Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)

Far be it from me to answer a question for the Tánaiste but it would be technically difficult to make that change mid-year. That aside, the case is well made for removing Russia from the scheme. As Deputy O'Callaghan and others have said, we are concerned that it has managed to remain as a state covered by the scheme despite the illegal invasion of Ukraine and the illegal activities and war crimes being perpetrated against the Ukrainian people by the Russian state. The Tánaiste said that in the year for which we have the most recent data, no claims were made in connection with Russia. That in itself is interesting.

Deputy Doherty made the relevant point that we must remain vigilant about this particular scheme. It covers an extensive number of countries and should be open to regular review. The Deputy's point about companies not involved in exports being capable of benefiting from the scheme is interesting in that the scheme is principally designed to support businesses that are operating or seeking to operate in new and emerging markets. Its purpose is to encourage market diversification. That is why we must be vigilant and must continue to review schemes like this.

To build on a comment made by Deputy O'Callaghan, I am intrigued as to why Russia has remained in the scheme for so long, given what we know, what the people of Ukraine are experiencing and that the international community has turned its back on Russia and is treating it as the pariah state it is. We have the sanctions regime and various other measures being taken against the Russian state because of what it is doing to Ukraine. Will the Tánaiste elaborate on how this scheme managed to escape the net? One would imagine that when the scheme of sanctions and other measures were introduced, a very extensive audit would have been undertaken by the Government of all measures applying to Russia and where any benefits might accrue to Russia, that would be a red flag. It is curious this provision has remained in place for so long. The Tánaiste might be able to elaborate on why that is the case. It may just be a sin of omission. I accept and completely understand that errors are sometimes made. For the most recent year for which we have figures, no recipient with any links to Russia was captured by the scheme, and this may well have been also the case in 2022 and before then. That may be why Russia has remained as a country included in the scheme. Perhaps the Tánaiste is in a position to address those points.

See this speech in context