As the Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach are unavoidably absent, I thank members for nominating me as temporary Cathaoirleach for today's meeting. The purpose of today's meeting is to continue our discussions regarding EU enlargement. I am pleased that we are joined by Ms Marta Kos, the European Commissioner for Enlargement and her team. They include Ms Andreja Viher-White, cabinet expert; Mr. Izak Miklavcic, policy assistant; Mr. Niall Casey, deputy head of representation; and Ms Muireann Geary, information and communication officer. They are very welcome to the committee today.

The issue of enlargement is one of the priority topics of the work programme of the committee. We have held two hearings this year on the topic with the ambassadors of enlargement countries, with further meetings planned for later in the year. Outside of our normal committee meetings, we have also engaged with a significant number of visiting delegations. I was heartened to see the enlargement process described in the Presidency priorities detailed and unveiled yesterday as a key expression of our values and as an investment in peace, security, stability and prosperity across Europe.

As the Commissioner and members know, the European Union's values are central to the enlargement process. In this country, we remember a Union of just six countries initially going way back. These values are set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union as respect for human rights, dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. Ireland has hugely benefited from the advantages offered by EU membership since joining 53 years ago. It is important to us that other countries can aspire to and achieve the level of prosperity and stability offered by EU membership in the same way as we have.

I will read a note on privilege. 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 her, him 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 directed 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 her, him or it identifiable. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member 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 any member partaking via Microsoft Teams that, prior to making their contribution to the meeting, they confirm that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

Commissioner Kos now has as much time as she wishes to make her opening statement, after which we will then open the floor to questions, comments and observations from members.

I thank the Acting Chair and honourable members of the committee. It is a privilege to address the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Union Affairs.

Europe was born from a simple but extraordinary idea that history does not have to repeat itself. That a continent marked for centuries by war, division and domination could choose another path - a path built on democracy, solidarity and shared destiny. For more than 70 years this idea has transformed Europe. Countries once separated by dictatorship joined a union of democracies. Borders that divided peoples became bridges connecting them. Nations that had known fear and instability found security, as the Acting Chair has said, prosperity, and confidence within the European Union. Each enlargement made Europe stronger. We saw it in southern Europe after the fall of authoritarianism regimes. We saw it after the end of the Cold War when the countries of central and eastern Europe returned to the European family. We saw it in Ireland, in my own country of Slovenia, and across a continent that became more united, more prosperous, and more secure because Europe chose openness over fear.

Today, we are called to make that choice again. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has reminded us that peace in Europe can never be taken for granted. Democracy is under pressure. The international order is becoming more fragmented and unstable. In such a world, enlargement is not a bureaucratic exercise. I love to say that enlargement is more than just enlargement; it is a geopolitical necessity. A larger and more united Europe will be stronger economically, more secure politically and more capable of acting decisively in defence of its values and interests. At the same time, enlargement is also something deeper. It is Europe’s promise that democracy, freedom and the rule of law remain stronger than violence, intimidation and spheres of influence. It is proof that the future of our continent will not be decided by force but by free nations choosing co-operation and shared values. That is why the European path matters so profoundly for Ukraine, Moldova and the six countries from western Balkans.

The people of Ukraine are defending not only their sovereignty but also their European future. Moldova has shown remarkable courage and resilience under enormous pressure. I have come here following a visit to those two countries in the past few days. In the western Balkans, countries such as Montenegro and Albania are accelerating reforms and demonstrating real commitment to membership. On 29 August, the people of Iceland will vote on whether they will restart membership negotiations with the EU. These countries are making difficult choices because they believe in Europe but now Europe must show that it believes in them too. That is why I hope Ireland and this committee will support the formal opening of negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova on cluster 1, which should happen next Monday, and support the timely opening of the remaining clusters thereafter, which we hope could happen on 14 July. At the same time, we should continue advancing negotiations with Albania and Montenegro, with the objective of closing as many chapters as possible in the years ahead. That is why we have high hopes for the Irish Presidency of the Council. We can be as successful in the technical part of the negotiations but the Irish Presidency will be the master of the procedure. We will not be able to move on without Ireland's hard work on the Presidency. Of course, what we agree is that enlargement must remain firmly merit based and credibility depends on it. Where countries deliver reforms, Europe must also be ready to move forward. Where there is backsliding, we must be equally clear and consistent.

Let us recognise the historic nature of the moment before us. Future enlargement by 2030 is no longer an abstract possibility. For the first time in many years, a truly larger European Union is within reach. The last enlargement took place in 2013 when Croatia joined the Union. That means candidate countries must continue their reforms. It also means the EU itself must prepare politically, institutionally and strategically for a Union of more than 30 member states. This is not simply about managing enlargement. It is about shaping the Europe we want for the next generation. A Europe that is stronger because it is united. A Europe that protects democracy because it remembers its fragility. A Europe that understands that its greatest achievements came not when it closed itself off but when it had the confidence to grow. John Hume once called the European Union the best example in history of conflict resolution. He understood that peace, and again today it is about peace in Europe, is built when we respect differences and create institutions that allow us to work together and that is the promise of enlargement - to replace conflict with a shared European future to keep us all safe. That is why I really like the motto of the Irish Presidency, which is: Ní neart go cur le chéile.

I thank the Commissioner and she spoke flawless Irish. Does she think that the current EU institutional framework is fit for purpose for enlargement? Is it in need of evolution, reform or renewal? What are her views on that? What views has she picked up from member states?

What we see now is that we could do some things better, especially the decision-making process, meaning governance. We can also have a look into the finances. Of course we also have to see how to protect our values and I will state here why the values are so important. We have the experience that during the last years, especially the past year and a half, one member state was not following Article 4 for the European treaty, which speaks about sincere and loyal co-operation. I am speaking about Hungary. This is the country that gave candidate status to Ukraine but later blocked everything possible on the European path. This is also the country where the rule of law was not followed. This is the country where anti-corruption was spread all around the country.

One important part is how do we protect our values. This is what we are now considering when we prepare the accession treaty for Montenegro. A month ago we established for the first time after 17 years a working group that will prepare the accession treaty, and we see that there is a tendency that the member states are concerned about how to protect those values. This will be the accession treaty of a new generation where we will have to include more safeguards and I will come to this later.

On the decision-making process, as members will know, the European treaty puts down the importance of the unanimous decision-making process or that all the member states have a veto. Until a year ago this worked every time to enable member states to raise their concerns and then we sat down, discussed and reached a solution. As soon as this veto is misused for political purposes, we have a problem. For instance, the Common Market has a qualified majority decision-making process. That is why the Common Market is one of the best functioning areas we have in the European Union. For the field of security and foreign policy, we have unanimity, which means a veto, that one country can block even the topics before all 27 member states have agreed.

In the opinion of the European Commission, we should try to introduce a more qualified majority. To go back to the Deputy's question, there are things that we can do a lot better without changing the European treaty.

I welcome Commissioner Kos. It is interesting because I mentioned to her before the meeting that I have listened to her on the radio. She spoke about her experience when her own country acceded back in 2004 as part of the ten and about how Ireland's Presidency played a positive role in that respect. When she said she clearly hopes that Ireland will do the same during this term, I presume that is almost a certain hope. Has the Irish Government given any indications that it is looking to block any accession countries? I do not think that is the case.

No. There is no such indication. On the contrary-----

Great.

I have a couple of questions about specific states. We had the Turkish ambassador speaking before this committee a while back. She referenced that she had a very constructive meeting with Commissioner Kos during her visit to Türkiye. One of the stumbling blocks goes back to workers' rights and gender equality under chapter 19. The logjam was down to what the EU would allege to be illegal drilling activities in the eastern Mediterranean. Is it her view that Türkiye is taking a laissez-faire approach to its activities because it feels it is not ever going to get close to accession so why would it not do that? Does she think it would be more likely to work harder to fill in the remaining chapters if it thought it had a realistic chance? There are some countries that, due to historic disputes, would likely try to block Türkiye's accession. As Commissioner Kos mentioned in her radio interview, and I am sure she will say it here as well, increasingly the accession process is also about our collective security. She mentioned the Presidency slogan, "Ní neart go cur le chéile", meaning that there is no strength without unity. In that context, is it not the case that having Türkiye from a security perspective would be a great asset and that maybe the mood music needs to change?

Indeed. Türkiye is in my portfolio because it still has a candidate status. When I speak about Türkiye, there are two strains that define our relation. The first strain is the accession process, where nothing has moved since 2019 because of the drilling. The other part is where we have to admit that we cannot ignore a country that plays an important role in the economy and security of the European Union. Türkiye is the second strongest NATO member. For the time being, Türkiye is protecting the airspace above the Baltic states. This means that we try to find out where the areas are that we could advance our relations, or at least see our relation with fresh eyes. Regarding the modernisation of the customs union, we cannot do it in general because of the Council's conclusions, but we can do small pieces. Why would this be important? Last year, we did €230 billion in exchange of trade. This is more than twice as much as with all the Mercosur countries together, but we are still using an instrument - the customs union - that was made 30 years back. The idea is the benefits of our countries and what we can do better.

They were very upset in Türkiye when we started discussing what is made in Europe. It said that it did not want to be excluded. We decided that we will enable it to be included if it gives the same possibilities for our companies to be part of its public procurement. In such circumstances, we would include it too. The good news from Türkiye is that it is working on the modernisation of its public procurement. The most important part, as the Deputy mentioned, is collective security. Türkiye is playing a very important role in our important strategy on the connectivity agenda. This is how to connect Europe better with central Asia through Armenia and Azerbaijan. In my portfolio I have enlargement, but also eastern partnership. Armenia and Azerbaijan are in my portfolio. Since the war in Ukraine, the trade routes from China to Europe have been broken because of the war. Since we have the war in Iran, the trade routes in the south are also affected. This middle corridor is playing a more and more important role. Nothing will happen in Armenia - Deputy Lahart told me he has been there - without the support of Türkiye or without this triangle relation.

Generally, we are living in times when we are upset if our candidate country is not following our values. I am speaking about the rule of law, human dignity and media freedom. On the other hand, we have to take care of our own interests. We have to see how we can build EU-Turkish relations on this basis. I do not expect that we will be able to go on with the accession process in Türkiye very soon.

Great. I thank Commissioner Kos. I am conscious of time. I would love to have mentioned four or five countries. I would like to mention Albania, which is next after Montenegro unless Iceland decides to fast track, in the context of the recent controversy with the protests about the Trump resort. Does that plan breach any EU environmental laws? Will it, in any way, delay the process? Is this a storm in a teacup that the Albanian people will sort out themselves in the next couple of months?

This is in the area of chapter 27, on the environment. It is very much important. Until now, Albania has been following the rules. It has done a lot to protect nature. In this case, we are now in contact with its environment Minister. He promised that we will get all the information. For the time being, what we see is that there are so many facts running around. As in the case of alumina from Ireland, first we should see the facts and then we should act upon this. We have to have a guarantee from the Government of Albania that it will follow all the European legislation on the area of protecting the environment and species. It is also about birds.

I am not going to go down the road of asking questions about particular accession countries. It does not really help. We could go through all the countries. Türkiye was mentioned in relation to its human rights record and the jailing of journalists and judges. We could go into all of that. I do not think it is necessary this morning.

I was glad that Commissioner Kos started off by speaking about the challenge around unanimous agreement being required, and the difficulty of that with the additional members joining. Have there been any high-level discussions about reforming voting rules, such as limiting powers for new members or creating forms of phased or associate membership before full accession? Can the EU reform its institutions to function effectively after enlargement without weakening the democratic representation? There is already consensus about the democratic deficit in the EU. Hindering a new member's ability to represent itself will not help.

A key concern about the EU is its perceived democratic deficit. We hear stories about the challenges in that regard. Critics argue that decision-making can seem distanced from the EU's citizens - I think Poles would suggest that - with complex institutions reducing transparency and accountability. Although the directly elected European Parliament has gained powers in recent times, some believe national voters have limited influence over important EU policies and decisions. What institutional reforms are needed to ensure that an enlarged EU remains effective and democratically accountable?

As the EU enlarges, it faces new security challenges, which Commissioner Kos mentioned, including increasingly diverse foreign policy interests. New member states may have different historical experiences, strategic priorities and relationships with neighbouring countries. We have seen that emerge again over the years. This can make it harder for the EU to reach a consensus on issues such as defence, migration, sanctions and international conflicts. We can see that in relation to the genocide happening in Gaza. While enlargement can strengthen the EU's global influence, it may also complicate decision-making and require greater co-operation to maintain unified security and foreign affairs. How will EU enlargement affect the Union's ability to develop and implement a coherent foreign policy? Lastly, is there an indicative timeframe for the next country to join?

There are a number of questions there but they are all essentially about the idea that while in this Parliament I think we are all in favour of enlargement, there are challenges in relation to facing that. I know it will be a priority for the Irish Government in relation to our Presidency, but if we do not solve or try to solve these problems that are clearly there with a smaller EU, how will we manage them as we move from 32 member states to 33, 34 and so on?

I thank Ireland for the support of its Parliament and of its citizens for the enlargement process. Some 69% of its citizens are supportive, which is really good to see. We have some countries where the support is below 50%, and we have to work on that.

To the Deputy's question generally, enlargement can be successful only if with new member states entering we will get stronger, not weaker. This is what we see. It is getting more and more important after the enlargement of 2004. Before, this was not a problem. That is why the Deputy talked about the democratic deficit. One deficit, one area, is in the candidate countries, where the whole accession process is built on strengthening their democracies and democratic institutions to be able, based on the Copenhagen criteria, to be equal partners in the EU. That is why it takes time. I will give the Deputy an example. He has probably heard that President Zelenskyy said he wants Ukraine to become a member of the EU by 1 January 2027. It is not possible. It cannot be. Even if from the geostrategic point of view it would probably be clever that we get Ukraine in as soon as possible, we cannot afford that because this will make us weaker. We have to prepare the country in order that it will be able to have democratic institutions and a stable economy; otherwise it would harm us.

The other part is that we also have member states with democratic deficits. That is why Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union is so important. We have a tool whereby we cannot give our member states money if they are not following the principles or the rules of the European Union.

Getting bigger and bigger is also a concern. I was heavily criticised by some people in November when I had an interview with the Financial Times and I said we have to prohibit Trojan horses from coming into the European Union. Now everybody is talking about this danger. What I meant was that we cannot be sure that once we get new members on board, they will follow forever the rules we have. We have to have tools as to how not to enable those possible Trojan horses to ruin us. That is why we are thinking now of these special safeguards I started to talk about when I answered Deputy Lahart's questions. Those safeguards are nothing new in the processes in all the accession treaties we have had, but this time we would have to have a new generation of the safeguards in the sense that the new member states will follow the rules also after five, ten or 50 years once they have joined. We are now in discussions with member states as to what these safeguards could be like. Could we take away the money? Could we go into taking away countries' voting rights? Nothing is decided yet, but the general rule is that if the new member states follow the rules of the European Union, they will not even feel those safeguards, but if they go against the rules the safeguards will bite hard. This is something new for the European Union. Until now, we have built on the trust that once we have new member states they will all follow the rules. We now know that that is not the case, so the question is how to protect ourselves.

I come to the next part of the Deputy's question. One area is that we have some candidate countries with different strategic orientations. Leaving aside Türkiye and Georgia, where we do not negotiate but which are candidate countries, and taking the rest of the candidates, only one country is not aligned 100% with the common security and foreign policy of the European Union, and that is Serbia. The rest are aligned. We are measuring Serbia's current alignment regularly at between 55% and 65%. Before entering the EU, it will have to be 100%. Serbia is, for the time being, not supporting the sanctions against Russia. It will not be able to become a member of the EU going that way. Serbia will have to decide. It has strong relations with Russia, which, coming from that area, from the historical point of view, I can understand, but Serbia will have to decide on which chair it wants to sit in the future. Because of geostrategic positioning today, this will be a very strict area, and without this we cannot have the security. Of course, talking about the foreign policy of our member states, we know that each and every member state has its own interest, and that is good. When we talk about common European foreign policy, this is a lot of discussion and these are a lot of decisions which sometimes are very difficult, and sometimes we cannot even make them.

European stability is another very important point the Deputy mentioned. Today Europe is squeezed between East and West. When I speak about enlargement today, we are in a situation as never before in the enlargement process. We see the adversaries who would like to see us fail. For instance, when there were parliamentary elections in Armenia last year, we saw that Russia invested between €300 million and €400 million to bring our candidate country away from the European path. We engaged. For the first time, the European Union has helped a candidate country to fight the hybrid war. This is an area which is crucial for our European stability. This danger is not coming just from the East; it is coming also from the West.

Hearing what MAGA ideologists are saying, we have to prepare to be able to answer. MAGA ideologists claim that our democracy is in decline. They claim that our economy, and even our civilisation, are in decline. We have to know how to fight back for our democracy. I know that values are important here in Ireland, and that they will be a very important part of its Presidency. This is becoming more important than ever before because we have adversaries - autocratic regimes and some others - who would like to see Europe fail. When they attacked Moldova, it was just the first target. The main target was us.

To go back to the institutional reforms the Deputy started with, since 2024, we have been doing the so-called pre-accession review inside the European Union on four areas, namely, values, finances, governance and policies. I hope, even before the summer break, that we will be able to bring the first results as to how we will act upon this, which means getting ready, not just for the newcomers to join us, but also to respond to the geopolitical situation in which we have to fight for ourselves. We have never been under this pressure, where the international rules are no longer important for some countries. We will have to fight for a more independent Europe, not just in the field security but also in the field of tax sovereignty. For instance, 70% of our data in Europe are on the cloud networks of companies from the United States. This has never been a problem.

The other area is rare materials. Do we have enough rare materials in Europe? Do we have enough energy sources? Can we handle food and water security? These are areas we did not care that much about because the world was different, but today these dependencies are weaponised against us. Before the war in the Ukraine, we imported 60% of our gas from Russia. We are now turning this around. We are still importing close to 10%. We have to see how to get out of these dependencies in order that our citizens will still live in prosperity.

I went a bit broader in my answer, but this is what the Deputy also asked about. Never before has our European Union been under such geopolitical pressure. That is why we need new partnerships. There is also the discussion now about whether the UK will come back as a candidate country. It does not matter that much. Its people will decide that, of course, but it is important for us that the European Union has good relations and a partnership with the United Kingdom. It is good that we a good partnership and relationship with Türkiye. It is important that we have good relations with Canada and other like-minded countries. This does not mean that every country will be able to become or is capable of becoming a member of the EU, but we really need trusted partners in order to keep our union strong.

I thank the Deputy for this broader set of questions because they are so important. I was talking to the head of the committee yesterday about how we can talk to our citizens more about these topics. When I speak about enlargement, it is more than just enlargement; it is also about security. The security angle has never been as demanding as it is today. For instance, based on Eurobarometer polling, 80% of our citizens are of the opinion that the EU should do more for security in Europe. Some 70% of our citizens say they feel threatened by Russia, so we have to take this seriously. As the Deputy knows, security and defence are not common policies of the EU, but we have to find a way to co-operate on these further.

I am interested in what Ms Kos said about trusted partners. The UK is our closest neighbour, but the relationship between the UK and Europe has never been anything but fraught, and the political environment in the UK is becoming even more fraught. Ms Kos spoke about MAGA, which is 3,000 miles away. There is a kind of a MAGA movement in the UK as well.

I am reassured when Ms Kos says that we really need to know that a country is trustworthy if it accedes to the EU. We do not want a bad apple in the barrel. We saw the impact Hungary had, and Brexit caused convulsions, particularly for this country. Without the assistance and support of the EU, it would have been much more difficult.

What is Ms Kos's impression of how EU countries feel about the accession of Ukraine?

Regarding the UK, we still think in the EU that it was bad idea that the UK left. I spoke about the threats we are getting today from this hybrid war. When the UK decided to have a referendum on getting out of the EU, the attitude of the European Union was that this was the UK's internal affairs, and we did not interfere. That is the biggest difference. We did not even say, "Dear Brits, we love you, please stay". We thought that would be interfering. With Moldova, we invested manpower and money. The UK also helped us because the biggest fear we have today is whether our democracies will live. In this respect, this co-operation with the UK is important. Even if the polls show that close to 60% of citizens would be in favour of the UK rejoining the EU, I do not expect this to happen very soon. Personally, I would be happy to have the UK as part of my portfolio.

Speaking about the accession of Ukraine, there is a general positive attitude towards the accession of this country in most member states but, of course, we are aware that Ukraine still has a lot to do to be able to advance. When I responded to Deputy Crowe, I said that building democratic institutions is what needs to be done in Ukraine a lot. There also needs to be economic and societal transformation. The important part of the accession process is exactly this. We see that Ukraine has made huge advances in the field of anti-corruption institutions, but some things still need to be done. One part is having laws on paper but the other part is implementing those laws.

We see that for the security of Europe, Ukraine will be indispensable. This country has advanced so much in providing security or being able to defend itself. Members will know that there were estimations, even among some military organisations, that Ukraine would fall after one week. We are now in the fifth of the war, and Ukraine is capable of fighting back and withstanding the pressure or military actions from Russia. Whatever we think about this country, Europe will not be able to be safe without Ukraine.

We did not think that Russia would be a threat to European security. We do not know how far the regime in the Kremlin is willing to go. I have just visited Lithuania, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs said at one public event that if Lithuania were not a part of the EU and NATO, today it would be part of Russia. I found this a very strong statement. When we talked afterwards I asked him if he was really serious about this statement, and he said he was dead serious. We have different sentiments about how much of this Russian threat the people are feeling, and we have to take this seriously. This is one reason the membership of Ukraine is important to us. However, it will not be possible unless Ukraine also does the whole merit-based process. This means building up institutions and aligning with the EU acquis on every possible level.

What we are discussing now - and there are the ideas of different leaders - is if we could integrate, not just Ukraine, but all the other candidate countries in some areas before they enter the EU. For instance, as an example of third countries, Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are part of the Schengen area. They can participate at the Council. They cannot make decisions with us but they are part of some subsystems of the European Union. We have the euro. Not every country is part of the euro area, even some that are members of the EU. We are now discussing - and I welcome all the ideas of our leaders - how we could ensure the country benefits before it becomes a member of the EU, especially regarding Ukraine because the process will be long. We have good experiences in the field of the Common Market. For instance, Ukraine is a part of the mobile roaming system of Europe. Ukraine is now working on being part of the single euro payments area, SEPA. Moldova already has both. SEPA is also in the western Balkans. There are many areas, including energy independence where we could do this.

This is one part, so it is indispensable having Ukraine. The path will be long but let us have a look at which areas Ukraine could be part of Europe before accession. What we see from the member states now is that agriculture is an issue where many member states have concerns. Ukraine is a country with a strong agriculture sector. From the past, we know that whenever we decide to take a country into the EU, we also have transitional periods and the safeguards I was talking about before. When Poland entered in 2004, it got a transitional period of 20 years for agriculture. This means that Poland was only fully integrated into this very important European Union policy in 2024.

That is a very comprehensive response. It is as good a grasp of a portfolio as I have heard in a long time.

I thank the Commissioner for being with us today. Regarding her last comments, we are all aware of Ukraine's importance for so many reasons. First and foremost, it is fighting a war on our eastern front, which is ultimately protecting the rest of us. The EU has said it will now move to open cluster 1 following the historic lifting of the Hungarian veto. How do we ensure that future negotiations remain merit based and protected from any further politically motivated blockades, such as the one we have seen there?

On the coupling of Ukraine and Moldova, Moldova is one of the most advanced in its membership attempt, with 93% success in its growth plan. I found it interesting that the Deputy Prime Minister of Moldova recently stated that unification with Romania could be the country's plan B. In light of this, and given Moldova's promotion and the fact that Ukraine, which is coupled with it, is lagging a bit behind, in order to maintain stability, will the Commission support complete uncoupling? This would mean going back to a merit-based system because, as I said, the uncoupling in terms of its progress for many different reasons would seem unfair. Is there a solution in that regard or how can that circle be squared?

From an Irish point of view, we are very pro-enlargement. Most importantly, it has to be done with democracy, our values and the rule of law at its core. My apologies if the Commissioner spoke about Albania earlier, but while Albania is technically meeting its rule-of-law benchmarks, key member states such as Germany, France and the Netherlands are still very sceptical about Albania's commitment to the rule of law, particularly given the most recent high-level corruption cases, including, for instance, the country's Deputy Prime Minister. How do we see proof of implementation, rather than just adoption of laws and a circumstance where a country can fill out the form and tick a box? What can Albania do to reassure member states that it is fully compliant and can secure belief and faith from us to support the closure of these chapters during the Irish Presidency?

Regarding Montenegro, it was interesting in May to see the Netherlands block the closure of chapter 2 by demanding an extension of the labour market restrictions on Montenegrin workers. We have to be very mindful in that regard and it is important that the Commission works to overcome this protectionist friction. How do we prevent something like this happening going forward?

On how to ensure the merit-based principle on both sides, I agree completely that we did not talk about this very much in the past. The question is why that was the case. As a representative of the European Commission, I feel a strong responsibility that once the candidate countries are delivering, we also have to deliver. Once we give a country candidate status, the responsibilities and commitments are also on our side. It is not just the candidates which have their role. It is not always easy. The Senator mentioned the case of Hungary which clearly was not working in favour. I talked at the beginning about Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union referring to loyal or sincere co-operation. It is good that the member states are bringing their concerns to the accession process. We have many possibilities for them to bring these in. The accession process is built on, in the sense that we listen also to the member states, but those bilateral issues should not block the process. For instance, the question of the Hungarian minority in Ukraine was actually the blocking reason for the Hungarian Government's position under Orbán. We were asking all the time to be allowed to open cluster 1, because in this there would be the best possibility to address all the issues. Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union about protecting minorities is so important that no country can become a member of the EU without protecting minorities. The Hungarian Government was not acting in good faith and the new government is also tough. I think it is right that member states are concerned about their minorities being taken good care of once they are members, but those concerns should not be misused. We have to talk a lot and explain from the side of the European Commission to the member states. This is about the credibility of the process.

I can connect that with the Senator's question on Albania, which has really done tremendous work in the field of the rule of law in the past ten years in building up institutions.

I agree with the Senator. The then Deputy Prime Minister Balluku was such a case. How do we evaluate that Albania's anti-corruption agency, SPAK, found this out? We could say it is bad that there was a Deputy Prime Minister under suspicion of corruption. On the other hand, we could say this anti-corruption agency is working. Both are possible. We should not be closing our eyes. The corruption is also in some member states and we have to take care of this too. This means it cannot be ticking the boxes. Again, that is why the process is so long. We took the concerns of some member states, such as the Benelux countries or Germany, regarding interim benchmarks for the rule of law in Albania. We were just saying this is also the recognition and we trust Albania that they have advanced. Once we start closing the chapters, this is the most serious part. First, we close chapters temporarily until the end. Second, if there is backsliding in between - meaning candidate countries have made the legislation but we do not know about the implementation - we now have enough time. For Albania, for instance, we just confirmed the interim benchmarks until the end of the process. We will be following this very-----

I thank the Commissioner for providing some reassurance. One of the concerns would be, to use just ordinary layperson's language, whether a country could fake progress or conceal lack of progress. Is she satisfied there are sufficient safeguards in place from the Commission's perspective that would expose efforts to do either of those things?

This is a very interesting question. I assure the committee that when I became a Commissioner the most surprising thing for me was how thorough the teams in Brussels are in following the development of a candidate country, not just in my services in DG ENEST. Around 1,000 people in different directorates are working for one candidate country. For instance, when we speak about the rule of law, it is not just my services; it is the Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, DG JUST.

The other part is the so-called enlargement report, which will come out in the second half of October. This enlargement report is a critical work on every chapter a candidate country is doing. Even if they sometimes have a tendency to report to us that they did something, we have a checking system of our delegations in those countries - a civil society organisation. We work heavily with the Council of Europe. We get information not just from the candidate countries but from the outside too. We can then be sure of what we say. It is also another case of merit based where we come into the specific situation. For the last three years, the opinion of the European Commission is that Serbia is fulfilling the criteria for opening cluster 3. This is about the economic development. As the country was backsliding on the rule of law, however, some member states were saying Serbia could not advance because of this. It is merit based for this specific area for cluster 3 but it is not good on the other areas. Then the member states have the possibility to say, "No. We want to see Serbia advancing in the other areas".

One very important question that was asked at the beginning was about decoupling Moldova and Albania. It was never a formal decision to couple the countries. We expect that once we open all the clusters for both of the countries, the country that delivers more will advance quicker.

They will not necessarily be tied in the way in which they currently are. Can I get clarity on a point made by the Commissioner earlier about temporary closure of chapters? Is that to say that if you close a chapter and advance with another one, and it then appears there may not have been full compliance with the closed chapter, that can be revisited before any final decision is made? The chapter can be reopened.

Indeed. That is why we say it is temporarily closed. We monitor this. For instance, Montenegro has closed 14 chapters until now. During the Irish Presidency we will have to work hard to enable it to close the rest. If we see some backsliding or development that is clearly going against the legislation on this chapter which we have provisionally closed, we can always, until the final green light from the Council, go back and deal with this chapter. Nothing is confirmed until everything is confirmed at the end.

I am under orders to conclude around 11.25 a.m. Deputies O'Donoghue and Gogarty might couple their questions together.

With enlargement and all the benefits that will bring, from cohesion to bigger markets for all member states, does the Commissioner have an opinion on the reformation or reorganisation of the institutions? How does she think the European Union should look in future in being able to bring in more member states and have a more cohesive organisation across it? Türkiye has formally called on the upcoming Irish Presidency to completely revoke the Council's conclusions of July 2019, unfreeze European Investment Bank operations and update the customs union, arguing that the geopolitical environment has shifted since the drilling disputes in the eastern Mediterranean. Does the Commission support setting aside political criteria in favour of such a transactional approach?

I have three questions and I will try to be as quick as I can. I know it is not the Commissioner's area specifically but given that Greenland opted out of EU membership in 1985 over fishery issues, has there been any moves either as part of the Kingdom of Denmark or a future independent Greenland to reintegrate within the European Union context, given Trump's attempts to annex?

Second, in relation to Hungary, I note there have been some more positive movements with the Magyar government, but there are crux issues. The Commissioner mentioned the Hungarians in Ukraine but equally there is an issue about the border and the EU migration pact. Could the Commission live with that fence staying in Hungary given that Europe in general, although here in Ireland people have questioned whether it is in our best interests or not, is moving towards a tougher immigration policy and that is what the pact is supposed to be about?

I have a technical question in relation to Ukraine. When Ukrainians met with us privately, an interesting issue they mentioned was that the way they designate their regions is not in keeping with EU requirements in terms of statistics and how the regions are set out. I am trying to look at the phrasing in a document here. It is the territorial units for statistics; I think it is called NUTS. They said the way they had organised their oblasts and provinces was totally different from what Europe is expecting in terms of different regions, the allocation of funding, population versus need, etc., and they are having huge problems with that. It is exacerbated by the war and annexed territories, which are included for statistical purposes. What sort of practical help can the Commission give Ukraine in that regard? It probably could do with some help. Those are the three questions.

This is the only time I will curtail the Commissioner. She has five minutes.

Deputy O'Donoghue kept his promise and came back. I thank him.

I was talking before about the reorganisation of the institutions. We are doing the so-called pre-accession review where we are working on the four areas to see how to prepare ourselves for the entry of the new member states. One area is values; the second area is governance, including the decision-making process; then financing; and the fourth area is policy. We are preparing this. Perhaps we will go public with our report before the summer break.

Regarding Türkiye, we are not moving on the field of the candidate country but in the opinion of the European Commission, we have to see our relations with Türkiye with fresh eyes. We cannot afford to ignore the country which has the second strongest army in NATO, which is economically so important for Europe. We do twice as much trade with Türkiye as we do with the Mercosur countries. We are already working on this. At the end of June I am travelling to Ankara together with the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission, Kaja Kallas, and Commissioner Brunner, Commissioner for Internal Affairs and Migration, to see how we could put this relationship on a new level.

There have been no such talks regarding Greenland. It is amazing to see how the involvement of the US in Greenland has evoked fear about what could happen in Denmark but also in Greenland. We are very happy that now we are enhancing our partnership with Greenland. Whatever we do there, we do together with Denmark. We have to show Greenland who is the better partner.

Regarding Hungary, we expect a lot from it but the changes cannot happen overnight. They are overwhelmed after 16 years of Viktor Orbán's rule. They have to change the whole system but especially in the areas that are so important in the accession process. They are doing this. We will see how they will handle it. Of course we expect that they will align with the migration policy.

It is very important and interesting to hear that members really know the details about what is going on in Ukraine. I thank them for that and express my admiration for it. One of the areas of reform Ukraine has to make is on decentralisation because only through it will it be possible for us to know exactly how advanced are the regions in this huge country. For the time being, it is not easy or they are not advancing with decentralisation. In my opinion most of the cause is that they have martial law. Because of it and the war, for some functions it is more clever to be centralised, but we have to prepare the country to be able to function once we have peace. In this respect they have to change the law. Sometimes, even if it is difficult, that is the easy part. What is more difficult is concrete action. We have a special group of advisers from the member states who are helping them. We are aware that for the time being it is not possible to the extent we want to see it, but they will have to do it in the future.

I have been looking at Mr. Miklavcic's surname because I did not get it right when I introduced him. I will try again - Miklavcic.

What the Chair said at the beginning was excellent.

I thank the Commissioner for transacting the meeting in English. It is not something we take for granted. She did it very articulately.

I thank the Chair.

Occasionally on a Thursday it is not as easy to assemble the full membership of the committee. I am not apologising for it, but it is an observation. I thank my colleagues who made it. It gave us the opportunity to give the Commissioner free rein to answer. I mean that sincerely. Anyway, the meeting is a matter of public record. We managed to put a substantial amount of information on the public record today, which my colleagues and I found really interesting. We follow these issues. We are reasonably well informed on them.

Very well.

I hope the questions reflected that. I had questions but we will find an opportunity to deal with them again, for example, about whether an enlarged Europe means an ever-increasing size of the Commission and Parliament. We might get written answers at some stage down the line to those.

On behalf of the committee secretariat, all the members and our communications team which helps us to broadcast the meeting and to reach a wider audience of interested members of the public, I thank the Commissioner both for her engagement with the committee today and, again, for being so articulate. The questions were very broad and appropriate and she answered them with great insight and in a very detailed way that gives us plenty of food for thought as we go on to consider our own Presidency and the matter of EU enlargement, which is obviously of concern to all member states, and in particular within the parliamentary dimension of the upcoming EU Presidency.

The committee will adjourn until 3.30 p.m. next Wednesday, 17 June, when we will meet with the French ambassador to Ireland. I thank the Commissioner for all her time. I will be seeing her later as she is going to the Institute of European Affairs. Some of my colleagues may be going there as well. I thank her and her team. There may be a brief photo opportunity in the well.