Brendan Smith
Ceist:1. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to Northern Ireland for discussions with the political parties there. [4220/23]
Ceisteanna - Questions
Taoiseach's Meetings and Engagements
Brendan Smith
Ceist:2. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent telephone conversation with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. [4221/23]
Seán Haughey
Ceist:3. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent phone conversation with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. [4223/23]
Bríd Smith
Ceist:4. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Taoiseach if he will provide an update on his most recent engagement with political representatives and groups from Northern Ireland since he returned to Oifig an Taoisigh. [4423/23]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
On 12 January I visited Belfast where I had constructive discussions with the leaders of the main political parties. The main focus of the meetings was on restoration of the democratic institutions in Northern Ireland and on the EU-UK negotiations on the protocol. I emphasised the Government's commitment to assist efforts at Executive formation, to get the Assembly functioning and to see the North-South Ministerial Council operating again. We also discussed concerns around the UK legacy Bill and the proposed new electronic travel authorisation, ETA, which is problematic for third country nationals resident here and for tourists. We also noted the forthcoming 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement in April.
I concluded my trip with a useful meeting with the Northern Ireland Brexit business working group, which reiterated the value of consulting with the business community on any new approaches.
I had a substantive call with the British Prime Minister on Monday, 23 January where we discussed a range of issues, including restoration of the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement. We also discussed the ongoing EU-UK negotiations on the protocol and our shared wish to strengthen British-Irish relations. We both recognised the importance of the ongoing engagement between the EU and the UK on the protocol, and I welcomed the more constructive nature of the current discussions. I reiterated the need for a solution that avoids a hard border on the island of Ireland and protects the integrity of the Single Market. It is important that these talks can now take place in confidentiality with a view to reaching joint solutions on these issues. We also spoke about the positive co-operation between the EU, UK and the US in respect of the war in Ukraine and I took the opportunity to acknowledge the UK's leadership role in this regard.
During my call with the Prime Minister, I reiterated the Government's concern about the UK's legacy legislation and the impact of the proposed introduction of electronic travel authorisation on third country nationals travelling across the Border. The Prime Minister and I agreed to remain in ongoing contact.
I thank An Taoiseach for his reply and I welcome the fact that he has had engagement with the political parties in Northern Ireland and the British Government. I also welcome that an Tánaiste and other members of the Government attended the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference in mid-January. All those meetings are important, particularly in the absence of the North-South institutions functioning.
I was in Belfast with other Fianna Fáil parliamentary colleagues in early January. Among the people and groups we met were political parties; Wave Trauma, which is a powerful organisation that advocates for victims of the Troubles; Linda Ervine and the east Belfast Irish language group in the East Belfast Mission; the Greater Shankill Partnership; and Paul Doherty of Foodstock community homeless hub in west Belfast. There was a clear message from all those groups that they want the institutions and the Assembly back up and running. They want the Executive in place and the North-South bodies functioning as designed and agreed in the Good Friday Agreement. From speaking to many businesses in my neighbouring counties north of the Border, I know they want any outstanding issues relating to the protocol resolved as soon as possible. Any interruption to trade in Northern Ireland is a disadvantage for us as well. I sincerely hope progress can be made in resolving outstanding issues.
On the legacy issues, since I last spoke on Northern Ireland issues in this House, I attended a solemn and appropriate commemoration in Belturbet on 28 December last to mark the 50th anniversary of the Belturbet bombing. That is one of the many legacy issues that has not been resolved. Neither the O'Reilly or Stanley families have got the truth about who carried out that heinous crime which killed two young teenagers: Geraldine O'Reilly and Paddy Stanley. There are other instances in my constituency of such issues that need to be resolved. Those families know the chances of getting a prosecution are slim but the least they deserve is the truth. The present British Government proposals are absolutely unacceptable.
I am glad the Taoiseach had an opportunity to discuss several important issues with the new British Prime Minister, including the full implementation and effective operation of all the institutions established under the Good Friday Agreement, the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol and the British Government's legacy Bill. The war in Ukraine was among other issues the Taoiseach discussed.
The appointment of Rishi Sunak has set the relationship between Britain and Ireland and it is clear these relations have improved significantly. Will the Taoiseach bring the House up to date on the protocol issue and the restoration of the political institutions in Northern Ireland? RTÉ's European editor, Tony Connelly, tweeted this morning that EU sources are denying a report in the London Times that a deal on the Northern Ireland protocol has been struck between the UK and the EU. It was noteworthy that the Taoiseach suggested last month that mistakes had been made on all sides in the handling of Brexit and that the post-Brexit protocol might be too strict.
He was in Belfast last month for talks with the main parties in Stormont. Does he believe the agreement reached on EU access to UK customs and IT systems is significant? Can he say where we are at now as regards the technical negotiations between the UK, and on the protocol issue? I appreciate the parties to the negotiations need time and space. He may not want to, but will he also comment on the report in the London Times?
Across the UK today, more than 2 million workers are on strike, including teachers, rail workers, higher-education workers, people who work on border checks in the North, and University and College Union, UCU, members. This follows a series of strikes by health workers. Some of the key issues driving this huge revolt of working people are issues they have in common with many workers in Ireland, namely pay increases that are, in effect, pay cuts because of the spiralling cost of living.
When one considers the recent report by Oxfam, about which there was a briefing this week, which identified the fact that if the absolutely extraordinary growth in the wealth of the very richest people, the millionaires and billionaires in this country, was modestly taxed it could raise €8 billion in extra revenue, it could be used towards paying decent wages to workers, addressing the housing crisis and public services. Oxfam is arguing for this internationally. When one looks at the strikes and the cost-of-living crisis and how it is impacting on nurses, teachers and healthcare workers in Ireland, as well as in the UK and across Europe, will the Government look at taxing the wealth, which has seen extraordinary growth, the very richest people are enjoying and using it to address the cost-of-living crisis that the vast numbers of workers struggling to pay the bills and rent are facing?
We have a very impressive display of workers' power in Britain today, the largest co-ordinated strike action in more than a decade, with teachers, train drivers, civil servants and many others withdrawing their labour. In the North, UCU members working in higher education are on strike, a strike that is about pay and the investment in the future of higher education. The workers have realised that serious and militant strike action is the way to go after years of a series of one-day, intermittent strike action. In the North, that comes after a wave of strike action involving hospital staff and a coming wave including teachers, firefighters and others.
Is the Taoiseach concerned that workers in the South may look to the North, and across the water, and say that they need to use their power here too, they need to prepare the ground to take on the idea of a 24-hour general strike, and they need pay increases that are at least in line with inflation to stop people losing out and their incomes being reduced?
I thank the Deputies for their questions. I will start by responding to Deputies Haughey and Brendan Smith on the Northern Ireland protocol. I welcome the continued positive UK-EU engagement aided at finding joint solutions to concerns about the implementation of the protocol.
When I met the Northern Ireland parties and business representatives last month, I got a real sense of a widely-held desire to see a joint resolution and to refocus on other pressures facing people across Northern Ireland, including the cost of living and resolving the various strikes under way. As I said to President von der Leyen, when we spoke on 11 January, the approach taken by the European Commission is the right one. The Commission has listened carefully to people in Northern Ireland and is willing to show flexibility in the search for an agreement. I also discussed the protocol with Prime Minister Sunak, when we spoke on the phone on 23 January, and expressed my belief that it should be possible to find joint solutions.
I said that I was encouraged by the constructive nature of the discussions and I believe both sides want to reach agreement. The best support we can offer them is to provide the time and space for them to get there. I can confirm that notwithstanding newspaper reports, no deal has yet been done between the EU and the UK but I agree with Deputy Haughey that the agreement on customs information is significant and helpful.
Regarding the UK's legacy bill, I very much endorse Deputy Brendan Smith's remarks on Belturbet and agree those families deserve truth. There might never be prosecutions, although I would never like that to be ruled out, but what they want and deserve is truth - to know what happened and who did it. The Government continues to communicate its deep concerns about what is happening and the unilateral approach by the UK Government. I raised this directly with Prime Minister Sunak during our call last Monday and with the party leaders in Belfast recently. The Tánaiste raised it with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the British–Irish Intergovernmental Conference in Dublin on 19 January. There is consistent opposition to the Bill across the board and that continues to grow.
I am very aware of the strikes in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. I make a point of watching British news any day I can. Listening to the Deputies opposite, they almost sound as though they are glad the strikes are under way and are sad that they are not happening here, notwithstanding the impact they have on people who use public services. A trade union leader once said something to me with which I really identify. I recall him telling me that any strike is a failure of industrial relations and that while it is easy to go out on strike, it is much harder to settle a dispute because that means having to sell to your members something that is less than what they have been demanding. I thought that was a pertinent comment. That was not from me; it was from a trade union leader.
There are very big differences between what is happening here and what is happening in Great Britain. For a prolonged period, we had pay rises that were higher than inflation. We do not have that at the moment but we have a public sector pay deal that at least goes part of the way towards compensating workers for the rising cost of living, while in Great Britain, they are effectively back to austerity and are increasing taxes and reining in public spending. Because we have managed the economy so well and because the public finances have been managed so well, we are in a very different position and have been able to reduce income tax and put in place cost-of-living measures that have helped soften the blow. However, I hear the concerns workers have that prices are rising faster than wages. I acknowledge that this is a problem but the best way to resolve that is by negotiation with unions, not strikes. Strikes are a failure of industrial relations.
I did have a chance to look at the Oxfam report. I acknowledge that it is based on net wealth instead of gross wealth. That is something I am glad was clarified. I heard the Deputy use the term "modest tax rates". My reading of it was that it was proposing tax rates of 60% or more. I do not think most people in the country would regard a 60% tax on anything or anyone as being modest. The biggest risk of taxes of that nature is they drive people, wealth and investment abroad. That is why wealth taxes generally have not been successful where they have been tried.
Cabinet Committees
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:5. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he is intending to establish new Cabinet subcommittees. [3075/23]
Paul Murphy
Ceist:6. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach if he is intending to establish new Cabinet subcommittees. [3078/23]
Cian O'Callaghan
Ceist:7. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Taoiseach if he is intending to establish new Cabinet subcommittees. [4447/23]
Mary Lou McDonald
Ceist:8. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet Committee on Government Co-ordination will next meet. [4087/23]
Ivana Bacik
Ceist:9. Deputy Ivana Bacik asked the Taoiseach when the Cabinet Committee on Government Co-ordination will next meet. [4379/23]
Ivana Bacik
Ceist:35. Deputy Ivana Bacik asked the Taoiseach if he is intending to establish new Cabinet subcommittees. [4380/23]
I propose to take Questions 5 to 9, inclusive, and 35 together.
The Government has established ten Cabinet committees in the following areas: Brexit and Northern Ireland; children and education; economy and investment; environment and climate change; EU and international affairs; Government co-ordination; health; housing; humanitarian response to Ukraine; and social affairs and public services. I am a member of all the committees along with the Tánaiste and the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications. In addition to the membership of the committees, other Ministers and Ministers of State may attend meetings as required.
The Government co-ordination committee has met twice since the formation of the new Government and is scheduled to meet again on 13 February. The Cabinet committee on housing met on 30 January and the committee on humanitarian response to Ukraine met on 31 January. The Cabinet committee on health is scheduled to meet on 13 February and the committee on the economy and investment, which is chaired by the Tánaiste, is scheduled to meet on 16 February. Other committees will meet in the coming weeks.
I heard the Taoiseach's responses earlier on the nursing home charges scandal. He defended the strategy that has been pursued by successive governments not to give people what they should be entitled to in respect of the huge outlays they have for nursing home charges. He defended that position and said the Government has never conceded the obligation to pay these charges. If that was the case, why did the Government need a legal strategy at all? Why did it have to settle with people? Why was there a memo stating that we had better keep these settlements quiet in case other people become aware that they would have a legal case against the Government for the refund of nursing home fees they had paid?
Does this scandal not highlight the systematic policy on the part of a Government that is willing to give €64 billion to banks and bondholders and do anything to resist taxes on the rich such as the proposed wealth tax while denying ordinary, often very vulnerable, people who have suffered at the hands of or been let down by the State, whether it is the Brigid McCole case, CervicalCheck, the nursing home fees scandal or the mother and baby homes redress scheme we will discuss later where tens of thousands of people will be denied redress they should have as survivors of these homes, because the Government is penny pinching and creating arbitrary criteria to deny them the things they deserve to protect the interests of the wealthy?
Yesterday it was elderly people in nursing homes while today it is people with disabilities living in institutional care centres - another day, another scandal involving the conscious abuse of State power to defraud the most vulnerable people. Rather than caring for these people as the State is legally obliged to, a decision was repeatedly taken at the highest level to rip them off.
The Taoiseach said earlier that the State did not have a leg to stand on legally when it came to people with disabilities. The rip-off took place in two ways - first, through not paying them disability payments to which they were legally entitled and, second, by covering that up and adopting the same hush-hush, settle out of court legal strategy used with nursing home charges.
The Taoiseach was forced yesterday to admit he was personally implicated in the nursing homes scandal along with pretty much the entire political establishment over the past 50 years one day after saying he had nothing to do with it. The case of disability payments encompasses the period when the Taoiseach was Minister for Health. Is he personally implicated in this plan to defraud tens of thousands of people with disabilities? Will he take the opportunity to apologise to these people and their families as a first step to ensuring they receive every penny to which they are entitled? If he accepts that the State did not have a legal leg to stand on, why was this strategy pursued?
Is any Cabinet subcommittee examining how investment funds are buying homes? The Government has defended the role of investment funds and their special tax treatment citing the need to attract investment to build new housing. However, new research by Pierce Daly shows that more second-hand homes have been bought up by investment funds than new builds. This pushes up the price of housing as funds compete with individuals and families for a limited supply of housing. The narrative that funds have been mainly involved in financing new builds is simply not true.
Will the Government end the special tax treatment for investment funds?
In the past two days, the Taoiseach's position on the unlawful charging of citizens and their families in nursing homes has gone from one of utter denial to one of admitting that he may have been briefed. Nobody will be surprised at this because this is the modus operandi of the Government. It denies that it happened then admits that it did happen but downplays the significance, then finally it admits the significance but urges everybody to move along. The Tánaiste and the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications are members of Cabinet who received a memo. It outlined how thousands of vulnerable people were unlawfully denied their disability payments and included a strategy to continue this wrongdoing. The Taoiseach was at pains this morning to downplay the significance of this and highlight that it is historical. However, it is not historical. It is the Government's responsibility here and now to do this. It is much more reflective of other things that have happened that the Government has sought to do similar with.
Not two years ago, the Department of Health was compiling secret dossiers on children with autism if they were taking a case against the State. We are all acutely aware of the devastating outcomes of the CervicalCheck scandal that still looms large for so many women and their families. Bullish responses help nobody and, therefore, my questions are specific. Have the three coalition leaders discussed these memos that relate to the charging of nursing home fees and the unlawful withholding of disability payments? Have they been provided with copies of those memos and the related documentation? If not, have they asked for them? These are matters that the Taoiseach needs to get a grip on today, in real time. Finally, will the Taoiseach agree to the publication of these documents?
I thank Deputies for their questions. On the historical nursing home charges relating to private nursing homes, I emphasise again that this does not relate to anyone who is currently in a nursing home today or who has been in recent years. It relates to charges prior to the 2005-06 period. The matter was resolved prospectively when the fair deal scheme was set up in 2009, which is the legal basis by which anyone can receive a place in a nursing home and sets out the contributions that they have to make towards that, if any. The State and the taxpayer have compensated those who paid charges in public nursing homes at a cost of €480 million. That was the right thing to do. It was done at the time. The situation with private nursing homes is different. That was explained at the time in 2006. The Government does not accept that medical card patients ever had an unqualified entitlement to free private nursing home care. Even today, medical card patients who choose or are forced to go privately do not get a refund. Where we pay for private care for people with medical cards, it is done by prior agreement. There is a system in place. People cannot just bill the Government after the fact.
It was never the intention of the Government or Oireachtas to create such an entitlement, which is clear from the debates at the time; that matters. Some cases have been settled; others have not. We await a report from the Attorney General. The legal strategy has been misrepresented and memos have been selectively quoted. It is clear from the memos I have seen, though I am sure I have not seen them all, that the strategy was to identify a test case or lead case and to defend it. The State sets out what its bona fide defence would be. There are three lines of defence. Any one of them would have been adequate. As I mentioned, some cases were settled but not all. That was done on an individual basis.
The issue of the disability payment is different. The legal advice is different and much clearer. I have not seen the 2009 memo. I just saw the programme on "Prime Time" last night. I have seen the 2011 memo but only recently. I will look into it further. As I said earlier, this relates to prior to 2007. The disability allowance has been paid in full for the past 15 years to people with disabilities and in long-term care. It relates to the period before that. That is significant.
The three coalition leaders have discussed the nursing homes issue, as has the whole Cabinet. We have not discussed the issue of the disability payment yet but I am sure we will. I would caution people not to read memos in isolation. There may be many different memos and briefing documents that might provide a different picture of things. I caution people not to selectively read or selectively quote memos. Government memos can be 50 or 60 pages long. It is easy to take out a sentence or paragraph and create a particular impression from that. When the memo is seen in totality, with all of the other memos that came before and after it, the situation may look very different. I know Members know that deep down, although they might not want to bother with that. They will all have files or documents in their offices from which one paragraph or page can be taken that would not create an accurate impression of what the entire file looks like. I know Members know that and it does not suit them to know that, but they know it.
On tax on investment funds, the Government keeps all tax matters under review. There are finance Bills every year. I am not at liberty to say what might be in the Bill, but it will become clear when it is published.
Ukraine War
Seán Haughey
Ceist:10. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent phone conversation with the Ukrainian President. [4222/23]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:11. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent phone call with the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. [4424/23]
Paul Murphy
Ceist:12. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent phone call with the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. [4427/23]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 to 12, inclusive, together.
I spoke by phone with the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Tuesday, 10 January. President Zelenskyy extended new year's wishes to the people of Ireland and expressed his appreciation for the steadfast assistance and friendship shown by Ireland and the Irish people to Ukraine over the past year, and to the more than 70,000 Ukrainians who have received refuge and protection in Ireland. I assured President Zelenskyy of Ireland's continued solidarity. I also confirmed to him that Ireland will continue to stand with Ukraine, now and throughout its path towards EU membership.
We discussed Russia's despicable attacks on Ukraine's civilian population and energy infrastructure. The President said that in the face of and despite this brutal aggression, the people of Ukraine remained strong and determined that Russia will not win its war of aggression. I said that Ireland had been pleased recently to help with equipment to repair Ukraine's electricity grid, and to provide budgetary assistance to the Government of Ukraine to meet essential needs and services, including during this winter period.
President Zelenskyy raised his ten-point peace formula and looked forward to Ireland and other international partners' co-operation in implementing a peace plan when conditions allow. In that context, I affirmed Ireland's solidarity and our desire and determination to see the restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity and independence, and for holding those responsible for the war to account. President Zelenskyy also extended an invitation to me to visit Ukraine at a future opportunity.
On that last point, does the Taoiseach intend to visit Ukraine? Perhaps he could let us know his views on that, having regard to the invitation. As we know, 24 February marks the first anniversary of Russia's illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine. Since then, the support and solidarity given by Ireland and the EU to Ukraine has been rock solid, and rightly so. In his phone conversation with President Zelenskyy on 10 January, the Taoiseach discussed Ukraine's initiative for a just peace. It is up to Ukraine to decide on the terms, conditions and timeline for such a peace agreement. I am interested to know how Ireland might assist with this proposed peace plan. I understand that it covers issues such as accountability for war crimes, food security and matters surrounding nuclear safety, among other things. I take it that Ireland is supporting the establishment of a special tribunal to prosecute these war crimes.
Under the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy, it is proposed to provide military training to Ukraine. Ireland's expertise in this regard is in clearing land of mines and the management of explosives. This will still be an issue when the war ends. Perhaps a report could be presented to the House, outlining how Ireland can assist President Zelenskyy's initiative for a just peace.
On a related issue, there are fresh reports regarding the possible need to introduce amending legislation to defence Acts so that protection can be provided for our ambassador in Kyiv.
Maybe this is a matter for the Minister for Defence but if the Taoiseach knows anything about this in relation to promised legislation, I would appreciate if he would let me know.
I noted that those in the Dáil for Leaders' Questions stood for a pause for peace. It is a very good thing that people would stand up and call for world peace. When we look at the horrific conflict that is taking place not only in Ukraine but also in Yemen, Syria, where we have seen the horrors, and many other parts of the world, I do not really understand how we can stand for peace and call for a pause for peace, on the one hand, but there is no sign from the Government of what is supposed to be a neutral country of our actually urging peace in the terrifying conflict taking place in Ukraine. The despicable character, as the Taoiseach called it, of Putin's invasion is beyond question. He is a tyrant, a warmonger and a bully and what he is doing is wrong but that does not mean that continually escalating the war is the solution because it has reached a terrifying level. As I mentioned last week, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which was set up by Einstein in 1945, has stated the clock towards nuclear annihilation is closer than it has ever been since the end of the Second World War. It is 90 seconds to disaster. That is where things seem to be going. President Zelenskyy is looking for tanks. Then he wants F-16 fighters. Where does it go? Is the Taoiseach worried about the possibility of this escalating to a nuclear confrontation which would be a disaster for everyone? Should Ireland not use its voice to call for de-escalation?
Does the Taoiseach have any concerns about the largest weapons transfer in history being made by NATO forces into Ukraine? This escalated in the past week in the decision to send heavy tanks in the form of M1 Abrams from the US and Leopard 2 tanks from Germany and other European countries. Precisely as Deputy Boyd Barrett indicated, the logic of this is to have further and further escalation. Now the demand is that the only way to use these tanks very effectively is to have F-16 fighters in the air. The things that were previously said by western leaders about containing this conflict within certain realms, not going for an air conflict with Russia, for example, over the ground of Ukraine, are now being discarded. Is the Taoiseach not at all concerned that this leads in an extremely dangerous direction which could end up in further escalation by Putin, who is responsible for the brutal, bloody and imperialist invasion if Ukraine, into nuclear conflict? That is something that all of humanity must be extremely concerned about.
The winners here are not ordinary people in Ukraine or anywhere around the world but the armament manufacturers. If we look at their profits, General Dynamics, which makes Abrams tanks and Stryker vehicles, increased its profits in the final quarter of last year by 15.5%; Ratheon Technologies, maker of Stinger and Javelin missiles, doubled its profits in the last quarter of 2022; and Lockheed Martin also significantly increased its profits. They are the big winners out of this. Is the Taoiseach not concerned that these dealers of death and destruction are profiting from this massive drive to militarisation and massive expansion of military budgets, not ordinary people?
I would like to visit Ukraine. I have never had the opportunity to visit that country and would very much like to do so. I am connected to it now in a way I never was in the past given that someone from Ukraine has been living with me since May 2022. I have come to learn a lot about the country and its culture and would love a chance to visit at some point. I would particularly like to be able to visit a country that is at peace. If the opportunity arises, I will travel to Ukraine to show our support and re-emphasise our solidarity but no dates have been agreed or discussed at this stage.
President Zelenskyy made me aware of his ten-point peace plan which I have looked at since we spoke. It is very good but realistically I do not think it is something that Russia would ever agree to. Ukraine will have to regain more, if not all, of its territory before the prospect of a cease-fire or peace arises. The way we can achieve peace is for Russia to withdraw from the territories it has occupied. That is not something the Deputy should be blasé about.
I am not being blasé. It is death or glory though.
Calling on someone to withdraw from occupied territories is something they should do. We want to get the embassy in Kyiv up and running, have the ambassador there and have it functioning again. There are some issues around security. I do not know the details of that but I know the Tánaiste is working on it.
I absolutely agree that escalation is not a solution but what is the alternative? Is it to allow Russia a free hand to massacre the Ukrainian people, occupy their capital and take away their freedoms and democracy? I know the Deputy is not saying that but it is not the case that anyone thinks escalation is a solution. Weapons are being provided to Ukraine because if they are not provided, the conflict will escalate anyway. Russia will enter the big cities and will do in those cities - Kharkiv, Kyiv, Zaporizhzhia and Odesa - exactly what it has done in the cities it has occupied. It is not a choice between escalation or de-escalation. Russia will escalate this war anyway, kill more civilians and commit the most heinous atrocities. The reason weapons are being provided to Ukraine is to hold Russia back. That is the impossible choice that countries bigger than ours are now making.
I want to be very clear, however, that we do call for de-escalation. We want Russia to cease fire, stop its advance, stop the missile attacks and air strikes on civilian targets and pull back from the territories it has occupied. That would put us in a different place. I do not think western governments would have to provide additional armaments to Ukraine if that were to happen. It is important that we never allow anyone to doubt that all of us in this House believe that Russia is the aggressor. I know the Deputies opposite are not supporters of Vladimir Putin or the Russian regime but I think it is important that in their comments they do not create the impression that this is somehow a war between equals. This is a big country against a small country. This is an aggressor against a country that has been attacked. There is a big difference between providing weapons to a country that is defending itself and providing support to a country that is on the attack. Just like the Deputies, I am appalled to see the arms industry making money and increasing profits as a result of what is happening in Ukraine. I would much rather see that money being spent on reconstruction.
Taoiseach's Meetings and Engagements
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:13. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent attendance at the World Economic Forum in Davos. [3073/23]
Paul Murphy
Ceist:14. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent attendance at the World Economic Forum in Davos. [3076/23]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 and 14 together.
I travelled to the World Economic Forum's annual meeting in Davos on 18 January. That evening I attended an IDA Ireland event where I met with some leading job creators in Ireland from across industry, including manufacturing, chemicals, technology and finance. On 19 January, I attended a foreign policy-focused event hosted by Lally Weymouth of The Washington Post with guests including other leaders, heads of international organisations and members of the US Administration. That afternoon I participated in a panel discussion on widening Europe's horizons which considered how the new European political community can foster transformative political dialogue amid wider geopolitical shifts. My fellow panellists included the Serbian President, Aleksandar Vučić, the Albanian Prime Minister, Edi Rama and the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola who will visit Dublin on 2 February. I also attended a dinner hosted by the World Economic Forum president, Børge Brende, which included other participants from the European Commission, the IMF, the OECD, other European leaders and representatives from industry.
During my visit, I had meetings with a range of international and political leaders, including the President of Moldova, Maia Sandu, who will host the next European Political Community summit in June, and Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, leader of the Belarusian democratic movement. We talked about her particular connection to Roscrea and Ireland, the political situation in Belarus and the ongoing war in Ukraine. I also met with Samantha Power, USAID administrator, and we spoke about Ireland-US aid collaboration on food security and child nutrition. I also met with the leader of the Labour Party in the UK, Keir Starmer. We discussed the importance of a strong British-Irish relationship and the ongoing EU-UK negotiations on the protocol, as well as our shared concern for the restoration of the Good Friday Agreement institutions.
I met with senior representatives of multinational companies of significance to Ireland, including Intel, Meta and Amazon Web Services. These meetings are typically an opportunity for company executives to update me on progress with their operations in Ireland and their future development plans, including in the context of current job losses across the tech sector. For my part, it was an opportunity to emphasise again Ireland's core strengths, including talent, stability and a proven track record.
The Davos gathering of billionaires, political elites and multinational corporations that are staggeringly wealthy to discuss the future of the world is sort of nauseating in and of itself but at least it provides the opportunity for groups like Oxfam to highlight gross inequality and wealth and put forward proposals. As I mentioned earlier, and as we have done ever since I have been in this Dáil, we are putting forward proposals for a modest wealth tax on those very highest of earners. Oxfam has proposed a modest incremental wealth tax on the net assets of people who have wealth in excess of €4.7 million. This is not a tax, as the Taoiseach said earlier, on ordinary people. Some 95,000 people have that much wealth in this country. Would it not be reasonable to put a 2% or 3% wealth tax on that wealth to fund housing, health services and cost-of-living measures?
The only good thing about Davos is the fact that Oxfam produces this report on a yearly basis to highlight the galloping inequality in the world, which has accelerated throughout the process of Covid when some big corporations made massive profits. The consequence of that galloping inequality is that in Ireland the two richest people now have as much wealth - €15 billion - as the poorest 50% of the population. The number of super-rich people has doubled. Does the Taoiseach have a problem with that or does he just think that is the price of capitalism, that these people gather all the wealth but some of it trickles down? All the evidence suggests that the money is not trickling down. Instead, it continues to flood upwards but he is resistant to proper taxes on corporations or wealth taxes to try to use some of this revenue to benefit the majority in this society.
I just have a different perspective on it to the Deputy. I do not think our end points are different; I just have a different perspective on it. It is the Deputy's view that higher taxes always result in more revenues for the Government, which we can then spend on health, housing and everything else. My view is that it is not necessarily like that. We have very low corporation profit taxes in Ireland and yet we bring in more per capita in corporation profit taxes than almost any other country in the world or in Europe.
That is because we are a tax haven.
It is the low taxes on corporations in Ireland that produce the massive tax revenues we can spend on health, housing and education. If we doubled or trebled our corporation profit tax, I think the receipts would go down. I do not want that to ever be tested. That is one of the reasons I am glad neither of the Deputies is Minister for Finance, because I think they would test it. They would hike up profit taxes on businesses and those businesses would relocate elsewhere, taking their jobs and profits elsewhere, and they would bring in a new era of austerity. That is not something I would like to see.
Is féidir teacht ar Cheisteanna Scríofa ar
www.oireachtas.ie
.
Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.
Cuireadh an Dáil ar fionraí ar 1.55 p.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 2.55 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 1.55 p.m. and resumed at 2.55 p.m.