Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have received apologies from Deputy Eamon Scanlon. The first item on our agenda is an engagement with the Minister of State, Deputy Thomas Byrne, to discuss EU General Affairs Council meetings and related EU affairs matters. I welcome the Minister of State and, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Maeve Von Heynitz and Tim Harrington. I thank them for giving us their time this afternoon. Today's meeting will be on the most recent and upcoming meetings of the EU General Affairs Council and related EU affairs matters.

Before we begin, I will read a note on privilege and address some housekeeping matters. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be asked to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex to participate in public meetings. I will not permit members to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask members participating via MS Teams that, prior to making their contributions to the meeting, they confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus. We have one member joining us online so that member should be aware of that condition. We are all aware of these rules so I expect everybody to abide by them. I now call on the Minister of State to make his opening statement.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach, leis na Teachtaí agus leis na Seanadóirí. Tá áthas orm a bheith anseo an athuair mar Aire Stáit le freagracht as gnóthaí Eorpacha agus cúrsaí cosanta. Is é seo ár gcéad chruinniú ó ceapadh mé i mí Eanáir. Déanaim comhghairdeas leis an gCathaoirleach as a cheapacháin mar Chathaoirleach ar an gcoiste. Gabhaim dea-ghuí le gach ball den choiste. Tá obair an-tábhachtach le déanamh acu sna míonna agus blianta atá le teacht. Tá súil agam a bheith ag obair go daingean leo. Beidh mé ag éisteacht leo, ag freagairt a gcuid ceisteanna agus ag obair leo mar fhoireann na hÉireann i rith ár n-Uachtaránacht an bhliain seo chugainn.

As Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs and defence, I greatly value this opportunity for dialogue and the chance to update the committee on key developments at a European Union level, particularly following my attendance at the General Affairs Council on 27 May. I was Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs previously when Brexit was a key issue during the latter part of that whole process, and I have to say the work and breadth of topics involved at the level of ministers for European affairs, the General Affairs Council level in the European Union, has greatly expanded. A much wider range of work has been left for the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs and his or her counterparts to deal with. A much greater level of work is being done at the European Union. Our Presidency is coming up, as are the budget negotiations, which are about to kick off in earnest. There are just a broader range of issues in front of me.

Given the alarming escalation in the Middle East following the Israeli strikes on Iran and Iranian strikes on Israel, I will add some remarks to the copy I have provided to the committee. Ireland expresses its deepest concern at the alarming escalation in the Middle East following Israeli strikes on Iran and Iranian strikes on Israel. There is a clear risk that this crisis may escalate and there are serious implications for peace and security across the region and beyond the EU. The Tánaiste raised these urgent concerns when speaking to EU foreign ministers at the extraordinary meeting held by videoconference yesterday. The Government calls for all parties to urgently step back, to show the maximum of restraint and to reduce tensions. We have expressed our concern at the deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure in violation of international humanitarian law. Ireland firmly supports diplomatic efforts to return to stability and calls on the international community to take urgent action to de-escalate the situation to provide space for a return to meaningful dialogue. We continue to engage with our EU partners and the broader international community to ensure we are collectively doing our utmost to push for a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

The European Union agenda remains dominated by several critical challenges, including the Russian aggression against Ukraine, the Middle East, our collective focus on EU security and defence, competitiveness and transatlantic relations. These issues will again feature prominently when EU leaders meet at the European Council next week. I will accompany the Taoiseach at that meeting. One of the purposes of the General Affairs Council, at which I sit as Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, is to prepare those meetings of the European Council. The topics that come up at the European Council will be an agenda item at meetings of the General Affairs Council.

European defence and security continue to be a key theme following the EU leaders' agreement last March to accelerate work on strengthening European security capabilities. The European Commission's White Paper for Defence - Readiness 2030 sets out this framework, and Ireland continues to engage constructively in discussions that include initiatives in priority areas for us, especially maritime security. It should be noted that, on any defence questions or conclusion, there is always reference to the specific security characteristics of certain member states. That obviously includes the neutral status of countries like Ireland.

Through the General Affairs Council, I continue to prioritise the EU's focus on enhancing competitiveness, particularly emphasising the critical importance of strengthening our Single Market. The competitiveness agenda is advancing strongly at EU level, building on the assessments provided by the Letta and Draghi reports.

The Council also maintains its leadership role on rule of law issues across the European Union. At our last meeting, we conducted an important hearing on developments in Hungary, an area of significant concern to Ireland and other member states. We had valuable discussions with Commissioner McGrath regarding his plans for a European democracy shield, examining how we can develop and defend our democratic values and institutions.

Regarding EU enlargement, which is another of these cross-cutting issues that comes up at the General Affairs Council, Ireland continues to advocate strongly for expansion based on candidate countries meeting the necessary membership requirements. We champion merit-based enlargement as an effective tool for securing peace, security, stability and prosperity throughout Europe. We recognise that enlargement serves Ireland's interests through an expanded Single Market, benefiting our economic prosperity and widening our talent pool. Recent progress includes Albania opening two additional negotiation clusters covering the Internal Market and competitiveness and inclusive growth. We hope additional chapters will close with Montenegro before the Polish Presidency ends.

Unfortunately, Ukraine and Moldova's progress is being blocked, basically by Hungary. Ireland wants to see this blockage resolved without delay.

The European Commission will publish its proposal for the next EU long-term budget, the post-2027 multi-annual financial framework, within the coming month. The Commission will publish its proposal and I am happy to discuss the budget in more detail. Ministers will have their first discussion in July at the next meeting of the General Affairs Council. I am happy to explain it. I suspect there will be a lot of confusion in the first weeks. It is approximately a two-year process. It was the last time.

Ireland has transitioned from being a net beneficiary to a net contributor. We want a multi-annual financial framework and EU budget that build on our strengths, support priorities like the Common Agricultural Policy, address current challenges and position us for future opportunities. I assure members, as it comes up everywhere, that at every meeting I have had with EU counterparts, I have stressed the fundamental importance of the CAP to Ireland.

We want the EU to remain an attractive and secure investment destination capable of competing globally. Ireland, through our Presidency, will play a pivotal role in the negotiation of the multi-annual financial framework. This point in the cycle was important in the previous negotiations when Finland had the Presidency and in 2014. It has proved to be an important part of the European budget negotiation on every occasion. It is the Government's intention to ensure the multi-annual financial framework reflects EU founding values while defending the rules-based international order, human rights, climate action and sustainable development.

On competitiveness, we must become more innovative, productive and competitive. This is critical not just for our economic growth but for the well-being and prosperity of citizens. The Government has endorsed Ireland's prioritisation of revitalising the Single Market, developing EU-wide energy grid infrastructure investment, supporting business scale-up and reducing regulatory burdens by cutting red tape. We continue to engage intensively with the Commission and partners on the competitiveness compass recommendations.

EU-UK relations are critical to us and dominated when I was previously Minister of State. Last month's first summit between the EU and the UK since Brexit marked a constructive new co-operation phase. The outcomes envisage broad collaboration across security and defence, energy, people-to-people links, sanitary and phytosanitary arrangements, which we looked for during Brexit, fisheries and emissions trading. A lot of work will flow from the agreement. It is a balanced and ambitious agenda that strengthens ties, benefiting both sides, with many of our priorities included. Northern Ireland's unique circumstances were recognised, with both parties reaffirming commitments to implementing existing arrangements, which remain binding, including the Windsor Framework, fully and faithfully.

Recent months have seen a significantly disrupted global trading order. Irish and EU exporters face additional 10% US tariffs, alongside threats of further tariffs on pharma, semi-conductors, and aircraft. This represents the most serious challenge to transatlantic economic relations in generations. From the outset, Ireland has been a full and equal partner in the EU's collective response, focusing on negotiations while understanding the need for potential rebalancing measures. The European Union is navigating a complex geopolitical context with significant challenges but also substantial opportunities. The EU itself is a complex entity with complex processes we have to navigate as well. As we approach our Council Presidency in the second half of next year and work to defend our values and interests, Ireland will play a key role in shaping the European Union's response.

I have not addressed the EU Presidency in detail but I am happy to answer questions about it. I am happy to do a full session on that issue. I will answer those and questions on other issues that arise. I look forward to the questions in general and to ongoing engagement.

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a bheith linn agus as an ráiteas soiléir sin a thabhairt. I propose to allow five minutes for questions and answers with some leeway. We will have time to come back around again. I call Senator O'Loughlin.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State and wish him well in the challenging time we have ahead of us. The right person is in the position to handle those challenging and difficult negotiations. In his opening statement, the Minister of State spoke about the conflict between Israel and Iran. We have to be conscious that we have servants of the State working in those areas, representing us and doing their best to bring about peace using their diplomatic skills. Will the Minister of State tell us about the situation for Irish diplomats based in Tehran, Tel Aviv and Ramallah? What advice would he give Irish citizens living in those territories and those who may wish to travel there? The Minister of State spoke about European democracy shield. It is important because, when Ireland had the Presidency of the Council of Europe, a big concern for the Council and one of the main reasons we had the fourth summit in Reykjavik was the backsliding of democracy. It would be interesting to know more about European democracy shield to see how we can work together to ensure the true values of democracy are alive and well in the EU. The Minister of State also spoke about facing the additional 10% US tariffs alongside threats of other tariffs on pharma. Will he provide clarity on where negotiations are at?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator asked about diplomats. I will include in that Irish citizens. My hat goes off to them. We have diplomats in Tehran, Ramallah and Tel Aviv. We have a small number of citizens, in the dozens, in Iran and some more in Israel. In these situations, we always find there are more than we had expected. The advice is very clear: do not travel or go to Israel or Iran at the moment. It is very dangerous. Our advice to Irish citizens in Israel at the moment is to shelter in place. This advice changes all the time, so people need to keep an eye on Irish Government advice and local advice. In Iran, the advice is slightly different. I want to be very careful in how I express this. It is essentially that if you can leave, you should leave. We cannot make that happen for you. There are no aeroplanes in or out of the country. There is a lot of road traffic out of the country. It is a long drive to get out of Tehran. We do not have any support for that at the moment. I cannot comment on our individual diplomats out there except to thank them for the work they are doing. The Department is keeping in close contact with them and other governments, with which we work closely on the ground. It is a new mission. When Ireland was on the Security Council a number of years ago, we had the Iranian files so we worked closely on issues in this area. We have a really good team. It has added so much to what we do. We hope they are safe. The Department is doing everything it can with other governments to ensure we can keep everybody safe. It is a fast-moving situation. I hope sense will prevail and people will resort to using diplomatic means. This crisis and the Iranian nuclear issue can be solved diplomatically, as we saw before, and should be solved diplomatically. We are concerned about it.

The European democracy shield is an initiative of the Commission. It is a flagship initiative President von der Leyen put in place. It is still under development. The committee will be glad to hear Commissioner Michael McGrath is basically in charge of it. As an introduction, European affairs ministers had a lunch with Commissioner McGrath recently in Brussels during our General Affairs Council meeting. This was the topic on the agenda. It is at an early stage. The Commission has written to all member governments looking for feedback on a number of questions. We have sent that back. The Commissioner will be looking at protecting the democratic process, protecting the truth in media, the mechanics of elections and making sure we are resilient in the face of various underhanded attacks on our democracies.

We expect that there will be an all-of-society approach to this. It is not just about governments telling people what to do. It is going to need the media and communities to deal with crisis situations and the protection of our democracies. Digital era challenges are critical too. We expect something in the early autumn from the European Commission on this following this consultation. I am sure he has done with the European Parliament as well and maybe with the national committees. We have responded and we expect that to be a Commission communication. President von der Leyen sees it as central to the Commission's mandate. This communication will be published in the autumn and we can expect a lot to flow from it.

What is happening on tariffs at the moment between the EU and America is that there is constant engagement. That is happening and it is good that it is happening. It is at quite a detailed level. There has been a lot of engagement among member states and between member states and the Commission as well. The Tánaiste has had good engagement with Commissioner Šefovi who is handling it for the EU. Ireland will potentially be one of the worst affected member states. The Tánaiste has also had meetings with his US counterparts in the past few days, which generally seem to have been helpful conversations to the overall process, but it is just a matter of waiting and seeing. There is no doubt that the imposition of tariffs at the level suggested would be extremely damaging. There is a separate process going on in the US on a number of sectors, including pharma, semiconductors and aviation. That is being done under what is called a section 232. That is about national security. That is a separate process within the US. The EU is engaging with the US on that but because it concerns pharma and semiconductors, it could have a significant impact for Ireland. It is good that talks are going on. It is certainly the declared political intention of President Trump to agree deals. Let us hope that it works out. The European Union is always in the space of trying to make agreements as that certainty works for all of us.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have a few questions for the Minister of State. I attended the Institute of International and European Affairs, IIEA, event last week at which he talked about our approach to the Presidency being one of principles-based pragmatism. He might say a little more about that with the principles being our respect for our neutrality. Like him, from my time on the foreign affairs committee and my encounters with representatives from our European partners and others, I realise there is widespread respect for our military neutrality. That message needs to go out.

How will this committee be impacted, if at all, by the Presidency? Are their particular roles that it will have to play? Is there a particular workload that it will have to carry? Military neutrality clearly does not imply military incompetence or impotence. I am very strong on that. I know there is a trajectory for the Department of Defence so that we can spend more on defence without at all infringing on our military neutrality. In fact, it strengthens our military neutrality, particularly as artificial intelligence will be one of the bulwarks of how we develop economically. AI is based on data and Ireland is a hub for data. We need to protect our data and we need to work with our European counterparts to ensure we protect our data. Red tape simplification and securitisation was referred to by representatives from aid agencies at yesterday's foreign affairs committee meeting. They have a fear that "it could involve the removal of key pieces of legislation and that all funding for international aid might be seen through a transactional lens". Reassurance may be needed there. What impact would the simplification process mean? We all welcome the reduction of red tape.

My final point relates to Albania. A few of us, including Deputy Crowe, were part of an Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe delegation to the country. From a security and mafia-style viewpoint, Albania is not in the best of places. It is at the root and the source of a lot of criminal networks that operate across Europe. There are a few bits of food for thought for the Minister of State.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One of the things that Albania has to do to join the European Union is to comply with the norms and standards that are expected of member states. The authorities are doing a lot of work to try to change things in Albania. They are more advanced than other countries. There is a lot of work to do. There is no doubt about that but that work is happening. We are quite satisfied with the progress there. Albania is not ready to join just yet, but it is on a path that can work for it.

I referred to principles-based pragmatism at the IIEA event last week in the context of our defence policy. A defence policy is a marker of an independent country and how it defends itself. We have to defend ourselves. We have to have an army that, as the Deputy mentioned, is competent, which it is. It needs to be capable. That capability depends on equipment and personnel. It needs more equipment and personnel. We are characterised by military neutrality, which, in general, means that we are not members of military alliances. We are not going to be members of NATO. We cannot legally join a common European defence. The principles that I referred to, in terms of principles-based pragmatism, are direct from the Constitution. Article 29 provides that our foreign relations are based on peace and friendship among the nations, respect for international law and so on. That is where we are, but we have to be pragmatic as well. We have been pragmatic over the past number of decades without in any way impinging on our neutrality. Good examples of this include our missions abroad under the EU, in Kosovo under NATO, and famously in Lebanon with UNIFIL. There are many other examples as well. That is my vision of the Defence Forces. They are there fundamentally to protect this country and they operate based on the principles in the Constitution. They have always done that and there is nothing controversial about that but sometimes it can be mischaracterised.

Our neutrality is widely respected in the sense that other countries understand where we are coming from. We are not the only neutral country in the European Union. Sweden and Finland are no longer officially neutral. Austria, Cyprus and Malta still are. Every country that is or was neutral had or has different reasons for it. It was almost a condition of Austria's independence. Cyprus has a situation relating to territory. Even when Sweden was neutral, it joined military exercises with Britain and America. It was not quite the same as some of the other countries. Finland has always had a strong defence force because it needs to defend its territory. Neutrality is respected by other member states. The particular characteristics of certain member states are always referred in conclusions of Council meetings. They mean us and it is always mentioned. It will be mentioned at the defence conclusions at the European Council next week. However, and members will find this when they meet people from around the European Union and they will have their own answers as they are from different parties, they will be asked: what is Ireland doing to defend itself? We have a good story to tell. Separately from Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the previous Government decided to start spending more on our military as we needed to get to a foundational level of what we require. Some of the outworkings of this were seen this week when the Tánaiste announced a contract for the provision of sonar and publicly looking for radar in order that we have a military that can operate and can see what is happening. which at the moment it cannot.

The simplification agenda is widespread in the European Union. There has been a feeling that regulation has gone too far. Ireland's approach is that it is not in favour of deregulation but we are in favour of better regulation and reducing red tape, which will drive economic growth. We do not want to do that at the cost of workers or the environment and certainly not international development. I am confident that we can get packages on simplification that will help our economies while not threatening why we regulate.

There has simply been a feeling that, in some cases, regulation has gone too far and there is too much of a burden, particularly on small and medium enterprises, and there is work to reduce this. Much of this work will come before the General Affairs Council in the coming months and we will see how it goes. All of the changes have to be decided by the member states and the European Parliament. There are debates to be had on various issues among European parliamentarians and member states. We will see how that debate goes. There are a wide range of measures in various sectors of society, and we will certainly take on board the representations that have been made on it. I would say that, if any of us meet businesses at present, they are all asking about this and they see it as necessary to be competitive in a global sense.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The fact the Minister of State had to deviate from the speech was on the basis of what was going on at present. It is incredibly frightening. I believe there will be agreement across the board on the fact that Israel is a genocidal entity and it has its own purposes and reasons with regard to its attack on Iran. My fear in this is where there may be some element of movement from other European states that were rather slower than Ireland in seeing what was going on. Is this sufficient to stoke up the general fear of nuclear capacity in Iran and, to a degree, provide the Israelis with some element of a bible that is utterly unacceptable?

Does the Minister of State have any notion of how long it will take to look at the EU-Israel association agreement? We all know the pieces and we have all had the conversation about the occupied territories Bill. I do not expect the Minister of State to go into detail on this. My question is on where the conversation is in Europe at present. I would like to know about the war bonds. Has the State looked for a means whereby the Central Bank could stop facilitating them? Forget about our proposed legislation; is it that nothing happens from the Government's point of view unless the European Union makes a determination?

Will the Minister of State go into a bit more detail on the multi-annual framework? There is fear about the CAP and the loss of the nitrates derogation. The strategic economy has changed very much.

Will the Minister of State give more detail on how exactly the conversation happens on the White Paper with regard to defence readiness and how Ireland answers whatever questions are being put? I do not think I need to reiterate Sinn Féin policy.

Regarding the accession countries, there are specific issues relating to Georgia and Serbia and I ask the Minister of State to speak to us about some of those.

I have 14 more questions but I will leave them until the next round.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On Israel and Iran, I said what I said at the start. There will be conclusions from the European Council next week. One of our priorities is to make sure the focus is not left off Gaza. The one thing we will be making sure is that Gaza is not forgotten in all of this at European level. We are negotiating conclusions for the European Council next week on Israel and they are pretty strong at present. There is another week or so to go but they are pretty strong with regard to what the European Union would be saying about the situation. We are going to continue to work on that. We have been at the vanguard of support for Palestine and a two-state solution. We are trying to be fair to everybody but we are definitely being extremely supportive of Palestine and speaking up for Palestine at European and international level, and engaging directly with the Palestinian Government, its ambassador and various representatives. I know some of them engage with this committee and they engaged with the foreign affairs committee last week also.

My impression of the priority for us from Palestine is that we continue our work at international level. There is strength in numbers. There is strength in the EU, and in the UN if we can get a decision there. There is certainly strength in the EU. Deputy Ó Murchú mentioned the EU-Israel association agreement. For the record, we were the first to look for the agreement to be reviewed. Last month, finally, a majority was found to support a review of it and that review is under way.

There will be a Foreign Affairs Council meeting on Monday next week. It is the Tánaiste who goes to the Foreign Affairs Council so I do not deal with those files day to day. Certainly, our ambition is that the review be done very quickly. There is a lot of evidence out there and we do not think it should take long to do the review. We will have to await what the High Commissioner, Ms Kallas, says on it. Certainly, we have a lot of engagement with her, and among colleagues, on this particular issue. We will wait for the meeting. It is not a meeting I will sit at so I cannot comment greatly on it.

The issue of the Central Bank does not come under my section. The Government spoke about this last week in the Dáil. I fully expect there will be other issues where committee members will say we did not do enough. By any measure, and by any standard, the Government has done a large amount on Palestine and we will continue to do a large amount. Some things just cannot be done but I must ask Deputy Ó Murchú to direct his question directly to the Minister for Finance.

On a multi-annual financial framework, there will be a lot of talk in the media about CAP being under threat. In general, these headlines happen all the time. More than likely, the Commission will publish proposals with which we do not necessarily agree. The Commission proposals are proposals, and it is very important to remember this when the multi-annual financial framework debate starts next month. We and other member states will put forward national position papers, and I will be more than happy to speak to the committee on what our priorities are when that is finalised. The budget will essentially be decided by the member states' leaders at the end of the day.

We will meet in the General Affairs Council on 18 July and the budget will be on the agenda. This will be after the Commission publishes its proposal. I have already had quite a number of meetings with European colleagues on what their positions on the budget are in very general terms. We expect it to be up to a two-year process. The previous multi-annual financial framework was agreed in July 2020. When it comes to our Presidency in the second half of next year, we will run the negotiations. I saw an article that frustrated me greatly in the Business Post at the weekend. The first sentence was that people saw the Presidency as symbolic. During this one, our civil servants in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Finance will be extremely busy, not only setting out Ireland's position, which they will have done prior to the Presidency, but negotiating the whole thing at a critical point. It is a big task that we have in the coming year and a half.

From our national priority point of view, CAP is essential because we are now a net contributor and CAP is one of the ways that money comes back. CAP does not simply mean money to farmers, which we believe is essential to make sure we maintain food production and maintain small farmers on the land. CAP also funds rural development programmes, such as LEADER in Louth and Meath. They get a lot of funding from the CAP programme. It is very important.

We also have other objectives in the budget. Competitiveness is very important. It is important there be a fund for competitiveness to make sure businesses can adapt and that we have new economic opportunities. We want to make sure that Ireland is at the forefront of this. I have to say the committee would do great work if it had a session with the Department of enterprise on where we see our priorities for funds on the competitiveness side. It would be very useful work in the national interest.

There is no doubt that defence will be a big issue in terms of the European budget. I do not know what form it will take but it will be a big issue because all member states are speaking about it and it is certainly inevitable.

One of my priorities is to try to get more Irish people into the institutions. We are not getting enough in. We are trying very hard, and we are using different methods, but it is very difficult. There are various reasons for this, one of which, quite frankly, is that the competitions are not being run in the way we would like them to be. In fact, one was recently cancelled. We need to get more Irish people in and I intend to use the budget as a vehicle to see whether we can help to achieve this objective.

I intend to use the budget as a vehicle to see if we can help to achieve that objective.

Regarding nitrates, that is a question for the Department of agriculture, which is on it day to day. I do not have an up-to-date position. I can get a note on it but the Department of agriculture has the up-to-date position on it.

Strategic autonomy has been a concept developed by President Macron. It has come to be seen as more and more important. Our position has always been that we support open strategic autonomy. Yes, Europe must produce its own goods and services and it must have its own ecosystem, but we think that we need to have outside influence on that too; in other words, global trade. In this way, we are not going to do everything ourselves and we benefit by having global competition, particularly among the western world.

On defence, there are a number of items at the moment. We may or may not do the security action for Europe, or SAFE, regulation, as I said in my speech last week. We are not borrowing money this year, so we do not need to talk about the budget rules. However, it is a conversation that will happen more and more in the European sphere. We have to be ready for this when we take over the Presidency of the European Union. Ireland will not be putting its national position forward during its Presidency. We will be running the Council of the European Union, chairing the meetings, negotiating among member states, negotiating with the European Parliament on behalf of the member states and negotiating at international level on behalf of the EU. This could be with US or UN bodies or at the COP summits, or whatever else. It will be European Union positions that we will be putting forward. It may be next year, and while Ireland has a voice and an influence, as one of the member states, it is the European Union agenda that we will be putting forward on a range of issues when we take on the Presidency. We have a lot of work to do between now and then to make sure our national perspective on budget issues and all of these issues is very clear. We will be doing this over the next year.

Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for his statement. I will make a couple of observations and ask a couple of questions. I note there is no mention of efforts being made to ensure that Ireland's neutrality is preserved and understood in the context of Europe's rapidly changing foreign policy. There is no clarity as to what the Minister of State means when he says that Ireland is engaging constructively in defence readiness initiatives.

I am gravely concerned about Ireland seemingly committing itself wholeheartedly to the EU's efforts to restructure its security agreements and that the Government is not scrutinising or pushing back against Ursula von der Leyen's efforts to centralise and militarise European foreign and defence policy. It seems to me that Ursula von der Leyen has gone rogue. She is completely separate from the EU now. She is coming out with statements that give unconditional support to genocidal Israel. She has shown no regard for international law. She does not appear to consult anyone. The Minister of State's Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael colleagues in the European Parliament have been highly critical of her. Does the Minister of State agree with these MEPs or does he stand by Ursula von der Leyen and her increasing support for militarising Europe?

What is the Government's approach to European initiatives on collective security and defence? Is preserving our independent foreign policy a key objective in that? The reality is that the EU is completely transforming its security policy and expanding its military-industrial capacity and defence capability. It is ramping up spending on weapons and defence. Is it the Government's priority to protect Irish independent security policy or to ensure that Ireland plays its part in strengthening the EU's security policy? These are critical issues that the Government needs to address.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I already said that one of the markers of an independent country is that it can protect itself. The fundamental function of an independent country is exactly what the Senator said, namely, to protect our independent security. That is our top priority. We are going to do that. We have committed to significantly increasing spending on national defence over the next few years. This allows the Taoiseach to make the announcements every week or so on what the latest procurement is. People talk in the abstract about defence and the militarisation of Europe. This week, we announced sonar capability. If anyone in the Dáil objected to sonar, they would be laughed at. This is what we need. When we talk about increasing our defence capability, it means sonar, radar, more members of the Defence Forces, more equipment and proper training facilities.

Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

How will the Government defend our neutrality in the face of the increasing militarisation being pushed by Ursula von der Leyen? We cannot do both. Ursula von der Leyen has clearly said that she wants to ramp up spending on defence. How does the Minister of State square that with Irish neutrality? We always hear the Government and the Minister of State say that we have to be cognisant of European members and their views. Yet, at the same time, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, is coming out with these increasingly radical, extreme positions. How can that be squared with maintaining our neutrality?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is because every document on defence that the Commission publishes and every conclusion that the European Council reaches on concern defence talks about specific characteristics of certain member states needing to be respected. That means our neutrality and that of Austria, which spends a lot more on defence than we do. Fundamentally, defence is a member state competence. There is no European army coming, no matter what some people may say.

Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When we look at the European project it does seem as if the groundwork is being laid.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not. It would be really helpful for the committee to talk to colleagues of all political persuasions in other parliaments. I do not know if Sinn Féin has a sister party in Finland but, almost certainly if it does, that party will be looking to increase defence spending in Finland. Ursula von der Leyen is not telling the Finns to do it. Likewise, I do not know if Sinn Féin has a sister party in Lithuania but Fianna Fáil does and that party is telling its government to increase defence spending. There is not opposition in the Finnish or Lithuanian parliaments to increasing spending on defence. It is not coming from Ursula von der Leyen. In fact, what she is saying is coming from the member states themselves.

Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister of State happy with what Ursula von der Leyen is saying? The Government's MEPs are not happy about it.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sorry, I have not read Billy Kelleher's article but that is on a separate issue.

Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was not just Billy Kelleher.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That was on a separate point. The Senator asked me about European defence-----

Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I asked about Ursula von der Leyen.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----and, quite frankly, it is dreamland really because it is not the reality. The reality is that the member states, including Ireland, totally separately, are looking to increase defence spending. There is no one telling the Irish Government that it must spend more on defence. We are doing it anyway. We are doing it because of the Commission on the Defence Forces recommended it to the last Government. The Government decided that we needed to have basic equipment for the Defence Forces. There is certainly a mood among the member states and countries in the western world to spend more on defence. Why is that? Why does Finland, for example, want to spend more on defence? It is because it has a border of 1,300 km with Russia and it feels under serious threat. The same applies to Lithuania. It is not Ursula von der Leyen telling those countries they need to protect their borders. They are telling Europe that they want its help.

Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister of State generally believe Ursula von der Leyen's statements on-----

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator cannot ask me if I agree with statements, generally. He needs to give me a few sentences and I will tell him what I think.

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to give leeway, but we cannot have a conversation where the same things are being said over and over again. I do not think the Minister of State and Senator Andrews are going to agree on this.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is up to the Senator to accept this or not but my point is that this is coming from member states. If the committee does video calls or visits other member states and the other member states get to choose the agenda, for most member states, particularly in eastern and southern Europe, this will be the number one item on that agenda. I called to my friend and colleague, the former Europe minister in Finland, who is from the Social Democratic Party, which has a Labour Party sister party group there. She is the leader in opposition and her first question to me was what was Ireland doing on defence. This is not the usual suspects; this is not people looking for a European army. This is people who are concerned about protecting their own country and they are wondering what other countries are doing as well. They would like to know what is happening around Ireland as well. They would like to know what is happening with subsea cables because they facilitate a lot of commerce across the Atlantic. It is not about a European army, European defence or scare stories.

Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I find it worrying that a Minister of State of the Government would not have any issue with Ursula von der Leyen

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Andrews, when I am talking you do not talk across me. I am chairing this meeting and we are going to proceed in an orderly way. I will come back to this issue if you want to but we will move now to Senator Lynch.

Eileen Lynch (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for being here and for his comprehensive report. I wish him the best of luck for the term ahead, in what I am sure will be an interesting and challenging Ministry. He spoke briefly about the multi-annual financial framework and the commitment to CAP.

I am looking for further detail on that because there is a proposal that environmental and climate funding would take a portion of CAP funding. I know the Minister, Deputy Heydon, has been quite vocal against this and that this is the same position held by Commissioner Hansen. This is an incredibly important CAP budget for us, not just right now but in terms of regeneration and renewal when it comes to farming. We are in a situation whereby food productivity, food efficiency and food production are becoming increasingly important. When looking at a real-life situation whereby 6% of European farmers are under 35, this CAP budget is particularly vital. It is not only important that the current budget is maintained and ring-fenced but that the budget would be expanded and extended.

The Minister of State discussed the priorities of the Single Market and the EU-wide energy grid infrastructure investment. This is incredibly important and is not being discussed enough. Starting at home, I am a firm believer in the need for the expansion of the grid. Energy security is a big problem going forward. It is already a problem given the energy shortages throughout Spain, Portugal and France in April. Will the Minister of State provide further clarification or information on that in terms of what the plan is and how it is planned to progress?

I raise the European Presidencies and the upcoming Danish Presidency in July. Was this discussed in detail regarding the priorities of the Danish Presidency?

In the context of international conflict, Ukraine seems to have gone somewhat down the line. The Minister of State referred to it in his report. Was there a feeling at this meeting that progress is being made? I found it very disappointing-----

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What is the Senator asking about?

Eileen Lynch (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am asking about Ukraine. Having attended the plenary meeting of COSAC in Warsaw and spoken to our Ukrainian colleagues, they are very much of the opinion that progress is not being made here. I would like to hear where we are with that. Is it still being given the same level of severity and urgency within the EU that it should be and that it was previously?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was scratching my head with the Danish Presidency because I did not know the priorities. The reason I do not know them is because they have not been published yet. That was a good reason not to know them. The Danish Presidency starts on 1 July. Our priorities will be published sometime in June 2026. We will do a public consultation. Individual Departments and I will do it. I have already started it in a soft way, but we will intensify it now over the summer and beyond, to ask the public what they think. We will also ask this committee what it thinks our priorities should be. We will be very interested in that. The priorities are also determined by what is on the agenda at the moment in the EU and what big files have to be dealt with. There are certain things one cannot get away from. When Croatia took the EU Presidency in January 2020, it was not expecting Covid to dominate it. It was the same for the French when it took up the EU Presidency because the invasion of Ukraine happened on 22 February 2022. We will have to be prepared for the unexpected, as will the Danes. That is partly why those priorities are published at a late hour.

To be clear on the CAP, what is being said at the moment is entirely speculation, no matter who is saying it. I know some Commissioners have engaged on it and there have been stories, but the Commission has not published its proposal yet. It is important to remember that, when the Commission publishes something, people think it is the end of it but it is not; it is the start of it. It is then negotiated with the member states and between the member states. The European Parliament has to approve it, but it is not the same as the normal legislative process where the Parliament engages closely with the Council and the governments. The governments will essentially decide this and the Parliament will have to approve it. There is a lot of work to do. I expect our position paper to be somewhat different from what the Commission will propose. I expect other member states' position papers to be different from what the Commission will propose too. It is important that there is a bit of strategic patience when we see the Commission proposal. That is not the end of it; it is only the start, particularly on CAP. There will be some nuances in opinion on CAP among different parties, but I think it will be the objective of most parties to have that money coming to Ireland.

It is important that this committee and the agriculture committee engage with their counterparts in the European Parliament and other parliaments in our national negotiation to articulate the Senator's points, guided, I would hope, by the Government's position paper in the next year or a half or so. It is really important that we have our voices heard and that people are not just running to the media with scare stories, as we have already started to see - understandably enough because there is speculation out there. It is important that we have real engagement with our colleagues, particularly our colleagues in countries with similar views to our own. I expect France will have a similar position to us. I read recently that Germany will potentially have a similar position to us. That is really helpful, but what would be even more helpful is if bodies such as this committee were to engage with German and French colleagues on lots of issues, particularly on the budget, as we go forward and we discuss the range of issues mentioned by the Senator.

On energy policy, interconnection is very important. That may well be something we will be seeking from the budget, particularly in terms of our competitiveness and to make sure Ireland and Europe have energy security. I think it would be a case of knocking on an open door. If this were available, the Government would want it. It will be part of our negotiating position.

On Ukraine, there is a lot going on there, particularly war. It is very tough for the people there. I extend the words I have spoken to our diplomats in Iran, Ramallah and Tel Aviv to our colleagues in Kyiv whom I had the privilege of meeting when I was in Kyiv. It is a strange place because on the one hand there is a lot of normality in that city, while on the other it is really threatening, people are dying and missiles are being launched into residential areas. I was there with President Zelenskyy two days after 12 people were killed. Entire streets have been destroyed. It is incredible to see. I called a member of my team who did not go and we all commented on the destruction in a suburban constituency not much further than Senator Andrews's or Deputy Crowe's constituencies. It was just outside the city and the whole residential area was destroyed. A total of 12 were killed, 50 were injured and lots of homes were destroyed. It was horrific to see. We want an enduring sustainable peace for Ukraine and for its territorial integrity and independence to be respected. It is hard to see what is happening at a peace talk level. We have seen an unwillingness from Putin to get involved.

On Ukraine's membership of the European Union, which is becoming more essential in our own interest, its files are being blocked by Hungary for various reasons. We have been working with some of our colleagues to see whether there are ways around that. Ultimately, it is up to the unanimous decision of every member state for someone to join the European Union, but what is happening at the moment is that every step of the process is being blocked. We can never change the ultimate decision. It is in the treaties that it must be decided unanimously who does or does not join, but every step of the way Hungary is saying "No". That is a pity because it is necessary for all of us.

What sticks in my head about Ukraine, its Government and the people we met there is the lack of sleep. It is the one thing that struck me because they are up all night. The same is true in Gaza and anywhere where there is war, but I was in Ukraine. I do not know how they survive the sleepless nights and very tired days. The Deputy Prime Minister, Olha Stefanishyna, who has been known to many of us in recent years, has said Ukraine is in a war situation, it is trying to join the European Union and to please remember that this is a lot of effort. She used the word "effort". Ukraine is doing it pretty successfully and is making a lot of reforms in the country, but it is a lot of effort in the face of war and it is important we all remember that and give them whatever support and encouragement we can.

Paula Butterly (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for his opening statement. I have two relatively net questions for him. He spoke a lot about competitiveness. The Draghi report has highlighted how Europe invested €270 billion less than the US in research and development in 2021 and that Europeans are practically flocking to the US in search of funding. I think the report stated that up to 30% of the unicorns are leaving Europe to get their funding from the US. There is a brain drain and a resource drain.

With regard to this innovation and the lack of it, it would appear that the term "the old Continent" seems more apt than ever before.

I know it is early days but I would like the Minister of State to expand on how we are going to close that gap. Are we expecting states to become angel investors? This is really crucial. The Draghi and Letta reports provide a very useful roadmap for how we are going to progress but I also believe there is a sense of urgency to it.

My second question is about what is being termed as the foreign-economic policy. I would like to hear the Minister of State's thoughts on that and how we in Ireland will approach that or engage with our European counterparts on that. That was about being more independent with regard to our raw materials, not necessarily sourcing them from the cheapest source and becoming more independent in producing our own energy and materials. I would really like to know that. How do we propose to finance that? I believe Mr. Draghi recommended we go down the route of the debt option.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On our response to the Letta and Draghi reports, what we want to see first and foremost is the strengthening of the Single Market. We have a Single Market for goods. It is working pretty well but services are not. We support rigorous competition policy and state aid rules, which is a challenge for us because we are moving into an era when state aid is seen as a good thing, particularly with regard to what the Deputy said about our strategic autonomy.

The grid infrastructure I mentioned to Senator Lynch is very for important for us as well to make sure we can have companies here that can be competitive because the electricity system is there for them. We want to focus on SMEs, and again it is part of our official response to support them in their scaling-up within Europe, which is the point the Deputy raised. That facilitates them expanding into global markets as well. We must also keep our eyes on the global prize. While it is very important to protect our own house and be strategically autonomous, as we said, we must also ensure we are open to the globe, that our companies can succeed around the globe and that they can benefit from innovation at global level.

We have talked about this but we want to support simplification measures and a reduction in the regulatory burden, which is essentially cutting red tape. Being totally clear about this, we are not reducing environmental standards, and we said that all along.

We support making sure we have our own supplies of critical minerals and other products and items we need, but we do not want to close Europe off either. We want to make sure we can be open to competition while also making sure we are producing enough ourselves. There were different initiatives on batteries and other things like that which have come from the European Commission.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State, and apologies if I repeat some of the questions that were asked. I wish to go back to the Commission and President von der Leyen effectively appointing herself as spokesperson for Europe. I do not think that was ever what was envisaged for that role, and she is clearly partisan in her position. Other people have mentioned different things but has the Government ever raised this issue with the Commission or the Council?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

President von der Leyen is someone we work very closely with, and we particularly did so during Brexit and she was extremely helpful to us. The delineation of European foreign policy is in the Treaty on European Union. The High Representative, which is Ms Kaja Kallas, is the person who conducts the Union's foreign policy. She represents the Union on the Common Foreign and Security Policy. She is also a Vice President of the Commission, and Ursula von der Leyen is President of the Commission, which includes her. Ms Kallas presides over the Foreign Affairs Council, FAC, and tries to represent what the FAC and the 27 member states are saying. She is the representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

The President of the Commission, Ms von der Leyen, does speak on Common Foreign and Security Policy matters but through the framework of what her existing Council has concluded. President von der Leyen talks about foreign policy but her framework is what has already been decided by the leaders and by the Foreign Affairs Council, or as part of the Commission's broader competences in external relations, particularly in areas like trade, for example. She has to speak freely on that because that is a competence of the EU. The institutional balance that is established makes sure that what she is saying on foreign policy is and should be consistent with what the European Council and the Council of Ministers have agreed.

We actively engage in the Foreign Affairs Council and the Common Foreign and Security Policy. We might not agree with every other member state. We will never get everybody to agree exactly on positions, and countries have different positions on different issues, as we know, but that is a reason for us to be involved and at the table. We could be sitting out there on our own, as some people would have us do. I have noticed the subtle criticism about the EU coming back, and I am not accusing the Deputy of that. Some people would rather we were outside of it, but the reality is we have significantly more sovereignty and power by being at that table and influencing the decisions that are taken. Does the Deputy think the EU-Israel association agreement would be reviewed if Ireland was not providing the leadership? Possibly not. Ireland and Spain are among the countries that decided to do that.

That is the exact position on President von der Leyen and we have regular engagement with her, particularly at Taoiseach level, on what the European Union should do. It is a very helpful forum because we are part of the European Union. The European Union is not Ursula von der Leyen. It is not the Commission, and it is not Brussels or Luxembourg. It is all of us. The European Union is here today. We are part of it. The members are part of a system that can legislate, that sends Commissioners over, elects Governments that go to the Council and votes for MEPs. We are all part of that, and President von der Leyen is part of that as well, but she is only part of it.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The point I would make is that she is an outlier on a lot of these issues. There has not been a discussion with regard to leaders on a lot of these issues. Her latest one is putting the blame on Iran for being the unsettling force in that region. That is just one example. There is stuff regarding Israel, her phone call with Netanyahu and so on. Billy Kelleher said she is basically being given political cover on many of these issues.

I want to go back to some other issues. The Minister of State might remember that, prior to the meeting, there were a number of issues regarding the firing on Irish troops in Lebanon. There was shooting at Irish, EU and other diplomats. Was that, and the escalation that has clearly happened, discussed at all in the sidebar at the meeting? Ireland is directly involved but are other member states concerned about what is happening?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

UNIFIL, in particular, is of huge concern. The Deputy has heard the Taoiseach and Tánaiste speak about this regularly. It is absolutely of top concern. As I am Minister of State for defence, I have only just met the Secretary General of the Department of Defence to go through some issues. UNIFIL is one of the most important issues the Department of Defence keeps an eye on. It is one of our most prestigious and most visible roles abroad and our soldiers have done great work there. With regard to what Israel has done, that has absolutely been commented on and complained about.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am asking what discussed at the Council meeting.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not sit on the Foreign Affairs Council but I have no doubt this was discussed because we are not the only country there. It is not acceptable. I do not sit at that meeting so I cannot say definitely but I have no doubt it was discussed. I would discuss it with anybody as well because it is so important for us and the people of Lebanon. Our soldiers have the protections of international law and are entitled to them. We do not waver on that and we are very strong about it. The Taoiseach has gone on the record many times regarding Israel and Hezbollah, but what happened with Israel, not just with regard to UNIFIL but diplomats as well, was outrageous. This has been expressed by us as such and, as I recall, by other member states. I have no doubt it was discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council. There is no question about that.

On Iran, we do not want this war. We do not want videos of missiles flying across skies. It just frightening and should not be happening. We want de-escalation. Iran is a problem; there is no getting away from that. It is a problem but one we think could be solved through diplomatic means.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You could also say that Israel is a problem.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, I heard the Deputy and we have a stronger voice. It goes without saying that what Israel is doing in Gaza is a very serious problem.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to ask about USAID. I asked the Minister of State about it before when he went on the trip. I know the EU cannot replace USAID but was that discussed? Who will fill that gap that is there? I was talking to someone recently who said the World Food Programme was talking about laying off 3,000 staff there. It is having a big impact on people, such as people in Gaza and people in conflict situations around the world. Was there any discussion on that?

Since the Council meeting, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which is supposed to deliver food to Gaza, has been set up. Does the Irish Government have a view on that? It is using criminal gangs to secure a lot of the aid that has been donated by many countries. It is giving it out and killing people every day who are queueing up for food. Was that and the delivery of humanitarian aid discussed?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We specifically asked for that to be raised at the European Council and in its conclusions. We are taking this very seriously. We are on record as saying we do not agree with what is happening with this other organisation that has been started. It has to be done through the UN. We have been very much on the record on that and very much to the fore at European Union level as well to bring everyone around to that view too. I have no doubt there will be strong conclusions. The conclusions of the European Council next week are under negotiation at the moment but I have no doubt there will be a strong response in relation to the humanitarian situation in Gaza. It is constantly being discussed. I am not directly on the international development side but I can say that at my Council, the General Affairs Council, one of the issues that came up is that Radio Free Europe in the Czech Republic has lost a lot of its funding because of the cuts to USAID. People are asking can we fund this or can someone else, like the EU, come in and fund it?

Our priority for the EU budget will be to ensure the EU continues to give significant funds in overseas development aid. The EU is a significant contributor into Gaza. If there is any international food programme going into Gaza, food relief or other relief into Gaza, the European Union will be at the centre of that in supporting it. There is no two ways about that. We want to make sure that when we are negotiating the budget, we talk about CAP. We also want to make sure the international external side and helping the world is also part of it too and that is really important for us.

Ireland has given almost €100 million in the previous two years to Palestine. We have been a significant contributor. I do not have the figure for the EU as I am not on the file but it is really significant. Those discussions will continue and they will absolutely be a major feature of both my council next week, the General Affairs Council, and the European Council. It is obviously very important for the leaders at that particular council.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Lastly, could the Minister of State talk about the importance of the aid being untied?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I think we agree. The Taoiseach has made strong statements on that.

Robert O'Donoghue (Dublin Fingal West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State. Last week at COSAC, there was a surprising amount of general agreement on many issues. When we discussed enlargement, many states were concerned that expansion without the reform of institutions and how they function would be problematic, particularly in terms of use of the unanimity rule, given the conduct by Hungary and our efforts to cajole and control it with Article 9 and threaten to suspect its voting rights. Given that we champion merit-based enlargement of the system and that creating a single market is good for us, does the Minister of State see enlargement as viable without changing how the institutions work? Could he make a statement on our position on treaty change to facilitate enlargement?

As part of Ireland's EU Presidency, we will chair the Council of Ministers for cultural, audiovisual and media. One of the key pieces of work for this Council will be the revision of the audiovisual media services directive. One of the provisions of the directive is the European works content levy, which this Government recently decided not to introduce. Does the Minister of State have any concerns about Ireland's position as chair, given that we will be in a minority of EU countries that have not introduced a levy as we discuss possible reforms to it?

Finally with the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, member states that are geographically closer to Russia are understandably pushing harder for increased military spending, while a majority of COSAC seemed to want to retain current levels of spending on CAP and regional funding. As part of our Presidency, will we bring forward potential new sources of revenue to facilitate the wishes of the member states, particularly those closer to Russia, while maintaining CAP and regional spending or does the Minister of State envisage having to cut current schemes to facilitate everybody?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On that last point, the Deputy is asking me to predict the outcomes of the negotiations and all I can do is set out our priorities. We want to see the budget that is there maintained. We do not want to see cuts but the Deputy is right when he says there are competing pressures from various sources, not just eastern Europe but in general. On the new sources of revenue, we are not totally opposed to them but they cannot just be replacements of national sources of revenue. We cannot say that Ireland or Spain is taking in this particular tax revenue, that we will now turn that into an EU tax and that the countries lose it while the EU gains it. We will not be supporting that. I want to be very clear about that. There are other potential financial arrangements we could consider but we have to consider them very carefully. There have been a number of own resources brought in at EU level. Apart from the traditional ones like customs and VAT, they do not raise a huge amount of money. There is a plastics levy and some other ones as well that do not raise massive amounts. Generally speaking, we want to see gross national income as the measure and our position will be that gross national income should be used.

On the issue about the culture and media Council, I cannot answer directly on that particular proposed levy. The Deputy would have to ask the relevant Minister but whether we are in a majority or minority on a Council, it will not affect our chairing of it. The idea of the Presidency is to be seen as honest brokers to try to get agreement. On some occasions, we might be on the other side of an agreement - we will try to avoid that - but we will be seen as honest brokers. We will be running the show and progressing European Union files. We have an influence and we have more of an influence when we hold the Presidency. I noticed this and I think other Ministers feel the same that as every day goes by, more and more people want to talk about EU policies. It will be the same for the Deputies here, and it is really important that they use their voices as the European Union affairs committee on various issues in advance of the Presidency too.

On enlargement, the Deputy asked me about institutional reform. If that question was asked in Germany, it could be interpreted as whether we would be prepared to give up our Commissioner? No, I would not be. We need democratic legitimacy. On unanimity, it is alright to say that unanimity is a blocker but if I came in here and said we want to get rid of the veto, there might be another perspective on it. We have achieved a lot with unanimity. I would like to see the requirement for unanimity on some issues changed because at the moment, unanimity is required for every step of the way for a country to join the European Union. Every step of the way, countries like Hungary can say we are not letting this even progress. I do not think that type of veto is necessary because we all have a veto at the end of the day.

I say to countries that if they have issues with other countries, they must bear in mind that for better or for worse, Patrick Hillery and Jack Lynch signed us up to the European Union in February 1972. There were awful things happening on this island in February 1972 and we signed up with Britain. Ultimately, it took a while but we resolved issues with Britain, by and large - not everything of course - through the European Union. We tell current member states and interested member states that if they have bilateral issues between them, they are not as bad as what was happening in Ireland in 1972. Yet, we were able to resolve issues over time. Of course, it took time. I think I answered most questions there to give a general idea of it.

Michael Murphy (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State here today and wish him well. It is a great time to be the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs as we head into the second half of next year.

To state the obvious, it is so important that we maximise the impact of Ireland's Presidency next year. There is so much at stake. It is really important that we deliver a successful Presidency in terms of enhancing and advancing Ireland's influence across the European Union. It may be an unusual question but is the Minister of State satisfied that the Presidency is well-resourced financially? There is a commitment in the programme for Government to bring some of the high-level meetings to the regions. I am not sure if that is a 20% figure. I argue that is not enough. We should be bringing more meetings to the regions. Dublin Castle is obviously going to be the main venue but I firmly believe Europe is in every town, village and community across the country so we should bear that in mind. I champion south Tipperary as the perfect destination for a high-level meeting. I mention my own town of Clonmel but also the historic towns of Cashel, Carrick-on-Suir, Cahir, Fethard and Tipperary.

Michael Murphy (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Others had their opportunity; I take mine.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At Brú Ború maybe.

Michael Murphy (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Absolutely, and Brú Ború is at the foot of the great UNESCO site, the Rock of Cashel.

In my intervention, I want to touch on local government. I do not think it has been mentioned, though I was in and out of the committee and apologise for that. In my 15 years at local level, I always sensed there was a real appetite among members at the local level and local authorities about the importance of engagement at the EU level but, of course, more resources are needed to achieve that goal. I had the honour of being the head of the Irish delegation to the European Committee of the Regions for ten years. We launched a strategy, which had two pillars. The first was to strength the Irish Regions European Office based in the permanent representation and the second was to create eight additional posts, eight EU affairs officers, across the former NUTS 3 regions. For example, Tipperary, Limerick and Clare would have an EU affairs officer. The reason for that is, right now, some local authorities - Cork city comes to mind, as does Donegal and a number of others - are really successful in accessing EU funds. My own local authority of Tipperary had an EU affairs officer when I joined in 2009. Indeed, it had an EU strategic unit. That does not exist anymore. A cluster of EU affairs officers around the country working with that strengthened Irish regions office would be a great opportunity to implement that strategy as we head into the Presidency. The first pillar has already been achieved. The Irish Regions European Office, which, since its establishment in 1994, has always had two staff members now has four staff and can support that cluster of eight EU affairs officers. That strategy is fully costed. The officers would support local authorities and work, as I said, with a strengthened Irish Regions European Office. It would establish partnerships with EU counterparts and, most important, ensure the local government sector is well placed to access funds. I appeal to the Minister of State to dig out that strategy. It is sitting somewhere. The officials with him today may be aware of that. There is a real appetite at local level for people to better engage with their European counterparts. If I can put it like this: we are leaving money behind. Some local authorities are doing it really well; others are not.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy. I was checking my diary and he will be glad to hear I will meet the president of the Normandy region. We do meet regional leaders as well as national governments. It is really important. It is an important focus for me and other Ministers do as well. I thank the Deputy for his work on the European Committee of the Regions. I totally endorse what he is saying in terms of more engagement from local authorities at the European Union. That is necessary in the context of funding, which he rightly identified. It is also important for people to people and business to business contact for economic development and growth. If there are particular companies in one's county, any links representatives may have with their home countries would be very useful. I totally endorse that and think it is very important. At a time when we have become a significant net contributor, we need levers at all levels of the State to be pulling down European funding and that includes local government. It is really important.

Deputy Murphy asked whether the Presidency will be well resourced. It is a commitment in the programme for Government that it be well resourced, and it will be. There will certainly be significant costs to the Presidency. Only some 10% to 15% of the costs will be on what will be mostly visible to people, and that will be the leaders' meeting and the informal ministerial meetings. They cost about 15% of the overall costs. This is why I was slightly taken aback by someone suggesting this could be symbolic. Most of the cost is below that. It is really staff costs for those people who are negotiating within or on behalf of the European Union. We heard from one Department last week at our internal planning meeting, of which we have had 17 - they go back before my time - planning the Presidency. There is already one Department looking at a document management system that will need to be installed for the Presidency for negotiations it expects it will be carrying out at an international level on behalf of the EU. It is that level of work, detail and cost that we take on for that period and it has the potential to give us enormous prestige and enormous success. Previous Presidencies have generally speaking been judged very successful.

We will have over 250 meetings and they will take place throughout the country. In 2013, they were almost all in Dublin. In 2004, they were almost all around the country. This time, it will be somewhere in the middle. The 25% of meetings specifically refers to the ministerial informal meetings, of which there will be 22 in total. There will be other high-level conferences on various thematic issues, which will probably attract more people to them than ministerial meetings, and there will be lots of meetings of civil servants trying to work out European Unions laws, essentially. There will also be a cultural programme. The Deputy mentioned his constituency. Certainly, Brú Ború is a very important cultural centre and he may want to let the OPW or Culture Ireland know that Brú Ború or somewhere like that is available. I do not know all the places in the Deputy's constituency. He should let the OPW and Culture Ireland know. We certainly want to show culture.

There are practicalities about hosting meetings in Ireland of which we also have to conscious. Airport access is very important. It is not just an airport; airport access to continental Europe is really important. That is a factor. Security is a factor and we will have to take Garda advice, particularly on certain meetings that can only be held in certain places. Dublin Castle itself is a pretty good venue. Some of the costs of the Presidency will relate to upgrading Dublin Castle. That has happened in advance of previous Presidencies. Not much is done until the Presidency is coming up and it comes under that. It has happened before. Also for certain meetings, particularly at ministerial level and certainly at leader level, not many venues in the country can host them for reasons of security, logistics or numbers. The OPW has been appointed by the Government to be the conference sourcer or conference provider and it will do that in accordance with the Government's mandate, which is to have 25% of the meetings outside of Dublin. The rest of the ministerial meetings will be pretty much be in Dublin Castle. The OPW will do that job and it will do it well. We will keep in touch and its representatives will sit at our meetings. There are so many different aspects to it.

The Deputy mentioned local government. It is very important. As part of our consultation, I started on Friday with a soft launch in Kildare. I visited some schools and I also had a public meeting in Naas Town Hall. The county manager, officials and the chairperson of the county council were there, along with members of the general public. We had an open forum for about an hour or so as part of my visit to Kildare. Those visits will continue. No doubt there will be one in Tipperary and I may go back to the old counties and do one in north and south Tipperary. We will see. They are geographically apart. I am more than happy to do that. It is so important for us to hear the voice on the ground and the voice of the local authority represents that.

Michael Murphy (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is it okay if I follow up with an email on the strategy?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy can send it to me.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I congratulate the Minister of State on his appointment. I do not think I have seen him since he was appointed. To start on a positive note, I strongly endorse his view on EU-UK relations and cultivating those across the islands. He is right. It was a very different context in 1972 and I am glad to see we are in a different place. Hopefully, we can continue in that vein.

Other European states have differing views on foreign affairs. There is concern about a loss of faith in the European project as a form of peace building and going further together. In that context, I will address democratic resilience and the democracy shield. There is a difference between EU obligations and national obligations and there is a balance between those two. Ireland has a unique role as the home base for many of the big technology companies that are responsible for the information environment and social media. In its role as the digital services co-ordinator for the measures outlined in the EU Digital Services Act, Coimisiún na Meán has only appointed one trusted flagger, namely, the Central Bank, which is focused solely on financial fraud. No Irish flagger has been appointed regarding misinformation or disinformation despite the presence of social media companies here in Ireland. How does the Minister of State and the Government envisage the role of the EU in maintaining a healthy information environment in member states? More importantly, how can Ireland lead on this regarding the regulation of social media companies on behalf of the EU?

The other main issue that also concerns technology is the digital services tax. As the Minister of State probably knows, the US Administration has disengaged a bit from the BEPS process, which was the basis of a standstill on implementing the digital services tax among the member states. It seems as though the standstill has not extended past December 2024 and has now expired. On 21 February 2025, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum calling for domestic investigations into potential tariff retaliations against countries that have implemented digital services taxes. The US aims to relocate taxing rights to country of establishment of the US companies, thereby preventing an EU country from taxing US companies on revenues generated in the EU. What is the Minister of State's opinion on that? Was there any discussion of that at the meeting of the General Affairs Council? Has there been discussion more generally on responding to the US and is there a united and firm view? Will the EU's initiative on a digital services tax be taken up again? Is there some level of co-ordination rather a fragmented approach to some of these national initiatives?

To follow up on what Deputy Michael Murphy spoke about, one of the things I have been conscious of is the take-up of funds across the EU. We are lucky in that the EU does have a lot of funds such as the CAP, which is the one we talk about most in Ireland. There are lots of other ones as well. The cohesion policy outlines several funds. I would like to get an understanding of how the Minister of State and his officials have carried out the analysis of how those funds are being taken up. I am particularly conscious that in the research and development space, we may not have taken up many of those, and likewise in the entrepreneurial space when it comes to industrial policy.

As a data centre for the EU, having all this data and AI in Dublin and Ireland more generally has a technology and energy load. Has there been any discussion on Ireland's unique shouldering of that demand, on energy security and on powering EU technology across the EU? Are there any other policies such as cohesion policy or investment that reflect our unique position?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I just missed the last point.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a lot of data here. A lot of AI technology will be utilised here on behalf of the EU in terms of energy security and powering EU technology. Has there been any discussion of what that looks like in terms of the investment landscape? Will the cohesion policy invest for that energy security or defence security in those ways? Would EU investment reflect the unique position Ireland has?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In terms of democratic resilience, I would have to leave the specific point about Coimisiún na Meán to the Minister for Culture, Communications and Sport. I met him yesterday and one of the issues he raised with the digital industries or social media companies was the fact that he is going to work with France on age verification. The French minister may well have been over. They have certainly met some of the tech companies and they are looking at what they can do.

We do not have a digital services tax. There is no EU one. Some countries have a digital services tax. We do not want a digital services tax and there are no specific proposals. There is always a lot of speculation around a digital services tax but it has not been proposed.

The take-up of funds can be an issue. I am concerned about that. The reason we mention the CAP so much - I know the Deputy represents a city constituency that is far removed from the CAP - is that for Ireland, as a net contributor, the CAP is the biggest source of European funds into the country. It is very important as well because we want to keep food on the table in the Deputy's constituency and in everyone's constituencies, not just in rural areas. We think it is important. There are various reasons for that, including social reasons. That is why we mention it so much. It is because it is so big. There is scope for greater take-up of funds in other areas. We have done reasonably well with Horizon. We are happy enough with that, although we can always do more, we always want to do more and there are certainly opportunities to do more. There is scope for improvement with some of the other funds. In the forthcoming budget negotiations, we are particularly conscious of competitiveness. There could be opportunities for funding under a putative competitiveness fund with regard to some of the items mentioned by Deputy Hayes from a business side to support those industries. We are interested in that. We are interested in maximising what we receive under those areas so there is scope and it is something we are looking at. We are doing this among ourselves at the moment. I am happy to come before this committee on a regular basis on the budget. One could be here all day every day talking about all the issues around the EU agenda - I am sure the Deputy would not want to do so - but the budget is very significant. If we were to have a discussion on competitiveness and the types of ideas outlined by the Deputy with the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment or with business interests, it would be very beneficial because we need to maximise what we get from that fund.

The Deputy mentioned how important EU-UK relations are. That is important. I acknowledge that the EU, the Government and the UK have done significant work to start to normalise relations again. Lots of progress has been made. That is essential for peace on this island and for economic progress. I had a good meeting with the British ambassador this morning. He has been the ambassador since I first became a Minister of State. There is a different atmosphere when one talks to him. He has always been very open and engaging as I am sure most members probably know. The work under this Government and the UK has been really helpful to everybody.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Could the Minister of State go back to what he said about age verification? Is this in the context of pornography because that is an area-----

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, it is in the context of social media.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have a particular concern about the need to take more seriously the need for strict age verification in the context of those who purvey pornography. As the Minister of State will be aware, Coimisiún na Meán has a certain function to regulate in this area but it only relates to large providers whose EU headquarters are in this country. There is a wider question of the potential of criminal law to create obligations on purveyors of pornography wherever they are. There are developments at EU level. There is certainly potential under the Lisbon treaty for the EU to legislate with regard to certain criminal matters. Would the Minister of State be willing to look at this area because we need something beyond the mere capacity of Coimisiún na Meán to regulate certain organisations?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Criminal offences can be created by us implementing EU law but generally speaking, we would not have an EU criminal offence.

The Senator would have to ask the Minister, Deputy O'Donovan, about that. I think it would come under his area or perhaps the remit of the Minister for justice. It does not come under my remit. I was speaking about age verification in the context of Deputy Hayes's question on the basis that I knew this discussion happened a couple of days ago, but it was age verification for social media use. I have no doubt the Minister, Deputy O'Donovan, would be open to suggestions and information.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State. Under the Lisbon treaty, the EU has the competency to legislate on criminal matters. There is the cross-border dimension. Recently, an amendment was proposed in the European Parliament about making disseminating pornographic content online without the age verification tools that effectively prevent children from accessing such content potentially punishable. This is an area where I would like to see progress. I would be grateful if the Minister of State would take that to the Government and into discussions with Europe in whatever way possible.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, I will say that to the Ministers, Deputies O'Donovan and O'Callaghan.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the subject of grid stability, the recent blackouts in Spain seem to illustrate that investment in renewables is one thing but unless there is serious investment in the grid, the change in the source of energy will cause problems. This is an area I imagine will have to be a priority.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Making sure our grid capacity is improved is certainly a priority for us. I am not totally familiar with how Spain is going with regard to renewables. There is a lot of solar power there. Spain invested a lot in liquified petroleum gas, LPG, in the past number of years, particularly around the time of Covid and the invasion of Ukraine.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It seems to be the case that the mix of sources is causing problems around the functioning of grids.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government's priority is to ensure our system is resilient. We support further interconnection. We have an interconnector under way with France. If we could get an interconnector with Spain, that could be advantageous. I cannot say that will happen but it would be advantageous. There is very little interconnection between France and Spain. That is part of the problem also, so we see this as really important not just for sustainability of the electricity supply but to ensure industries can sustain themselves. Spain does not just have renewables; it has had a lot of new gas supply over the past number of years. It built a lot of terminals.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was fascinated by the Minister of State's divergence from the Macron agenda for strategic autonomy when he said that what Ireland favours is "open strategic autonomy". Is that saying that Ireland favours modified black but really means white. What is "open strategic autonomy" as opposed to "strategic autonomy"?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a great question. President Macron gave a speech - I think it was at the Sorbonne in 2017 - where he came up with this concept of "strategic autonomy".

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is the idea of Europe being able to fend for itself, so to speak.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We want Europe to be able to fend for itself but there are a number of member states, not just Ireland, which put a nuance on that. In fact, in the conclusions it is generally written as "open strategic autonomy". We want to make sure we are open to the world and to trade. That is critically important for Ireland because we are a small trading economy that trades with the world but we think it is critically important for Europe as well.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It could be one of those cases where a nuance amounts to a contradiction. I am not sure on which side I would stand.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not think so. Open strategic autonomy is generally what people would say and this has been discussed over the past number of years. To be fair to President Macron, when he said this first people probably said we were grand, but there have been so many geopolitical changes since then that there is a lot to be said for making sure Europe can do things on its own. Ireland does not think we can do things solely on our own and we really value engagement, particularly with the US.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As Bono says, "Sometimes you can't make it on your own."

My last question is about Irish people not getting into the institutions. That is fascinating. What are the specific problems or is it the way things are being done that are militating against Irish people getting roles within the institutions?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is another really good question. If the committee had time, it would be great for its voice to be heard on this issue also. First, we should encourage people to apply to work in the European institutions. That is very important. The Department gives a lot of support to people so if the Senator knows of people who want to work in the European institutions, they can contact the Department, which will help them to get through the process.

There are a number of difficulties. Part of it is that the process is extremely long. The other issue is language ability. It is certainly a problem for Ireland. It is an advantage for some countries where people are just better at languages, to be frank. Irish is now an official language and if two languages are needed, English and Irish will work. Three languages would be needed for promotion. It is not the cúpla focal. I speak Irish at Council meetings. A very technical level of Irish is needed to be able to function in these jobs as required. Recently, there was a call-out for what are called lawyer linguists. It was essentially for people from Ireland, the UK before Brexit and Malta. The EU was seeking common lawyers with language skills. The language skills the EU wanted were native English, a second language at C1 level, which is basically native speaking, and the a third language at B2 level, which is business working language ability. I thought that was very strict. I made the point to somebody that I thought it was too much and that the third language could probably be picked up when someone was on the job if they had some level in the language beforehand. I was contradicted in strong terms by an Irish member of staff who told me the lawyer linguists need three languages at a high level. We do not have a large number of people who have those skills and could apply for those jobs. Do we know how many Irish people applied?

Mr. Tim Harrington:

It was 92.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We do not know if they all got through or if they all had the language skills or passed the tests. We put a huge effort into encouraging people to apply for that and 92 did. I should say we have had a strategy since I was last in the job. It was one of my priorities the last time to try to encourage more people and we have seen an uptick in the number of people going into the system but it is very slight. We want more people to go into the system. That is a priority for the Government. We should have more people over there. Ireland is not the only member state in this position. There are other countries like us. Denmark, for example, is in a similar position. We do not have enough people in the institutions based on the size of our country.

We also have a lot of long-serving members of staff at senior levels who have just retired or about to retire in the next few years. There are quite a number of them in senior roles who are good workers for Europe but also good points of contact for us. We have brought in schemes. There is significant support from the Department. There is an email address people can contact to get support to get through the process. We also have funded seconded national experts, in other words, civil servants who go from Ireland to work for the institutions for a period. The hope is that some of them will end up staying there so they can be the Irish people over there.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Do they bypass the language requirement if they do that?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, they do. Sometimes people can get into the institutions as interpreters, translators or linguists and then go to other areas. I am not happy with the way the European Personnel Selection Office, EPSO, the body within the institutions that runs the competitions for admissions, has handled some of the competitions recently.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Tell us more.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not want to go into too much detail but there have been competitions cancelled and competitions held that have had to be cancelled after the exams took place. That is not satisfactory. I engage with EPSO regularly. Next week, I am meeting the budget commissioner, Commissioner Serafin, primarily about the budget but I will also mention the jobs situation as he is also the administration Commissioner and, as such, he is in charge of employment in the institutions. We will continue to work with other member states that are in the same boat. I cannot say much more than that.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak. I had to go to the Chamber earlier and I was worried the engagement might have ended but some of my colleagues are fantastic at keeping things going. Go raibh míle maith agaibh go léir. I have a couple of questions. The first relates to the EU Foreign Affairs Council. The Minister of State is not party to the Council but he mentioned the Tánaiste will attend. As the Minister of State is the designated liaison, I will put the question his way. In a sense, it is a rhetorical question. The Minister of State has already passed it on but I have to reiterate that had the legislation on the Israeli war bonds been passed, we would have had an opportunity to say to our European Union colleagues "This is what we have done; what will you do?" It might not have got any further but we should still be putting pressure on at European level in relation to any measures, including financial measures. Obviously, the Tánaiste is responsible for this area and has responded on other aspects of the Gaza conflict.

To speal about Iran for a moment, obviously all of us condemn the Israeli bombing of Iran and urge the US not to join in. I tabled a number of parliamentary questions several weeks back about Iran and our country's attitude towards the existing regime. While I would not countenance any bombing of the civilian population, Iran is by no means a democratic country. Its elections are not free and fair. It has record numbers of executions. The regime has murdered tens of thousands of its own population systematically at different times and has clamped down on any efforts by civilians to achieve proper democratic engagement and input.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In that context, perhaps there is a pause because we do not want to be piling in. Is there a commitment from an Irish perspective to keep putting pressure through other means on the Iranian Government? That is my question about the upcoming Foreign Affairs Council on 23 June.

At the General Council meeting on 27 May, one of the items on the agenda was the review of whether Hungary is in breach of European Union principles. That was the eighth round of discussions. The Minister of State mentioned that Hungary blocked Moldova and Ukraine, as it is wont to do. That is not an indication of whether Hungary is adhering to its obligations. Every state has a right to block. However, other areas have caused major concern about how Hungary is behaving towards all aspects of civil society, reducing freedoms and putting more state intervention on the table. In essence, it is becoming almost a shell of a democracy. The European Union will, I hope, decide shortly what sanctions, if any, to take against Hungary. Given that Article 7 gives the power to suspend the voting rights of a member state - we will park for a moment that this will have an impact on accession discussions; that is a separate issue - does Ireland support suspending Hungary if it does not start to behave in a manner befitting a normal democratic country? Will Ireland step up and be one of the countries calling for it? I understand it will be a qualified majority vote. We should not watch which way the wind is blowing; we should take leadership positions, because if we are strong on democracy in other areas of the world, we should be strong on democracy within the European Union.

Much work has been done on the trade sanctions that might come after the 9 July deadline. Did the Minister of State hear my question about the issue of Hungary and Article 7?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. That is what I am thinking about.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My next question relates to the Trump Administration's deadline of 9 July. What is the Minister of State's sense of how worried the European Union is, given the capitulation in other areas? The mechanisms are in place. However, in terms of alert levels, where would the Minister of State say the Union stands? We are prepared. Are we as worried as we were initially?

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the Deputy sees me talking while he is asking a question, it is simply because I am trying to formulate the correct answer on a particular issue.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand, but I saw three people talking so I thought I might not have been heard.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a tricky issue around Article 7 and Hungary, and I just want to get it exactly right. In the context of Hungary, we have been a very strong voice on various laws it has brought in. For example, on a child protection law and a lot of stuff that is really just anti-LGBT. We do not approve of it. We do not support it. We think it is inconsistent with Hungary's membership of the European Union. It is not part of the foundational values and we have been strong about that.

We had a discussion at the last General Affairs Council, which is part of an ongoing Article 7 process. The difficulty with that process is that it is ongoing. The Article 7 process should be about the EU safeguarding its founding values, including the rule of law, where there is a serious risk of breach by member states. The Hungarian Government's actions in general continue to draw strong criticism from other member states. The Deputy talked about sanctions against Hungary and suspending its membership. A rule of law mechanism was introduced in relation to funding, and Hungary has lost a lot of funding. I will not put an exact figure on it, but it is high.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is right.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A large amount of funding has not gone to Hungary. I say that bluntly. If I met the Hungarian minister now, I would say that we will not pay for this. Why should we pay for it? We have to be clear about that. The rule of law is very much a part of our work in the budget negotiations. We have to work with other countries on that as well.

It was a major achievement to get this through the European Council. The Deputy may recall that when the Council decided to bring in this conditionality regime, as it is called, unanimity was needed. Therefore, it needed Poland and Hungary. At the time, Poland was in a similar situation. They did agree to it, but the condition was that it would go to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The court approved it, so it is there. Hungary has lost billions of euro because of it, and I am proud that we have put pressure on.

We have also been involved in court actions. In February, we intervened in the European Commission's case on the sovereignty protection law. As regards removing Hungary, the Deputy is talking about removing its right to vote at the Council of Ministers. That requires the support of a lot of member states. Four fifths of the member states need to vote at the General Affairs Council for a proposal to go to the European Council. Then unanimity is needed, not including Hungary. When the PiS Government was in office in Poland, it was considered that unanimity would not happen. I am still not sure whether we would get four fifths at the moment.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Even with a Tusk Government.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. There are others as well. It is not just them. It is not that they are against the rule of law or support Hungary, but they may not want this to happen for various reasons. It is not clear to us. We have insisted on the highest standards from Hungary, but is not clear looking around the table. No one will put down a proposal on this unless they are sure they have the four fifths, and that is not clear at the moment.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

However, Ireland is not opposed to that.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, we are in favour of the Article 7 process moving ahead. However, we also do not want to hold a vote that does not succeed. Other countries that may not want this to go ahead may not have any rule-of-law issues whatsoever but they may just not like the process and see that someone could use it against them for other reasons. I have never had a substantive discussion about getting the numbers up to four fifths. There has been some speculation at times and perhaps at official level some discussions, but I have never tried to add up the figures, because the general view is that we would not get them.

On the 9 July Trump Administration deadline, there is serious concern. We have always set out the Government's concerns. The Deputies will all be familiar with them. We are a small open trading economy. We depend to a large extent on trade with the US, outside our membership of the European Union, so there is concern. Preparations are also going on for retaliatory measures. Some of that has been talked about in the newspapers. That is a discussion between the European Commission and the member states; and between us and businesses here. We have continued to engage with businesses through the Government's trade forum which has been useful. We have looked at various sectors in the trade forum. At the last one I attended, we looked at the aviation sector and how it might be impacted to better inform the Government in its discussions, not only with the EU, but also directly with the US. A lot of discussions are going on. Generally, the atmosphere is positive and warm between the parties, but we all know how the system works in the US. Whatever is negotiated has to be approved by the President. I think he is in the mood for deals. He says he is, and I hope he is, but we have to protect our interests as well. However, our interests are in the space of having a trade agreement and we are working hard towards that end.

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister. If I may, I will make a few comments. I do not necessarily expect the Minister to answer them all.

First, on our diplomats in such places as Tehran, Tel Aviv and Ramallah, in my experience dealing with Department of Foreign Affairs staff anywhere, we are incredibly lucky to have talented, dedicated, consistently competent staff across the world. They make us proud all the time. I appreciate what the Minister of State said about the dangers they are facing. I hope we are putting in place whatever measures we can to make sure they are safe and protected to whatever extent that is possible.

There was a great deal of discussion about military non-alignment. Without getting into the political weeds on it, our position on military non-alignment is clear. I agree with what the Minister of State said about the views of other countries not feeling there is an issue with that position. Consistently, in dealing with European colleagues, they understand where we are coming from. However, one of the issues we do have is the lack of expenditure on defence. We have had this conversation before. We are ramping it up, but the odd thing is that in order to be a militarily non-aligned country, greater expenditure on defence is needed, as is greater capacity to stand on our own two feet, because we are not part of those alliances.

That is not something we have done, so it is something we need to change.

Regarding international aid, when I look at, for example, USAID, I think America has gone completely the wrong way. Whatever about all the cuts it made, but before that even, during more reasonable administrations, the way it went about aid to other countries was with strings attached. If you had aid, you had to spend it on, for example, American products or with American companies. I am enormously proud of the way Ireland and Irish Aid have approached that. We give it in a genuinely altruistic way. It does not have strings attached. It is much more effective at achieving the goals it is supposed to achieve, which, in the longer term, protect us from other consequences coming down the line, particularly in the context of migration and that kind of thing. The effects of that are mitigated when we approach aid in the sense that we are supposed to approach it.

On accession, we will go into private session in a moment and one of the issues we will finalise is our work plan. The enlargement of the EU is included in that plan. I was asked about this at a meeting of EU ambassadors last week. I expressed disappointment at how slow we are progressing with enlargement in respect of certain countries. Some countries have very significant problems that will take longer to resolve. There are other countries that have essentially ticked the boxes relating to the Copenhagen criteria and are ready to go, yet there seems to be still a delay. There may be political reasons for that. The Commission representatives at that meeting felt I was criticising them. I understand there is a process. I am not criticising the Commission. However, the Union should be moving more towards enlargement. As a general rule, enlargement is good for the European Union. It is good for us to have more members in and it is certainly good for those members coming in. It improves their standards economically and in terms of health, social outcomes and so on. I support the notion that we push that as much as we possibly can.

The committee will definitely be looking at EU-Israel association agreement. We will hopefully engage with the Minister of State again on that. It is an issue in respect of which there are, I understand, different perspectives within the Union. Various countries have different histories with the State of Israel and the treatment of Jewish people in the past century. However, there is a very clear legal regard to be had in respect of this agreement insofar as the human rights clauses within it have not been respected and we need to stand up on that as much as we have stood up in relation to Israel's actions in Gaza already.

I absolutely agree with what the Minister of State said. When an MEP gets elected, we sometimes say they have “gone to Europe” as if they were not in Europe before they were elected. I will say two things. First, obviously, we are part of Europe and part of the European Union. Second, for us, as politicians, it is often all too easy when something has come to us via European law to say, “Oh, well, it is Europe that has done that. That has been imposed on us by Brussels”, instead of acknowledging the fact that we are part of that process. If we look at the totality of those decisions and how they have affected Irish law, they are all almost universally good. Looking at health and safety legislation, employment rights and equality rights, so much of that has come through European directives and then been implemented here, but also come through Irish activism at a European level. We do not nearly often enough acknowledge that we are part of that and we steer that.

On the EU Presidency, as the Minister of State quite correctly identified, we could spend the whole day talking about this, and two more days on top of it. I appreciate the decision to spread the love in respect of the 250 meetings. I hope to impress upon the Minister of State that when he talks about the regions, it really means places outside Dublin city centre, because Dún Laoghaire feels like a region too. I understand there will be logistical difficulties with holding meetings outside the Dublin Castle sphere, but do not let that be a bar to doing things elsewhere in Dublin. I hope we might bring one of the COSAC meetings to Dún Laoghaire in due course.

I do not know whether the Minister of State wants to come in on anything I have said. I am conscious of time.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will come in on some of that. If the EU-Israel association agreement comes up at the Foreign Affairs Council again, I am happy to talk about it. It does not come up at the meetings I sit at. The Tánaiste looks after that one. I have no doubt that I or the Tánaiste will be happy to talk about it anytime. I think the committee should be meeting other committees in parliaments to talk about it because the problem is not Ireland. The problem is not what this Government is doing on this issue. I think most people know this. The problem is that we cannot get every other country to agree on it. We managed to get a majority view last month on this issue. That is where the value would be had. Members are obliged to hold Ministers to account here, but I think there would be added value in talking to other European affairs or foreign affairs committees around the Continent, whether members visit them or do video calls with them. Even just hearing what they are saying would better inform them - and us - as to what the opinion is. That would be important. It is very important that the committee, as part of our national effort over the next year, is meeting not just at COSAC level but bilaterally with other parliaments and European affairs committees, and with business interests and trade unions across Europe as well as social interests. That is important. It is important for the President but also for the MFF and our officials. Once we publish our national plan and once the Commission publishes its proposals and the negotiations start, we will have the first meeting in July at European affairs level. We would we be happy to give a briefing on this and where things are nationally if people want it. The difficulty sometimes with the EU is that there is always a lot of speculation. You sort of have to know what is being proposed because that is what we are working off. Speculation will always be there, of course.

On accession, the Commission is right. It is not there. What happens with accession is, generally speaking, some countries block other countries from joining. I heard people say that people have the right to block countries coming in. They do, but we think the way it is currently happening is unjustified. We had a situation for a long time where Bulgaria had issues with the Republic of North Macedonia joining the European Union over various matters after the Republic of North Macedonia had sorted out other issues with Greece. We think some of these bilateral issues should not be used. However, I cannot stop someone using them either, and that is the challenge. If they say that we are not moving forward, there is not much we can do. Accession overall – not every country – is in a better place than when I was last Minister of State for European affairs. I think there is more of an impetus on it. It might be ambitious but it is quite possible that Montenegro could finish its job during our Presidency. It is possible, but not definitely going to happen. Albania will become well advanced. It is important for those countries and for general EU security for them to join. I spoke to some Icelandic representatives. They are having a debate internally as well. It would be great to start its process during our Presidency. It would be much easier from a rule of law and Single Market point of view to join. We are all in favour of it.

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are over time, so we do not have time for a second round. I am sorry about that. I am grateful for the Minister of State’s time.

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Definitely. We are more than two hours at it now, so I appreciate the Minister of State’s time. I also thank Ms Von Heynitz and Mr. Harrington for coming along and giving their time and expertise. It was very constructive. There are many issues. We might engage with them again before the end of the calendar year to follow up on issues.

We will now go into private session.