Mr. Rory Montgomery:

Yes, exactly. Having said that, one thing Mr. Connelly alluded to that we have not mentioned as being increasingly important is the role of not only the groups in the European Parliament but also the Parliament political families. I was very struck during my time, whether it was Brian Cowen initially or Enda Kenny afterwards, that the first port of call before a European Council meeting was always the meeting of the Taoiseach's political family. There are similar meetings at finance level, foreign affairs level and so on. At times, politically, we can find ourselves supporting a particular viewpoint because it is the consensus in the Taoiseach's political family, even if it is not necessarily the political consensus or directly in our national interest. Fundamentally, however, such engagement is a very good thing. That is my first point.

As for the balance between the Department of the Taoiseach and the Department of Foreign Affairs, I spent three years all together in the former, one year as a counsellor and two years as a second secretary. It is a difficult question. A small number of countries have moved to bring everything over to the prime minister's office. Sweden is the best example of that. It is not the case in most countries. The reality is that, over the years, and in particular because the European Council, after Lisbon, is attended only by the Taoiseach and not, as was the case previously, also by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and, occasionally, the Minister for Finance, there has without question been a shift. In this crisis mode many of the big decisions have had to be made by the leaders, as opposed to the normal legislative business, which is more for the Council. Having said that, I think a balance is possible. I think the Taoiseach's Department, above all, sees itself as servicing the Taoiseach in his or her ventures. Also, when big calls come to be made before a European Council meeting or something, it makes sense for the Taoiseach's Department to drive that. At the same time, mostly because of the economic crisis, as the committee will know, there was a shift for five years from 2011 to 2016. One of the problems which I think the then Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach felt was that the overall architecture of the Department meant there were far too many people leading on European affairs compared with the other things the Department was doing. In many ways, therefore, it made sense to bring most of the day-to-day work, as well as the networking and the contact building, back to the Department of Foreign Affairs. Also, the Department of Foreign Affairs has the direct relationship with our embassies in a way the Taoiseach's Department would not have the time, the capacity or even the institutional role to do. I think it is balanced. Like with all these things, it depends a huge amount on personalities and common sense. I introduced in the Taoiseach's Department a more systematic co-ordination arrangement, which we intensified during Brexit, and that continues to this day, I believe. Then the Taoiseach's Department steps in as necessary, so I think it can work.

On embassies, it is undoubtedly good we have an embassy in every member state. We should not be closing them down. I remember very well the decision taken in autumn 2004, just after our 2004 Presidency, and the feeling after the great enlargement of 1 May 2004. I would not say the embassies are not doing useful work. The reality, of course, is that, as the Vice Chairman said, when it comes to debate in the Union, the people who really count in most things are the French and the Germans and a few of the other big countries. Then, when it comes to our specific interests, there are like-minded countries with which it is useful to build networks and relationships. I am not saying it is not worth having the input, but a small country far away - I will not mention any particular country - will not take a particular line on Brexit one way or the other. It will take its cue from the general consensus. The idea that having a representative in a specific country made a big difference is therefore not correct, in my opinion. Having said that, to close down the embassies we have would send the wrong signals.

As I said in my opening remarks, that we have greatly increased the capacities of our missions in France and Germany and expanded a number of others, often with local and expert staff coming in to supplement the diplomats, can be very important. We have worked very hard with the French. In fairness to the Germans, I do not know whether this continues, but when Niall Burgess was Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs, he instituted a system of consultations between Secretaries General, with a number of them on each side. The Germans have shown a lot of interest in talking. The German foreign ministry has a dialogue with the Department of Foreign Affairs. In fairness, I think the Germans are making an effort. It is true there was the French Presidency last year, but Niall Burgess, who is now ambassador in Paris, told me some incredible number of Irish Ministers were in Paris during that year, some for EU business but many for other business as well, and that is very valuable and important.

I have nothing more to say about the amount of state aid except that, during the Brexit negotiations, I remember having a look at who was availing of state aid. There was a great deal of anxiety that the British would somehow unsettle the level playing field. The reality was the British proportion of state aid was the second lowest, in fact, in the entire European Union. The lowest proportion of state aid as a percentage of GDP was Ireland's, and the French and the Germans' were much higher. The Vice Chairman is correct that there are questions there.

On values, I do not have an answer. On the treaties, in the Nice treaty, if the members remember, for the first time the People's Party in Austria had come into Government and there was an element of sending them to Coventry for a period. The former taoisigh, Mr. Brian Cowen and Mr. Bertie Ahern, both in a human way, would sit beside their Austrian colleagues to keep them company and cheer them up, but it was difficult. Then the provision for suspension was put into the treaties, but it cannot work because it requires unanimity bar the country concerned. Up to now at least, Poland and Hungary have been involved in an alliance. Others would be very uncomfortable about seeing this used. Therefore, I do not know what one can do.

Coming back to the American ambassador in Hungary, the fact he is a gay is a huge issue. We had more than one, but we had, in particular, a gay ambassador to one quite large country. He found his husband was not treated in the same way as spouses of other ambassadors would have been and it was difficult. I will say our embassies have made efforts as far as they can within the parameters of diplomatic relations. Professor Michael Ignatieff, the former Canadian politician and intellectual and founder of the Central European University, when he visited Dublin in the autumn, spoke to me warmly about one of my former colleagues, Counsellor Pat Kelly, who had helped fund a series of lectures about liberal values. We do our best but, to be honest, there is not an answer. It is hard because the treaties would need to be changed. Maybe money gives some leverage but it only goes so far. For all that the Hungarians want to get their full share of the Structural Funds and the Renew Europe money, there is not much sign they are changing their course.