Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Nolan and Mr. Claridge. The first issue I wanted to bring up has been dealt with to a degree. It relates to the current difficulties concerning the Irish protocol. I welcome what was said in that it follows on from what we have heard from Vice-President Šefovi on engaging with those who are seeking to provide solutions. We have from the British Government, and particularly Mr. David Frost, what can, at best, be described as noise. Very soon, we will see the colour of the British Government's money and whether it is serious or play-acting. I welcome the fact that the relevant officials are ready to go if there is an element of good faith on the British side. None of this is helped by the fact that there has been an element of political unionism painting itself into a corner, but I hope we can get beyond that. The fact is that there seems to be a large number of people who just want solutions to their day-to-day problems, particularly in the North.

Has the Commission had any engagement on difficulties concerning An Post? I am referring to the change concerning customs requirements on 1 July. I get that the problem is partly because smaller suppliers in Britain just have not prepared for Brexit in the same way as similar companies here. There seems to be an issue. Any pressure that can be brought to bear to bring about a solution will be helpful. There will be stockpiling and delays, and we are in the run-up to Christmas. I know it is a poxy line, but the Santa Claus supply chain could be impacted by this. Everything that can be done to mitigate the problem should be done.

On the vaccine roll-out, the Commission engaged and delivered what was a solution across every state. Had we done what was done in other states, things would have been far worse. There may have been naïveté regarding some of the dealings with particular companies. There was probably an element of the European Commission and European Union dealing with something they did not necessarily have competence in. It shows that, in the future, we do not necessarily need constitutional change regarding delivery; we just need to be able to set out targets that states can buy into when it can be seen that the European Union and Commission can benefit all of us.

My next question is broader. At one stage, there was serious over-and-back over the fact that none of us is safe until all of us are safe. People talked about the TRIPS waiver and said there is no need for it and that it is a cul-de-sac. I am not ideologically wedded to anything but I wonder where the delegates believe matters stand as regards global capacity for production and delivery. These are what matter. That is accepting that as we try to deliver to the developing world, there will be difficulties if there is no proper health infrastructure. My fear over COVAX is that it is aiming to deal with, say, only 20% of the population in some of the areas. What is the scope of HERA?

It is important that lessons be learned. We will have to maintain an element of consistent and constant review, particularly when talking about a stimulus programme. It really has to be targeted.

On the European chips Act, we all get the difficulty regarding semiconductors. Could the delegates go into a little detail on how the European Commission believes it can enter the fray and make a difference concerning what is a serious supply chain problem in the sense that production was overtaken by other elements of the IT sector? There was a need for more computers, devices and whatever due to remote working. There was no car production for part of the time. Now we have a difficulty.

The social climate fund amounts to €72 billion. What can be drawn down? Could the witnesses give some detail on this? I get that they could spend a whole hour answering every question I ask.

On defence, I must add the caveat that we all accept that there needs to be engagement; we cannot put our heads in the sand. If we are talking about Afghanistan, however, we should call the situation what it is. To a degree, it is a misadventure in respect of which the US would have been better reading a couple of history books rather than watching reruns of "Rambo III". Trillions were spent to end up back almost at the starting point. We do not really need the European Commission and European Union to become part of that. What exactly do the witnesses foresee in respect of the EU–NATO joint declaration, which would frighten me somewhat?

I agree wholeheartedly that we need to consider cyberdefence. The ransomware attack on the HSE proved that to everybody.

To meet that threat, we will need the capacity we have as a group rather than as individuals. We need a capacity to disrupt the attacks, which, to some degree, requires offensive abilities. However, I do not like the idea that cyberdefence would be included with regular defence. As I said, I have concerns regarding a European defence union.

I agree with everything that has been said about the rule of law. As much as dialogue always must come first, it is a question of what leverages we have in the toolbox. There have been difficulties from time to time in trying to link moneys and budgets with ensuring due diligence in terms of the rule of law. We all agree that breaches have occurred in Hungary and Poland, but in the case of the Spain, for example, notwithstanding that we get into constitutional questions, there are not many people who could say that the Spanish Government dealt fairly with some of its Catalonian elected representatives. I suspect there is a feeling across Europe that, sometimes, the rule of law impacts on them but does not impact on some of the original funders of the EU or those who came into the family at an earlier stage.

We all accept the necessity of a media freedom Act to ensure the primacy and freedom of the media. The Facebook whistleblower situation was in the news last week, with the allegation of antagonism and pursuing a "hate sells" approach. That did not come as any shock to us but it is something we collectively need to deal with as we look to the future. Sometimes it is easier to deal with issues on a European level rather that at the level of individual states. We are talking about going toe to toe with some very serious companies but it is something that has to be done. Whatever about the idea that hate sells, we have a wider issue in that what also sells is the really negative stuff, particularly, for instance, in regard to eating disorders. There was an allegation that Facebook was aware of the damage that was being done to people's mental health but, because that sort of messaging was selling and there was profit in it, action was not taken. The company would say that is not true of course, but we need to ensure there are protections in that regard.

If Ms Nolan can answer all of those questions in the next few minutes, I would be delighted.