Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I join my colleagues across the House in expressing my heartfelt sympathy with the family and friends of Detective Garda Colm Horkan and his colleagues in An Garda Síochána. We stand with them today.

I also commend everyone who worked hard to secure for Ireland a seat on the UN Security Council. It will provide an opportunity to show leadership on climate action and to be a strong voice for human rights and international law.

There are two points worth noting about the proposed EU recovery fund. As previous speakers noted, Ireland was expected to receive the third lowest share of the funds from the original proposal, despite being projected to have the third largest negative revision of GDP in the autumn and spring forecasts of the European Commission. The Commission formula relies upon GDP as an accurate measurement of economic activity. However, Irish GDP and GNI are heavily skewed by the investment activity of foreign multinationals and investors, rather than the activity of the domestic economy. Therefore, the Commission proposal was also heavily skewed as a result of the attractiveness of Ireland for foreign direct investment.

In addition, as a small, open economy, Ireland is more vulnerable to global trade shocks than other countries and the EU must take this into account. While a revised methodology is likely to see Ireland move closer to an average level of support from the programme, the underlying issue of Irish GDP being a fundamentally flawed indicator of the health of the economy remains and needs to be addressed.

I turn to the proposed taxation and revenue raising measures which are needed to finance the EU recovery fund. New EU-wide taxes are proposed, including a plastic tax, a digital tax on big tech multinationals, a tax on carbon intensive industries and a levy on larger companies that benefit from the Single Market. Following the Council meeting on Friday, French media indicated that a common consolidated tax base or digital services tax could be on the table to help the EU fund the rescue package. As a result of decisions taken in the past decade, Ireland will be one of the countries most directly affected by the introduction of these taxes.

Furthermore, there will be a cost if revenue raising measures are not agreed. Governments would either have to pay more from their own coffers to service the debt or shrink the size of future EU budgets, meaning less money will be available for agricultural subsidies, cohesion or climate action in the future. Will the Government continue to oppose these measures despite the social justice and solidarity implications, to say nothing of the ultimately flawed nature of this model of economic development, or will it use this crisis as an opportunity for reform? We need clarity about the position the Government is taking and what revenue raising measures it will support at EU level. If the Government remains committed to this economic model in the long term, the future implications are for an even harsher economic shock and adjustment period than would be necessary now. The long-term environmental challenges we face as a society must also be included in any strategy designed to get us through this economic crisis. Otherwise, we face another painful adjustment in the years ahead.

On that issue, it is welcome that the Green New Deal is featuring as part of the EU stimulus package and approach being taken. At the same time, however, analysis from Greenpeace shows that a raft of Europe's pandemic stimulus measures, such as tax relief for businesses and reduced excise duties on fossil fuels, are benefiting polluting industries.

Gas and oil companies, car makers and other polluting industries are cashing in thanks to bailouts and other forms of state aid. On the one hand, the European Union is directing large-scale stimulus into the Green New Deal and that is very welcome, but on the other hand, public money is being used to protect and subsidise toxic and polluting industries. The absence of environmental conditions in state aid is counterproductive in the long term. It is somewhat akin to the practice of the Government in funding the building of homes that are reliant on fossil fuel heating systems which will need to be retrofitted at cost to the taxpayer in future years. We must stand by the principle that every euro invested today should be future-proofed with environmental and social conditions. The European Commission must take action to stop investment of public money in toxic industries and ensure a green recovery consistent with the Paris Agreement.

While the EU Green New Deal is very welcome, we must ensure that across the European Union our policies align with sustainability and climate action. For example, the issue of trade with Brazil is important. While world emissions of carbon dioxide will fall by about 7% this year due to the pandemic, Brazil's emissions will rise by between 10% and 20% from 2018 when they were last measured. This is due primarily to deforestation. In the first four months of 2020, an estimated 464 square miles of the Brazilian Amazon was cleared. Tree loss is reaching a tipping point after which trees will dry out and die, releasing billions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. Demand for beef and soya is driving this process and the European Union is the second top destination in the world, after China, for soya exports from Brazil. There are a number of actions that the European Union must take to address this. First, there should be a ban on imports of soya, in particular, and beef from lands that have been deforested. This means banning imports where there is no effective tracing to prevent products from entering the European Union through the back door. Exporters mostly record the land where their cattle are fattened, not where they were reared. Second, the European Union must ensure that consumers are told by supermarkets where their beef and soya come from through robust tracing and labelling. It is no good crying foul when fire rages, destroying the Amazon rainforest. We need effective action on trade, tracing and labelling to be taken now.

I want to address the need for human rights in the European Union to be addressed at European Council level. I have spoken here before of the situation in Poland where a third of Polish municipalities, some 90 towns and cities, have established so-called LGBT-free zones. I have written to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, about this. It is a flagrant attack on human rights and is not acceptable in the European Union. Likewise in Hungary, Viktor Orban has clamped down on civil society and sought to undermine civil society organisations that criticise government policy. In May, Hungary passed a law banning trans people from legally registering a change in their gender, putting them at risk of harassment, discrimination and violence. This is in no way acceptable. There must be a strong united and co-ordinated approach across the European Union that stands firmly for human rights and against the targeting of minorities. It is essential that the Government raise its voice in defence of human rights and not continue to leave it to other EU states to call out unacceptable targeting of minorities by the Governments of Poland and Hungary. Other EU states are doing that.

On the very important issue of Palestine, we need leadership at this time. It is disappointing that the occupied territories Bill has been dropped from the programme for Government. It sends the wrong signal. The Bill is consistent with the exception allowed for in EU law, which enables states to unilaterally ban imports of certain goods on the grounds of public policy. For the avoidance of any doubt, the Bill could be passed and then tested by the European Court of Justice. We need more than strong words from the European Union at this point to prevent the annexation of land in the West Bank. We need action. There is no indication from the Government or from the European Union that any effective action will be taken. A policy of appeasement in respect of Israel clearly has not worked. We cannot accept the grave injustice of any annexation of land against the Palestinian people, nor can we have any tolerance for land grabs. It is worth noting that the EU has clout, as it is Israel's top trading partner. Israel has a privileged trade relationship with the European Union. Its goods are subject to preferential tariffs under the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Furthermore, Israel participates in the EU Horizon 2020 research funding scheme. A united, cohesive European Union is reliant upon upholding the principles of international law and human rights. We need effective action at European Union level and we need Ireland to show leadership on this. Words are not enough.

See this speech in context