Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his presentation and all the answers so far which are extremely helpful. I will do something I am not supposed to do and specifically thank the officials present. All three have been very helpful to this committee in allowing us to understand a very changing Europe over recent months.

I will make one comment and then I will ask a few questions. I fully agree with the Minister on the impact the European Union has had on Ireland. However, we need a little bit more vigilance. We cannot assume that core acquis, the core set of principles, will automatically be embraced as enlargement happens. As we have seen from political developments in the United States, things that we assume are always heading in a single direction can alter.

I make that as a point of vigilance, rather than anything else.

Turning to the strategy of the European Union, will the Minister tell the committee his view of the strategic approach of the Union to the conflict, insofar as he can? Obviously, the European Union is supporting Ukraine now militarily and financially, not with European troops but with a panoply of European equipment, defensive artillery and so on. Is there another track or a vision for the endgame or is it simply to support Ukraine until these matters are determined on the battlefield?

My question on sanctions builds on comments from Deputies Calleary and Richmond. As the Minister is aware, I introduced the Proceeds of Crime (Gross Human Rights Abuses) Bill 2020. Deputy Calleary referred to the Criminal Assets Bureau, CAB, and how effective it is in seizing the proceeds of crime. That Bill has passed Second Stage and has been approved by the Joint Committee on Justice but it could not proceed to Committee Stage last week because the Government refused to give it a money message. I think that is a big mistake. The sanctions that apply now, as has been explained to us, are political sanctions, not legal sanctions. Goods and assets are being frozen not seized in the way that CAB seizes and disposes of goods from criminals and from the proceeds of crime. I ask the Minister, and if he cannot answer I will make the point to him, that he might bring to the Cabinet the view that it should provide a money message. A money message was never intended to be a device to stop the Oireachtas from enacting legislation. It was supposed to be a simple economic device to ensure that the Opposition could not impose a charge on the State.

I refer to Ukrainian refugees in Ireland. Yesterday, the Ukrainian civil society forum, a collective of all the agencies and so on that are involved, came to the Oireachtas and made a presentation to us. They made four recommendations about Ukrainians who are here. One is the need to appoint a refugee response lead. They made a written submission that there is a vacuum in overall governance, planning and communication around what is happening or available and communicating directly with Ukrainians in Ireland. The three other points were first, to establish a national co-ordinating group inclusive of civil society, second, to publish a plan that articulates and sets out the State's approach and third, to ensure that all counties have appointed a director of service. There is a full written submission and if the Minister does not have it we can get it to him but I want to take the opportunity to bring this to his attention. I have dealt with refugees coming in at Rosslare and have dealt with Wexford County Council. There are about 1,300 Ukrainian refugees in Wexford, my home county. Much of the responsibility is being pushed onto the local authority and the level of national co-ordination is lacking. That is their clear view.

The Minister said he was going to Moldova in two weeks' time. The committee was in Moldova and Romania. One thing we were a little jarred by was the presentation particularly by the Romanian authorities on the very significant expenditure they have undertaken to support Ukrainian refugees in Romania. They have been told by the EU that they can spend their cohesion money on that first, that is their first port of call, rather than a new allocation of money to cover those costs. It might have been expedient on day one to say: "You have money there. We have to go through processes" but that cannot be a medium or long-term solution that they would spend money that had already been allocated for their own domestic economy in cohesion funding for this purpose. Is there specific significant funding that will compensate totally those countries that are now using cohesion funding for this?