Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I begin, like others, by expressing my sincere condolences to the family, friends and work colleagues of the late Detective Garda Colm Horkan. The whole country was shocked when the news came of his brutal murder. It has united the nation in grief and has underscored for all of us the importance of our police force, An Garda Síochána, the protectors of the peace. Unlike many police forces, members of An Garda Síochána are not law enforcers. The force was founded as a protector of the peace and by and large its members are unarmed people who work so assiduously in our communities to preserve the peace. It is really important that we stand in solidarity with our gardaí when one of their members is so brutally taken from them.

I also congratulate the Tánaiste and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, and the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, on the success of the Irish bid over many years. Many Ministers and many Governments have been involved in various parts of the campaign to secure a seat on the Security Council of the United Nations. I know it is not normal to mention individual civil servants, but Ambassador Byrne Nason, who is our ambassador to the United Nations and was the pivotal person in recent times in organising the campaign, has played a pivotal role. It was my privilege to work with her when she worked with the Economic Management Council in a previous administration. Her skills were evident then. It is a great tribute to Ireland, because it was a difficult battle to get a vote in excess of that of a very international country like Canada. We did it because of the values of Ireland expressed over many years.

It is a challenge for us now to be true to those values while Ireland is on the Security Council. Other speakers have referenced, for example, the plight of Palestine and the Palestinian people. We must go beyond lip service regarding that issue and be moral leaders in pushing that agenda. Decades and generations have passed while that issue has been a running sore in international affairs. There will be other challenges next year regarding the playing out of the Covid-19 disaster across the world. We can see what is happening in South America now. I listened very carefully yesterday to the views of the World Health Organisation, WHO, regarding the impact of Covid-19 in Africa, which is yet to suffer the full impact. That could be devastating and we need to have a sense of solidarity. I am already a little concerned that some European countries are banding together to have first dibs on any vaccine that might emerge. Any such vaccine, if achieved, has to be a universal, international human property and must be distributed in an open way to everybody as quickly as possible. These are the challenges I think we will have to face while Ireland has its seat on the Security Council, but we will have many opportunities to discuss our role in the United Nations when that seat is taken up.

Regarding the European Council, there was, unusually, no shared post-Council statement. Instead, a short set of remarks was released by President Michel on behalf of the Council. As the Taoiseach already informed the House, the main focus of the debate has been money. I can assure Deputies that it is not the first time for that at European Council meetings. I refer to money for the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, for the European Union for the next seven years and the new recovery fund.

As I said the last time I spoke in the House, I am glad there is at last international solidarity within the European Union on recovery. That solidarity exists because everybody is affected by the pandemic. When we were arguing for eurobonds for the countries affected by the most recent economic crisis, solidarity was slow in developing and never developed to the extent that it should have.

Charles Michel, President of the European Council, signalled that a consensus was emerging about the recovery fund but that difficulties requiring further discussion and negotiation remained. The Taoiseach has alluded to some of those difficulties. For Ireland and some other countries, the big issue is obviously the distribution of the funds that will become available through the new recovery fund. How will that money be divvied out? I raised this matter with the Minister of State two weeks ago when we debated this matter most recently. It was signalled then that we would get something like €3 billion from this very large fund. That sounded, and is, a paltry sum considering the impact that Covid-19 has had on our economy and people. I asked the Minister of State to confirm the figure of €3 billion and she stated that was the initial indication. I also asked what was the status of the Irish-Belgian request that Brexit be factored into this consideration. I would like to hear specifically what progress has been made on that.

We must also determine whether this money will be given by way of loans or direct grant payments. There was some indication of the breakdown of the initial €750 billion, namely, that it would be given partly in loans and partly in direct grant payments. If we are told we can borrow €3 billion from this fund but must pay it back, that would be, quite frankly, pointless and useless. We can borrow money at historically low interest rates. We do not need a new fund to do that. For example, this week, Ireland, through the NTMA, borrowed €750 million in short-term treasury bills. Those are only short term and are historically lower than long-term bonds but, notwithstanding that, we borrowed that €750 million for six months at a negative yield of 0.49%. We were given money. We were paid to take that €750 million and the issue was 3.8 times oversubscribed.

In terms of longer term money, which the money available in the fund will be, on 9 June, the NTMA borrowed €6 billion in a ten-year bond at a yield of 0.23%. That means we can now borrow money at an interest rate of less than one quarter of 1%. The ability to borrow money from this new fund is no concession at all because borrowing is not the problem. We need the ability to have direct cash. I understood that the idea of the new fund was as an extension of cohesion funding so that countries that have difficulties, as we had when we joined the European Union, are given cash payments and not loans.

The following matter also interests me and we can discuss it further when we have the chance to ask questions. What is the timeline for the distribution of the money? Will it happen, as the Taoiseach indicated, between now and 2024 or will it be during the entire duration of the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, which runs until 2027? Money at the end of that period would be of little value.

I have only one minute left but I want to talk briefly about Brexit. The Financial Timeshas reported rising hopes of a compromise between the EU and the UK. It stated that diplomats had confirmed a shift in mood. There is not going to be an extension to the transition period. The article suggested a middle ground shift on fisheries, which caused me some concern and about which I will ask the Minister of State some questions later. What does it mean? When I raised the issue in our most recent discussion I was told there was no shift from the mandate given to Michel Barnier. It has now been reported that there has been a shift of position. The Taoiseach indicated we would never get a position as good as the one we have now. What is the new negotiating position? Has there been a shift?

On the issue of the level playing field, the UK will, apparently, accept EU standards initially while retaining the right to alter them in the future, at which point new tariffs would be applied by the EU. That is no basis to plan a trade agreement into the future. To do so would be to build an agreement on sand and uncertainty.

I wish I had more time but I will be able to tease out these matters when we have the chance to question the Minister of State later.

See this speech in context