Gabhaim fíor-bhuíochas leis an gCoimisinéir as a bheith linn agus cuirim fíor-fháilte roimhe. It is a significant meeting as this is the first time we have had a Commissioner before the committee. It is also our first official engagement with the European Commission. I am very glad that is happening in the context of the Irish Commissioner. Perhaps "the Commissioner who happens to be Irish" is the right way to put it. I welcome Commissioner McGrath back to Leinster House. The committee also welcomes his officials. Next Monday marks the first anniversary of his taking up office as Commissioner. I congratulate him on that. I wish him the very best in his role in the remaining four years of his mandate. The committee is very much looking forward to working with him, particularly in the context of the upcoming Presidency, which begins on 1 July next year.

In that context, I am sure members will agree the Commissioner holds one of the portfolios that is of particular importance in the context of the challenges facing the European Union at the moment. It is one of the most important portfolios in defending democratic values, ensuring a just society, upholding the rule of law and protecting consumers. These are all central tenets of the European Union's work and they are also some of the issues the committee, the country and legislators here in the Oireachtas want to look at. This meeting comes at the end of a very significant month as the Commission launched the European democracy shield and EU strategy for civil society. Both documents will be very important in ensuring our democratic processes and the civic space that supports them. They must remain robust in what is a very challenging global environment.

Sula leanfaimid ar aghaidh, tá sé de dhualgas orm na rialacha agus na treoracha seo a leanas a leagan faoi bhráid na bhfinnéithe uile. Cuirim ar aird an fhinné go bhfuil finnéithe, de bhua Bhunreacht na hÉireann agus reachtaíocht Éireann, faoi chosaint ag lánphribhléid maidir leis fianaise a thugann siad don chomhchoiste chomh fada is atá siad lonnaithe laistigh de phurláin Thithe an Oireachtais agus an fhianaise sin a thabhairt acu. Molaim don fhinné a bheith cúramach agus fianaise á tabhairt aige. Má ordaíonn mé dó éirí as fianaise a thabhairt i leith ní áirithe, ba chóir go ndéanfaidh sé amhlaidh láithreach, más féidir. The privilege notice is also available in English but it is provided, most importantly, in the first official language.

The way this is going to work is that the Commissioner has seven minutes for his opening statement. I will then invite members to ask questions. We will allocate five minutes to each member for both questions and answers. I now invite the Commissioner to make his opening statement.

I thank the Cathaoirleach. It is great to be back here in familiar surroundings. I have sat in different parts of this committee room down the years in different capacities. It is a great pleasure to be here. I thank the Cathaoirleach for hosting me and for the warm welcome. It is great to be the first Commissioner under the new mandate to appear before the committee. I look forward to our engagement.

I am delighted to be joined by some colleagues, who I will introduce very briefly. My head of cabinet is Fiona Knab-Lunny, a very experienced diplomat, formerly of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the European External Action Service. Many of the members will recognise Kevin Barrett. He was special adviser to me as Minister for Finance and Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. Laetitia Close is my communications adviser in the cabinet. She hails from Dublin. To my left is Peter Power, whom I am sure all the members will know. He was appointed head of the European Commission representation in Ireland earlier this year. He is based here in Dublin. Behind me is Patricia Purcell, who is not to be forgotten. She is also of the Commission representation here in Dublin. I also acknowledge the committee clerk, Ivan Farmer, who spent a number of months in my team as a seconded national expert. He made a very valuable contribution over that time. We miss him very much and hope he is enjoying his role here within the Oireachtas.

It is a great privilege to be here with the Cathaoirleach and committee members at today’s meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Union Affairs as we mark one year of the Commission mandate. From the very start, uncertainty has been the backdrop to the work of the Commission. We have faced a wide range of challenges, from the threat of US tariffs to the ongoing war in Ukraine and the presidential election annulment in Romania due to foreign interference. This is precisely why the political guidelines for the current Commission provide such a strong strategic anchor focused on strengthening our competitiveness, protecting our citizens and ensuring a fair, secure and resilient Union. We have put competitiveness at the heart of our actions in the knowledge that every rule we streamline is time and money returned to citizens and businesses alike.

My portfolio, that of democracy, justice, the rule of law and consumer protection, is central to Europe’s competitiveness agenda and directly affects all 450 million people in our Union. Guided by my mission letter, my role is clear. It is to ensure that democracy continues to work for people, that the rule of law remains the foundation of our Union, and that our fundamental rights, the freedoms we often take for granted, are safeguarded for the generations to come. When democracy is healthy and the rule of law is firm, everything else, including competitiveness, growth, innovation and social well-being, can truly flourish. I will briefly touch on some aspects of my work over the past year.

It cannot be restated often enough that Ukraine’s future is Europe’s future. We continue to work towards a just and lasting peace for its people. Over the past year, I was honoured to sign the EU’s accession to the international claims commission for Ukraine and, while in Lviv on Europe Day, I endorsed the establishment of a special tribunal for the crime of aggression.

Internally within the EU, I have launched two major high-level forums. The forum on the future of EU criminal justice aims to modernise our processes for the delivery of justice in criminal cases and the forum on justice for growth seeks to align fairness and competitiveness to drive real economic opportunity. In this regard, the 28th regime, which we plan to propose in March, will play an essential role in offering simple, digital and fast procedures for companies to set up and operate across the EU, giving entrepreneurs a regulatory environment fit for their ambition.

In July, we adopted the 2025 edition of the justice scoreboard and the rule of law report, which covers 27 member states and the four most advanced accession countries and to which we have added a Single Market dimension. In so doing, we recognise that legal certainty, independent regulators and the fair enforcement of rules are practical everyday necessities and essential to competitiveness.

We are supporting the implementation of the European Media Freedom Act and the political advertising regulation, both of which entered into application earlier this year, because we recognise there is no true democracy with free media.

The GDPR procedural regulation has been adopted and the Commission has proposed targeted amendments in two digital omnibuses, which fully respect the high level of protection of personal data that we are committed to in the European Union. Through clearer rules and simplified obligations, these changes will reduce administrative burdens and deliver cost savings to operators, companies and organisations alike.

As e-commerce continues to grow, we must ensure that EU consumer law provides strong protection, safeguarding consumer autonomy and freedom of choice. This is particularly important for our vulnerable consumers, such as children. This is why we published the e-commerce communication and adopted the 2030 consumer agenda, and we will propose to improve the protection of our EU consumers through enhanced enforcement involving third-country platforms.

Just two weeks ago, as the Cathaoirleach said, I presented the Commission’s democracy package, comprising the Commission communication on the European democracy shield and the EU strategy for civil society. The democracy shield is our collective response to the current threats and emerging challenges. Across our Continent and beyond, authoritarian regimes are using hybrid tactics, attacking infrastructure, exploiting migration, manipulating information, deploying criminal networks and interfering in our electoral processes. Their aim is clear: to erode citizens' trust, exploit divisions and influence elections, ultimately with a view to destabilising our societies. Disinformation, algorithmic manipulation, financial pressure on media and AI tools are now threatening our very democratic way of being. The European democracy shield encompasses a set of new measures in three priority areas, namely, to safeguard the integrity of the information space; to strengthen free and fair elections and free and independent media; and to boost citizens’ engagement in our democracies.

Working in tandem with the European democracy shield is the first-ever EU strategy for civil society, which acknowledges the invaluable role of civil society organisations and responds to the challenges they face. We will work to strengthen our engagement with civil society to make it more meaningful. This will include the creation of a civil society platform, providing a transparent and structured framework for dialogue with civil society organisations that work in the area of upholding our EU values and rights. The strategy focuses on ensuring support and protection for civil society organisations, including setting up an online knowledge hub on civic space. It emphasises providing adequate, sustainable and transparent funding for civil society organisations. In essence, the democracy package is our long-term framework to update, strengthen and co-ordinate Europe's efforts to protect our democracy, societies and way of life.

The Ireland country chapter of the rule of law report notes reforms such as the Judicial Appointments Commission, work to reduce litigation costs and improvements to civil and criminal legal aid. In the interests of time, I will not go into these aspects now, but I am happy to discuss them in the course of discussion.

In July, the Commission presented its proposal for the EU’s next long-term budget, from 2028 to 2034. The Commission will constantly assess compliance with the principles of the rule of law and of the charter when implementing Union funds. The conditionality regulation will continue to apply to all EU funds and member states will have to ensure that their submissions under the national and regional partnership plans fulfil the horizontal conditions of the charter and rule of law principles.

Looking ahead to 2026, my work will continue with the shareholder rights directive; the 28th regime; the Digital Fairness Act; the EU anti-corruption strategy; the review of the anti-fraud architecture, Eurojust regulation; and the evaluation of the European Public Prosecutor's Office, EPPO, regulation and the PIF directive. I also wish Ireland every success as it prepares to assume the Presidency of the Council of the European Union in July next year.

My final point is to formally inform the committee that the European Commission has proposed to extend the derogation Ireland currently enjoys under the nitrates directive. The text will need to be approved by the nitrates committee in order to be formally adopted by the Commission. We expect the nitrates committee, which comprises the member states of the European Union, to consider this matter in the first half of December. Subject to its approval, this will allow for full adoption by the Commission before the end of December, at which time the full details of the proposed extension of the derogation will be published.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for his indulgence and for giving me the opportunity to set out at a high level some of the priorities we are working on.

I thank the Commissioner very much. I think he made it worthwhile with his reference to the nitrates directive. It is good news. I think it is an appropriate recognition of the difference in agricultural norms in this country compared to many of our colleagues in the European Commission. Glaoim ar an Teachta Ó Murchú.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an gCoimisinéir agus a fhoireann. I will jump straight into it and ask for a bit of detail in relation to the conversations. On the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, there are big fears. These range from the impact it will have on LEADER funding right through to changes to the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP. There are obviously major fears among the farming community concerning the impact of the Mercosur deal. The Commissioner already mentioned the nitrates derogation and maintaining it.

Has the Commissioner been involved with the EU-Israel association agreement? I know the Commission has made some determinations here and it is up to the Council as regards the agreement. I have a particular issue regarding how it was formulated in the first place. If there are humanitarian conditions, they should just have automatically kicked in given the genocidal situation that has existed. Whether this is a proper peace plan or not, hopefully it can lead to something better.

In relation to the Commissioner’s own field, we are all very interested in what is a very changed world geopolitically after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It is about how we deal with everything. We are talking about everything from cyberattacks and denial of services right through to state and non-state actors, organised and disorganised. We have all seen the mess that is the online space. What is important here is how we protect that and even some of the individuals engaged in some of the misinformation. I believe that sometimes a disservice is done to those people, which is not to take away from the impact they have. That is a big body of work. We saw Meta suddenly say it will carry no more political ads. It is about where do we get this right as regards legislation, directives, guidelines and powers and still allow people to do what is necessary in relation to communication online, while protecting against misinformation, disinformation and even worse. Beyond that, it is about ensuring we have a framework that sustains democracy because we are in a very different place.

I thank Deputy Ó Murchú very much. He raised a lot of important and substantive questions. On the MFF, we proposed a draft framework in July. It will now undergo an extensive process of negotiation. The current MFF runs to the end of 2027, so the proposed next MFF is for the period beginning in January 2028 and ending in 2034.

It is important to frame the context and the reason we have proposed some structural changes to the EU budget. We have proposed a redesign, which, in our view, will be more streamlined, flexible and impactful. The world has changed and one of the key issues is the need for flexibility. At the moment, the budgetary structure we have in the EU is quite rigid, with 90% plus of the funding already fully precommitted and locked in. As new pressures and challenges emerge and we need to respond to them, we lack the agility to do so. We know from our experience in the last five years that things are going to come at us that we cannot anticipate right now. Seven years is a long time and a lot can change in that time.

In relation to concerns I have heard expressed, let me be very clear that cohesion and agriculture remain at the heart of this budget. The resources for both are preserved. For example, there is a minimum of €218 billion for less developed regions, a minimum of €294 billion for farmers' income support and a minimum of €2 billion for our fishermen and fisherwomen. There is three times more funding to address extreme weather and other emergencies. Other funds can also be accessed within the framework of the national and regional partnership plans the Commission is proposing. If time allows, we can come back to these issues through other questions.

In relation to Ukraine, the European Union is engaged in the negotiations with our partners in the United States and with Ukraine.

Ukraine needs to have its territorial integrity respected. A change in borders cannot be brought about by force.

One of the immediate issues that we are seeking to address is to provide funding certainty for Ukraine over the next couple of years. Next month, the European Council meeting will be critical in that regard. President von der Leyen has written to the leaders setting out three options, including one relating to the reparations loan related to the immobilised Russian assets, with which I know members are very familiar.

I thank the Deputy for his comments on the democracy package. Hopefully, we will have time to go into it in some detail. For me, it is very simply about ensuring that the integrity of our elections is protected. We put the citizen first. It is their democracy. All that we are seeking to achieve is that every citizen in the EU can exercise their democratic entitlement in free and fair elections - they can choose whomever they wish to represent them - and that those elections are free from interference. We have to enable free-flowing and full-blooded debate because that is the heart of our democracy. Freedom of expression must be respected.

I am conscious of the Chair's clock and I can come back to any of these issues as the time allows.

Thanks very much.

The Commissioner mentioned in his opening address that one of the most exciting things, or exciting to me, in the Draghi report was the proposed 28th regime. Commissioner McGrath has quite a big role in it, given his portfolio. EU tech has suffered when compared to US tech companies because we have to go through 27 different regulatory regimes. The 28th regime will help to deepen the Single Market and streamline regularisation, particularly for start-ups looking to operate in the bloc. Can the Commissioner see any roadblocks with bringing the 28th regime through or challenges from any particular member states? Is there a timeline for when the regime might come into effect? He said March 2026 was when it would come into effect so companies might be able to avail of the regime.

Hopefully, this will give me a moment to respond to Deputy Ó Murchú's other point on Gaza. I hope we get time to discuss such a serious issue.

The Deputy asked me specifically about the EU-Israel Association Agreement. As members will know, the Commission in recent months made a number of proposals that currently rest with the Council of the European Union and require their assent in the form, primarily, of qualified majority voting relating to the partial suspension of trade aspects, a proposal for Horizon Europe funding and a number of other specific aspects. Those considerations have not been concluded at Council level. Obviously, we are pleased that we are in a better place overall of relative peace but it is a fragile peace. We remain deeply committed to working with all of the stakeholders to ensure that there is a durable and lasting peace because what has transpired since October of 2023, starting with the brutal terrorist attack by Hamas and the disproportionate response by Israel, is a tragedy. The human life loss has been catastrophic. The famine that we have seen in Gaza is indefensible. So we need to see aid flowing freely into Gaza to make sure that all of the people there are looked after. We need to negotiate a durable peace settlement and we need any remaining hostages, and the remains of hostages who are deceased, to be released back to the Israeli people. I am happy to go into this in more detail. From our point of view, we can be of direct support in terms of humanitarian and emergency aid to Gaza but also to the West Bank. In 2025 alone, the European Union has contributed €220 million and over €550 million since 2023. There is much more that we can do but I wanted to respond directly to the question that was asked.

On the 28th regime, this is a very exciting initiative. As the Deputy said, it was highlighted by both Draghi and Letta in their reports. It is complex and not going to be without difficulty. We will make an ambitious proposal, as a Commission, by March of next year. At its core will be the EU corporate legal framework but President von der Leyen has asked us to examine other issues that are important for companies too around labour law, taxation and insolvency. Thankfully, we have just reached political agreement on the insolvency file and that is very positive.

We need to decide on the scope and the legal basis of the regime, for example, a regulation or a directive. At this point, my preference is for a regulation. The last thing we want is more fragmentation and to end up with 27 versions of the 28th regime. We are trying to get away from that. That is my political instinct but I need to take legal advice on what is possible. Equally, on scope, I think we should not limit it to start-ups or innovative companies. I would like it to be available to all private companies, if possible. Defining "innovative" in law for the purpose of the availability of the 28th regime is exceptionally difficult.

We will bring forward the proposal. It will have undergone the impact assessment. We will then have to enter a political process of negotiation with the co-legislators - the member states and the members of the European Parliament. I look forward to getting into trilogue negotiations that, hopefully, can be concluded in a relatively short period. It may well fall to be concluded during the Irish Presidency, in the second half of next year, if it is not concluded by then and then we will have to have a lead-in period for the implementation and application of this 28th regime. It will be optional. It will sit alongside all of the 27 national regimes. Member states will keep their national regimes. If we want to give founders and companies that are trying to scale up a realistic prospect of doing so from a European base, then we must address the fragmentation that currently prevents them from doing so. That is what the 28th regime will seek to do. The support of Ireland, particularly during the Presidency, will be of crucial importance and, indeed, the support of the Members of Parliament. There is huge expectation. We are determined to meet those expectations and then get into the detail of the negotiations.

Fáilte ar ais Coimisinéir. Due to the time constraints, I will focus on information technology and the online world. Recently, the Commissioner's colleague, Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis, mentioned that Europe had fallen behind in relation to the US and China, so I can see why there is a digital omnibus roadmap to try to simplify things. The remit of Commissioner McGrath is to protect people in terms of the democratic institutions and the misinformation that is sent online. How can we loosen things up and at the same time prevent troll farms having an impact on the likes of Facebook?

My main question relates to the recent passing by Members of the European Parliament of a proposal to ban social media for under-16s. This is an issue that I raised with Simon Harris several months ago on foot of the Australian plan. In Australia, two 15-year-olds have taken out a court action that is supported by agencies that include members of the Libertarian Party and other parties in Australia. Obviously, there is a political element, in that the types of movement that do not want any kind of interference would say that, but surveys done in Ireland and the UK have shown that children are very anxious, fearful and exposed to information that they do not have the skills to process and deal with. What is the Commissioner's view on a ban on social media for under-16s, pending absolutely copper-fastened and ring-fenced regulation? Does he think we may have to go down that route because the companies are not playing ball?

We have noticed in the UK survey - and I think it was a Demos survey - that the political viewpoints of men and women of a certain age - teenagers - have diverged dramatically because of the algorithms and the information that has been sent out to people. While we want to give access to proper information to young people and allow them to engage, it is skewed information that is coming and we need to protect young people before we can regulate it properly.

Would the Commissioner be supportive of that and is he working towards it within his remit?

The Deputy has touched on an issue that is growing in currency and that has triggered a very important and timely public debate. We recognise all of the benefits of technology and the Deputy has touched on them as well. Digitalisation is only going to accelerate. Children are accessing digital tools at a younger and younger age, including social media, but there are risks. There are real vulnerabilities that we need to be honest about and confront. We have to protect the welfare and well-being of our children. I contributed to the debate on this question in the European Parliament in Strasbourg this week. There was an own-initiative report from the MEPs, which highlighted key issues and made a number of recommendations, some of which are relevant to my own portfolio, particularly in the context of the digital fairness Act that I am planning next year.

The main body of digital regulation sits within DG CONNECT under the leadership of the Executive Vice-President, Henna Virkkunen. Under the digital fairness Act proposal, which I am leading on, there is an opportunity to strengthen the protections for children online. We have already flagged, for example, that we will examine targeted advertising towards children. There is a prohibition as part of the DSA, but its reach is not absolute and I believe that issue needs to be looked at further. We are also considering the role of social media influencers and the need for full transparency. If there is an underlying commercial transaction and young people are being targeted with messages that perhaps are not appropriate, it is important that it be clear that that is a commercial transaction. We have also highlighted the issue of video games and certain features of them, including gambling features, loot boxes and in-app currencies. The question of whether there are appropriate and easy-to-use parental controls, for example, is something that we need to focus on as well. Actions are under way in the context of the DSA against some of the big tech platforms as regards their obligations in the protection of minors online. Those actions have to take their course, but the Commission has reason to believe that, in certain cases, the obligations under the DSA have not been fulfilled in relation to the protection of children online. We also have the AI Act, which is very relevant here.

On the broader question that the Deputy raised, President von der Leyen announced in her state of the Union address in September that a team of experts would be reporting back to her shortly on the issue of social media and young people. We have an open mind and we are not precluding any option. She has also said that we will be looking at the Australian model, but no decision has been made by the Commission at this stage to propose what the Deputy is suggesting. We have initiated a process around age verification on an EU-wide basis in the context of the Digital Services Act.

The Commissioner and his colleagues are very welcome. The Commissioner mentioned the situation in Gaza and the so-called peace that was supposed to be reigning in that part of the world. Unfortunately, we have seen hundreds of people killed. We have seen the inadequacy of aid and people still starving in that part of the world. Despite request after request, we see the failure of aid to get to those who need it, with food rotting in warehouses while people starve just across a fence. When we were seeing those awful scenes during the worst of the conflict there, the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation was supposed to be rolling out the weaponisation of aid and food. We saw the slaughter of innocents queuing up for food. Many of those images will probably remain with a lot of us for the rest of our lives. There was the use of tank shells and tanks for crowd control and the shooting of babies in mothers' arms, all just queuing up to get food. Part of all that was that they were using biometrics and cameras when people were queuing up. They were assessing who was a member of a family and so on. Who knows why they were killing Palestinians?

Israel enjoys an adequacy decision under Article 45 of the GDPR, meaning that they are considered to have a similar standard of data protection to the EU. My colleague Lynn Boylan MEP has engaged with the Commissioner on a number of occasions regarding the adequacy decision, something that Israel enjoys despite the fact it does not meet the standards of GDPR either in Israel or the occupied territories. It regularly fails to meet the standards and regularly engages, as I said, in mass surveillance of Palestinians and their own citizens. The Commission up to now has not taken any action to end this decision.

In August, The Guardian published an article detailing its investigation into the use of EU-based Microsoft cloud storage in the Netherlands and Ireland by unit 8200 within the Israel Defense Forces to store data accumulated through the mass surveillance of Palestinians. Microsoft has announced that it plans to cease providing cloud-based storage to unit 8200. However, it is believed that such cloud storage will now be sought from Amazon Web Services, which operates a large number of data centres within the EU, as we know. These reports confirm that Palestinians' personal data obtained through mass surveillance by the IDF has been stored in the European Union. Clearly, this violates GDPR and demonstrates that Israel should not enjoy any adequacy decisions. Has the Commissioner instructed his officials to review the decision of the light of this and many other reports? It is not just Palestinian data and information that is there. They are allegedly also storing data on members of the European Union, their political views and their sense of outrage in relation to what is going on in that part of the world. There is a lack of movement from the EU. The Commissioner has courage in this area. Is there going to be movement on this? There are huge concerns in Ireland about the use of data centres and storage that is being held in this part of the world.

I agree that the scenes we have witnessed on social media and on our television screens since October 2023 will live with many of us forever. It is a tragedy. We need to ensure that we achieve a permanent peace. We also need to ensure that there is full, unhindered access for humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza. It is the view of the European Commission, supported by the European Council in its conclusions back in October, that the access should be unhindered and it should be administered through the established international organisations, including the UN. That is the policy of the European Union. We will continue to provide as much aid as we possibly can directly to the people in Gaza.

I have responsibility for GDPR within the European Commission. It is important to underline that the protection of personal data is a fundamental right that we enjoy as European citizens. It is provided for in the European treaties and it is in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. We have an extensive body of case law on the question as well. The Deputy referred to the adequacy decision. The adequacy decision in respect of Israel is one of 16 adequacy decisions that we have overall with third countries outside of the European Union. Under such decisions, we are required to look at the protection of data transferred from the EU by commercial entities to commercial entities in those third countries, including in Israel.

Last year, the Commission evaluated the adequacy decision for Israel in line with the GDPR regulation and concluded at that time, based on its assessment, that the protection regime was adequate. We always keep these issues under review. We follow the situation as regards any changes in the legislative framework that may be relevant for ensuring an adequate level of data protection. We have the tools to react if the protection afforded to data transferred from the European Union is weakened.

On the question of the human rights element and criterion within the agreement, and the rule of law criterion, the Commission's analysis was set out in the report and in the staff working document, which provides further details and covers all relevant elements of the respective systems, including the rule of law and protection of human rights. This included assessing access of individuals to independent courts; the role and the powers of independent oversight authorities as part of an effective system of checks and balances; the requirements applying to interference of public authorities with fundamental rights and the balancing between fundamental rights and other public interests; and adherence to international and-or other regional human rights instruments.

It is important to recall that, in the context of the 2024 review of the adequacy decision, the European Commission secured a strengthening of the safeguards that apply to data transfers from the EU. These safeguards were enshrined in Israeli law. The review was concluded in 2024. It concluded that the level of protection for data of EU citizens in Israel remains at the standard required for the adequacy decision to remain in place. We keep this issue under review. We closely monitor all developments in the treatment and handling of the personal data of EU citizens in Israel because that is fundamentally what the adequacy decision provides.

The Commissioner is very welcome, as is everybody else. First and foremost, I welcome the news on the nitrates derogation. I hope the derogation is approved before Christmas. It will be very welcome news and a welcome Christmas present for our 7,000 farmers. I also acknowledge the work done on this matter by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Heydon. It was a clear priority in the programme for Government to try to defend the nitrates derogation because it affects both farmers and their families and communities as a whole. I also acknowledge that the European Commission has recognised the efforts the farming community has been making in regard to water quality.

Before I ask specific questions, I will make my views clear on the Mercosur deal because it is also a fundamental issue for Irish farmers. Last week, the Irish Farmers' Journal featured an exposé on this. I would like to think that was the first time we ever spoke about South American beef and the fact that there is not a level playing field for Irish and European farmers. Around 20 years ago, the IFA travelled to South America to conduct its own investigation and found there was not a level playing field. Ireland has its beef industry and while I can see where the natural advantages are for many European countries in various industries, I do not see the same advantages for Irish industries or companies. All I see at the moment are negative impacts on the farming community. I stress that we need friends in Europe when it comes to the Mercosur deal. I encourage the Commissioner to help us in our efforts to achieve the best possible deal or, indeed, to repudiate the Mercosur deal.

The Commissioner stated, as regards the European democracy shield, that democracy rarely ends with one big bang. My understanding is that member state co-operation with the democracy shield will be largely voluntary. How can we expect this new organisation to protect the rule of law and democracy if those who wish to ignore it can do so?

I believe Hungary has lodged a legal challenge to the European Media Freedom Act. Will the Commissioner provide an update on how far along that is? Will it delay the implementation of the Act? How is the Commission working to ensure the Act is enacted to its full capacity and potential?

I can give concise replies to the Deputy's two specific questions and then comment on the other issues raised. On the European Media Freedom Act, the court challenge does not in any way delay the implementation of the Act. Most of the provisions came into effect in August of this year. We are working with all the member states on the full application of EMFA, as we call it. It is really important for media freedom to ensure an adequate level of funding for public service media and editorial independence but also for the safety of journalists. It is full steam ahead on the implementation of EMFA.

On the voluntary nature of participation in the centre for democratic resilience, it is a function of the allocation of competences that the conduct of elections is entirely a matter for member states. We have to fully respect that legal basis. That said, based on my engagement and discussions with Ministers from across Europe, including at Council level on a few occasions, I expect that there will be very strong buy-in, support and participation in this centre.

I point to all of the other tools that we have to address any backsliding on commitment to democracy. We have the rule of law report every year that looks at the independence of the justice system, the media sector and the anti-corruption regime in place. We also have the conditionality regulation. If Union funds are put at risk, we can step in and stop the flow of funding to a member state. We also have the reforms for money principle in the recovery and resilience plan. Of course, we also have infringement proceedings, which are the strongest tool we have, where a member state is taken to the European Court of Justice. We will continue to do that, as required.

On nitrates, I also acknowledge the work of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Heydon, his predecessor and the Government. I know the former Minister for agriculture, Deputy McConalogue, did a lot of work on this issue as well. Earlier this month, the Minister, Deputy Heydon, received Commissioner Roswall and had a number of engagements with her. That allowed her to see at first-hand the work being done in Ireland.

On where we are, the Commission has made the proposal for the extension. It goes to the nitrates committee, which involves the member states, and it has to consider the proposal and make a decision. Subject to its approval, it is the intention for the Commission to formally adopt the decision to extend the derogation before Christmas. This is all predicated on continued focus on improving water quality in Ireland. That will become clear when the full detail of the proposed extension is set out by the Commission, hopefully in a few weeks' time. We acknowledge all of the efforts that have been made. It is because of the commitment to continue with those efforts, in terms of compliance with the various directives, that the Commission has the confidence to propose this extension. However, we need to continue to work on water quality. It is a top priority. We will support the nitrates committee in its consideration of this issue.

Briefly on Mercosur, it is now with the member states to make a decision. The Commission has listened and brought forward additional safeguards for the agrifood sector, including legislative safeguards that we have published. These are with the co-legislators and set out a whole range of different tools and instruments that we have, through enhanced monitoring with full transparency. Also, there is the possibility to initiate an investigation. We laid out in the legislation the basis of such an investigation and, where we conclude that one is necessary, it allows then for the withdrawal of tariff preferences applied to those products. Additional testing will also be done because we recognise how important it is to have rigorous safeguards in place.

I would finally point to the overall context, which is that it opens a market of 260 million people for agrifood but also for other sectors of the Irish and wider European economies, with new opportunities for EU dairy, wine, spirits, other beverages and olive oil, as well as a number of other processed agricultural products, including high-quality products, such as the ones protected under the agreement as geographical indications. We believe we have got the balance right. The ultimate decision is for the Council, which means the member states, with the consent of the European Parliament.

The Commissioner and delegation are very welcome. I thank the Commissioner for his presentation. I welcome the nitrates derogation. I know it has to go through certain phases yet but it is a recognition of the type of farming that is done in this country. It is very much a grass-based agricultural sector. Mercosur concerns Irish farmers greatly but I think people do not realise that Argentinian and Brazilian beef has been coming into this country for the last 30 years. It is all the prime cuts - the striploins, sirloins and fillet heads, all the expensive stuff. If you stay in any hotel in the city today, you can probably get Argentinian or Brazilian steak. That has been going on for quite a while. There is an issue with the quality of the product coming in. That certainly has to be regulated. It has to comply with all regulations, as Irish farmers have to comply with them. They are stringent regulations.

CAP is a concern for farmers. There is talk that the CAP payment may be doubled up with some other form of payment. I am not sure about that, but I would like to say that that payment is keeping family farms alive and viable. Given the price of cattle this year, this is the first year that suckler beef people have got any compensation for the work they have done. Anything that will interfere with that will have serious consequences for rural family farms.

In relation to Gaza, what is going on there is shocking. I remember a number of years ago seeing the number of people shot and murdered in Bosnia. People looked on at the time and we hoped and prayed that we would never see anything like that again. Unfortunately, what has happened in Gaza is absolutely outrageous. It has all been said before, but it is shocking. While Mr. Trump's peace deal is welcome and saving lives, the peace process is favouring the aggressor in this case, and the people of Gaza have had to put their hands up and surrender. That is not a peace deal that will last very long. I know the two-state solution has been discussed over and back. I know it is not the Commissioner's brief, but what does he think of that? Where does that stand at the moment? To me, it is the most logical answer to the problem.

I thank Deputy Scanlon. It is important to highlight some of the numbers involved in Mercosur. It provides for, over time and on a graduated basis, 99,000 tonnes of additional beef to be exported from the Mercosur countries to the European Union at a tariff rate of 7.5%. In addition, we should recognise that it represents about 1.5% of total European beef production. The other side of the equation here is that you will see significant reductions in tariffs on exports from the European Union to Mercosur countries, with about 90% of tariff heads enjoying a reduction, which opens significant export opportunities for all the member states of the European Union to a market of 260 million people. We have to look at the overall context globally, where we see the rise of trade barriers and fragmentation in the multilateral system. The EU has to pursue a strategy of trade diversification so that we develop new markets for all our goods and services. Commissioner Šefčovič has had much success in the first year of his mandate in concluding new agreements with a number of countries, and we are in advanced negotiations with a number of others.

We need to diversify our export base, but it has to be with safeguards, and I assure farmers and all those in the industry in Ireland that there will be no compromise on food safety and standards of products coming into Ireland. There will be rigorous testing, which we will step up. We will do audits in the countries themselves and we will put in place a new legislative safeguard to help ensure that we protect the sector in the European Union, including in Ireland. It is now for the member states to adjudicate and the European Parliament, ultimately, to come to a view on that.

Hopefully, I will get a chance in a moment to return to the CAP. The proposal is that it would be within this national and regional partnership plan. The funding is assured. I have been working closely with all of our colleagues. Commissioner Hansen has been leading the work on this. He is satisfied that it is a fair and balanced overall proposal that gives additional flexibility and allows member states to allocate additional funding through the national and regional partnership plan.

The two-state solution is the EU policy on Israel and Gaza. It is the only sustainable basis for peace in the long run. We also recognise and have been on record as saying that the illegal settlements are making the achievement of that even more difficult, so those need to stop, because ultimately, a two-state solution is the best basis for a long-term and permanent peace in the region, which is what we want to see achieved.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an gCoimisinéir. I welcome the announcement yesterday by the European Council that there was now an agreed Council position on a regulation to prevent and combat child sexual abuse. Obviously, the European Parliament did its work on that in late 2023 and now the negotiations will take place to bring that to a conclusion. It is great that there will be obligations on digital companies to prevent dissemination of child sexual abuse material and the solicitation of children. National authorities will have the power to oblige the removal and blocking of access to content, including delisting search results, and there will be a new EU agency, the EU centre on child sexual abuse, to support member states. Much good work has been done in the area of protecting children from the harmful effects of pornography under the heading of the Digital Services Act. Domestically, we have the work of Coimisiún na Meán and so on. I attended a meeting of the Lanzarote Committee last week, which is responsible for the implementation of the Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse. One issue coming up was the tremendous risk posed by the use of artificial intelligence to generate child sexual abuse material. I presume that will be well covered by the forthcoming regulation.

Another issue is the reality that child sexual abuse material and pornography generally is fite fuaite online. While much is being done, not enough is being done to prevent children from having access to pornography generally. Pornography is a public health issue for adults and children, requiring different responses for adults accessing it compared with children accessing it. It is linked to addiction, mental health problems and violence towards women and children in particular. I do not believe the EU has yet caught up with the need to protect young people from the dangers, even if progress is being made, because it remains the case that it is easier for a child to access pornography online than it is to engage in a gambling transaction or buy a set of headphones, because a child would require a credit card to do those things. I am asking the Commissioner about this because I know he would share the concern I am expressing.

One issue that arises is the ability of member states to take the direct steps that they would want to take to protect children in this context. In America, for example, in certain states there has been bipartisan support among Republicans and Democrats for creating, basically, strict liability for porn-providing companies if children manage to access their material, and civil liability. This has forced the closure of some services within particular states.

I attempted to bring this forward in the form of legislation. I will conclude with a question. The issue that comes up is that Ireland's ability to legislate in this area in the way it might like could well be curtailed by our EU obligations in this area. Could the Commissioner comment on whether more can be done to allow member states take the necessary protective steps they might want to take by means of criminal or civil law?

The Senator raises a pertinent issue. It is one we are rightly paying much closer attention to. It is a nightmare for parents when they realise that their children might be one click away from accessing material that they really should not be seeing/ We have to do more. Under the Digital Services Act, actions are under way against some of these websites for having inadequate safeguards and protections in place around age verification. Clearly, those actions need to take their course and due process will need to be followed, but there is no doubt that this is an issue of major concern. It is open to member states to take actions in a manner consistent with EU law, so we can perhaps address that issue offline and explore what potential there may be for member states, on a unilateral basis, to take additional steps. At an EU level, we are focused on implementing the rule book we have, which is quite strict. Implementing and enforcing that rule book now will lead to positive change and better safeguards being put in place to protect children online.

The Senator has rightly highlighted the fact that the Council has now agreed its negotiating mandate on the proposed regulation to prevent and combat child sexual abuse. That is a good thing. I am glad it has reached agreement. I hope we can see negotiations proper get under way with the Parliament in the near future because there is a deadline. There is currently an interim legal basis for the right of the authorities to access such information with a view to identifying risks and culprits. We cannot allow a lacuna in the law to be created by the failure to pass that regulation in time.

I have been discussing this with ministerial colleagues. I should acknowledge that it comes under the remit of my Commission colleague Magnus Brunner and his team at DG HOME rather than DG JUST, but we support them very much in their efforts. I have in my discussions pointed to what we are trying to achieve here. We are trying to protect children and we are trying to prevent the dissemination and spread of child sexual abuse material online and the solicitation of children. To my mind, any other concerns one might have should be put to one side in light of the importance and the gravity of the issue at hand.

We hope to see progress on that regulation in the near future, but perhaps we can have a chance to engage bilaterally on the more substantive question of what a member state can and cannot do in parallel with the Commission's implementation of our rule book through the DSA.

I call Senator Andrews.

I thank the Commissioner for coming in. Lynn Boylan MEP and officials have been banned by Israel from travelling to the West Bank, this along with the fact that 150 or more European citizens were kidnapped from international waters. Does the Commission have a view on that? Will it do anything about it? Will it just allow Israel to be unaccountable again? I am curious about the Commissioner's definition of what constitutes a ceasefire. Israel has murdered 327 Palestinians in the past month, since this fake, so-called ceasefire came into place. Some 136 of them were children. Does the Commissioner actually refer to it as a ceasefire? It is clearly not a ceasefire. There are multiple breaches every day. Food is not getting in as it should be. There is still genocide. There is still hunger there. Do Mr. McGrath and the Commission a view on that? Are there any attempts to make Israel accountable for its actions and for the dismantling of international law? It does not portray the EU in a good light when it is seen to be complicit with Israel. The EU would-----

I am just conscious of leaving time to give the Commissioner time to answer the questions.

That would be great. I ask for his view on those couple of points.

Of course, and I thank the Senator for raising those points. No one should be dying during ceasefire. A full ceasefire means peace and no violence and no death. Clearly, it is not a perfect or full ceasefire in that sense if people are dying. We want to see, as I said earlier in response to some of the Senator's colleagues, unhindered humanitarian access. We want to see a complete, full ceasefire and the return of any remains of hostages still in Gaza. We need to focus on getting a permanent peace. That is why we need to get meaningful negotiations under way that can address that. I have already spoken about the illegal settlements, which clearly should be stopped. That is making the possibility of achieving a durable peace even more difficult. Our position on that is very clear.

The European Parliament has followed up on the question of the established right of access of Members of the Parliament to a third country and to a jurisdiction such as Israel, which should be respected. There are parliamentary norms in that regard, and all of those should be fully respected. In addition, the HR-VP, Kaja Kallas, has engaged directly with the Israeli authorities in relation to issues around rights of access and the fair treatment of EU citizens on all these issues, including their right to safety when they are in the territory. We continue to follow up on all these issues and, as I said in response to some of the Senator's colleagues earlier, we proposed a range of sanctions that require the support of member states by qualified majority voting at Council level. To date, that has not been forthcoming, as the Senator knows, and that is the reality. We use the tools and the channels available to us, not least being the biggest donor, as we should be, of humanitarian aid to Gaza. That will continue, and we will use our voice and the powers we have as a Commission within our mandate set out in the treaties. As the Senator knows, there is the exclusive role of the European Council in respect of the Common Foreign and Security Policy; it is not with the Commission. We seek to implement what is agreed, and Kaja Kallas has used her voice as effectively as she possibly can in the interests of peace and of ensuring that the right to life of everybody in the region is fully respected. We have been on record in relation to the catastrophe that has developed over the past two years. The ceasefire, to call it that, needs to be full and unequivocal whereby nobody in the region loses their life from here on.

Senator O'Loughlin indicated. I might give her two minutes.

I appreciate it. Mr. McGrath is very welcome. The last time we had an engagement was when the committee visited Brussels. It is great to have him with us now.

The democracy shield is a really interesting project. I just wonder how it will be implemented in practice and what role Ireland can play in determining its priorities during our Presidency.

What steps can be taken by the Commission to ensure inclusive policies within the EU, including protections for LGBT communities, for example?

I thank Senator O'Loughlin for those questions. In relation to the democracy shield, my immediate priority now is the setting up of the new centre we have announced, the centre for democratic resilience. It will be a hub, a focal point and a means of ensuring full collaboration between the different EU institutions, the member states and other stakeholders. There is a lot of good work already happening in detecting and responding to any interference attempts, whether it be foreign information, manipulation and interference, the spread of disinformation or whether it comes internally from the European Union. Not all the threats are external and I am very open and honest about that. It is about pulling together and making sure the different capabilities in some member states are shared and made available through this centre to the entire European Union. That is the kernel of what we are seeking to do. Participation, as I have said, is voluntary because we must respect the legal competence of the member states in the conduct of elections, but we do provide as much support as we can and we facilitate co-ordination. There is a European co-operation network on elections where the Commission co-ordinates the work of all the electoral authorities in the member states to come together, exchange best practice and share information. We provide tools and guidance to help them in their work.

It is important to highlight that we will be investing more in supporting our citizens directly. The individual citizen is the first line of defence for our democracy. The more informed they are, therefore, and the better access to information they have, the stronger our democracy will be. Investment in digital and media literacy, engaging with young people directly, going to all parts of the European Union - not just the capital cities but getting into the regions and towns- are going to be important parts of this. It is also about investing in the foundations of our democracy such as an independent media sector, which is a crucial watchdog; a civil society where grassroots organisations are supported, given funding and allowed to flourish and speak their mind freely; and an independent justice system and a commitment to the rule of law. All of these are essential ingredients in a fully functioning democratic society. In addition, we cannot ignore the difficult issue of interference attempts because it is a reality and it has manifested in elections we have observed. There is a lot of independent evidence, not least in the case of the recent election in Moldova, where the Russian interference was at a level of complexity that had not been seen before.

I thank the Commissioner and Senator O'Loughlin-----

It did not come off though.

No, it did not work.

I might put a few questions to the Commissioner on my own behalf. Can I push back a small bit regarding Gaza? I understand the restrictions on the Commission and the fact the Council is not facilitating the sanctions that were put together. I also understand that certain countries have a totally different experience and history with the establishment of the State of Israel from ours. However, I do not know that the outward messages from the Commission are as clear as the Commissioner is saying they are in terms of either Kaja Kallas or the President, and I say that in circumstances where I share a party with President von der Leyen. The Commission earlier mentioned her state of the Union address. She talked about what was happening in Gaza being unacceptable, but she never said that what Israel was doing in Gaza was unacceptable. In the next paragraph, she said she was a firm friend of Israel. I do not necessarily think those two statements are mutually exclusive, but notwithstanding what the Commission has put together, the rhetoric from the Commission does not reflect the sanctity of the rule of law, which should be central to the operation of the European Union. The Commissioner mentioned the need for illegal settlements to stop; I agree with him. He said aid needs to get in; I agree with him. He said the killing must stop; I agree with him. Yet, the EU-Israel association agreement continues. There are no sanctions against Israel. There are no actions by the European Union, and the greatest fear I have in that regard is that it is going to fracture the positive relationship Irish people have with Europe. We have 86% approval for EU membership. That is going to drop because people no longer have faith that the European Union is doing what they need it to do at an international level.

Regarding the EU-Mercosur trade deal, I do not think there is a competition issue because the product we have in this country is vastly different from what is being supplied from South America, but I do have a consumer protection issue. I know the Commissioner has said there will be controls, but how can we be certain with the volume of material that is likely to come under that trade deal? I am talking about not just meat from Brazil and Argentina but consumer goods generally. How can we be sure of the quality and the standards of them coming in? How is the European Commission going to absolutely guarantee that there is not going to be a drop in those standards?

In relation to the rule of law generally, every European Union country is a signatory to the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court. At the same time, large western so-called developed democracies like the United States are placing sanctions on staff and judges in the ICC in relation to arrest warrants they issue for what is happening in Gaza. What is the Commission doing about that?

Thank you, Cathaoirleach. We strongly support the work of the International Criminal Court. I have visited it and met its representatives. We are monitoring the situation very closely and staying in contact with the Dutch authorities as well. We have not ruled out any option at this stage. It is important that the ICC be empowered and enabled to continue with its crucial work. That is our goal, and we will do everything we possibly can to ensure that is achieved. We stay in close contact with the ICC. We note the sanctions that are now in place, which we regret and do not support. We will do everything we need to do to ensure the ICC's important work can continue.

Regarding Mercosur and consumer goods generally, the key point to make is that EU standards apply in respect of products coming into the European Union. Whether they are small parcels coming in from China, where I was a couple of weeks ago, or beef coming from a Mercosur country, EU standards must apply and we will make sure the necessary resources and systems are in place to give effect to that, through additional testing, third country audits and so on. That is an important issue.

On Gaza and Israel, I understand the Cathaoirleach's sentiment. The Commission made significant proposals in relation to the EU-Israel association agreement. We have not achieved the level of agreement necessary to give effect to those proposals and implement them. The circumstances have changed significantly - not absolutely, but significantly - since then and we need to see continued progress. However, our proposals remain on the table, that is, the sanctions we are empowered to propose but not execute without the democratic agreement of the Council of the European Union in the form of the member states. The truth is there are divisions. There are different historical experiences and different perspectives and that has prevented a situation whereby the EU has been able to speak with one voice. Regrettably, it has not been able to speak with one voice and I know political leaders in Ireland have highlighted that reality in recent months. We are focused on what we can do within our powers to provide practical support and assistance to the people of the region, primarily the people of Gaza, and make sure they get the aid they need and to use our voice within the mandate we have from the European Council to advocate for peace and a two-state solution and to continue to invest in everything that will get us to that end goal.

Thank you, Commissioner. I am conscious of time. We could have gone for another two hours. I hope we will have the opportunity to engage with the Commissioner again in the near future. I thank him sincerely for taking the time to come and talk to us today and answering all the questions on such a wide but important array of topics. I wish him the very best of luck over the next four years. I hope we will see him during that period.