Bernard Durkan
Ceist:1. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Taoiseach if security issues were discussed at the recent meeting in Prague consisting of the European-wide Heads of State. [50288/22]
Amharc ar fhreagraTuesday, 15 November 2022
Ceisteanna (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
Seán Haughey
Ceist:2. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent attendance at the first meeting of the European Political Community. [50726/22]
Amharc ar fhreagraBernard Durkan
Ceist:3. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Taoiseach the extent to which discussions took place at the recent intergovernmental conference in Prague regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine. [51635/22]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Mary Lou McDonald
Ceist:4. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent attendance at the Prague summit of the European Political Community. [51352/22]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Peadar Tóibín
Ceist:5. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the Prime Minister of Ukraine in Prague. [52972/22]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Mick Barry
Ceist:6. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting of the European Political Community. [53552/22]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:7. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting of the European Council in Prague. [53576/22]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Paul Murphy
Ceist:8. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting of the European Council in Prague. [53579/22]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Ivana Bacik
Ceist:9. Deputy Ivana Bacik asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the European Political Community meeting in Prague and the informal European Council meeting. [55384/22]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Rose Conway-Walsh
Ceist:10. Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting of the European Council in Prague. [55406/22]
Amharc ar fhreagraMick Barry
Ceist:11. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting of the European Political Community. [56702/22]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (60 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 11, inclusive, together.
The first meeting of the European Political Community on 6 October was a welcome development in wider European political engagement. It was hosted by the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Mr. Petr Fiala, with the support of the President of the European Council, Mr. Charles Michel. Forty-four states were invited to participate, including all 27 EU member states, the European Free Trade Agreement, EFTA, partner countries - Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein - the United Kingdom, Türkiye, the six western Balkans countries - Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, North Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo - and five of the six eastern partnership countries, namely, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova and Ukraine. No invitation was extended to Belarus in light of its ongoing facilitation of Russia's aggression.
The meeting achieved its primary aim of bringing together leaders from across the Continent of Europe to recognise the considerable degree of common cause among us. The formal agenda included Ukraine, energy and the European economy. It was notable also for the agreement reached in the margins with Armenia and Azerbaijan to accept a civilian EU mission alongside their border.
While at the European Political Community meeting, I participated in a round-table discussion on energy, climate and the economy. Other leaders participated in a round-table discussion on peace and security on the European Continent. I was very pleased also to have bilateral meetings with Ukraine, Albania and Bosnia while in Prague. The Prime Minister of Ukraine, Mr. Denys Shmyhal, expressed his appreciation that Ireland continued to be at the forefront of advocating for Ukraine's membership of the European Union, for the toughest possible sanctions against Russia and for holding Russia accountable, and that we were hosting over 50,000 Ukrainian people in need of protection. I assured him of our continued support at this time of terrible need in Ukraine.
As I have said, I also met with two of our partners in the western Balkans - the Prime Minister of Albania, Mr. Edi Rama, and the chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr. Šefik Džaferović. In both meetings, I expressed my support for them on their EU accession pathway.
The members of the European Council held an informal meeting in Prague on 7 October. Our discussion was a strategic one covering the topics of Ukraine, energy and economic issues in order to inform and prepare for the regular meeting which subsequently took place on 20 and 21 October. We discussed Russia's war against Ukraine, including the impact it was having on energy prices in Europe. We were joined in this discussion by Ukraine's President, Mr. Volodymyr Zelenskiy, via video conference. We welcomed the eighth package of sanctions against Russia adopted on 6 October in response to Russia's illegitimate referenda and illegal annexations in Ukraine. We also discussed political, military and financial support for Ukraine as well as the importance of countering Russian narratives. We confirmed our resolve to work with and support partners across the world in tackling food security issues exacerbated by Russia's war.
I will ask Members to stick to one minute each, because there are many questions in this grouping.
The concept of a European political community was an initiative of the French President, Mr. Emmanuel Macron. He made this proposal at the Conference on the Future of Europe when it was concluding. Forty-four European countries, including Ireland, attended the first meeting in Prague. The UK also attended, which marked a change in attitudes by the British to European affairs generally. There is no doubt that the Russian invasion of Ukraine acted as a catalyst for the establishment of this new forum. At the meeting, extraordinary solidarity was expressed with Ukraine, and rightly so. The European Political Community also gives encouragement and support to applicant countries pending their full membership of the EU. Is there a future for the European Political Community? How would the Taoiseach like to see this forum develop? Should it be given a more formal structure and should it meet more frequently? I would welcome the Taoiseach's views on these matters.
I am delighted to see the Ceann Comhairle back in the Chair.
The Taoiseach stated that energy and energy security were a significant focus of the Prague summit, and they continue to be for European political leaders. In that regard, I wish to raise our planning system, particularly An Bord Pleanála, which has been in crisis for some time. The difficulties run deeper than the behaviour of individual board members. There are issues around governance and organisational culture, but we are now at a critical point with just four board members in place. What is going to be done about this, even temporarily? I understand that the Government is looking for secondments from Departments. Substantial changes to the governance of, and appointments to, the board are contained within the development and foreshore (amendment) Bill. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the committee's deliberations on the general scheme of the legislation, but it is important to note that the committee's members have raised concerns regarding some of the Bill's provisions. I urge the Government to work with the Opposition to ensure that we get the reform agenda around planning correct. The resourcing of our planning apparatus also needs to be beefed up significantly so that it is fit for purpose for delivering critical infrastructure, not least in terms of developing renewables, in particular offshore wind.
When the European Political Community is discussed, there is usually much talk of human rights. Many European Political Community countries will shortly be involved at an event that will be much discussed in the context of human rights. I am referring to the Qatar World Cup, which starts in five days' time. The Qatari regime will try to use this event to sportswash its shocking record on workers' rights, women's rights and rights for the LGBT community. Many European states benefited from the rotten decision to award the World Cup to Qatar, not least the French Government, which sold fighter jets worth $14.6 billion to Qatar after France threw its weight behind the Qatari bid. I wish to give our Government the opportunity to reflect the sentiments of the Irish people and speak out strongly this week against the human rights abuses of the Qatari regime. I would be interested to hear the Taoiseach's comments on this matter in his reply.
Once again, we have further evidence of the Government trying to soften up public opinion to abandon Ireland's neutrality. In respect of the Ukraine conflict, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Coveney, stated that we were not neutral. This begs the question of what neutrality means if we abandon it when there is a conflict. The Minister went on to say that people should talk to the Russians. We all condemn Putin's bloody invasion of Ukraine, but is it not precisely the role of a neutral country to be the voice on the international stage that argues for a peaceful resolution to conflict? I do not see how we can tally that with the repeated statements of various Ministers about rethinking neutrality and so on and the presence of representatives of the State at the Ukraine contact group, which is establishing military alliances to involve themselves in the Ukrainian conflict.
The Supreme Court judgment about the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, is significant. It puts Ireland at the centre of a debate that is taking place across Europe and in Canada, with many ordinary people mobilising against what is a charter for corporations.
Earlier, the Taoiseach wanted to speak in generalities about free trade being a good thing. He did not address either the substance of the Supreme Court decision or what those of us objecting to CETA are objecting to, namely, the establishment of the investor court system, which would be a parallel system of justice that can only be accessed by corporations taking states to court for either direct or indirect expropriation, which can be - and regularly is - interpreted as anything that interferes with the right of corporations to maximise their profits. Is the Taoiseach aware that there are more than 1,000 cases right now involving Canadian companies suing different states? Does the Taoiseach know that these include European states, contrary to what the Taoiseach said earlier? A mining corporation based in Canada is currently suing Romania and another Canadian company is suing Croatia. Will the Taoiseach agree that CETA should be put to the people in a referendum to decide whether they want the State to sign it?
Fáiltím an Ceann Comhairle ar ais. When the Taoiseach attended the European Political Community forum in Prague on 6 October, the protests in Iran were only a few weeks old. Tomorrow marks the two-month anniversary of the tragic death of Mahsa Amini in Iran. Since then, more than 300 people have died over two months of demonstrations, and as many as 14,000 may have been imprisoned. The impetus to act grows as more and more people are detained on bogus charges. I met last week with representatives of the Irish-Iranian campaign group Support Equality and Freedom for Iran. They said to me how best they feel Ireland can use its diplomatic power to effect change. I ask that at every opportunity when the Taoiseach engages with other EU leaders, if he might: reinforce calls for new sanctions on Iran; ensure that we also use our place on the Security Council to act on the Iranian issue; and that we take action here in Ireland. I have called on the Taoiseach previously to consider expelling the Iranian ambassador because of the absolutely egregious abuses of human rights being committed on a daily basis against protesters in Iran and because of the repression of women's rights in that country.
Last year, the Taoiseach returned from Glasgow having apparently signed up to a pledge to cut methane emissions by 30%. When he got off the plane, however, we discovered that the State had no intentions of doing anything like that. I would like the Taoiseach to address this matter because it may appear that a similar sleight of hand is on display after the lofty rhetoric in Sharm el-Sheikh. There are reports from the EU Council that Ireland has voted to exclude financial investments and funds from the EU corporate sustainability due diligence directive. This means, as an Oxfam report recently showed, that a huge proportion of the emissions causing climate warming on the planet are caused by the wealthiest people and that the fossil fuel industry will continue to be funded and will have no problem getting the funds it needs in order to have a boom in gas infrastructure globally. Ireland is leading the charge, along with Luxembourg, to exclude financial investors from this very important sustainability directive. Will the Taoiseach please address that?
Given the range of questions perhaps we could take five minutes from the other block, or else the Taoiseach will have just two and three-quarter minutes to address those questions. Is that agreed?
Agreed.
Okay, so I propose seven and a half minutes.
Deputy Haughey raised the issue of the European Political Community. It is a significant development when 44 countries come together in an overall forum. Earlier, there had been some concerns that this was a substitute for enlargement, for example, but it is not that. This was very clear from the deliberations at the forum. I attended one of the break-out meetings on energy. These meetings were very good and concrete engagements, in particular with the Prime Minister of Norway regarding renewables, and also looking forward to stabilising pricing with Norway, exports of oil and so on. It was a very good and meaningful engagement between countries. There were Azerbaijan-Armenia discussions after dinner, mediated by France, which were about those two countries accepting an EU civilian group in respect of the borders there. One can see the potential for the European Political Community to be, at a minimum, a forum where issues can be resolved, the potential for conflict reduced and challenging issues dealt with. I am not clear yet that it is time for any structure because that could lead to people leaving. The forum is not the European Union, and it is not meant to be a replica of the European Union. The fact that the United Kingdom attended was good.
This all means that it is a forum at which people who are not in the European Union can engage with members of the latter. Over time, the number of meetings may increase but the international calendar is very full. The next meeting is due to take place in the early part of next year in Moldova. After that, there will be meetings in Spain and the UK. Those involved are looking at having meetings once every six months. I take the Deputy's point but, over time, that may grow. In between, there will be: the formal meetings of the European Union with the full councils; the Asia-Europe, meeting, ASEM; the EU-China summit; the China-Western Balkans meeting; the China-EU meeting; and the China-East Asia summit, ASEAN. Suddenly, one begins to see that the calendar fills up very quickly. To answer the Deputy's question, there is a future for the European Union within the European Political Community. I came away from the meeting thinking that the forum has real potential from the point of view of the very basic premise of people meeting and engaging in breaking down barriers.
Deputy McDonald raised the issue of the planning system insofar as it relates to energy security, but that probably belongs to a different question with regard to An Bord Pleanála or housing. The Government hopes to publish a review of the planning system shortly. That review has been under way for over 12 months, with a lot of expertise brought to bear in the context of streamlining our planning system. In the context of energy security, in particular renewables and offshore wind, we need to get offshore wind projects into operation much faster than is currently the case. The European Union carried out an analysis in this regard. It has indicated that it can take eight years from concept to realisation of an offshore wind farm coming into operation in Europe. I have a suspicion that it would take longer here. Therefore, we must do everything we possibly can to make sure we do that because offshore wind is the real alternative to fossil fuels for this country. It is the real answer to fossil fuels and to reducing our dependency on them.
In addition, there does need to be reform of An Bord Pleanála. There needs to be change there and additional resources need to be provided. The Minister for Justice is looking at an environmental court as well to strengthen on the judicial side our overall response to environmental and climate change issues.
On Deputy Barry's question, we do raise, on a constant basis, breaches of human rights, both through the European Union and bilaterally with countries such as Qatar. Again, with regard to the World Cup, I do not believe that Qatar would have been able to sportswash. It has had the opposite impact to date. Far more issues have resurfaced as a result of Qatar hosting the World Cup than might have been the case with international profiling of issues. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Coveney, and the Government have spoken out against breaches of human rights.
Deputy Boyd Barrett raised the issue of neutrality. Neutrality in Ireland has meant that Ireland is not a member of a military alliance.
That is the Government position but it is not Ireland’s position.
Yes. It has been the official Government position for a long time that Ireland is not a member of such an alliance, and this has been repeated consistently in legislation. Ireland's official policy is to be militarily non-aligned. We are, however, not politically non-aligned. I was surprised when the Deputy, through the Chair, criticised the Minister for Foreign Affairs and stated that we are not neutral towards Ukraine. We are not. We are not politically neutral in respect of Ukraine. Russia has invaded Ukraine. How could we be neutral? Is the Deputy suggesting that we should be neutral on this? This is not a conflict between two countries. This was an invasion by one country with an imperialist 19th-century perspective that believes it has a right to say that its neighbour does not have a right to exist and stated, "We are taking over that neighbour. We are going to invade it and, with all of the military power that we have, we will bomb residential targets and infrastructure, and you have to come to heel". It also stated, "The rest of the world should stay neutral on this and let us get about our business because this is alongside where we live." We cannot accept that premise. As a result, we cannot be neutral on the matter. We just cannot be neutral on it.
It is an outrageous invasion, but the Government did not say this about the Iraq war in the context of neutrality-----
I am shocked that the Deputy is saying we should be neutral on it. I am absolutely shocked that the Deputy is saying we should be neutral in respect of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That is shocking. I disagree fundamentally with the Deputy. I will not be neutral on something of that kind.
We are running out of time.
Deputy Murphy referred to CETA. The Supreme Court judgment is clear that this can be dealt with via an amendment of the Arbitration Act. I raised the issue of free trade because it is central-----
And sacrifice everything else.
The Taoiseach must deal with the question.
It is a central issue.
It is not an abstract. It is not a vote for or against free trade; it is about CETA.
The point is if one is in favour of free trade, as I unapologetically am, because it means jobs in this country-----
Sacrifice everything else.
No. I want people working in this country. The Deputies are supposed to be for the workers but everything they are doing is against the workers, as far as I can see. If the Deputies' writ was allowed to run here, it would destroy jobs in this country.
No. We would create quality jobs. We would create hundreds of thousands of good jobs.
There is no question about it. We should take the clarity offered by the Supreme Court and amend the Arbitration Act, which would cover trade deals. Investor courts are standard in trade agreements, and the European court has ruled on this.
They are not standard.
No country can be forced to accept it. There can be natural breaches of trade agreements, which have to be arbitrated. Hence, you need an arbitration court.
There are things called courts. Why can it not be done in the courts like everything else?
This makes it far more effective and efficient. People cannot sue a state or ask it to take policies contrary to its legislation policies or its constitution.
They can and do. That is wrong.
They cannot. Nor can they force states to go against the European Treaty.
In terms of Deputy Bacik-----
Time is up. We need to move on to Question No. 12. Questions Nos. 12 to 29, inclusive, have been grouped. That is 18 questions in total from 11 questioners. I suggest that the remaining 25 minutes be given to this group of questions.
It is all housing. It is all one issue.
There are 11 people asking questions, but all right.
I do not mind. I am easy.
What way do you want to deal with it then?
It is up to the Deputies.
Give it all to housing.
Give it all to housing. All right, 25 minutes.
Could I take 30 seconds for the Taoiseach's response on Iran?
Yes.
And 30 seconds for the corporate sustainability EU directive.
Does anyone else want 30 seconds for anything else?
Without the interruptions of previous speakers.
We have taken a stance in respect of Iran, as has the Minister, particularly following the killing of Mahsa Amini and what is going on there right now. It has to be investigated. We have condemned the widespread and disproportionate use of force against peaceful protestors. Women in Iran are being denied their rights. We work with the European Union in communicating our strongest opposition on this to Iranian officials. We will continue to work with the European Union and other international partners to hold Iran accountable for its actions. I do not agree with suspending diplomatic relations. We need to keep channels open.
In response to Deputy Bríd Smith, Ireland has been in the lead on loss and damage and climate finance more generally. It is not lofty rhetoric at COP27. There was no sleight of hand last year either. It is being portrayed that way.
That is not the question. The question is does the Taoiseach support the EU directive on sustainability-----
You made assertions that there was sleight of hand.
Yes, I made assertions but that is not the question.
I am entitled to rebut those.
Yes, can you answer the question though?
I will if you will allow me to. Most people at COP accept Ireland's bona fides in respect of climate finance and loss and damage. We have led the way.
That is not the question. It is not about loss and damage.
I will come back to Deputy Bríd Smith on the specifics of the question.
It is the EU corporate sustainability directive.
In future, if the Deputy wants answers to specific questions, she should not make the assertions she is making.
It was reported that Ireland is leading the charge to-----
We are not. I will follow that up and come back to the Deputy on it.