Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach agus leis na comhaltaí as ucht cuireadh a thabhairt dom teacht os comhair an choiste ar maidin. Tá mé an-sásta teacht os a chomhair agus na hábhair is tábhachtaí atá os ár gcomhair go léir a phlé, go háirithe an Chomhdháil ar Thodhchaí na hEorpa agus an obair a dhéanaim ar an gComhairle um Ghnóthaí Ginearálta. Níl aon dabht agam ach go mbeidh na comhaltaí ag plé cúrsaí Breatimeachta, fuinnimh agus rudaí eile maidir leis an Eoraip agus leis an Aontas Eorpach.

As the committee will be aware, the formal proceedings of the Conference on the Future of Europe concluded last May with a closing Europe Day session in Strasbourg at which the final report of the conference was adopted. The Irish contribution to the conference over the course of its year-long proceedings was significant and influential and I would like to thank this committee for all of its work, the Oireachtas Members who took part in the conference plenary sessions, including Deputies Richmond and Ó Murchú, and the members of the public, civil society and political parties in Ireland who engaged.

The final conference report sets out 49 proposals for consideration based on over 320 interesting and innovative measures and recommendations debated during the conference and spanning virtually the entire spectrum of EU activity. EU leaders briefly discussed the results of the conference at the June European Council, noting the proposals and recommendations and requesting each institution to follow up in accordance with its own competences. Since the final report was published, both the European Council and the Commission have published assessments on the proposals and have expressed the view that the vast majority of the proposals can be implemented, if agreed, through existing policies without the need to reopen the European treaties.

Arising from its assessment, the European Commission intends to implement some of the recommendations within the framework of the Commission work programme for 2023 and President von der Leyen outlined the Commission’s intentions in her State of the Union address to the European Parliament last month. A number of Commission proposals for the year ahead stem directly from conference recommendations including, for example, a new initiative on mental health, revision of animal welfare legislation, a legislative proposal for a European disability card and a raw materials Act, among others. President von der Leyen also outlined Commission plans to make greater use of citizens’ panels in the legislative process, primarily as a sounding board for future proposals.

The European Parliament, for its part, also adopted a resolution last June calling for the convening of a convention in order to follow up on conference recommendations and proposing a number of treaty amendments, primarily in relation to providing for greater use of qualified majority voting, QMV, in decision making. On the basis of advice provided by the Council's legal services, a further resolution will require to be adopted by the European Parliament formally setting out any precise amendments being proposed to the treaties and which have been formally adopted and approved by the Parliament’s constitutional affairs committee.

The Council, for its own part, has now begun its assessment of the conference proposals and recommendations, with an initial discussion at the informal General Affairs Council in Prague in July and again at last month’s General Affairs Council in Brussels. For the moment, most Council members concur with our analysis that the EU’s immediate focus should centre on progressing those proposals, constituting approximately 95% of the conference recommendations, which can be realised within the parameters of the existing treaty framework. Discussion has also begun within the Council on some of the more difficult recommendations arising from the conference process, including in the area of voting and decision-making, while the Czech Presidency has also been canvassing views on whether there is support within the Council for the convening of a convention to initiate a process of treaty change.

Addressing this latter issue first, committee members will be aware that President von der Leyen, in her State of the Union address, lent the Commission’s support to the calls for a convention. Nationally, the Taoiseach, when addressing the European Parliament in June, said that the Government remains open to the possibility of treaty change if this proves necessary but for the moment believes, like most others in the Council, that the initial emphasis should be on implementing the vast majority of conference recommendations which can be done so within the existing treaty framework.

On the call for greater use of QMV, this is an issue which already commanded much attention during conference proceedings as it is clearly highly relevant in terms of any consideration of how to improve both the effectiveness of EU decision making and its standing as an international actor. Some member states have already indicated that they are open to the possibility of making greater use of QMV, particularly in relation to areas such as Common Foreign and Security Policy, CFSP. From discussions to date within the Council, the majority of member states, and particularly smaller member states, would be more cautious about any proposal to make greater use of QMV.

Nationally, a cross-government exercise overseen by the Department of Foreign Affairs is now under way in which Departments are submitting their views on the numerous conference proposals and recommendations relevant to their area. While our overall position on this issue still remains to be formalised, it is fair to say that there would be some considerable hesitancy about any greater use of QMV, particularly in areas such as the CFSP or in relation to taxation issues. The possibility for greater use of QMV is one which already exists within the treaties in the form of a quite extensive series of passerelleor bridge clauses already provided for. It is likely that much of the focus in Council discussions in the coming months will centre on these passerelleclauses and whether there might be a willingness to make greater use of these provisions, which could be done within the existing treaty framework.

Turning to the work of the General Affairs Council, in which I know Members take an interest, I represented Ireland at its last meeting on 20 September in Brussels. Our main item of discussion was preparation for the European Council meeting on 20 and 21 October where the focus will be very much on the immediate challenges of Ukraine, energy and the overall economic situation. We also received updates from the Czech Presidency on its priorities for its presidency and from Commission Vice-President Šefovi on the current state of EU-UK relations, which I will be happy to address separately at this meeting. We also discussed the 2022 strategic foresight report and the Commission’s letter of intent which will help in the preparation of the 2023 Commission work programme. Finally, the Council held its annual and important horizontal discussion on rule of law focusing on judicial independence and media pluralism.

Tá mé sásta, más mian leis na comhaltaí, ceisteanna a thógáil.

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

I thank the Minister of State for the update on these matters. I am sure he will join me in expressing sympathy to the family of Mr. Rory Mason from Dunboyne who was tragically killed while fighting for Ukraine last month. I listened to the tribute paid by his father this morning. He said that Rory had a deep sense of right and wrong and an inability to turn the other way. He was obviously a very admirable young man. We should pay tribute to him and extend our sincere sympathy to his family.

On the Conference on the Future of Europe, the Minister has moved the debate on as regards the convention on treaty change with his comments this morning. There are calls to look at switching from unanimity to QMV, strengthening EU competencies in health and energy, incorporating the pillar of social rights into the treaties and providing the European Parliament with a right of legislative initiative. I also note the Minister of State's comments that the General Affairs Council considered that 95% of the conference proposals can be implemented without treaty change. What the Minister of State has outlined here is a cautious approach to treaty change. While Ireland is certainly open to such change, it needs to be proven that it is necessary. We need to consider it carefully because it may require a referendum if there is to be treaty change. I recall listening to a discussion recently at a European Movement Ireland event, where the Taoiseach gave an address to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Ireland's referendum on accession to the European Union. He was asked a question about treaty change and he said that if member states are objecting, they are doing so for very valid national reasons on many occasions. He said it would be far preferable to get a consensus on these issues and generally speaking, consensus can be arrived at. The way the European Union does its business is a bit cumbersome and it is not pretty but eventually, consensus is arrived at. I agree with the Minister of State's comments here this morning. Am I right in saying that the Irish would be open to treaty change but quite cautious and that it is not an immediate priority?

Citizens' panels were another issue that arose from the Conference on the Future of Europe. What is Ireland's position on citizens' panels? Are we open to that concept of participatory democracy and so on? Is that something we will be pushing at EU level?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I join Deputy Haughey in expressing my deepest sympathy to the parents and siblings of Rory Mason from Dunboyne.

He was a constituent of mine. I read what his dad said - it was lovely. The Department of Foreign Affairs is providing consular assistance. The family has asked for privacy, so I had better leave it at that. They are going through a difficult period and they have my deepest sympathies. May he rest in peace.

Regarding treaty change, the Deputy has essentially set out our position, but I do not sense much appetite for it around the table at European meetings. It is not on colleagues' immediate agenda overall. The Taoiseach has stated that he is open to it, particularly in terms of a health competence, but everyone who is open to it has a different reason. Most would probably agree with expanding health competence provided it was suitable, but others have different priorities. There is much more discussion of the passerelleclauses in the treaties, so I urge the committee to examine those. We are examining them and I believe it is on them that there will be discussion. People feel that treaty change would require a great deal of work. For example, we would not be the only country that would need to hold a referendum. Most people are framing the difficulties and administrative issues in reaching consensus at the European table in terms of enlargement. They are not saying that it is something that needs to be done urgently to stop a current problem.

To those who find this position difficult or believe that we should be getting rid of vetoes or using more qualified majority voting, unanimity is important. It protects national interests, but it also protects European interests. When dealing with important issues that we need consensus on, the EU can speak with a greater voice when all of its members come together. Look at what we have already achieved with unanimity. We achieved a massive recovery fund post Brexit and we have had to work via consensus on the issue of vaccines. We have achieved a significant amount. Take the sanctions package as an example. A point I make repeatedly is that it is always difficult to negotiate a sanctions package. Through unanimity, though, we have achieved a great deal in that regard. Ireland has always been at the forefront of trying to get the maximum possible sanctions. There was speculation last week about the EU being divided and breaking up because of the package of sanctions on Russia. As we have seen from yesterday and today, the negotiations are still ongoing, but it certainly looks like ambassadors will be able to agree another package of sanctions on Russia unanimously.

Unanimity has achieved a great deal for us and we should not dismiss it. We protect our national interests. It is not just Ireland that has specific national interests. Every member state of the EU has particular interests that are important to it - quirks in terms of its membership or something that other people do not understand or do not face as issues themselves. We must ensure that the democratic legitimacy of the EU is to the fore. We have done that successfully so far.

Citizens' panels can be a good idea. It is fair to say that other member states view the Irish citizens' assembly as the way to go. The two main reasons for this are that our assemblies are usually on specific topics and they are informed by experts. A general citizens' panel would be a waste, but if we had panels on specific topics that we might otherwise struggle for consensus on, they would work well. They would have to be informed by experts. We are open to the idea of panels. The Irish example is one that the other member states want to follow.

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

The conference was a good exercise in democracy. The Minister of State was very engaged, and not just from an Irish point of view. He attended many of the meetings. We shared flights and the odd coffee during the process.

I am taken by how 95% of the recommendations can already be implemented without even considering treaty change. Something that struck me was that, be it through the work of the working groups or committees within the conference or through plenary, so many of the issues that were cited were ones that the EU was already working on more broadly. This pointed out the communications deficit and was nothing new. As I have said a million times, the EU has been great for quite some time in paying people who give out about it, such as Mr. Nigel Farage, but perhaps not so great in focusing on what it is doing and how people can engage with the process. I was taken by the citizens' panels and the number of people who travelled to various parts of the EU, including Strasbourg. People gave up their weekends to go to Strasbourg for four days and engage with the panels. They deserve a great deal of respect because their contributions were valid.

Despite the difficulties that Covid presented, the exercise that was the Conference on the Future of Europe was the real lesson. How can we have more of these conferences and how do we use this exercise to feed into the European decision-making process? We are unique. We are right on the westerly edge of the EU and, generally, our MEPs come home every week. Our Commissioner has been home a great deal in recent months, as have other Irish figures at European level. There has been engagement by the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister of State and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Coveney. That is not necessarily the case in member states with list systems where MEPs only return to their homes for green weeks. How do we communicate that these exercises are happening? Perhaps the lesson is that these exercises are not happening quickly enough or that people are not feeling their impact.

This brings me to the debate on treaty change and, more specifically, QMV. The Minister of State mentioned that we would not be the only member state that would require a referendum if there was treaty change. Is there any other member state that has an automatic requirement? The Danes have usually reached back to that. QMV is discussed at the level of high politics. It is the major topic of debate in the institutional discussion, particularly at Council level, but are we explaining to people how this issue makes a difference to their lives? My take-away from the conference is that many issues that are important at European level get taken away into the world of acronyms and so on and information about how they make people's lives better and why it is important that we are part of the EU get lost on the journey. We might discuss whether we need to consider QMV or how important QMV would be in agreeing sanctions, but is it the greatest issue for European citizens?

I will conclude with a question on the European Council, as the Minister of State and I could speak for hours on the Conference on the Future of Europe if we were given latitude to do so. That would even be before we involved Deputy Ó Murchú - that would be another ten hours. Given what was put together for Brexit and Covid, what preliminary discussions have there been on European-level financial packages to support member states, including Ireland but most likely those in the east of the EU, in dealing with the challenges that the looming winter will bring due to the impact of Russia's war in Ukraine?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Regarding the conference, the Commission and the Council have published a list of conclusions and how they can be implemented. I assume that their documents are publicly available. They go issue by issue and set out how the recommendations can be implemented.

For some people, it is always someone else's responsibility, but it is all of our responsibility to highlight the good things that the EU does. There are certain things that can immediately be attached to the EU, for example, vaccines. We need to do more of that with climate change. I know some young people who have the Interrail card. Aside from everything else that the EU does, that card is good and tangible. If we do not speak about democracy and the benefits of that democracy, including the democracy that is the EU, then we will allow other people to say otherwise.

The Commission is examining this matter. It had been handling some of the issues that were raised, so it was astonished that people did not know that. That has been a major lesson for the Commission. It will have to get better at communicating some of what it is doing. That requires an educated citizenry. Thank God, we have that here in Ireland. More and more kids are learning about European issues in school.

We have our Blue Star programme in schools. We also have civic, social and political education, CSPE, as part of the general curriculum for children. That is also important and we all have a responsibility in this area.

On qualified majority voting, it is hard to tell people what the real difference would be in their lives if this were to come about. We spent a lot of time dealing with this and my impression is that most countries do not wish to spend a lot of time dealing with it and navel-gazing. As I said, we have achieved many practical outcomes through consensus in recent years. Where concerns have been expressed to me, they have been in the context of enlargement. We are keen on enlargement. Other countries have expressed a concern that perhaps decision-making could become unwieldy. Again, we have a great deal of work to do on enlargement and our objective as a Government is to get these countries into the Union when they are ready and to help them to get ready to do so. We can consider having an institutional debate during that process, but that is not our number one priority.

There is a lot going on in energy. It is important to remember what has happened already. With all these rows, such as why we are not bringing in a windfall tax, etc., which was going on for weeks, we brought in that windfall tax last Friday and hardly a word was said about it. It is worth recalling what the Government did at EU level in conjunction with other European governments last Friday. Where large financial gains have been made by energy companies on what are called inframarginal rents, which are, essentially, non-gas electricity supplies, there will be a solidarity contribution on those profits. A solidarity levy will be placed on the fossil fuel sector as well. Work will also be done in the area of electricity demand reduction. People laugh when it is said that we need to reduce demand, but this is just a fact. We need to do this and there are ways of doing it, especially at peak times. The Commission for Regulation of Utilities will be working on this also to help us get through this winter. We achieved a significant amount last Friday in introducing a windfall tax. Shell has now asked the British Government to do something similar. The European Union has done this and we have done it together.

It is worth recalling when we have done these very positive things as governments working together. In this case, it just involved the governments working together under this particular provision of the treaty and not the European Parliament, but generally the Parliament would also be involved. This is a good development. It is like everything else in that when there is a problem, we never hear the end of it, and then little is said when there is a solution. Perhaps it is only us who do not talk enough about these kinds of developments. This is not the entire solution but it is certainly a large part of it.

The Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, has estimated that between €1 billion and €2 billion will accrue to the Government. This will be redirected into ensuring that we are energy secure and that energy is affordable in the coming months. A great deal of other work is also ongoing. I can talk about that as well if the committee wishes.

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

I add my voice in expressing sympathy to the family of Rory Mason. Everyone was very taken with his father's tribute this morning. In fairness, he involved himself in a fight that was not his and he paid the ultimate price.

We discussed some of these points in the context of the Conference on the Future of Europe. That was definitely a process that improved as it went. It started with many flaws. As with politics in general, some people are still on the periphery and well removed from politics at a European level. Work needs to be done on this. As I said, that is the case across the board.

In fairness, the Minister of State has answered some of the questions I was going to ask. Regarding citizens' involvement, there was probably a need for a greater level of conversation on what Europe as a whole and the individual institutions were doing and to get into the ins and outs of issues. The issue of qualified majority voting versus unanimity seemed to come up in the sense that people saw everything very simply as Hungary being the problem and that we could not have it holding things up. Even where there is not a Union-level competence, such as in health, it was still able to organise the buying of vaccines as a bloc. That showed that the opt-in system has been working. The Minister of State said several times that the problem with democracy is that it can take a long time to come up with deals but that is the reality. We have all seen the alternative, and it is not a place we want to go. This needs to be considered. It is understandable that the focus of citizens has sometimes gone in this direction, based on almost every issue being dealt with as if it were a silo.

Regarding the issue of energy security, the Minister of State is obviously involved in conversations at a higher level than any of us. I accept what he said regarding the EU having begun actions in this regard, including the solidarity tax, etc., but it is necessary to go further. Where does the Minister of State believe these endeavours can go in respect of dealing with the entire energy market? I accept there are difficulties in bringing about change and there can be unintended consequences. We have all seen the idea put into action where Europe can act as a collective in buying as a bloc. Everyone sees the sense in doing that. On another aspect now in the public domain in the context of security issues, I refer to our protection of critical infrastructure and the conversations under way in this regard in Europe. We are in the age of hybrid warfare. The concept of security and what that looks like has changed.

I also wish to hear the Minister of State's view concerning the age-old question of our relationship with our nearest neighbour. The British Government now has its own economic issues. The language it is using has improved regarding possible deals and perhaps we will be able to get movement on the protocol. The protocol Bill is still in play, however, and we need to deal with that issue in and of itself. A conversation needs to be had with unionism from the perspective of the protocol being the only show in town and of streamlining what needs to be done in this regard. Succour must not be provided, though, to those at the extreme end who may be looking for something that is not a possibility. Will we get a decent level of movement not only on the protocol but also on the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and the amnesty legislation? I think that is enough questions.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have said a good deal on the Conference on the Future of Europe. People do talk about Hungary, but we have achieved a lot with which Hungary has agreed. It vetoed the taxation proposal that came up at OECD level, for example, but the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, has said he is confident we will be able to resolve that issue. Even with unanimity being a requirement, we can achieve a great deal. We speak more strongly to the world when we speak together. In some cases, the idea of having a vote and that there would even be a qualified majority in favour and a minority against a proposal could weaken our position. We are not rushing out the door on QMV for that reason, and I do not think we ever have, especially on foreign policy matters. Even though Ireland is very much in the mainstream of European foreign policy, it has never occurred to us to use our veto on any proposal put before the European Council or Foreign Affairs Council on foreign policy matters. We are in the mainstream and our foreign policy is based on democracy, respect for human rights and on the principles of the UN Charter. These are pretty normal foreign policy principles for democratic countries. This is the way the EU works. Nothing at the EU level has ever threatened our foreign policy. In fact, it has only added to it. Equally, I think we have added to foreign policy at EU level as well. When we have unanimity it makes us work harder and speak more strongly.

On energy security, I already spoke about what might be called the windfall tax that has been brought in. I am glad it has been.

There is work continuing on common purchasing, which would effectively mean price caps, and that work is happening at European level but also at global level, particularly on oil. The only issue that Ireland has about energy at the moment is energy security. We produce a small amount of gas ourselves and we do not produce any oil so, first and foremost, we have to make sure we get that product to the island, which is very important. Our interconnection with Britain and then on to Norway is very important and the proposed interconnector to France, which is effectively under way, is also very important. What is also important is that we continue with our renewable energy ambitions so we can become more energy self-sufficient and possibly become an energy exporter.

In terms of what might be happening at European level on block purchasing, we would be very happy to leave that to the Commission and it is best if it is done from that level. Different letters were circulated last week among member states on this issue but it is much more complicated than signing letters. We have to make sure we have security of supply. As I said, there is Ireland, Britain and Norway and the issue of ending dependence on Russia. We have to make sure we can keep that energy coming. Ireland is not part of the main European grid and that further complicates matters for us. We are keeping an eye on this and we are very happy for the Commission to take the lead on this, which it has done very successfully in other contexts. However, even the Commission would say that the issue is extremely complex, although it is working very hard on it.

On the protection of critical infrastructure, I would have to defer to the Minister, Deputy Coveney, and the Department of Defence on that. I am not sure I can really add to that. However, in terms of our neutrality, I would say there is no pressure from anybody at the European table in terms of our non-membership of military alliances. Again, this is who we are, and every country has something that shows who they are. People can have different views and I have no problem with that but, as a nation, this is not something we are proposing to change. The Taoiseach has spoken about a possible citizens’ assembly to discuss it but we do not have detailed proposals on that or any Government decision. It is certainly not something one would find at European level, particularly among the member states, in terms of asking why we are not a member of NATO. Nobody has ever said that.

As to our nearest neighbour, the mood music is excellent at the moment. We have had really good engagement between the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister, Liz Truss, and it was noted that we were the only country where both the Head of State and the Prime Minister were invited to the funeral. The Irish people and the Irish State showed incredible deference at the time of the funeral of Her Majesty and I think that really helped. The Minister, Deputy Coveney, has had very good engagement with both the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Cleverly, and the Secretary of State, Mr. Heaton-Harris. By the way, we all know our counterparts very well from before, which is very useful. I will be speaking to my counterpart, who is the Minister, Mr. Leo Docherty, tomorrow, and we are all in regular touch with Vice-President Šefovi. The mood music is really good. We appreciate what Steve Baker said at the weekend and he seemed to appreciate what I said on BBC the day before yesterday, judging by his comments.

That is very good but the challenge now is to move the discussions on at a technical level. The political atmosphere is very good but the technical people, the officials who look at all of these highly detailed issues about customs, checks, state aid and VAT, have to be given a mandate by the politicians to move the thing on. That is where things fell down before in that there had at times been a very good atmosphere between the politicians, but then we find that when the officials get to talk, not very much happens. Nonetheless, there are things happening and there are technical talks starting this week. The Commission and the British authorities have been in regular discussion this week about scheduling them. We think the focus needs to be to ensure that those officials are empowered to have real discussions that can bring the outcome that people and businesses in Northern Ireland will overwhelmingly support, that is, what we see as a jointly agreed outcome that provides the certainty they need to maximise the opportunities offered by the protocol. I am a confident that we can come to an arrangement that will satisfy everybody but we need to come to that arrangement as soon as possible.

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

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. First, I want to associate myself with the remarks made by other members in regard to the sad death of Rory Mason.

I will be covering some ground that has already been touched upon. I want to ask three questions of the Minister. First, there has been a lot of focus and debate on QMV. I would be interested in coming at it from a different angle by asking the Minister of State, from his own experience in Council, whether an issue ever arose where something that was really desirable was not attainable because of a veto. The way we work in Ireland, with multi-party Governments being the norm nowadays, is that technically there is a vote at Cabinet but, in my experience, there is never a vote at Cabinet because, by necessity, you have to bring everybody with you. I think that is the way the European Council works as well. I would be interested to hear the Minister of State's take on that because the one thing we do not want is, by some majoritarianism, to leave somebody feeling wounded or excluded. For that reason, I would be supportive of the status quo.

My second question is in regard to the positive actions that the European Union takes. The Minister of State is right that there is often a focus on the things that are not being done, and the very positive things that are being done are not always focused upon. For example, the acquisition of vaccines during the Covid crisis was a successful undertaking, as well as the support by means of the provision of PPE and other equipment. In the energy crisis we are facing, there are two elements for Ireland. One is obviously the cost element to be borne by our citizens and by industry, and the Government has done a good lot to address that insofar as it can. I would be interested in the other side of it, from a European perspective, and that is Ireland's sustainability in acquiring energy. As I indicated, I understand that the Commission, certainly the Commission President, is anxious for a common purchasing arrangement so there is not the perverse and disruptive bidding between member states for energy, particularly after the winter, given that storage for this winter is reasonably adequate. What happens next year to ensure we do not have individual member states bidding up the price and literally freezing other member states out of energy? Where are we in terms of that common approach?

From an Irish perspective, the Minister of State rightly said that we are on the periphery. We have about a quarter of our gas from the Corrib field and three quarters comes through Britain. Ofgem said yesterday that there may be a critical balance this winter in gas supplies in Britain. How does that impact on us since they supply us? Have we had reassurances in regard to our supply if their own supply becomes critical? It has been very clearly indicated by EirGrid and others that our energy supply this winter is on a knife edge.

My related question concerns the push to renewables. The Minister of State referenced the notion that we need to be a net exporter of energy. Obviously, the big investment and the enormous focus in the immediate horizon, that is, in the next 15 to 20 years, will be on offshore wind, but there really is very slow progress in Ireland in regard to getting that off the ground, if the Minister of State will pardon the phrase. We have not designated a port to service it yet and the maritime area regulatory authority, MARA, will not be taking applications until at least March of next year. There just does not seem to be the urgency about it that would be in sync with the Minister of State's determination that we will be energy self-sufficient within a reasonable horizon.

My last question is about the coverage of Europe and European affairs. We complain in this House that there is diminution of the coverage of the business of this House. Certainly the detailed work of committees of the House is not covered very much. There is talk of a second Chamber, which would dissipate coverage even more. There is a perversity. The more product, productivity and effort, the less coverage of it that is communicated. I know from talking to Irish colleagues in the European Parliament that there is significant concern that there is virtually no coverage of the activities of the European Parliament, although it may generate 70% of what ultimately is Irish law. A big part of advancing the principles of democracy and so on is to ensure they are communicated effectively because, quite frankly, they are not at the moment.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the question about something really desirable that was not achieved because of a veto, it does sometimes happen that at the Foreign Affairs Council, there might be a statement on human rights violations in particular countries that is vetoed by one country. What happens is that they do not hold a vote; they merely withdraw the proposal. It just does not happen because one country has said "No". That is its right. With the vast majority of items that go through the Council of Ministers routinely, there would not necessarily be anything other than unanimity even with a range of ordinary directives and regulations. What can happen during the negotiations is there might be a bloc or minority that might try to work for its particular agenda. It might not stop it but it might try to change a law. That can happen based on the numbers and we have seen it happen on a number of occasions. At every Council meeting, they put the next item of legislation that needs to be passed on the agenda. They have gone through all the discussions at departmental and Council level and the committee of permanent representatives to the EU, COREPER. There is a technical vote at our Council. They are all unanimous. They would not necessarily require that. It may be that countries that may have been opposed to them have got some changes to them. Again, it is a process of negotiation. It does happen at the Foreign Affairs Council. In my experience over the past couple of years, the European Council has always tried to get a result and to bring people together. If you look at the conditionality regulation, that was effectively on rule of law. That was essentially decided at the European Council. That required unanimity. The deal done there was that we will hold off on implementation until Hungary and Poland take a challenge to the European Court of Justice so that was a bit of compromise. They took the challenge. We supported the Council and the decision against Hungary and Poland in that case. The court ruled against them and now that is in place. Again, unanimity achieved a lot in there even though it was messy and complex and did not satisfy everybody at the time. It has definitely achieved a lot in my opinion.

Regarding some of the energy questions, I have to say that they would really be a matter for the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications. They are all European issues. Some agreements between the EU and various entities such as Azerbaijan have been reached. There is also an agreement with Israel. Not all of them are to provide immediate relief. The Commission is working on the overall package and we would be quite happy for it to do that once it takes everybody's circumstances into account. It is something that needs the Commission to lead on. Ultimately, that will be to our benefit.

Having much more offshore wind is certainly our ambition and is very much part of our European obligations. Listening to what Deputy Howlin said about the delays, I will make the point that when this Government came into office, there was no planning structure there. The Maritime Area Planning Act was passed. It was incredibly complex legislation. It is now through and the other stuff is following on from that.

Regarding coverage of politics, sometimes we have to make our own coverage but it is important that we have as many outlets as possible. I know part of the Government is providing support to make sure outlets can provide the type of public service coverage they are required to, including through the licence fee, which has been there for decades. That then imposes an obligation to the broadcaster that receives that, RTÉ, and the general terms of licensing of broadcasting in this country require broadcast outlets to provide news coverage. Some do it well, which I welcome. I accept what the Deputy says but ironically, there are now more avenues to see what we are doing. Anyone around the country can tune into this today. They could not do that 20 years ago so there are more avenues. Again, we all have to take responsibility but if we do not have information and knowledge out there about what is happening in the democracy, the democracy will die and we see that starting to happen in America in terms of local and state coverage. It is very worrying and we definitely cannot allow that to happen here. One of the important objectives of the European Commission and the European Union and one thing we discuss regularly at the Council is media freedom and plurality. Making sure that is there is one of the things we are very concerned about because it is part of democracy and something we keep a very close eye on in all member states, particularly where it has been identified as an issue.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for being late for the Minister of State's presentation this morning. Following on from Deputy Howlin's comments on how we engage better with communities and the public, I put down a question to the Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Peter Burke, about a European affairs officer in each local authority and setting up a strategic policy committee, SPC, at local authority level so that people on the ground would be more in touch with what is actually happening at European level. That does not seem to be his Department. What sort of budget does the Minister of State get in the Department of Foreign Affairs for something like that? Does he get anything? What is the budget for European affairs in the Department of Foreign Affairs? Is this something the Department could look into?

How should European governing bodies deal with a Eurosceptic leader in another EU country? I know that before the Italian general election, Ursula von der Leyen made a comment that they had tools to deal with Italy if it went in a difficult direction. What is the Minister of State's opinion on that top-down approach?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a European affairs officer, I believe it should be a matter for the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and individual local authorities. Some local authorities already have a European affairs officer and I think such a post would be very useful because there are funding opportunities available through various sources. One of the things we are very keen is that at every level in this State, we would obtain as much European funding as we can. Universities and third-level institutes are very good at getting research funding so it is undoubtedly the case that local authorities should have more expertise and some of them have while others are really pushing the European links. Limerick is one example. There are European-orientated funding programmes such as the PEACEPLUS programme, which is partly funded by the EU but also by ourselves and the UK Government. Border counties can benefit from that. I am certainly more than happy to work to ensure we can spread this out around the country.

We had a very small budget for publicising or promoting the EU. We received a substantial increase for next year in the budget. I will get Senator Keogan the exact figure in due course but it has been substantially increased. This was very important for us in terms of the EU50 programme. I even saw one Deputy criticising advertisements - I do not know who was putting up the advertisements as I do not think it was us - because they were talking about Europe, so we will do that and be criticised for it. I launched an advertising campaign recently at relatively low cost to promote the idea of Irish people working in European institutions because over the next three years, we are going to have a 35% reduction in the number of Irish people working in European institutions.

Therefore, I encourage the committee to join us in encouraging our excellent young graduates to work in the European institutions. That is another facet of our promotion.

On dealing with elected people and President von der Leyen’s comments about the Italian election, quite frankly, the European Commission has tools to deal with all of us if we fall below basic principles of rule of law and democracy. At the Council meeting that I attend, we regularly have discussions on what is called the Commission’s annual rule of law report - in fact, we had one only last month. We take turns answering questions from colleagues about the rule of law in our country. In the past, I have answered questions about some issues, particularly around judicial appointments, for example, and what we are doing with the judicial appointments Bill and reforms to the Defamation Act etc. Colleagues will ask questions about that and I ask questions of other colleagues. We sort of hold one another to account as to what we are all doing. It is not about particular countries, rather, it is about what we are all doing. Though it is, in some cases, about particular countries because there are certainly concerns and procedures in place in relation particularly to the system of judicial appointments in Poland and basic issues of democracy in Hungary as well. There are Article 7 proceedings, as they are known, that have been going on for some time. They would require many member states to support them to move them on and they have not moved on. We generally just take stock of where things are. We try to discuss these issues publicly and directly with our colleagues. I had a meeting with my Hungarian colleague on the margins of the last Council meeting in Brussels, where I expressed concerns, but also said that we want Hungary to get European funding once it complies with the conditions attached to it.

Regarding the Italian elections, that is a matter for the Italian people. They will have a prime minister and I am certainly not going to prejudge what she does. It is ultimately the coalition. It is always important to remember that in Italy, they generally have coalitions and never one party that dominates everything. They are elected by the people and we will deal with them. If there are any issues with regard to rule of law in any member state, the Commission certainly has the tools to deal with them.

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

I again offer my words of sympathy to the family of Rory Mason. We were all very taken with the sentiments that his dad expressed in the tribute we heard earlier today.

As I said, the world has changed considerably over the last period and we are all having very different conversations and worries that we would have a number of years ago. I refer to interaction with other European countries and their views at this point in time. I know that every second commentator believes they are a serious military strategist at this stage, but it does not look like it is going particularly well for Vladimir Putin in the field. That is why we have to get that energy piece correct, because it is one of the things that he has in the sense of the possibility of economic carnage throughout the western world and particularly Europe. However, obviously, there are fears related to some of the threats that have been made, for example, even relating to the annexation of those areas that, from Putin’s point of view, he can determine as being part of Russian territory. In addition, there is that wider threat of tactical nuclear weapons being put in the field. Some commentators said that could be a considerable number of steps away, even if he was to consider it, however, there might be the possibility of testing nuclear of weapons or something from a point of view of upping the game. This is all very frightening and I accept that there are limits to what the Minister of State can comment on.

The Minister of State mentioned the rule of law question. I ask about those particular interactions and where the conversation is between the European Commission and Hungary. Where are relationships at the minute, particularly with Poland?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On Russia, I will not give a running commentary on military matters; that is not within my expertise. On this so-called annexation of Ukrainian territory, we categorically condemn what Putin announced - that Russia could in any way annex part of the territory of Ukraine. This has no basis whatsoever in law and it does not actually even reflect what the people of those regions want for themselves. The sham referendums that were conducted in occupied Ukrainian territory by Russia and its proxies were illegal and illegitimate. They were not even referendums at all, if one looks at what happened on the ground. It is a further ploy to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to try to justify Russia’s totally unjustified and illegal war. It was an escalation. Ireland will never recognise the claims over the regions. We remain steadfast in our support of the people of Ukraine. Why are we fully in support of Ukraine? Because the annexation of Ukraine’s territory was a total violation of the principles of the UN Charter and of all basic international law. Russia has to end its aggression immediately and withdraw all forces from the territory of Ukraine.

We condemn the use of nuclear weapons. Any nuclear weapons would result in devastating consequences for everybody. Nuclear threats should not happen. Russia previously agreed with other nuclear powers that nuclear war can never be won and should never be fought. We have consistently condemned Russia’s action at the Security Council and we called for that council to continue its responsibilities of the maintenance of international peace and security. What we do at the UN and what we do in terms of nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation is the continuum of a long tradition of Irish foreign policy. Frank Aiken, former Minister for Foreign Affairs, was central to efforts to reduce nuclear proliferation around the world and eliminate it. This is part of our proud tradition.

I was very pleased to meet the Ukrainian MP, Kira Rudik, on Friday. We have had a lot of contacts with counterparts. She expressed her extreme gratitude to the Irish people, which I think she did in the media as well, for everything that we have done. She told me of a Ukrainian refugee who took her aside when she was here and said, “Kira, you would not believe how good they are”. I thought that was such a lovely thing for someone to say and how it was true. She also thanked teachers as well. There are more than 10,000 Ukrainian children now in Irish schools. They have been doing incredible work. We will continue to engage with Ukraine to help it in whatever way we can.

On budget conditionality, particularly in respect of Hungary, the Commission made a proposal on 18 September for implementing a budget that would be basically a suspension of cohesion funding to Hungary under our budget conditionality regulation. Essentially, there would be conditions that Hungary will have to comply with to receive funding. In the period ahead, we are engaging with our fellow EU member states to get a consensus on this. We have met the Hungarian Government. I met its representatives last month and they told me they are committed to complying with the conditions. We welcome what they are saying but obviously we have to see this and make sure that Hungary complies with conditions. We have continued concerns regarding rule of law in Hungary. We were fully engaged in all of the Council discussions that will ultimately determine whether EU funding is withdrawn pursuant to the mechanism, in light of what they actually do. Hungary essentially was given one month to comply with the Commission decision. It was looking for an extension, which would mean two months, and, quite frankly, I did not have a huge difficulty with that. That is on cohesion funding.

On the recovery and resilience programme, the Commission has not agreed anything with Hungary yet. We hope that it will. We believe in this recovery funding across Europe. We also know that Irish companies probably disproportionately benefit from European funding, even if it spent it on the member states because we are an exporting country that works abroad. However, if funding is agreed with Hungary, we have to make sure that there are effective anti-corruption safeguards to guarantee the sound management of what is European money and our money as well, as we are a net contributor.

We welcome the recent agreement between Poland and the Commission on milestones around the rule of law. Poland has taken steps on its judicial disciplinary regime in the context of the Commission approving its recovery and resilience fund. We definitely want ongoing dialogue between Poland and the European Commission on the implementation of those milestones as well as wider issues. The whole issue of judicial independence and respect for the European Court of Justice is not just important for us. In my opinion, it is very important for any business that is operating in Poland, which is a country that is very committed to our European Single Market. That market is very important to Poland and it wants to make sure there are no question marks whatsoever over that. It has been working quite well with the Commission on this. We welcome and support that. We also recognise the amount that Poland is doing for Ukrainian refugees, in particular, which is very good, and the pressure that its Government is under. We are working very closely with Poland on issues surrounding Ukraine on a number of fronts.

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

I will ask one brief supplementary question. I know we are coming towards the end of the meeting. I spoke at a seminar this week on media plurality and media freedom. One of the issues that came up as a real concern was the potential for external actors, including state actors, to interfere with the next European elections. I am interested in what the Minister of State has to say on this. He may not be prepared for this question now, but is it a matter on which there is a focus? Are mechanisms and processes in train to protect the integrity of the upcoming European elections?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The electoral regulations are going through at present and are under discussion. This matter comes up at the General Affairs Council and is on the agenda this coming month. I will certainly raise that issue.

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

And come back to us.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

From an Irish point of view, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage leads on this and feeds into the European discussion on the issue, but it comes up at the General Affairs Council.

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

It would not be a matter for Ireland alone-----

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely, but in terms of the Irish response-----

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

Of course.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----I then discuss it at the General Affairs Council. It was meant to be on the agenda last month but was taken off. As I understand it, it will be on our agenda in Luxembourg this month. I will certainly raise that issue.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Former.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Collins is now the head of the EU-----

Ms Maeve Collins:

-----division in the Department.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will answer. I do not agree with what the Chair said. I will give some reasons.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has been said to the Chair but I think this is-----

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, we went through Covid so there was definitely less engagement in terms of physically meeting people, but my Romanian counterpart has been in Dublin. We have had a good meeting with her here. We opened the embassy in Ukraine in August of last year before anyone was talking about the war. I met the Moldovan foreign minister in December last year and was very glad to do that. I personally have text numbers and contacts for many politicians in North Macedonia because in my time as Minister of State I have built up those contacts.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Again, I will say exactly what we are doing because it is at all levels. The Minister was in Romania and Moldova and we have engaged very heavily with them. For example, my predecessor, the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, did a tour of the western Balkans, as I did. Next week, I will sit down with the Albanian Prime Minister, Edi Rama. We have different formats at European level. For example, the Taoiseach sits at the Nordic-Baltic round table so there is a very close connection there. We also have a Nordic strategy and work very closely with the Baltic countries, in particular. We work with different countries on different issues. There are countries in the rule of law group and the Single Market group, and there is a Hanseatic group of finance ministers as well. It depends on different countries.

There are some countries where we could do a lot more. We have had good visits to Slovakia, which is a country that is so like-minded with us it is incredible. A delegation from the Oireachtas was in Slovakia recently, which was very welcome. We are always trying to do more and to engage more. I listen to what the committee has to say. I strongly encourage Oireachtas committees to continue those visits that this committee has been doing post Covid. That is very welcome. These countries love to see us coming and have a great fondness for Ireland. Many of those countries look to us and look to our success in the EU. We are one of the few EU countries with an embassy in every single member state. That really gives us significant heft because if something happens in Bulgaria, for example, we have somebody on the ground who can tell us what is happening. Not every member state has that. In Slovakia, quite a few European member states do not have embassies. That became apparent when I was there. We are always trying to engage with other countries.

I will say that on Brexit, every single one of the EU member states, east and west, gave us extraordinary solidarity and continue to do so. We are grateful for that. Definitely, we can always get to know them better.