Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ar son an choiste, cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire, an Teachta Coveney, agus a chomhghleacaithe. Táimid ag dúil go mór leis an díospóireacht faoi na rudaí práinneacha tábhachtacha atá ann faoi láthair, ní hamháin na rudaí atá ag bogadh ar aghaidh san Úcráin leis an Rúis. B'fhéidir go mbeimid ag labhairt faoi rudaí eile inniu fosta.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome the Minister and his officials. They are all very welcome to our meeting. We will be engaging on the topic of the European Union's response to the humanitarian crisis caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine and other matters.

Before we begin, I must advise those present of the position on privilege and deal with housekeeping matters. All witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make any charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. If the witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members will be aware of the constitutional requirements and that their presence must be within the confines of the Leinster House complex. It is imperative that anyone partaking via MS Teams will confirm, prior to making their contribution to the meeting, that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House complex.

We will go straight into our discussion and try to keep it flowing. There are a lot of current issues. I am aware that the Taoiseach has just arrived in Kyiv. I acknowledge the Government's advocacy on behalf of the Ukrainian people. The Minister is aware of the committee's endeavours in trying to develop a deeper understanding and knowledge of what is happening.

We have done that pragmatically, with delegations travelling to Georgia, Romania and Moldova in recent months. While we look forward to the Minister's contribution, I wish to acknowledge how his officials were on hand in advance of those visits to give us very good and comprehensive briefings. We also appreciate the help from the various embassies during our travels.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before it. I am glad to have it. I hope that we will have another meeting after the summer when this conflict will be in a new phase. Hopefully, it will be a better phase, but there is not a great deal of optimism that anything is going to change positively any time soon.

I thank the committee for convening this session on the current situation in Ukraine and the European Union's response. Russia's unprovoked, brutal and unjustifiable aggression against Ukraine began 132 days ago - 132 days of suffering and pain inflicted on the Ukrainian people. We are witnessing their extraordinary courage and resilience and the inspiring leadership of President Zelenskyy and his Government.

I was the first foreign minister to visit Kyiv since 24 February when the war began. During my visit, I met the Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Dmytro Kuleba, the Minister of Defence and the deputy defence minister, and I visited Bucha. What I witnessed there was profoundly shocking. I promised Mr. Kuleba at that point that I would report to the UN Security Council on my visit, which I did in April. At that meeting, I called on Russia to stop this senseless war and brutality.

As a member of the UN Security Council, Ireland has sought to hold Russia accountable, urging it to end its war in Ukraine immediately, pushing for the protection of civilians and calling out Russia's cynical attempts to use the Council and other UN bodies to spread disinformation. Ireland has joined more than 40 countries in referring the situation in Ukraine to the International Criminal Court, ICC. Recognising the increased workload for the court, I approved €3 million in additional funding to assist in the investigation of the situation in Ukraine along with other situations before the court.

The EU has demonstrated its ability to respond quickly in support of Ukraine and has displayed unity in its reaction. Since February, the EU has mobilised over €4 billion in support to Ukraine. This is in the form of macro-financial assistance, budget support, emergency assistance, crisis response and humanitarian aid. In addition, the EU has provided €2 billion of support to the Ukrainian armed forces under the European Peace Facility. Ireland has contributed €44 million towards non-lethal elements of that fund. Bilaterally, Ireland has provided €20 million in humanitarian assistance to Ukraine and neighbouring countries, including Moldova, predominantly through UN agencies. I assure the committee that we will be doing more, including using our broader development budget to address some of the war's impacts on other parts of the world. In March, the EU activated the temporary protection directive to offer quick and effective assistance to people fleeing the war. Since then, Ireland has welcomed almost 40,000 Ukrainians to our shores.

Last month, the European Council decided to grant candidate status to Ukraine, which is an important message that Europe stands with Ukraine. Ireland has been a very strong supporter of that position. I am pleased to say that Ireland has been one of the strongest supporters of Ukraine's application as well as Moldova's. We also want to see Georgia and the western Balkans on the road to full membership. Ireland is probably one of the most vocal European countries in support of enlargement and an acceleration of that process. Ukraine has been making good progress on reforms and we look forward to seeing this continue as part of Ukraine's path towards full EU membership at some point in the future. Last month's ratification of the Istanbul Convention was a clear indication of Ukraine's commitment to aligning with EU standards. To take that initiative as a priority in the midst of war says a great deal about what the Ukrainian Parliament and Government are trying to do.

Since 23 February, and with active Irish support, the EU has adopted the most significant set of sanctions in its history. In total, 1,158 individuals and 98 entities in Russia and Belarus are now sanctioned. Sectoral sanctions are targeting the financial, energy, technology, defence and transport sectors as well as Russian media involved in spreading disinformation. The sale of EU luxury goods to Russia is prohibited, as is the import from Russia and Belarus of certain products. As I have repeatedly stated, Ireland supports the toughest possible sanctions and we are ready to support a ban on Russian gas, building on decisions already taken in respect of oil and coal.

I do not know how long the war will continue, but we know that a global financial effort will be required to rebuild Ukraine after the war. The EU will not be found wanting and will give significant leadership, and Ireland will continue to provide steadfast support to Ukraine and its people. As some committee members may know, there was a conference on the reconstruction of Ukraine in Switzerland in recent days. We had representation there, I believe through the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Fleming. A number of other countries have offered to hold pledging conferences one after another, so there will be a strong appetite within the EU to be central to the rebuilding efforts. However, this conflict needs to end before that can be done for the majority of Ukraine. As such, ending the conflict needs to be a major focus. There is not much optimism that there is any appetite for a ceasefire or to consider the conditions that would deliver one.

For now, it is about trusting in the Ukrainian leadership, supporting the Ukrainian military where appropriate, supporting the Ukrainian people through humanitarian support, both within Ukraine and outside it, and supporting those who have had to flee the conflict, particularly those who have come to Ireland. It is also about trying to address and respond to the extraordinary fallout from this conflict for other parts of the world in terms of cost of living increases. While these are having a significant impact on a country like Ireland, they potentially have life and death consequences in other parts of the world in terms of the availability of food and energy.

This is a conflict that is extraordinarily tragic for Ukrainians from a human suffering point of view, but it is also having significant knock-on consequences, not only on geopolitics, which is now changing by the month, but also in terms of development, poverty, food security, energy security and a range of other pressure points that will need our focus and that of the wider EU in the months ahead. This situation is complex and not easy to solve, but I am happy to take members' questions on what we are doing and how we are approaching it.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his presentation. I call Deputy Richmond. He will be followed by Deputy Calleary.

Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the Minister's frankness. He touched on many key areas, so I will ask supplementary questions to the points he raised to elicit additional information. I will begin in or around where he finished off, that is, the reconstruction conference held last week in Switzerland and the feasibility of future pledging conferences. The Minister will be aware that our wider European political family, the European People's Party, called for a European Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Ukraine. One of the central tenets of that is seizing the assets that have been frozen and using the at least €36 billion taken from the Russian regime and its supporting oligarchs to fund that reconstruction. Would the Government support such a proposal and is it prepared to start working on putting those assets into some form of escrow account for pledging?

I will briefly touch on two other areas. The Minister stated that Ireland supports the toughest possible sanctions and is ready to support a ban on Russian gas. That is extremely welcome. Unfortunately, there are holes in the current sanctions - not due to their application by EU member states and certainly not in the case of Ireland - because of European partners and countries outside the EU. I will not name those countries, but they continue to maintain relatively normal relationships with Russia and Putin's regime. If we support tougher sanctions, will the Government push within the European Council to put more pressure on those countries outside the EU that are undermining European sanctions against Russia and sanctions by the wider world, including the US, Canada, Japan and Australia? It is quite apparent that there are countries that are prepared to accept Russian money and accommodate Russian oligarchs, assets and everything else. It is in defiance of the general will.

The Minister says Ireland stands ready to do more. I fully agree with him. I welcome all the work that has been done by officials across the Government. However, I feel we can do more. I reiterate that we need to look at our support for all European projects, including the provision of lethal military aid towards the Ukrainian army and the donation of surplus javelin missiles and other stock we hold here.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for those questions. The initial cost estimate for reconstruction currently stands at approximately €750 billion. We are talking about a very large country that has endured extraordinary levels of damage and destruction across multiple cities. Some cities hardly exist anymore in light of the level of bombardment and destruction. I witnessed some of that first-hand at Bucha but from what I am told and from the images I have seen, cities like Mariupol and some others are like Bucha multiplied many times over. We are going to need something of a similar level of ambition to a Marshall plan. Ireland will support that and I think many others within the European Union will too. Many Ukrainians need the certainty and the hope of a journey to somewhere different to where they have come from, which is the journey to the European Union and all that comes with that in terms of stability, opportunity, economic development, diversity, and, most importantly, safety and stability. Ukraine would be a member of a group of countries that have extraordinary solidarity with each other within the European Union. We need to physically rebuild Ukraine but also help the Ukrainian Government rebuild institutional infrastructure in the image of what is needed for EU membership. That is what the European Union wants to do in partnership with Ukraine in the future. That is a source of extraordinary hope and courage and is what Ukraine is currently fighting for. It is not only a possibility but a likelihood, if not a certainty, for Ukraine as a country in the future.

I agree with the Deputy that the level of ambition needs to be significant. This should not just be about loans; it should be about grant aid as well. It will be a combination of both, in reality. There has been a series of discussions around how that might work, whether countries could adopt certain oblasts or regions in Ukraine and how to create consistency if we did that. Ireland has been linked to certain cities in that context that have been severely damaged. There is a lot to discuss there. I assure everyone in this room, and anybody else listening, that Ireland will be more than willing to link with whatever structure is agreed between the EU and the Ukrainian Government for rebuilding efforts post conflict.

Regarding the impact of sanctions, our approach to sanctions is a maximalist one because we believe that the higher the cost of the continuation of this war for Russia and the Kremlin, the increased likelihood of it ending some time soon. If there is not a cost, whether political, economic or military, it will continue. The most effective weapon the EU has is sanctions. The European Union is an economic superpower. It has very strong links with Russia in the context of energy in particular but also for lots of other products too. Significant sanctions are needed in order to bring an end to this conflict and I do not believe we have gone far enough. We can go further. The European Union must consider a seventh package of sanctions. There are differing perspectives as to whether we should be bedding down existing sanctions and so on. Unity is important in the European Union. We need to listen to concerns, but Ireland will advocate to continue to raise the cost of the continuation of the war in an effort to bring it to an end. The application of sanctions more generally requires a lot of debate because sometimes sanctions are totally ineffective but in this instance they are more than justified. If you want to end something, you have to increase the negative cost of continuing it. Sanctions can do that.

On the European Peace Facility, it is important to put the facts on the table. Ireland was very involved in finalising the wording of the European Peace Facility to ensure every country in the European Union could be involved if they wanted to be. That means NATO countries, non-NATO countries, countries that regarded themselves as militarily neutral and countries that were not. We led efforts, along with Austria and Malta, to find a wording that could allow Ireland to fully contribute financially to the European Peace Facility. It was never designed for a war like that in Ukraine. It was designed for peace interventions that may involve some arms being supplied in order to facilitate stability around policing and so on. Ireland traditionally has not supported the funding of armaments and we continue in that tradition. Every time €500 million is committed by the European Union through the European Peace Facility, €11 million of that is Irish money. It is 2%, which is our allocation. We have made it clear that, within the funds being provided, we want to be funding the elements that are non-lethal weapons. These elements are necessary. So far, about 10% of the fund relates to non-lethal weapons and 90% relates to weapons. The non-lethal weapons include everything from body armour to helmets, medical equipment, food parcels and fuel. These are all things that are needed by the Ukrainian military.

We are playing our part in terms of the financial contribution, the same as every other country, but we limit our contribution to the element of the fund that covers non-lethal weapons. That is the right approach because it is supported in the programme for Government. It is an approach some Deputies have questioned.

I can understand that because if you ask Ukrainians what they want the most, the answer is that they want weapons to defend themselves. Keeping unity in the Government and in the Oireachtas more generally is important in terms of the strength of response that comes from Ireland. We maintain unity based on what was agreed in the programme for Government and what is supported by a strong majority in the Dáil and Seanad.

Additionally, for what it is worth, I have had this discussion many times with Ukrainian colleagues, including in Kyiv, and they understand where we are coming from. Therefore, we are making a contribution to the Ukrainian military. It is a significant contribution. I never recall Ireland at any point contributing almost €50 million to another country’s military. This is what we have done in the space of four months. We will be contributing more, because I suspect there will be another round of European peace facility funding. By the end of this war, therefore, we could have contributed support worth €70 million or €80 million to the Ukrainian military, outside of lethal weapons. This is worth saying. We are doing many other things as well but the question was around lethal military aid or weapons and ammunition.

It is also important to say that if we compare Ireland with other European countries, then we do not have much to offer when it comes to weapons. There are some Javelin missiles in our military armament stocks, but not many. We certainly do not have many to spare that we do not use for training and for our own teams on missions abroad. We have some anti-tank weapons as well, but not large numbers of them. If we were to support lethal weapons through the European peace facility, we would effectively be writing a cheque for other countries to provide those weapons, by and large. Ireland’s contribution here then is not in the form of weapons and munitions. Our contribution has come in the form of many other things to support the Ukrainian military and, of course, in the humanitarian, diplomatic, sanctions and EU enlargement and EU membership contexts. We are trying to maximise our impact in all those areas. It is important, though, to keep a sense of unity and direction in respect of our overall response to this conflict. If we moved into the space of funding or supplying lethal weapons, we would fracture that unity and that would be a mistake.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister and his officials. I am also a delegate to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, PACE. The Minister made two addresses to our recent plenary meeting. There was great recognition of the role of the Minister and his officials in respect of the assistance provided to Ukraine since 24 February 2022.

We are discussing traditional weapons but the Russians are now weaponising things such as food, energy and information technology to pull in many more countries. How is this new way of war changing the perspective or the approach of the Minister’s Department and within Europe regarding how to manage this aspect? The damage being wrought is horrific. The people of Ukraine are at the most danger of suffering from that damage and many of them have lost their lives. The damage inflicted, however, through weaponising energy and food is also going to be significant beyond the borders of Ukraine. Coming back to the point made by Deputy Richmond, regarding confidence concerning rebuilding Ukraine, I endorse his point. Given our experience with the Criminal Assets Bureau, CAB, and its success, would this not be something for Ireland to lead out on? I refer to using the proceeds of activities and funds being seized in the context of sanctions etc., to support the rebuilding of Ukraine.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I should have answered that question from Deputy Richmond. I am sorry. I will come back to it.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ireland is uniquely placed, given we have the track record of CAB, to do this on a European-wide basis.

We have spoken about the sanctions and the response since 24 February 2022. Obviously, this has been reactive. Is much reflection under way on how we got to this situation? Is there much reflection on the fact that in 2014 we made a great deal of noise but did not take any action in respect of events in the Donbas and in Georgia? I will not say there was acquiescence, but there was a kind of approach that it will be all right on the night in respect of managing Russia and Vladimir Putin’s ambitions. That kind of lax approach has ended up with us being where we are now. Is any kind of reflection ongoing concerning how we got to this point and what is going to change to ensure we do not arrive at this kind of situation again?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the question concerning how we fund this new plan for reconstruction, we are open to what the Deputy suggested. It is, however, much more complex legally than might be thought. We must be consistent with what is legally sound as well. If we are calling out countries for breaching international law, then we must practise what we preach. I am very much open to the approach suggested by the Deputy. Russian aggression is causing all this. We must rebuild a country on the back of what Russia is responsible for in Ukraine in respect of its deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure and all the other things that must be rebuilt. Therefore, if we are seizing assets, it makes sense that the value of those assets would be used to rebuild Ukraine. We asked the European Commission to work up some options in this regard consistent with our legal obligations. I expect it to respond with those options. I must be careful in giving out a figure in this regard, but we have seized somewhere between €1.5 billion and €2 billion in funds.

Ms Sonja Hyland:

We have frozen €1.7 billion.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have frozen €1.7 billion of Russian funds in the context of those financial services so far linked to sanctions. It is not an insubstantial amount of money. We must, though, be responsible here in respect of any action we take being legally sound.

Regarding the other question concerning the weaponising of food and energy, there is now, unfortunately, a communications battle under way concerning what is causing food insecurity in other parts of the world. If you speak to many African leaders, for example, they would blame all sides for the increase in the cost of food that is having a devastating impact on some of their countries. Russia has been quite successful in trying to convince countries that this situation would not be as difficult as it is if it was not for EU and US sanctions. This is simply a misrepresentation of the facts. The reason the price of grain has increased the way it has is because 22 million tonnes of grain are stuck in Ukraine because it is not possible to get it out of the ports there and into the Black Sea due to a Russian-enforced military blockade. This is the reality. We are trying to find a way of getting past this. I was in Ankara a few weeks ago. We spent a long time speaking to the Turkish minister regarding his conversations with the Russian foreign minister, which are continuing, on how to facilitate Ukraine safely getting ships carrying thousands of tonnes of grain out of not only Odesa but other ports in the general area and then out through the Black Sea. Those efforts continue at a UN and Turkish level and involve Kyiv and Moscow in trying to find a basis of agreement to do that. I am often asked what Ireland is doing in respect of diplomatic efforts to improve circumstances. This is one of the areas where we are active, along with many other countries.

On Ireland and hybrid warfare were more generally, we are familiar with the use of cyberattacks and so on as part of hybrid warfare, but energy and food scarcity are relatively new phenomena in this space. Ireland wants to apply for membership of the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats, Hybrid CoE, this year.

In fact, I visited that facility a few weeks ago. I think we should very much be part of it. That would represent an important step in supporting efforts to further enhance the State's capacity to defend itself against, and respond to, existing and future threats posed by hybrid threat actors. I plan to bring a memo on that to the Government in the autumn. We are acting in that space. We are going to be part of that centre for countering hybrid threats. We are already a member nation of the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, located in Tallinn in Estonia, which I also visited in the last few weeks. One is a NATO-led project and the other is not. I think we should be very much embedded and part of both.

On lessons learned, in some ways now I think many people look back and say that the EU did not respond strongly enough to Russia's invasion of Crimea. These things are easy to talk about with the benefit of hindsight. Efforts were made by a number of prominent EU countries in the two Minsk agreements to try to maintain peace and to keep warring factions apart, but then that collapsed. I think serious efforts were made by the EU with Russia and Ukraine to try to prevent this conflict escalating. In Ukraine, while they expected Russia to invade eastern Ukraine, even two or three days before the full invasion I do not think they expected that there would be a full-scale invasion of all parts of Ukraine in the way that there was on 24 February. That was the perceived wisdom across the EU as well. The US and the UK were saying something different. Their intelligence was telling them something different. To be fair to the US and the UK, I think they were right. Clearly, they were proven to be right. There are lessons learned there. I was at a conference in Munich perhaps two weeks before the invasion. Effectively, most of the defence ministers in the western world were there. There were differing views on what was likely to unfold. Certainly, I think that some lessons have been learned. However, we need to be careful that there is not some sort of blame game with the benefit of hindsight. Undoubtedly, this is about Russia trying to re-exert its influence in a country that unfortunately, many Russians do not respect as an independent country. That is why this war has become so much more than simply a war between Russia and Ukraine. It is also about the protection of sovereignty, international law and a whole range of other things that the EU and other countries are very invested in.

One question that I did not answer earlier was about how we pressurise other countries outside of the EU to be consistent with our way of thinking on sanctions. That is a lot easier said than done. Every country makes its own decisions. We have witnessed it over the last 18 months or so in our time as a member of the UN Security Council. It is a big mistake to make the assumption that because we are passionate about something, another country in another part of the world sees it the same way. Some countries see the focus on Ukraine as hypocrisy from the EU, given the lack of focus on other conflicts in other parts of the world. Other countries see it as an opportunity to build closer ties. I think that is pretty disgraceful, but it is reality. We need to be clear-eyed here on what is actually possible. However, we should not underestimate the influence of the EU and its partner countries in these efforts. The combined influence of the EU, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan is significant. It is a very powerful group of countries that I believe should be using all of that diplomatic and economic muscle to try to bring this war to an end. One of the ways in which we need to do that is to influence other countries not to deliberately undermine the impact of sanctions if we believe that is prolonging this conflict, which I think we do. Let us not be naive. Countries will make their own decisions, often for very different reasons. Of course, that is one of the reasons that make this such a difficult issue to resolve. Russia is a very influential country in many parts of the world, and in some parts of the world where the EU is not that influential. It is using that influence at the moment.

The final point I wish to make is that different countries approach diplomacy differently. Sometimes we interpret silence from a country as tacit support of Russia. That is not always necessarily true. The way in which democracy works in the countries we live in is that we have to stand over the statements we make, and they are covered in the media. There is a lot more transparency around decision-making, decisions and justifications for those decisions. Those kind of democratic systems do not operate in the same way in some countries. In my view, there are some countries that have been a lot quieter on this conflict than they should have been, but that does not mean that they are not concerned about it. We need to use all approaches to try to ensure all countries that have an influence in Moscow are using that influence to good effect to try to bring this war to an end. There are a number of very influential countries that can be helpful here. China, India and Turkey are three obvious ones. Looking at what Turkey is trying to do, while not supporting EU sanctions it is trying to make other interventions which may have a positive outcome, particularly in the context of the work it is doing with the UN in trying to get grain out of Ukraine. It is working with Ukraine and Moscow on that. That is all I am saying. These are not straightforward questions. There are powerful countries and influencers that do democracy very differently, or do not do democracy at all, in fact, but run their countries very differently from how we do. We need to be aware of that as we try to build pressure to bring this war to an end.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next up is Deputy Haughey, followed by Deputy Howlin. I do not normally do this because it is queue-skipping and I do not like to do that, but before I let Deputy Haughey in, I wish to make a point. I do not want the Minister to respond to the point, but to keep it in the back of his mind. Perhaps some of the other members might raise the issue. On the question that Deputy Calleary put to the Minister on the lack of foresight, I do not want to use the term "diplomatic failure", so I will not use it. The Minister stated that he does not want to get into a blame game, but he did say that lessons have been learned. I do not want to jump the queue, but perhaps towards the end of the meeting the Minister could elaborate more on the lessons learned.

Seán Haughey (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the last point that the Minister dealt with, I know that the Taoiseach has called out various countries on their lack of support for sanctions, and indeed, lack of support for climate change measures. Presumably, he is showing his frustration with particular countries for their lack of support. I want to go back to the issue of sanctions again, which was raised by Deputy Richmond, and the package of six sanctions. I think the Minister may have answered the question, in that he said that more sanctions are needed, and a seventh round is certainly a possibility. When we met with the chairperson of the foreign affairs committee of the Georgian Parliament, he was particularly negative about the response and the effect that the EU response will have.

He was not criticising the EU but just wondering whether it will be effective. When I asked about the sanctions and whether they were having an effect on Russia and Belarus, he said they will probably have an effect in 15 years' time, which I thought was particularly negative. Do we have any evidence to show that the sanctions are working and that they are having an effect? It is creating hardship for citizens right across Europe. I would love to know if they are, indeed, being effective and if we have any evidence of that or if that is discussed at EU level.

My second question relates to enlargement generally. Obviously, Ireland is very supportive of the whole concept of enlargement for all sorts of reasons. Coming back to Georgia, again, there was huge frustration in Georgia at the decision of the European Commission and, indeed, subsequently, the European Council. It was put to us in very strong terms that Georgia is essentially a European country that is of strategic importance to Europe and there was certainly a commitment to try to deal with the 12 issues that were outlined by the European Commission. There was a little bit of frustration with regard to some of the 12 points outlined, however, particularly in relation to, for example, increased polarisation. It was felt by many of the people we met that this could not be quantified or, indeed, that polarisation is part and parcel of any democracy. We see it right across the world, particularly in the US at the moment. There was a bit of frustration that could not be quantified or that was a bit vague. Similarly, in relation to the deoligarchisation - that is a new word - it was again stressed to us that the main oligarch has left politics and so forth and how that can be dealt with. What I am trying to say is that it is unquantifiable with regard to many of them but, indeed, there is a determination to deal with them and for them to join the European Union in the shortest possible timeframe.

Sort of linked with that then is enlargement generally and the whole question of the Conference on the Future of Europe. I heard the Taoiseach and, indeed, the German Chancellor and others say that perhaps unanimity should not be required for accession. We had Mr. Emmanuel Macron talking about the European perspective. He seemed to suggest that maybe a lot of these countries should not actually join the European Union, and that there should be some sort of two-speed Europe as regards enlargement or accession. What are the Minister's views on that? I know the Conference on the Future of Europe is outside our scope today but on that particular issue, maybe there is need for unanimity for accession of EU countries. Obviously, as I said at the outset, Ireland is very supportive of enlargement. It is of strategic importance to the European Union. I think it is something we really need to get behind.

I will conclude by saying that Ireland has not been found wanting when it comes to Ukraine, and the Taoiseach and Minister have been very crucial in our response. That is welcomed by all of us and welcomed at an EU level as well. I say well done in that regard. The Minister has really represented the Irish people in his response to the awful invasion by Russia of Ukraine. Basically, my two questions are in relation to sanctions and enlargement generally.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. Before the Minister responds, with the agreement of the committee, Senator Chambers is speaking in the Seanad shortly and wishes to, in her own words, tag on a question to Deputy Haughey's question.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is no problem. I am in the Chairman's hands.

Lisa Chambers (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am fortunate to be part of such a friendly and accommodating committee. I thank the members and Chairman.

I listened to the Minister's contribution from my office. We are very proud to see the role Ireland has played in terms of our financial support and advocating for Ukraine's membership of the European Union. In that context, could the Minister hazard an attempt to give some sort of timeline of a best-case scenario as to when he thinks it might achieve full membership?

My second comment is more of a point but maybe also a question as well. We had a very interesting engagement with the French ambassador, whom I think made a really good point. Actually, he was repeating the words of President Macron when he spoke of younger generations of Russians and the need to be very cautious not to humiliate Russia and leave a feeling among younger people in that country that may come back to haunt us in future years. It is a really delicate balance to strike because, obviously, we have to act. We have to be decisive and we must impose sanctions, as the Minister rightly said, because we have to make this a costly war so that Russia will stop what it is doing. Are there conversations happening about how we try to ensure that at some point in the future, there is some sort of working diplomatic relationship with Russia to make sure we do not prolong the war, but also that we do not see a repeat of such aggressions by future generations? I do not know what the answer to that is but we should be mindful that we do not nurture a feeling of hatred in younger Russians, the consequences of which we will still be dealing with in ten, 20, 30 or 40 years' time.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Maybe I will answer Senator Chambers's question first if she has to run back to the Seanad. She asked about the timeline for Ukraine membership. I hope it can be done within a decade. Given the scale of rebuilding and the challenges in terms of the benchmarks that need to be met to become a member of the European Union, that can be a very exciting ten years of investment, growth, reform and change within Ukraine. The European Union will be there every step of the way to support them in that and that is the way it should be. We need to be careful, however, that we cannot promise to deliver this within a couple of years. The important thing here is that we set out a pathway that is achievable and then try to accelerate it, if we can, and do it in a shorter timeframe. What we do not want to do is disappoint people who are working incredibly hard and currently giving their lives for this aim and dream by overpromising and under-delivering, which I think would be wrong. We should set a ten-year horizon then see if we can do it faster. That is what I think we should try to do.

In terms of the need to be cautious not to humiliate Russia, we need to be careful here. Our signals need to be very clear and very blunt in response to what we regard as a complete breach of international law and a breach of the UN Charter. I think most people would accept that we are seeing war crimes taking place almost on a daily basis. When one spends a bit of time in countries that know Russia best, and what I mean by that is countries that border Russia or are very close to it, whether it is Finland, the Baltic countries or Poland, they will say that often concessions or diplomacy or softer language is seen as weakness. Now is a time for clarity in relation to consequences for the actions that are currently taking place.

I take the Senator's point, though. There is a need, of course, to maintain in my view diplomatic communication with Russia, which is why I have not taken the decision to close the Russian Embassy despite the fact that many people called for that at the start of this conflict over and over again, including some form my own party. I think that would not have been the right decision. We expelled four people working with the Russian Embassy here. We felt it was appropriate to do that. We felt they did not have a basis to be here in terms of being diplomats. There was a consequence for that because two of our diplomats were sent home from Moscow with no justification, in my view, because they were people very much involved in diplomacy.

Even when we fundamentally disagree with a country, it is important to keep a line of communications open to be able to express that view and to hear. Even if we do not believe we are being told the truth, sometimes it is important to have that line of communication open.

I take the point about the humiliation issue, but we need to build a relationship in the future with a new generation of Russians. Russia is too big a country to isolate forever. While the Russians are embarking on this level of aggression, brutality and illegality with very high consequences, our messages need to be very clear and blunt. This is wrong and unacceptable. Russia is isolating itself because of what it is doing. It is also causing its own people considerable hardship because these sanctions would not exist if it were not for Russian actions. While this war continues, those messages need to be firm and clear. Any ambiguity on that will be seen as weakness from the other side.

Deputy Haughey asked if sanctions are working. There is solid evidence that the military industry in Russia is having difficulty in maintaining production because of targeted sanctions. That should potentially begin to have an effect in the months ahead if this war continues. The impact on the economy is also beginning to be felt. Yesterday, the Russian Parliament passed measures to compel businesses to provide goods to the military and force employees to work overtime. That indicates some of the pressure points. The Russian economy will shrink by between 3% and 4% this year according to some estimates. The J.P. Morgan estimate is for 3.5% shrinkage this year. Are these sanctions having an effect? Ultimately, the test of the sanctions will be whether they contribute to shortening this conflict and bringing it to an end. That has not happened yet. Is Russia beginning to feel the impact of these sanctions in its economy and its ability to be able to continue to follow and supply this enormous war effort? I believe they are starting to have an impact. Ultimately, the power of sanctions is primarily the signal they send that if the Russians continue along this road, things will get worse, it will become more costly and therefore they look to alternatives - in other words to stop the aggression. That is the role of the sanctions and only time will tell whether they have actually worked.

The other question we need to ask here is: what would be happening if there were no sanctions? What signal would that send? It would be a green light to continue. The European Union is not a military union, it is an economic and political union. It is using the ammunition it has, which is economic sanctions, to the greatest extent it can. It is right to do it and it should be going further. Whether we can get agreement on that remains to be seen.

I know a number of committee members visited Georgia recently. I know Georgia is frustrated that it is not in the same category as Ukraine and Moldova. The decisions made by the last European Council should be seen as the opening of a door to accession and candidate status for Georgia. It now has considerably more clarity about what it needs to do to get that candidate status and that can be delivered. Certainly from an Irish perspective, we hope it will be able to make that journey and that it has a clear target that it needs to achieve to get there.

Regarding Moldova and Ukraine, candidate status just means the journey now starts as a formal candidate, but there is still a long way to go. I hope to be in Moldova the week after next. We are planning to visit Moldova with several other ministers to discuss any further assistance we can give to relieve the pressures it is currently facing.

We need to be open to on the issue of unanimity versus qualified majority voting, QMV, for a number of decisions but we also need to be somewhat cautious. With certain decisions that the European Union makes, we simply cannot ignore members even if only one of two of them are objecting. On most big decisions the European Union really operates on the basis of consensus, solidarity, compromise and accommodating different perspectives. If increasingly more decisions are taken on the basis of QMV, the concerns, particularly of smaller countries, can potentially be brushed aside in a way that could create resentment and build anti-EU sentiment if we are not careful. We are open to that discussion but we are also somewhat cautious that on some core issues, particularly relating to security and defence and on issues such as enlargement, we need to find consensus to move forward. A good example of that at the moment is an EU state which is preventing North Macedonia's accession moving ahead. We need to find a solution to that issue. We cannot just pretend it does not exist and vote past it.

As the European Union gets bigger, maintaining unanimity on everything will become more difficult. On certain issues we should look to make decisions by QMV. However, there are some fundamental issues. I think security and defence issues and enlargement issues require unanimity. I am open to persuasion on that, but certainly that is my view for now.

I think there is merit in the French idea of a European political area, but it should not be seen as an alternative to full membership in terms of the accession aspirations of countries like Moldova, Ukraine, the western Balkan countries and so on. The European Union needs to offer full membership to countries willing to make the changes and sacrifices to meet the standards of entry. Enlargement really is what the European Union is all about - the spreading of a peace project to provide stability and opportunity for countries. That is what membership has done for us over the past 50 years. It has been an incredibly positive influence on Irish society and our quality of life. It has improved environmental standards and working standards. It has brought gender equality and so many other things as well as, of course, economic opportunities.

It can also be the same for other countries that join. For countries on the accession path and for countries which for whatever reason may not want full membership, the French are proposing to have a network of countries that have a relationship based on a European political area. That is worth a significant discussion and it will get one in the autumn. It should not be sold as an alternative to enlargement of the European Union. To be fair, I do not think the French are proposing it as that. Let us have that discussion and see where it goes.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Funding is available from the EU Commission to support member states with costs now. There is a new system in place. I have spoken to the Commissioner responsible for it. He was clear in terms of reassurance that funding would be available for countries like Ireland for accommodation costs and so on but also countries that are much more deeply impacted by numbers such as Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Poland. Four million refugees have come into Poland in four months. It is unbelievable. One million a month. No conflict anywhere in the world has seen that kind of numbers in recent history that I can think of and some awful conflicts have taken place in recent decades. They are extraordinary numbers in a very short period. There are other examples. There is probably 5 million Syrians outside of Syria but that happened over a decade or so. It is really unbelievable. I suspect what is happening there is that while the funds were being finalised, put together, assessed and so on, the Commission told countries to use their Cohesion Funds that they could access straight away. I suspect that is what was happening but I can come back with more detail on it. I am not aware that we have drawn down any funds yet from the Commission. I presume that applications will go in on some, but not all, the costs. I remind people that we are putting in an Estimate to spend about €2 billion on supporting Ukrainians in Ireland. That is not a small amount of money. We are more than happy to do it given the suffering and the plight they face but these are big financial commitments that the Commission has an obligation to help to fund and I think it will.

I refer to the four recommendations. First, on the national refugee response lead, in truth it is the Taoiseach so far on this. We have Cabinet subcommittee meetings specifically on Ukraine. They are very punchy meetings in terms of hard questions being asked and an insistence on answers, timelines and so on. They are led by the Taoiseach. But the Deputy is right. We need to build on that with someone who is permanently on the job and there are people who are. The way this evolved at the start with pledges, allocations and management was very much focused around the Red Cross. That has now shifted. While there continues to be a role for the Red Cross responsibility for finding accommodation and supports and matching Ukrainian families up with Irish families and sourcing local accommodation, whether converting a convent, school or accessing student accommodation has now shifted to local authorities. It includes temporary solutions but also finding more permanent solutions. A huge amount of work is going on to support and facilitate 40,000 people.

It is a significant challenge. We need to get better at it. Some mistakes have been made and some things are not happening as fast as we would like them to. A number of pilot projects are being rolled out. For example, the purchase of 500 modular units is being managed and is under way. We will see the benefits of that in a few months.

Much is taking place. In some ways, we are learning as we go. We have never had to deal with this number of people in such a short time. To give some reassurance, this conversation is taking place at a senior level in government. The Taoiseach chairs meetings, with all the key Ministers and State agencies feeding into them. The benefit has to be felt in all counties and cities, where there are some real pressure points that need to be addressed. The line Minister is Deputy Roderic O'Gorman but it would be unfair to leave it all on his desk. All Cabinet Ministers have a role to play in providing supports, whether it is the Minister for Social Protection, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, the Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works, the Minister for Education, or the Minister for Health. This has consequences for hospitals, schools, sports clubs and community development. The most difficult pressure point is housing and accommodation. About 8% of hotel rooms in the country have effectively been block booked to ensure Ukrainian families have accommodation. That is a significant number.

The medium-term and immediate needs of those families are the Government's focus. We are ensuring emergency fallback positions and so on, which we have, with places such as the facility in Citywest and elsewhere. I take on board those four requests. I think there will be a director of services in each county. That should have been there already. If it is not, I understand that there should be a person to contact in each local authority about this issue. The plan is evolving all the time. It is not a question of just publishing a plan and implementing it, when one is dealing with people arriving every day. We do not know how many people will arrive into the EU or Ireland next month. It will depend on Russian actions. We need contingency plans for different scenarios, which is what we are trying to develop. We may need an established national co-ordination group for Ukrainian leadership whose members we could speak to directly. The Ukrainian ambassador is often involved in that role. She has been remarkably hands-on. A more formalised structure may be helpful too. The Ukrainians who I have spoken to are remarkably pragmatic and reasonable about trying to overcome the challenges we face with supports, accommodation and so on.

I will need to check with my colleague, the Minister for Justice, about the proceeds of crime legislation and the legalities that have resulted in a money message issue. I take the point the Deputy has raised. I suspect it is a legal concern and I do not want to stray into an area I have not been briefed on.

On the strategy of the EU regarding the conflict in Ukraine, the European Union has been very united on this, with some exceptions. Getting agreement on the sixth sanctions package was not easy and it took longer than it should. By and large, the European Union has been remarkably united. There have been a number of miscalculations by Russia. One was that the European Union would not be as united as it has been. This is the case regardless of which country one looks at. I have been involved in many debates with ministers whose countries have different relationships with Russia, but there has been a remarkable sense of solidarity and unity. I think that will continue. This has had a dramatic influence on the European Union. It has questioned its raison d'être, what it stands for, why it is important and what its role in the world needs to be in the future, particularly on this Continent. That has resulted in a real change in European politics. I am not quite sure what that will end up looking like. I think the appetite for enlargement has changed, as has the pace, the urgency and the willingness to make decisions quickly in the European Union. The relationship between governments and the institutions of the European Union has changed for the better. People like President von der Leyen have stepped up to try to lead opinion regarding policy change and so on in a way we have not seen before from the Commission. That is probably a good thing.

At the moment, the strategy is to provide military, financial, humanitarian and political support to Ukraine, which is under attack and is desperately trying to survive that attack. I do not believe the European Union knows how this will end. Anybody who pretends to know is a bluffer. All of the predictions about what will happen have proven to be wrong so far. Most of the predictions were that this full invasion would not happen, which was wrong. We then got a lot of military advice, as well as political advice, that this war would not last for more than a week and that Ukrainian cities would fold one after another. It was viewed as a tragedy but that was where it was going. Those people could not have been more wrong in underestimating the resilience, strength and unity of the Ukrainian people when resisting Russia. There is now a brutal conflict in eastern Ukraine. It is moving slowly. Who knows where it will go?

Our position has to be informed by Ukrainian leadership and we have to support them in the judgments they make about whether conditions for a ceasefire develop. We have an obligation to support that democratic Government in the difficult choices and decisions it makes in the future, as well as keeping a channel of communication to Moscow open. The idea that we should cut it off entirely and not even talk to it is also wrong. Ultimately, the European Union needs to try to find a way to end this. We have to end it in a way that the Ukrainian leadership supports, given the extraordinary sacrifices Ukrainians have made in the face of this aggression.

I take Deputy Howlin's point about enlargement of the European Union. We cannot assume that everything will stay the same because the European Union enlarges. A concern for some countries is that there may be a change in the power balance which would shift power in the European Union to the east, but we have to find a way to manage that. The European Union should never give the sense that our door is closed to countries that are willing to reform and change. The Deputy's point is correct, which is why standards for full membership and accession have to remain high. Those benchmarks are tough for political leaders to meet. It is not easy to become a member of the European Union, but the rewards when one gets there are extraordinary.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire agus le hoifigigh na Roinne.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are in very much changed circumstances. We could see this at the Conference on the Future of Europe. We saw how the language and some of the recommendations changed. How could it be any other way? The Minister talked about the commentary around the war and the fact that most of the expert commentators got it wrong. Vladimir Putin must have been listening to the same level of commentary because there has been an illegal invasion, a huge level of war crimes and a huge level of bravery on the part of the Ukrainian people. It is now being said by commentators that in the initial period, he had insufficient forces that were too spread out and he lost a huge amount of tanks that cannot be replaced in the short term. I think a number of commentators have stated that Chinese tyres are not necessarily as good as ones that can be sourced throughout Europe or the US. All these things have created their own difficulties but on some level, Russia has got its act together from a military point of view. We have seen what it has done in the Donbas, which is that you bring superior force to bear and batter away until you win. The question for the Ukrainians is what they can do in this set of circumstances.

We all agree that sanctions are what we can and must do but there is probably an element of reorganisation of supply chains and people falling into different brackets. Russia probably had to do an element of this from 2014. It is used to sanctions - perhaps not at this level - so there is now an element of selling to India, China or wherever. With certain materials such as gas, it is not as easy to shift partners but an element of that is happening. It is about what we do in that context. Russia may end up being far more resilient no matter how much we pressure it. It is one of those weapons we have to bear so we need to put it in play as much as possible.

I will follow up on some of what Deputy Haughey said about our trip to Georgia. He spoke specifically about the chairperson of the foreign affairs committee of the Georgian Parliament. Most other people said they were not happy, but saw it relatively positively that there was a roadmap towards accession. He said we could be dealing with a different situation when we are back in six months time. He said that to a degree, the Russians are in a better position militarily than they were and could be in a better position again within six months and that the impact across the western world in particular has been significant. He mentioned the cost-of-living crisis and his fears that people will just be worried about ending their own pain and that whatever solidarity that exists may dissipate to a degree. His point echoed the points made earlier by Deputy Haughey, namely, that you cannot necessarily quantify some of the moves, particularly as regards what is an adequate level of non-polarisation of politics or de-oligarchisation. I knew that was going to be a struggle to pronounce.

In saying that, we had some very straight conversations. I think there is an acceptance that Georgia has a hell of a lot of steps to take to be able to meet certain criteria. That is where we are and where Georgia is. We talk about the strategic economy. If we talk about gas and oil, and we are talking about ourselves here, we have the Corrib gas field, the supply chain through Great Britain, North Sea oil and Norwegian and Danish involvement in that, so we believe we are alight. Am I right in thinking, because it has been put out there previously, that we are all signed up to some sort of European rationing which ensures that if there is pain in Poland, there is pain throughout the EU? I am right in thinking there is a requirement on us to put the pony up? I have heard it in a number of places but I have not been able to get a definitive answer. If I could get that, I would be very happy.

We have heard commentary from Emmanuel Macron and the likes of Henry Kissinger. In Georgia, they remembered when he spoke about it being a different geopolitical place. Europe has to make a determination regarding where the EU stops and starts geographically. The Minister spoke about the difficulties of the eastward trend. We all know about the rule-of-law issues that have existed. It is a question of where we mesh all those things together. The argument the Georgians and others would make is that if we went back to the time when this State joined the EU, we probably would not be as progressive as we are now. An awful lot of people would say that the EU was probably beneficial in the sense that it facilitated social progress.

The Minister spoke about hybrid threats. He mentioned two things. One was the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats while the other was the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence in Tallinn. We got some sort of briefing on it previously but am I right in thinking that one of them is NATO-affiliated but not necessarily run by NATO? Could the Minister provide some detail on that?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I take the point regarding some of the miscalculations from a military perspective at the start. I am sure they will be analysed by military experts at different stages. The expectation from many, including Russia clearly, was that Ukrainian cities would effectively fall one after the other - that there would be some initial resistance, but the scale of the Russian military would result in a relatively quick victory. That clearly did not happen. If anything, the Ukrainian resistance strengthened in the first few weeks of this conflict. That was before they received support and assistance from other countries.

What is happening in eastern Ukraine is very different from that because it is almost a war of attrition that involves an extraordinary amount of destruction of property, massive displacement of civilians and some deliberate targeting of civilians to empty out cities. It seems the only way to capture cities militarily is to raze them to the ground. That is what we are seeing. We saw that tactic in Syria and we are now seeing it in eastern Ukraine but it is incredibly brutal. Some of the stories and briefings I have read regarding the human consequences of it are just awful for those soldiers involved and civilians. It involves soldiers on both sides. It is absolutely brutal.

We will have to wait and see. This is now a slow war of attrition. When I say "slow", that does not mean that it is not very large-scale. It relates to movement forward for either side. Nobody is predicting a ceasefire any time soon so we need not be naive about that.

Obviously, we should be looking for those opportunities when they arise, but the appetite is not there on either side. Ukraine's determination to defend itself and its territory and to try to drive occupying Russian forces out of Ukraine, as well as Russia's determination to gain more ground in eastern Ukraine mean, unfortunately, a summer of a continuation of what we have seen in the last number of weeks.

Regarding Georgia, I am very conscious of the pace of accession, particularly if one looks at the western Balkans, for example, and a country such as Serbia. If the process stalls, those who are advocating for accession, and the reforms and changes that are needed to deliver it, start to lose momentum too, where they are making changes but not making progress towards EU membership. That creates a difficulty politically and it creates a vacuum that others, including Russia or certainly Russian influence, are happy to fill. That goes for Georgia as well as for other countries. That said, however, it is necessary to get the balance right and ensure one is not fast-forwarding, for political reasons, an accession process that then does not allow one to maintain standards or to insist on the benchmarks that are needed. Trying to get that balance right is difficult. However, in the context of Georgia, most of those I have spoken to in the European Union see this as an opening of the door, not a closing of the door. It is just not opened to the extent that it was for Ukraine and Moldova, but it is certainly a very clear signal of what the EU wants to facilitate.

On the issue of gas, there has been no discussion of a rationing system per seyet, but we will have to work collectively across the European Union to support member states that face energy shortages this winter. The idea that Ireland is okay and everybody else can fend for themselves is not how the European Union works. That said, there is the way in which gas networks work. We get our gas from Corrib and from the UK interconnection with Scotland. The UK gets most of its gas from Norway and from the North Sea. The UK does not source very much gas at all from Russia. I believe it is in the low single percentage figures. It is just the way the pipeline systems work that the UK does not source from Russia, whereas many countries in the European Union source a huge majority of their gas from Russia. Undoubtedly, if that supply is either shut off by Russia or prevented from coming into the EU by sanctions, there will be a change in how the gas network system operates across Europe and, of course, there will be a change in pricing.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not signed up to anything specifically at this point.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, we are not. However, I do not believe we should see this as a pulling up the drawbridge issue, that we are okay so let us press ahead-----

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know. I am certainly not saying that. It was just to seek clarity because I heard it said a number of times.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As it happens, we are not as exposed. Some countries would say it is well for Ireland because it can push for a seven-sanctions package that includes gas because Ireland is not reliant on gas for heating systems through the winter and does not have the type of climate those countries have. However, consider Poland, which is advocating for it. It is not sourcing Russian gas any longer and it is adjusting, which will be very difficult for it. However, it has a strength of feeling that it is necessary.

This is about energy solidarity across the European Union and about changing how the supply chains work. Obviously, it is about doing a lot more shipping to compensate for pipeline gas and oil that may not be coming into the EU. I note the European Union is now importing more energy from the US than from Russia for the first time. That changed this week or in the past week or so. That trend is likely to continue. However, there are no easy answers here. I do not want to pretend that there is some type of easy alternative to Russian gas. There are alternatives but putting them in place will take time and is not easy. I believe we will see an awful lot more liquified natural gas, LNG, infrastructure being built in the European Union as well, and for good reason in terms of energy security for gas. We will see an acceleration of investments in renewables. The European Commission has signalled that it wants to facilitate that in respect of permitting systems and fast-tracking the processes there.

This is a huge opportunity for Ireland. Our offshore energy resource is almost limitless, in truth, given the scale of the resource we have in wind and wave, and particularly wind. It is a question of how we harness that, the time it takes to do it and the interconnection that we have with the rest of the European Union to be able to sell it into the European grid, whether that is through hydrogen or interconnectors. However, they are medium-term things and they certainly will not be in place for next winter. That is why the question of sourcing gas and where it comes from will continue to be a big issue moving into the autumn.

On the hybrid threats, there is a centre of excellence on cybersecurity in Tallinn in Estonia. That is predominantly a NATO-led project, but there are non-NATO countries also represented there. The hybrid threats centre of excellence is in Helsinki. Again, a lot of NATO countries are part of that, but there are some non-NATO countries too. Like with many things linked to defence and security, often the benchmark or the international standard is a NATO standard, but that does not mean that other countries do not participate in or are not involved in benefitting from the knowledge and experience that are there. Wearing my defence hat, the training standards, equipment standards and so forth that we aim at, whether it is our ships and how they operate or our armoured vehicles or our firepower, weaponry and so forth, are generally NATO standards, so we are interoperable with other EU countries if we choose to partner with them on peacekeeping missions or whatever. It does not mean we are joining NATO. We are not joining NATO. It means that is the benchmark in the European Union for military standards of equipment and training and, therefore, for us to be consistent with what every other country is doing, we normally have to be consistent with NATO standards.

That is why there is a NATO presence in some of these centres of excellence. It is a very useful presence from our perspective in terms of improving our skill sets. We have to be confident enough to talk about that. Just because one partners and co-operates with NATO does not necessarily mean there is some type of plot to join NATO. That is not a terrible thing anyway. Other countries are choosing to join NATO. I am not proposing that we join NATO. What I am saying is that we should be partnering with other EU countries and groups of countries, and sometimes NATO too, to ensure we have standards of equipment, training and operation that allow us to be interoperable with other EU countries. Both of those centres of excellence are good examples of that.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Our final contributor is Deputy Harkin.

Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am due in the House in less than ten minutes. I am not moving as fast as others as I have a crutch. I will ask a few questions, but I will not be present to hear the Minister's replies so I will check them afterwards.

The first is about Ukraine's candidate status. Like most Deputies, I am fully supportive of the Government's position in that regard. However, I am wondering about the process, the Copenhagen criteria, the acquis communautaireand so forth. That will be very challenging for Ukraine. What supports is the Commission putting in place and what can be done basically in the middle of a war? That is the situation we are facing.

My second question refers to sanctions.

Deputy Haughey spoke about the fact the foreign minister of Georgia said it would take 15 years for the sanctions to bite or impact. I am not sure the Minister responded to that and I am looking for his perspective on it. The Minister also spoke about the fact African leaders are blaming all sides, that one can understand why and that there is an information war going on here. Given the EU has pledged €1 billion to the Sahel and very significant amounts of money to the Horn of Africa around food security and food resilience, are the Russians engaged in providing, in real terms, food or aid, etc., or is this just an information war?

Moving to the third question, I will not expand about the civil society group on Ukraine that met yesterday because Deputy Howlin already did. I heard the Minister's response and it is positive but I wish to add my voice to the Deputy's and to the call from the civil society group. We need a lead within Government, a co-ordinating group or whatever, whose responsibility it is to be, if you like, in charge of what is happening because there is absolutely no doubt but that some local authorities, civil society organisations, local groups and individuals are beginning to feel somewhat adrift. It is crucial that does not happen because the Minister and I know, as we hear the conversations taking place publicly and privately, that certain people and organisations are trying to use the current situation around Ukrainian refugees to stir up trouble for various reasons, political and otherwise. Wherever there is any uncertainty it just adds fuel to the fire, so any work that can be done from the point of view of co-ordination, of a sense that somebody or some group is in charge and guiding this and that people can have confidence in it, is important.

I have a final question. The Minister may or may not be able to respond to this. If he cannot he may respond to me later. I have written to him about it. I have had communication from a small number of Ukrainians who wish to return to Ukraine but cannot because of the fact they cannot get papers. They want to return to their families, husbands, elderly parents, etc. I am not saying this is happening to all Ukrainians who wish to return; I only know the ones I speak to. What is the story there? Is there anything that can be done to allow people to return to their homes?

I will make one last comment. We are talking a lot here about the EU moving eastwards. When I was in Brussels, many people who live in the Baltic states, Poland and those countries see themselves very much as central Europeans and not eastern Europeans. Perspective is everything. I apologise to the Minister but I am up next.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. I know she has to go but I will try to answer her questions. The first thing to say is there has already been a significant level of support for Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia from the EU in relation to reforms and institutional support. I think that will continue as they journey towards, in Georgia's case, candidate status in future and then on, we hope, to full membership in time and likewise for Moldova and Ukraine. Of course, let us not forget about the Western Balkans because if we forget about them politically and allow tensions to build there, we could live to regret it. Aspirations for EU memberships are a big part of stabilising the Western Balkans and relationships there. It is something the EU needs to continue to focus on despite all the other pressures in terms of moving ahead, particularly on North Macedonia and Albania but also for others as well.

On the comment it will take 15 years for the sanctions to bite, sanctions are not a perfect tool and we know that but is anybody suggesting we should not have sanctions? We are trying to measure whether the sanctions are working or not. Clearly, the only real measurement is whether the war will come to an end and whether sanctions, in the form of creating a cost for Russia, have contributed to that. We know there is a cost to Russia linked to those sanctions. It is not as impactful as it otherwise would be because Russia is developing new commercial relationships with certain countries that help to compensate and open up new markets for product that would otherwise have been coming to the EU. We know that is happening. The price of oil and gas is such now internationally that if Russia can sell it to some parts of the world, and it can, it is doing so for a much higher price. The sanctions are not perfect, therefore, but we are certainly better having them than not. As for the idea you can set a moment in a future at which you can say the sanctions have worked, such as after 15 years or whatever, this is not an exact science. This is about sending a clear signal that as long as this war continues the political and economic relationship between the EU and Russia is going to be very badly damaged and Russia will be isolated in its relationship with many countries in the world, that that has a serious cost and the cost is likely to increase as this war continues through new rounds of sanctions and so on. In other words, there must be a deterrent that has edge to it and cost to it, which is what we are trying to do with sanctions. It is not an anti-Russia thing but an anti-Russian aggression thing. There is a difference.

On Africa, undoubtedly the EU is a huge funder of development and working with governments across the Horn of Africa and the Sahel. It is doing so much more so than Russia is. However, Russia also has security relationships with quite a number of African countries and has influence in that regard. If you take what is happening in Mali and a number of neighbouring states in terms of the influence of Russia and Russian proxies on security through mercenary groups and so on, you can see there is a strong influence there and I suspect the Russians are using it. To be fair, for many countries on the African Continent, a doubling of food prices has an enormous consequence in the form of potential instability and the impact on populations that are already under much pressure in a number of Sahel countries. The Horn of Africa has seen significant drought this year as well, so the combined impact of a lack of harvest as well as a significant increase in the cost of importing food is having a big and very disruptive impact and many African leaders are very concerned about it and they just want it to stop. They see it as linked to the war and sanctions and so on. We must work hard, and we are, to explain what is really driving this, which is Russian aggression and of course a continued blockade of access in and out of Ukraine from the Black Sea. Those efforts will continue. The Deputy should not underestimate Russia's influence around the world. It is a very big and influential country.

I take the point on the civil society groups. We need to listen to that.

The final point I wish to make is on trying to see ahead a few months. We are starting to see some political conversations driven by the pressure we are feeling with housing and accommodation and the blaming of certain people or categories of people. We must work really hard to ensure that does not get traction.

The last thing we need here is political tension on the migration question. I refer to taking what we are trying to do as part of a war effort to support displaced people from Ukraine, who are fleeing for their lives, and comparing it with the needs of Irish people who are on housing lists or families who are homeless and so on, and starting to blame people for the pressures that everybody is feeling. The Government, State agencies and local authorities have to work really hard to ensure that this does not happen. As Deputy Harkin said, we are already hearing some commentary that may get louder through the summer and into the autumn. I think we need to be careful of that. Ireland is one of the very few countries in Europe that has not allowed the issues of immigration, asylum and refugees to become a central point of division in politics. We have worked hard to make sure that has not happened here. We have to continue to make sure it does not, and to try to keep a consensus on the basis of decency of our obligations under international law, human rights and so on. We can do that through this challenge too.

No Ukrainian in Ireland deserves to be blamed for housing pressures. Those pressures are not their fault. In many cases, they arrive here with no more than the contents of a rucksack for themselves and their kids. We have an obligation to look after them while they are here, to provide accommodation as best we can and to show generosity, so that when all of this is over Ireland can look at itself in the mirror and we can say that we did our bit in a way that was generous and showed real solidarity at a time of extraordinary human suffering. We need to remember that when we are trying to deal with these pressures at a local authority level around accommodation and moving people out of student accommodation into other accommodation and so on. It is not easy when we are trying to deal with 40,000 people in the space of a few months. It is important that we bring the conversation back to the truth of what is really driving that and the suffering behind it in order to make sure that we have the right context. Otherwise, we will allow the debate to move into a very unhelpful and unfair space. It is unfair on people who are at a very vulnerable point in their lives, who are now living here and who arrived with virtually nothing.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have a bit of time left.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can keep talking if you want me to.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have noticed that. I have a question on the Irish Aid food programme. Will there be a recalibration of the programme in light of what is going on in Lebanon, Jordan and the Sahel? I ask the Minister to provide an update on that.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Taking Lebanon, for example, it imports the vast majority of its food. A huge proportion of that would normally have come from Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. Likewise, in Egypt. I stand to be corrected here, but, from memory, the UN World Food Programme would have sourced close to 60% of its wheat, which is a big part of the food stocks that is supplies, from Ukraine and Belarus. It is having to find alternative sources now. Of course, the World Food Programme is effectively the largest humanitarian organisation on the planet. The war is having big knock-on consequences in terms of the World Food Programme having to recalibrate its programmes, for example, in Yemen. We have heard David Beasley, the head of the World Food Programme, talk about having to take food from the hungry to give it to the starving. That is the kind of conversation that is taking place. These are extraordinary knock-on consequences, given the fact that we were talking about the knock-on consequences of Covid only a few months ago. The combination of the impact of Covid and the current dramatic increases in the price of essential items like food and energy means that we are going to have to recalibrate our aid programme.

There is also a commitment in the aid programme to increase the spend on climate finance. We are currently spending in the region of €90 million a year on climate finance. We have committed to increasing that figure to €225 million by 2025. That is only a few years away. The combination of doing more on climate finance, as well as doing more on healthcare, means that recalibration will be required. The impact of Covid on, for example, girls' education has been extraordinary. It has set it back nearly a decade. Many people were not allowed to go to school because of the fear of Covid spreading and so on. Many of them have not returned to school since then. We have a big investment programme in girls' education. We will rightly be forced to try to re-evaluate how we spend on food and nutrition, hunger, and I suspect, on some very serious humanitarian catastrophes in the autumn linked to the unavailability of food and the combination of price and drought. There are some pretty pessimistic predictions in terms of drought in some countries in the Horn of Africa later this year. In addition, for the first time, we have over 100 million displaced people. Many of them are in refugee camps.

I am flying to New York this evening for a UN Security Council meeting tomorrow at which we are hoping to get agreement to maintain, for another 12 months, humanitarian access through Turkey into north-western Syria, where approximately 4 million people rely almost entirely on UN operations for humanitarian assistance. Around 1,000 trucks a month were crossing into the area previously. This year, it has been about 800 a month. That is still an enormous volume. Between €150 million and €250 million worth of medical, food and humanitarian aid is going to displaced people in the Idlib province, most of whom have been displaced four, five, six, seven or ten times, having been moved on during the ongoing war in Syria. There is an enclave in north-west Syria where displaced people, who have largely either been driven out or have been trying to resist the Assad regime, are now effectively encamped. Most of them are living in tents. Only about 20% of the children there are getting any form of education at all.

Ireland and Norway have the responsibility on the UN Security Council for getting humanitarian assistance into Syria. It is one of the specific roles that we have. We are what is called a penholder in UN-speak for that file, which means that we write the relevant resolution and try to get agreement. To date, we do not have agreement with Russia to facilitate the extension of that resolution. Should it fall this week or next week, then the UN operations at the Bab al-Hawa crossing from Turkey into north-west Syria will effectively have to close. There are 4 million people there, which is almost equivalent to the population of Ireland. I know that we have a population of more than 5 million now. The population being supported by that humanitarian assistance is certainly the equivalent of all of the women and children in Ireland. That gives the members an idea of the scale of some of the things we are involved in at a UN Security Council level.

The Security Council is not always about intervening in conflicts and war. Sometimes it is very much a humanitarian role linked to conflict, in this case, in Syria. We are trying to get agreement from countries that are very sceptical as to whether or not this aid into Syria should be facilitated at all, because they think it compromises Syrian sovereignty, and so on. I agree with the Chairman. More countries will have to commit more to the food and energy security issues. The EU has already put in place a food security fund.

This is for countries across the Horn of Africa and in the Middle East. It will help to pay the difference in terms of the increase in price. We have done something with Egypt on this also because it imports a huge amount of its food. It is not only about preventing people from starving, which of course is pretty important. It is also about maintaining stability. If people cannot buy bread democratic systems collapse. If we look at the Arab spring and where and how it started, it all began over the price of bread in Tunisia and then the whole thing spread.

This is about maintaining political stability as well as nutrition and making sure people can feed themselves. I am rambling a little bit now but we are of course looking at it. It is also why, despite all of the pressures we face in the budget in terms of our own cost of living, in my view a significant increase in our development aid budget this year is more than justified. As a relatively wealthy country, we have a responsibility towards countries that are on a basic level trying to feed their populations. We have our own problems here that we need to respond to but we have a moral obligation to respond significantly on some of the global issues.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister has been more than generous with his time. He agreed to be with us until 11.30 a.m., and we have overshot the runway a little. We are very grateful for this. Ar son an choiste, gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an díospóireacht agus lena chomhghleacaithe as páirt a ghlacadh i gcruinniú an lae inniu. Guím gach rath air i Nua Eabhrac anocht. Beimid ar ais ag plé cúpla rud eile maidir le Brexit agus mar sin amach anseo san fhómhar. Ar son an choiste, gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire arís. Tá an cruinniú críochnaithe anois. Beidh an chéad chruinniú eile ar 10 a.m. Dé Céadaoin, an 13 Iúil.