia to date. He did not mention that in his reply. The EU sanctions envoy, David O'Sullivan, is examining the circumvention of sanctions via third countries in order to prevent battlefield goods and technology assisting the Russian war effort. Has the Taoiseach been updated on this process? How is David O'Sullivan getting on with this task? My question is basically on the sanctions, how they are working and what more needs to be done in that regard.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

The meeting in Paris in February commemorated the second anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I am sure the Taoiseach's predecessor, who attended it on our behalf, and the other leaders of the EU were fairly consistent in their desire to ensure that there was continued support for Ukraine. Obviously, from this country's point of view, we are limited in what we can do with regard to our military neutrality. However, when you look at our representation in the EU, we do have an important voice.

One other thing that stands out about the response of Europe to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia was the fact that Europe agreed to freeze Russian assets in the European Union. When we look at the amount and quantity of assets that have been frozen, it really does reflect and illustrate how much money has been taken from the Russian people and put offshore. At present, there is approximately €190 billion of Russian assets that have been frozen and held in the Belgian depository of Euroclear. That is generating approximately €3 billion per annum. I would have thought it would be a sensible political outcome if the EU leaders decided that the interest - I am not even talking about the capital - could be used in the future to help Ukraine reconstruct its economy and rebuild buildings that were devastated by Russian aggression. That is a line the Taoiseach and Ireland should pursue in order to ensure that there is some financial and economic support for Ukraine. Without financial and economic support, it will not survive.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Is the Taoiseach taking the people of this country for fools when he suggests that his plan to dismantle the triple lock is not a full attack on Ireland's neutrality? Whenever he attempts to justify this move he is planning on the triple lock, he refers to Russia. Of course, we all condemn Russia's attack on Ukraine as an indefensible occupation and military aggression. However, at the same time, the Taoiseach wants us to move closer to a military alliance and EU militarisation project that includes NATO, the United States, Germany and Britain, the countries that are arming a genocide in Gaza and which continue to sustain Israel's ability to commit the most horrific crimes. These are taking place on an ongoing basis but, somehow, that is different and in a different category. The Taoiseach does not mention them. In fact, he is trying to drag us closer to military involvement with an EU project of militarisation aligned to NATO and dominated by those powers. It is dominated by powers that are willing to not just do nothing about Israel's genocide in Gaza but which are actually arming that genocide and protecting the regime carrying it out. Why the double standards? Is that not the evidence that the Government is actually getting rid of neutrality and aligning us with one camp in a very dangerous escalation of military competition across the world?

Deputy Paul Murphy

The Government has been engaged in a war on what is left of neutrality since Putin's invasion of Ukraine. It has slightly changed tack in the course of that. It started out with a full-frontal attack, saying we need to have a discussion about neutrality, that it was a policy matter and it could be changed at any time. It met the reality of public opinion, which did not shift despite a significant offensive in the media. Instead, the Government has repackaged it, with neutrality to be left without any content whatsoever and with the triple lock to be removed. Deputy Micheál Martin was correct in 2013 when he said that the triple lock is at the core of our neutrality. He was also correct when he described the attempt to undermine it as "an out-of-touch ideological obsession on the part of Fine Gael". Unfortunately, he has now adopted that obsession.

If the triple lock was gone tomorrow, what military missions does the Taoiseach want to send troops on that he cannot currently send them on? The Tánaiste, Deputy Micheál Martin, said he wants to do it all within the UN Charter. That means it would be authorised by the UN Security Council. What missions can the Government not currently send troops on that it wants to send troops on? In my opinion - and I will listen to the answer - it will be EU-led missions without UN Security Council approval, that is, outside of international law, and US or NATO-led missions, that is, the likes of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

To what extent has the Taoiseach gleaned the conclusion that current measures taken against the Russian invasion of a fellow nation have been effective so far? Are they sufficiently progressive to ensure or bring about a change of mind in respect of the attitude of the Russians? Was there a general consensus that there needed to be a change in emphasis or a different approach in order to deal with the situation?

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

The Taoiseach will accept that across Europe and the European Union, there is movement in the direction of security and defence co-operation. We have seen that Ursula von der Leyen is very concerned about making sure there is an EU-wide military-industrial complex. That is the only way I can put it. We have seen how destabilised the world is, right across Africa and the Middle East. While that involves the Russians and Chinese, it also involves the Americans, the European powers and, strangely enough, the Brits. I fail to see how further integration into their plans and a move away from where the Irish people stand on neutrality are going to bring us to a better place. We need to maintain our protection of our neutrality and independence, as has been shown with regard to the Palestinian issue. Is there any information regarding a timeline for the recognition of the state of Palestine? I would also like to see further movement on the divestment of State money from illegal settlements.

The Taoiseach

I thank the Deputies. There were quite a few questions there. I realise that in questions to the Taoiseach, we stray a lot from the actual questions.

On Deputy Haughey's question regarding sanctions, Ireland welcomed the adoption of the European Union's 13th sanctions package against Russia on 23 February to coincide with the two-year anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Discussions on a 14th package are ongoing. Ireland will continue to support measures to effectively implement sanctions but also to try to combat circumvention, to which the Deputy alluded, particularly to limit Russia's access to sensitive items and battlefield goods. Ireland welcomed the agreement reached at EU level in February to set aside the revenue generated from Russia's immobilised sovereign assets to support Ukraine, and we have been actively engaging in discussions as to how this revenue can now be transferred and used.

This brings me to Deputy O'Callaghan's question. His point is exactly mine. It is the position of the Government and, I believe, the European Council that the interest earned on - or the windfall element, if you wish - of the immobilised Russian assets should be used by and given to the Government of Ukraine. There has been a lot of work done on this under the Belgian Presidency of the European Council, and I am hopeful of progress on that situation, potentially this summer.

On the issue of the triple lock, which is not really covered in these questions, we should be very clear. Nobody here has seen the legislative proposals yet. It is really important, before we start to demonise each other or put each other in ideological camps, that we have an opportunity to debate and consider the outcomes of the consultative forum on international security policy in June 2023. I know some people did not wish to see that happen, and others-----

Deputy Paul Murphy

I could have written the conclusions in advance.

The Taoiseach

Fair play to the Deputy.

Deputy Paul Murphy

They were pretty obvious.

The Taoiseach

A number of people contributed to that very important discussion on security and defence and they deserve to be heard. The issue of the triple lock came up at that forum and it highlighted the need to revisit triple lock requirements. As such, one of the key outcomes of the forum was the need for a new process to replace the current system underpinning the deployment of Irish troops abroad, which effectively allows UN Security Council members to bind Ireland's hands in international engagement through the exercise of a veto or indeed the threat of same. Anyone who watches the operation of the UN Security Council knows that the threat of a veto can often be enough to stymie the mandate of a peacekeeping operation.

Any legislative proposals we bring forward in this House will continue to require Government and Dáil approval for the dispatch of Defence Forces personnel to take part in peacekeeping. Ireland’s traditional position on military neutrality will not change. This is characterised by Ireland’s non-participation in any military alliance or any common or mutual defence agreements. Making the changes proposed will simply remove the veto power of the Security Council members over Ireland’s international engagement. We will also try to address some other issues too. I may not have time to go into all of them but there will be plenty of time for the House to consider proposals. However, for example, when we go to provide security support to Irish embassies abroad, it is important that we are able to provide that support and the deployment of military personnel overseas for this purpose was not deemed to be covered under current legislation. That is a challenge the Government faces. I know we are united in all wanting to support our diplomats and embassies abroad. Equally, there is an issue around the number of troops which can be deployed. Currently, the deployment overseas of an armed Defence Forces contingent greater than 12 triggers the triple lock. If you look at a number of the traditional peacekeeping activities this country is involved in, however, including the UNDOF and UNIFIL missions, often the platoon size can be 30 and can even rise to 50. There are a number of issues we need to tease out in this regard.