Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I will approach it from two angles: first, the practical angle and the angle of the title of the session and, second, more generally, the angle of our neutral role and our role in bringing peace in the world. I welcome and pay tribute to the work done by the Minister of State's colleague and the Government in taking a hands-on approach in welcoming the refugees. That is absolutely necessary as one of the fundamental parts of our humanitarian reaction to the completely unjustified war and Russia's invasion. Let me get that off the table.

As for the practical matters, one cannot but put this in context. We have a major housing crisis. Last night I gave some of the figures for Galway. I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, is very familiar with them. Rents in the county have risen by 90% in recent years. Since the trough, the period of the lowest rents, they have gone up by more than 100%. The figures do not mean anything any more.

I will respond to Deputy Phelan. When your slot comes near the end of a debate you get a chance to comment on others' contributions, which can be somewhat unhelpful. I did not hear the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage say the money was ring-fenced. What I heard him say, and what he has clearly written in his speech, is that there are separate targets in respect of the Government's Housing for All strategy and that the Government will not interfere with those targets in looking after the refugees. The Minister felt it important to point that out. It is not possible to give that assurance and I am leaving the refugees out of this. We are not reaching our targets as is. One of the points I made in my contributions this morning and yesterday related to the voluntary housing bodies in Galway, in the Minister of State's county. They have expressed great difficulties in reaching their targets. They just cannot do it. That was highlighted at a meeting of the housing task force. It is important to be clear in our language when we talk about housing matters. The Government's reaction has brought into acute focus two things: first, the crisis which we have all been shouting about for a very long time but which has been ignored and, second, what we can do when we put our minds to it. Suddenly we can build. Suddenly we can look at empty houses we had left vacant all the time. Suddenly we can act when there is a war. That is certainly a cause for reflection.

A point was made about local authority houses that are empty. It is unacceptable that they are empty. They have remained empty in Galway for as long as I have been a councillor and then a Deputy. I see the Minister of State nodding, and I welcome that, but the only response we ever got from management was that such houses were a small percentage of our overall housing. At any given time there are 100 empty houses in Galway. It looks bad, if nothing else. They should be turned over in a matter of weeks and they never have been. It is appalling.

Going back to the speech by the Minister, Deputy Coveney, we did not, unfortunately, get a copy of it, but I took a note of some of the things he said. I could not disagree with him. He stood on the edge of a mass grave containing 503 civilians and four soldiers - men, women and children. He went to Bucha and saw the shocking effect of the war there. He was asked to bear witness and he was absolutely right to have done so. That was a very strong message to send. When your time is limited you try to focus. I absolutely agree with the Minister. One could not but be touched by what we see and what the Minister said when he came back.

I want to broaden the debate, however. I did not hear any mention of the role Ireland was playing on the UN Security Council to bring peace. No matter how much we condemn Russia, which deserves our condemnation, we have to sit down at some stage and come to a peaceful solution. Are we just going to keep killing and killing, led by Russia? Are we going to keep sending more and more weapons, and for how long? For how long can we keep taking in refugees? As long as we can, of course, and I would be the first to push the Government to do that. Realistically, however, what should our role be in addition to providing humanitarian assistance? Where is our voice to say this war has to stop and we cannot keep doing this? Who is doing an analysis as to how the war started? The nearest I have come is an article in the Irish language. Tá alt i dTuairisc, agus is fiú d'aon duine atá in ann é a léamh. An teideal atá air ná "Má díbrítear an Rúis ar fad ón gclann idirnáisiúnta, ní chun ár leasa a bheidh sé". Is í Fionnuala Ní Aoláin an t-údar. She states that if we expel Russia from the international family, it will not be to our good in the long term. That is no defence of Russia. My condemnation of Russia goes without question. Professor Ní Aoláin elaborates on this. This woman is the special rapporteur of the United Nations on counter-terrorism and human rights. She happens to be from Galway originally. She is also a professor in a university in America. She has multiple roles and is well respected. She condemns outright Russia's invasion but goes on to talk about ceachtanna le foghlaim, the lessons that must be learnt. She sets them out very clearly. The article is worth reading. She says at the very end of it, "Má bhíonn an Rúis ina cadhan aonair ar fad, ní chun ár leasa a bheidh sé", that is, if we push Russia out completely, it will not be to our good.

I would draw an analogy with that. Many people have called for the expulsion of the ambassador. The Government has said no, that we need to keep relations with them and need to talk to them. Yet I have not seen one single piece of evidence that we have used our voice in respect of Russia to bring some type of peace or compromise. I fully support the investigation into war crimes and the International Criminal Court with no difficulty at all, but at what stage will our voices rise up and say, "Please stop this war. We cannot go on like this"? Europe is not playing that role. It has now reversed policy completely. We have not quite yet and we are giving humanitarian assistance, but Europe has reversed policy completely to provide military aid for the first time.

The EU started out as a peace project; it has now gone closer and closer to a military project. If Members doubt me, let me just quote from a report I am making my way through. It is a very dense report and was published only recently. It is titled At What Cost? Funding the EU's Security, Defence and Border Policies, 2021-2027. I will give the reference to anyone who would like it. The report's authors go on to show the cost of the militarisation that has been taking place consistently. I actually doubted the figures and I spoke to my colleague here, Deputy Pringle, and to a woman who works with me because I doubted the percentage increases in respect of military spending and had to double-check them. Let me give the House some of the figures, but first, let me say that the European peace facility is but one of the EU's array of budgetary instruments that form part of a multi-annual financial framework under which an unprecedented amount of money for defence and security purposes has been earmarked. I will show Members just some of them in the few minutes I have left. EU security, defence and military budgets between 2012 and 2027 increased by 123% compared with the previous budget round, which was €19.7 billion, up to €43.9 billion. That is 123%, and that is only one percentage. The figures go much higher than that. EU funding for law enforcement, border control and military research development and operations is 31 times higher, at €43.9 billion, than funding for rights, values and justice, which would lead to peace in the world. The largest increase is to the European Defence Fund, which has a budget of nearly €8 billion. This is the figure I baulked at. It has seen a 1,256% increase.

This money, for the first time, will be used for research and development for high-tech military weaponry. We have got the private corporations working hand in hand, spending billions of euro public money on arms development.

Moving on to Frontex, the EU's border agency that I have spoken about on many occasions, the aim is to have 10,000 people working for that agency. The aim is deterring and containing migrants rather than protecting them. The agency has seen a 194% increase compared to the previous cycle and - listen to this figure - a 13,200% increase in the budget over less than a year. We have had the retirement of the man in charge recently because the European Parliament was about to discipline or take action in relation to his behaviour.

I will finish by going back to an t-Ollamh Ní Aoláin pointing out that it is a very dangerous policy. An t-Ollamh Ní Aoláin welcomes absolutely the open policy for refugees, as I do, but she makes it perfectly clear that they are white and European or on the European Continent and we have a completely different approach when refugees are not from the European Continent and when they are of a different colour. I raise that as a serious cause of reflection because as we speak, we have 2,000 people in direct provision who have permission to go outside. They have the status and can go nowhere. We are ignoring what is happening in Yemen. We have ignored the Amnesty report on Israel in relation to Palestine and the International Criminal Court. Of course, Israel has refused to co-operate with the International Criminal Court. They are not part of it.

See this speech in context