I advise 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 members to participate if they are not adhering to that constitutional requirement. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any members partaking via Microsoft Teams, prior to making their contribution, to confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, members will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with such a direction.

As the witnesses are probably aware, the practice of the committee is to publish opening statements on its website following meetings. They are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that witnesses should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue his remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Today, we begin our engagement with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade on her brief. I welcome the Minister, Deputy McEntee, and her officials. The format of the meeting is that we will hear the Minister's opening statement, followed by questions and answers with the committee members. Those questions and answers are for seven minutes per member, and that includes the answers. I will be pretty firm on that with both sides. There is usually a second round. I invite the Minister to make her opening statement.

I thank the committee for the invitation. I welcome the opportunity to engage with the committee and to discuss matters that fall under my remit as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. It will come as no surprise that a core focus of the current work of the Department is the preparation for Ireland’s EU Presidency, which begins in just over two weeks’ time. Our priorities and policy programme for the Presidency were launched last week. With that, we will take forward an ambitious agenda focused on three core thematic pillars: competitiveness, values and security. We will also work on priorities that span across all three thematic pillars, including the EU’s ongoing support for Ukraine and seeking agreement on the EU’s budget, the multi-annual financial framework, which runs from 2028 to 2034.

Through our agenda on competitiveness, we will place a strong focus on implementing the One Europe, One Market roadmap agreed by the Council, the Parliament and the Commission in April. We will look to strengthen the Single Market, remove barriers to internal trade and help European businesses, including Irish businesses, to expand across the Continent. We will seek to build a more ambitious and mutually beneficial EU-US trade and investment relationship, and we will strive to strengthen and diversify our markets with reliable global partners.

Through our focus on values, we will uphold the indispensable foundation of our Union and emphasise the importance of the EU's global role. Against increasing challenges to multilateralism and the international legal order, we will reaffirm the EU's commitment to the UN and the promotion of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. EU enlargement will be a central priority. We will aim to advance the candidacies of all candidate countries, in particular the four frontrunners, Montenegro, Ukraine, Moldova and Albania. We will also support EU efforts to contribute to peace and security in the Middle East. We will reaffirm the EU’s commitment to a just and lasting peace, based on the two-state solution, that guarantees the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians.

In the area of security, we know that no country acting alone can address the entirety of existing and emerging security challenges. The deteriorating geopolitical landscape and the evolution of new threats present significant challenges for Europe. We are committed to advancing the EU’s security and defence agenda during our Presidency, when a new European security strategy will be taken forward.

During our Presidency, we will work to continue the EU's steadfast support for Ukraine in the face of Russia's illegal war of aggression. We will do so by maintaining pressure on Russia, including through robust and impactful sanctions. We will take action to ensure that Ukraine has the support and finance it needs.

I welcome the announcement of an agreement between the US and Iran in the last 24 hours to solidify the ceasefire and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. This will bring much-needed relief to global and regional economies, but most importantly, to people on the ground.

I continue to be concerned by the worsening situation in Gaza and the situation in the West Bank. Coupled with the worsening situation in Lebanon, these developments demand serious actions in response. Reflecting our commitment to upholding international law, the Government has taken the decision to advance the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories Bill. However, it remains the Government’s preference that collective action would be taken at EU level, which will have a greater impact and is the strongest and most effective route. I am actively pursuing this within the Foreign Affairs Council.

Ireland’s EU Presidency comes at a critical time for global development co-operation. We are seeing the devastating impacts of global conflicts and unprecedented levels of humanitarian need. This includes the current conflict in the Gulf, which is having a pronounced impact on economic stability and food security, with estimates that an additional 45 million people are at risk of hunger if the crisis continues into the summer. This makes the collective position of the EU and its member states, as the world’s largest development, humanitarian and climate finance actor, more vital than ever.

Ireland has long supported the strongest possible EU-UK relationship, recognising the tangible benefits this will bring across these islands by making trade easier, strengthening our security and building co-operation across a range of sectors. We now know that the next EU-UK summit will be held on 22 July. A successful summit, with clear and balanced deliverables, will provide a good basis to move the relationship forward between the EU and the UK.

The Government and I share the deep concern and dismay of the authorities and communities in Northern Ireland at the recent scenes of violence, including the targeting of innocent people, businesses and families within those shared communities. I very much welcome the cross-party condemnation of the violence. My thoughts are with the victims of the horrific attack and those who were later targeted. There has been intensive contact between the British and Irish Governments since the events last week. The Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and I both spoke to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and to the Justice Minister in the North, Naomi Long, and a number of us have engaged with other political party members and the UK Home Secretary. The Taoiseach has also spoken directly to Prime Minister Starmer on this matter.

Turning to priorities beyond the EU context, the safety and well-being of Irish citizens overseas remains central to the work of my Department. The level of demand for consular assistance is high and continues to grow. Last year, my Department provided consular assistance in 1,981 new cases. Already this year, in addition to the assistance provided for individual consular cases, my Department provided direct consular assistance to more than 2,500 citizens during the Middle East crisis. We assisted many hundreds to access commercial options to return home, as well as arranging two repatriation flights for the return of 380 Irish citizens and families. I assure the committee that my Department is committed to assisting our citizens with empathy and kindness when they find themselves in difficulty far from home.

The Passport Service is currently meeting high demand for passports during the busy summer travel period. To date in 2026, the Passport Service has issued over 460,000 passports. At the end of this month, the newly redesigned passport book will be launched. This significant milestone will ensure that Ireland’s position as a global leader in issuing secure passports is maintained.

To conclude, as we prepare for our upcoming EU Presidency, my Department remains fully committed to advancing Ireland's values and protecting our economic and diplomatic interests. I thank the members and the Chair for their time today. I am happy to respond to any questions.

I thank the Minister. We wish her well. She carries the best wishes of the committee into the Presidency. It is an onerous and burdensome time, but an exciting time too. We have been privy to some of the asks of different visitors and witnesses who have come our way, and who have a very clear interest in what the Presidency can do and might hold.

I acknowledge the presence, not for the first time, of a regular visitor to our committee, the Palestinian ambassador, Dr. Jilan Wahba Abdalmajid. She is very welcome, as always.

My apologies. I did not see the ambassador come in. I welcome her to the meeting.

I will come to Senator Ahearn shortly as he has to go to the Seanad. First, I might ask a question. While it was somewhat conditional, while the committee acknowledged in its report the Government’s position. While there were concerns among members, the members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade unanimously - we did not have to vote - elected to include services when we were considering the report on the Government's version of the occupied territories Bill.

Will the Minister give us her thinking on where that is at and the content of what she might bring before us in the coming weeks?

At the outset, I acknowledge in particular when the ambassador is here that every decision we have taken within government, every step, has been with the sole ambition of trying to effect change to have a positive impact on the lives of people on the ground, those in Gaza and Palestine, with the ambition of what we all agree should be the overall objective of a two-state solution, Palestinians and Israelis living side by side. It is very clear to me, and I see it at the Foreign Affairs Council on which I sit and beyond, that there is not a consensus at the moment as to how we get to that point or how we respond to the devastating conflict that has killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians. There is not and has not been a consensus as to how we respond to what have been very clear and flagrant breaches of international law by the Israeli Government. Ireland has consistently taken the position that if we can take actions that will not only have a positive impact for people on the ground through humanitarian assistance, support and aid, through supporting the Palestinian Authority and through recognition of Palestine but will also effect change within the Israeli Government, then that is what we want to do.

The decision to move forward on the legislation itself is not a decision on its own. It is a decision taken in tandem with those I have mentioned. We are also trying to effect change at a European level because I believe that is where we will have the most effect and where we can send a much stronger signal to the Israeli Government that its actions in Gaza, the West Bank and indeed now in Lebanon are not acceptable and that we, the European Union, will not accept or tolerate them.

I am bringing forward the legislation with goods. There are a number of elements to the reason it is being brought forward with goods. First, there is a clearer legal basis for bringing forward legislation on goods. It is on public policy grounds. That was made very clear to me by the Attorney General. In terms of including services, from a legal perspective, I have not said it is legally impossible but I have said very clearly it is far more complex and there are far more challenges when it comes to the EU as a whole and how that would be perceived or taken by the Commission because trade is obviously a European competency. It is extremely complex from a legal perspective and does not have the same legal basis. Second, implementation is not straightforward because of the complexities of the European element. Third - I am being very straight on this as has the Government - in every decision we take, we need to consider the potential implications for what might happen at home. We need to make sure while we are taking actions to protect and move forward the agenda and the objectives of the Palestinian people and the region more generally, we protect people at home. We need to be conscious of that when it comes to jobs here at home in Ireland.

Where I see us being able to fulfil the rest of the requirements, the 2024 ICJ ruling clearly states that member states should take action to comply with its ruling, which states that trade in the illegally occupied territories is illegal under international law. Different countries are interpreting that in different ways and taking different measures. What Ireland is doing and I am doing is moving forward our legislation for goods for the reasons I outlined. It sends a very strong message because we are one of the few countries that have moved on this but we will be the only country that has implemented through our Parliament legislation to this effect. Separately, at a European level I am advocating for a ban on trade in the occupied territories that would be from the EU perspective. It would be an EU decision, which complies with trade being an EU competency.

We are making progress. At yesterday's European Council meeting and at the meetings I have attended since November, I have been advocating that the EU vote on and decide to take action at European level. Yesterday it was agreed by the Commission that it would for the next Foreign Affairs Council bring forward proposals that could be debated and voted upon by members. That includes the banning of trade in the illegally occupied territories. This has not happened before, has not been agreed before and has not been proposed before. We have in the past three weeks alone agreed sanctions against violent settlers which Ireland and we as a Government have advocated for. We have agreed to put forward new measures that will be debated and voted on which should, and we were given assurance would, include a proposal to ban trade in the occupied territories. This would then cover from a European perspective the elements not covered in the current Bill we are bringing forward. It is not a straightforward reason but at the same time the legislation we are bringing forward sends a very strong message. It is legislation we believe is more legally sound but will be complemented by European actions and responses which will have a far greater impact in making Israel stand up and listen because of the economic implications more broadly and the signal it sends that Europe is willing to act. I believe that will have a more profound impact on what I said at the beginning is our overall goal and objective - to stop the killing that continues to happen even with the ceasefire, to stop the actions in the West Bank and to prevent Lebanon from ending up in the exact same situation as Gaza.

If I heard the Minister correctly, we will be the first parliament to do this. Is that correct?

Yes.

Not necessarily the first country but the first parliament to actually process this legislation.

Yes. Spain has introduced it but not through parliament. The Netherlands is bringing forward legislation, as are Belgium and Norway but none have been through a parliament or a vote in the way we do it.

I thank Deputy McCarthy for allowing me to come in first; I have to go to the Seanad in a couple of minutes. I hope I can get back for the second round. At the end of her contribution, the Minister touched on the question of passports. There are a lot of things to talk about. This time of year - it is the last week before the summer holidays - kids are off and families are going on holidays. We are inundated with a number of inquiries when people realise at the last minute that they need a passport. Some 460,000 passports have already been processed this year, which is a phenomenal amount to go through in the Passport Office. I think I am right in saying that Ireland has almost the fastest, if not the fastest, turnaround time for renewal of passports in the world. It is done almost within 48 hours for the majority of people. There are a couple of issues that can arise sometimes. As public representatives, we experience them once in a while, particularly in relation to children. Children need Garda vetting to get a passport but sometimes it is difficult to get in contact with the Garda station or get the process done as quickly as possible. The Passport Office does it very quickly but the vetting from the Garda station can be quite slow sometimes. Is there anything the Minister or her Department can do to speed up that process when applying for passports for children? Again in relation to children - it is quite sensitive - when children who have one widowed parent renew a passport, the widowed parent has to resubmit the death certificate. If that has already been done, is it necessary to do it again? It is obviously a sensitive thing for a family. The Minister's Department and the Passport Office deal with very tragic and difficult cases. Is there anything the Department can do? It has done so much work in particular since the Minister took office in relation to passport renewals and the speed of passports.

I acknowledge the work of the Passport Office and the team. There has been a huge amount of investment over the years, which has required an increase in the number of staff and increased investment in the printing machines. We are winning awards for our passports and the speed at which people can apply for and receive them. It works because much of it is online. I take this opportunity to remind those who are listening or who want to report on this meeting that if you apply online, you can do things much more quickly. I encourage people to apply now and look at their passports because there are a lot of queries - I am sure the Senator is getting them too - from people who do it at the last minute. The Senator mentioned two matters, the first of which I dealt with quite a lot when I was Minister for justice. Issues arise when there is a requirement for a garda to sign a form in front of the parent and for that particular garda to be able to follow up. We have looked at a number of ways we could adjust or change that, such as potentially going online or having a digital signature or a different way of following up. We have not been able to make progress in that regard. I am looking at whether it might be necessary for all instances, in particular first-time applications. I am willing to look at this to see if we can seek to remove it completely or make it easier.

I have asked my officials to explore this to see if we can make progress on it.

Regarding the second issue the Deputy mentioned, it is very difficult for a parent where the other parent is deceased that they have to resubmit a death certificate if a child's passport has to be renewed more than once. The situation is obviously not going to change and it can be stressful for parents. Removing the requirement for the death certificate is something I am looking at as well. There may need to be an affidavit to have a legal form for the Department but if we were able to remove that, as well as potentially the requirement for a garda signature for first-time applicants, it would speed up the process for a lot of different people. I will be able to revert to the Deputy and the House in that regard.

I welcome the Minister. Her team is also welcome. I had a Commencement matter commitment in the Seanad, so I did not hear her delivering her opening address but I did read it.

I have a number of questions. I will take the answers to each separately, if the Minister does not mind. The first relates to an issue the Minister made a commitment to in response to a Dáil question. Has she made any progress in providing a dedicated phone line for MLAs in Northern Ireland to access the Passport Office, as there is a huge interest there in passports. In that context, I recognise the great work that Alison Finnegan does in the Department for all Oireachtas Members and that work is appreciated. Can the same be provided for MLAs?

Somebody referred to the Deputy as the new Pat the Cope recently, but we will say no more. This matter has been raised with me a number of times and the Senator has raised it with me directly as well. I also discussed the issue at a committee, as well as at oral parliamentary questions recently. I have committed to extending the dedicated phone service to members of the Assembly because it is important that representatives in the North have access to a similar line to ours in order to make representations on behalf of their constituents. They will be able to contact the particular phone line and I can provide that number to the committee to disseminate it. It will operate from 9 a.m. to 4.30 p.m., so that people have the opportunity-----

That is the Senator's first question answered.

I thank the Minister for her answer. The UK is our nearest neighbour and any improvement in the relationship between it and the EU is to the benefit of Ireland, and to the UK and the EU. While I know it is good at the moment, what steps is the Department taking, particularly in the context of Ireland's upcoming EU Presidency, to further improve our bilateral relationship? What is the Department doing to specifically improve the relationship between the EU and the UK? That should be a lead matter during our Presidency.

The UK-Ireland relationship is in a really good place. It is the best it has been in a long time. One key thing is helping to drive it on. The first UK-Ireland Summit held in Liverpool, which many of us attended, set out clear objectives as to how we would work closer together on issues such as youth engagement, energy infrastructure and enterprise. We followed that with a subsequent summit in Cork. It means that the relationships are growing, Ministers are meeting, the communities are engaging and there are real, tangible outcomes. It is building on what has become a much more positive relationship since the Labour Government came into power a number of years ago.

In terms of the EU-UK relationship, again, it is in a good place compared to where it had been. We are ten years from when the Brexit vote took place and there is a clear ambition within the current UK Government to get closer to the EU. We have committed to moving forward that relationship, which is our ambition during the Presidency. At the outset, I mentioned that it has just been agreed that the EU-UK summit will take place on 22 July 2026. There should be tangible outcomes from that, including the conclusion of negotiations on the sanitary and phytosanitary, SPS, agreement, which is important for the Ireland-UK relationship as well, particularly in the agri sector. Negotiations on the emissions trading agreement should also be concluded as part of the summit. From a climate perspective, this shows that we are working closely together. We are also working closely together in the areas of enterprise and business, and youth mobility. We all understand that it is important that young people from the UK and Northern Ireland can travel freely and vice versa. There are tangible outcomes that can take place.

There will also be a real effort to make sure that, as far as is possible, UK and Northern Ireland Ministers will be part of our informal councils and meetings happening in Ireland during the Presidency, and that they will be part of the discussion. That in itself will help bring the relationship closer together.

What does the Minister envisage Ireland will do to increase the number of member states that will implement sanctions and suspend that EU-Israel Association Agreement? How will our Presidency work that in the context of the atrocious conditions and what has been happening in Gaza, the aggression in the settlements in the occupied territories and the indiscriminate bombing of Lebanon? How does the Minister see our Presidency leading and effectively upping the ante?

The Senator will have to save his final question for the next round.

We have already started that work. Ireland, with a small number of member of states, last year pushed for sanctions to be put on the table by the Commission, as well as the suspension of the trade elements of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Since I came into this role, the Department and I have persistently pushed for more actions to be taken. Since I took on this role last November, I heard representatives from five or six member states openly speak out at Foreign Affairs Council meetings. They have also been proactive in trying to enforce further sanctions, whether it is the suspension of the trade agreement, the prohibition of goods from the illegal settlements or sanctions on violent settlers. That number is now regularly around 11 or 12 member states. When there was a discussion yesterday about whether the Commission should bring forward more proposals that we could vote on, at least 17 or 18 member states were in favour of that.

I have clearly seen a shift in the views of member states, and rightly so, because what is happening is absolutely appalling. People in Gaza are now expected to live in uninhabitable conditions in 30% of a land area that was too small to begin with. People in the West Bank are now being forced off their land and there are no repercussions for the violent actions of settlers, yet almost 1 million people have been illegally placed there. We are seeing the same playbook being used in Lebanon as was used in Gaza with the south of the country being completely closed off. We also saw the reintroduction of the death penalty as well as the way European citizens, who were part of the global flotilla, were treated. I hope that it remains the view of member states that more action needs to be taken. I will push that this action happens. I will also push that this debate takes place at the next Foreign Affairs Council meeting that will be during our Presidency and that we will vote on these clear actions.

I know that I have to wait for the next round, but I welcome the Minister's response.

I thank the Senator for being so succinct.

I thank the Department for its co-operation. It comes back to me straight away in response to any query that I have ever had, and that includes the Minister. I appreciate that.

I want to follow up on the Senator's last question. I know where the Minister stands with regard to the conversations that she had this week, but is Europe listening?

I believe the member states are. A small number of member states for historic reasons have found and still find it difficult to move, but the position of the vast majority of member states has changed and that can only be a good thing. We need to take decisive action because the EU's credibility is on the floor when it comes to its response. We need to be stronger. That is why I and the Government, including the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, who was in this role before me, and many others, including the members of this committee, have pushed for a consistent and stronger response from a European perspective. Again, I heard the representatives of 17 or 18 of member states say yesterday that they are willing to look at further proposals by the Commission and that they want to engage on the types of proposals, be it the trade element of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, sanctioning Ministers, such as Ben-Gvir or others, the prohibition of trade in the occupied territories or anything else the Commission may propose within the legal limits.

Member states are now open to that whereas a few short months ago they were not open at all. We need to continue to push and advocate for that strong response. That is certainly what I will be doing before the next Foreign Affairs Council meeting.

With respect, will the Minister please explain to the committee why it has taken so long for them to literally see the light in Europe considering what is unfolding in front of our eyes every evening on TV? We are looking at 75,000 dead-----

I can only give my own view on that. Very clearly, things escalated last summer to the point where we could all see the actions that were being taken by the Israeli Government in Gaza. This was prior to a ceasefire. People woke up to what was happening if they had not seen it already, although that is very difficult to believe. People felt that this was no longer self-defence and that something needed to be done. That is when the Commission put forward actions, such as the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and the sanctioning of violent settlers, which we only voted on recently but was tabled last summer, as well as very clear soundings of condemnation and words of condemnation. A ceasefire was then agreed and the focus at a European level, I believe, was on implementing the ceasefire, moving forward and trying to make life better for people on the ground.

What has become very clear, however, is that with a ceasefire people are still being killed, the inhumane conditions they are living in are only getting worse because Israel is preventing aid from getting in, the situation in the West Bank is deteriorating, violent settler action is getting worse, and now in Lebanon we are seeing a playbook from what we have seen in Gaza. The consistent and persistent flagrant actions and breaches of international law by Israel are no longer being accepted by member states, which is welcome, but this is something that we have pushed for, highlighted and advocated at every single Council meeting that I and others attended. We are now in a position that I believe is better than where we were last year.

The question is why the Minister thinks it has taken so long. It is a question that interests all of us. She meets these Ministers. What is it?

For a lot of people, there was an ambition and a hope that the ceasefire would bring about peace, a future for people and a resolution. What is very clear, however, and not just from what I outlined, is that the Palestinian Authority has not been given the ability to do its job. The new Board of Peace is not functioning in the way that it should. The work that should be happening on the ground and the 600 trucks that are supposed to come through every day are not happening. Over time people have seen that this is not happening. I also believe there are many countries and member states that have always had strong relations with Israel. We have always had a relationship with Israel. We have a community here. I acknowledge that community as well because it is a difficult time for Israeli people here in terms of the perception of the actions. At the same time, we need to be very clear and very firm that the actions of the Israeli Government are not something to tolerate.

I will move quickly along. In relation to our continued support for Ukraine and in light of huge publicity about the corruption that is going on, does the Minister feel that we are confident that all the money going over there is being spent in the right places?

First, I stress that we will continue to support Ukraine throughout our Presidency. One of the important things for us is when we talk about Ukraine becoming part of the EU. Yesterday, thankfully, we opened the first cluster, which is very welcome. With that comes huge responsibility, the need to reform, and to ensure that issues like corruption, issues around the judicial system, and issues in business or in government are addressed and that the right legal structures and right mechanisms are put in place to prevent corruption. That is a requirement and is mandated by the EU for any type of accession process.

Of course, with any money that is provided to Ukraine there is not just an expectation but a requirement that it is spent where it needs to be spent and where it is intended, for example, in critical infrastructure, where Ireland has provided significant funding to help rebuild the water, electricity and gas that has been literally blown up by Russia over the last number of years, or in defence spending such as drone technology or counter-drone technology, or in other ways. There is a requirement for Ukraine to show where this money is going and that it is spent within the parameters of the funding streams themselves. There was a concern around particular cases within Ukraine, and that these would be addressed in any legislative changes that were due to take place, so these cases did not happen. That was the right thing to happen.

The Tánaiste's statements over the weekend in relation to a united Ireland caught some people on the hop. Obviously, it did not catch us on the hop in the party but it caught some people out. Will the Minister give us a bit of context? What is going to happen in relation to that?

This is a political party. It is my political party that has decided to have an internal discussion and an engagement with our own party members on what a unified or united Ireland might look like in the future. It is the appropriate thing to do. We have talked many times in this House on a cross-party basis about a citizens' assembly and about what kind of discussions we should have on a cross-party basis. That has not changed. That is something we should consider at a time that is appropriate. This allows us as a party to have those discussions internally so that should we have a wider debate, we will have teased through issues or questions that people might have. For example, it could be on something as basic as the point that was put to me recently having been in a school. When asked if they support a united Ireland most people say, "Yes", but when asked "What about the flag?", "What about the national anthem?", "What about the services?" or "What about how things work?", people perhaps have not thought through a lot of the questions that would need to be answered in this type of a scenario. It is about teasing through these issues, doing it internally and doing it within our own party.

I thank the Minister for coming in today. I very much welcome the Government's decision to start preparing for Irish unity. Today, Deputy Mary Lou McDonald introduced a Bill into the Dáil that would begin a structured plan for that. I am very glad to see that the other parties are on board with that as well. I thank the Minister for that.

I have a few questions. Will the Minister report to me on Ireland's participation in the Hague Group? The Hague Group called for an arms embargo on Israel, including dual-use technology with a paramilitary application. Is the Minister supportive of that?

I will have to come back to the Deputy on the detail of that-----

Okay.

What I would say more generally is that when it comes to the Hague Group, UN bodies and international organisations, we are generally supportive of the actions and measures that are taken, particularly when it comes to arms embargoes and conflict more broadly. I will come back to the Deputy on the specific details of that.

When the Minister responds, perhaps she could also give me detail on the percentage of applications for dual-use export licences that have been refused to companies based in Israel in 2025.

I will come back to the Deputy.

I thank the Minister. One of my constituents, Ms Mandy Kelly, wrote to the Minister's office with an urgent request for support for what she is going through at the moment. Her two children are stuck in Egypt. She has a High Court order to be able to take her children home but the Egyptian authorities are not permitting that. They have said that it will go to court but the court case keeps being postponed. Every time she attempts to go to court in Egypt the court case is postponed. The chairperson and I, and Senator Joe O'Reilly, met Mandy Kelly last week. There was supposed to be a court case again on 20 June but that has again been postponed. Mandy is requesting that the Department would consider a memorandum of understanding with Egypt to ensure that her children would be able to come home. Maybe the Minister could just give me a response. I would really appreciate it.

I am very aware of this case. I met Mandy when I was the Minister for justice and I have engaged with her considerably since coming into the role because obviously there is a remit for both Departments. I appreciate how difficult this is and the fact that it has gone on for so long. It is very distressing for Mandy and her children, and I have no doubt for her wider family as well. I have engaged on this with my colleague, Dr. Badr Abdelatty, who is the foreign minister in Egypt and I have spoken to him directly a number of times. Our own team on the ground has also engaged on this. There are certain legal steps and procedures that have to be followed through. We cannot change that irrespective of whether we have a memorandum or otherwise. It is really important that as certain timelines are put in place, and procedures have to be followed, that this is what happens.

What I would say to the Deputy is that my Department, team and officials are willing to engage and will continue to engage, as they do on a regular basis, with Ms Kelly to ensure that she knows what the best next steps are, what she needs to do in different instances and how we can bring this to a conclusion. I think all any of us wants is that she can bring her children home but there are certain steps that need to be taken. I ask her to continue to engage with us and we will fully support her ever step of the way.

I thank the Minister. Mandy Kelly would be very appreciative of that. The Minister can understand how it is for her, with her two children stuck in Egypt for such a long time now. It is a heartbreaking story.

In relation to the EU Presidency, I saw a report in the newspaper yesterday that it is going to cost Ireland in excess of €400 million. Could the Minister clarify that for me and also how much the EU Presidency has cost other countries?

I am not sure where that figure has come from, to be very honest. The figure we have been given and that has been budgeted for through this year in the Estimates is between €165 million and €185 million. That does not include all the security costs but obviously, depending on what may be needed - things change depending on events and everything else - that figure would be dealt later. I am not sure where the figure of €400 million has come from.

More broadly, it varies depending on each Presidency. I have looked at reports from France to Sweden to Denmark, where they said it only cost €35 million but I think they were only talking about a fractional internal part of it. It tends to be between the mid to high €100 million to €200 million mark, so we are €165 million to €185 million. It is a little bit lower or in and around that figure for other member states. It sounds like a huge amount, and it is not a small amount, but we are talking about six months where in Ireland alone you will have 22 Council meetings, 270 different events and 192-odd associated events. Buildings will need to be hired. Additional staff will be required. You have work on what is happening at a European level and you have cultural elements. There is lots to this. It is something that costs significant money but, at the same time, what we get back through a Presidency that is well run and, most importantly, one that delivers, comes back to us in spades, not least because of the benefit to Ireland if we make progress on certain files and if we can progress certain key issues, be it around the budget, farmers, making it better for business to be able to operate, our values and how we improve the lives of people more broadly. It is money that we spend but it is spent every 13 and a half years. It is not something we have to do every year or every second or third year. It is every 13 and a half years that we take it on.

I thank the Minister. My last question relates to passports. I attended a very good and detailed meeting here but I am still getting complaints to my office in relation to checks. Whenever an initial check is done, somebody then gets another date for when the passport will get past the checker. Then they discover that something else needs to be checked so the date consistently keeps moving on and on. I asked at that meeting if there was a possibility that everything could be checked at once instead of somebody having to wait. I have had different people waiting three to four months on a passport, so could that happen?

I also want to bring in a detail around the Six Counties, where there seems to be an even longer waiting list to get through the checkers.

We dealt with that when the Deputy was away.

I would really appreciate that could be-----

I thank the Deputy. Briefly, Minister.

And a phone number. I asked at that meeting about a phone number.

We got the phone number.

We have the phone number. It is 01-6131750.

Okay. Can I get that in an email?

You can, you will get that too.

I really appreciate that because I suggested it at that meeting. That would be fantastic.

It is important that colleagues in the North are able to access that.

I thank the Minister. I am sorry.

On the checking, there is a full check done on the paperwork initially. What often happens is that when people resend information, that in itself is not correct again. There is an issue with a photo or a stamp, or they perhaps cannot get access to the garda they have to. I appreciate there are often things that arise but I would encourage people to apply as early on as possible. At the same time, the reason there is a line there for us to try to assist is if problems like this emerge we can, as colleagues and representatives, help to move things along. For the vast majority of people, where the application is sent in online, a lot of these mistakes and issues are avoided so I encourage people to do things online as opposed to paperwork, which is where a lot of the problems around checking lie.

Before I come to Deputy Ken O'Flynn, I was at the meeting with Ms Mandy Kelly a few weeks go. I want to acknowledge the work the Minister's Department and officials have done in relation to it. I am satisfied, insofar as one can be satisfied from information is at hand for me, that the Department could not really be doing much more on this. We are very sensitive to the fraught nature of it. The Minister might convey those thanks to the officials.

To repeat, there are members here willing to travel with Ms Kelly if it came to it. I know there are other Departments of State and senior officials offering that too. I thank the Minister for that.

I said Deputy O'Flynn but, I am sorry, Senator Stephenson is before him. I hope we can hold on to him for a few minutes.

I thank the Minister. I note that she talked about the playbook we are seeing in Lebanon being the same playbook that was used in Gaza - the Gazafication of Lebanon. I did not actually want to comment on this because I have other things to raise around the EU Presidency but I would argue that is why we need to uphold international law and have services included. One of the Minister's officials, when they came in during the pre-legislative scrutiny last year, acknowledged that without that we would not be meeting our obligations under the ICJ ruling. I wanted to make that point.

On the competitiveness piece and the so-called competitiveness agenda we are seeing in the EU, it is really around reducing accountability mechanisms. It is a deregulation agenda and there has been a substantial shift towards co-ordinated deregulation and recasting fundamental human rights protections as obstacles. I am really concerned about that, particularly around the two digital omnibuses - that they are going to weaken all those really important benchmarks and protections we got around privacy, artificial intelligence, AI, and the sweeping major changes we are seeing under the AI Act and the general data protection regulation, GDPR. It is a rollback of our online rights. I wonder what position the Minister will be taking under the competitiveness agenda on those two particular pieces. I am seriously concerned, particularly with the Grok scandal that we saw, that those two omnibus packages are going to make that situation much worse. I am not alone in those massive concerns.

When it comes to the bigger competitiveness piece, I would ask who we are competing against. I have serious concerns that through this EU deregulation agenda, as I would call it, it is a race to the bottom on standards with China, human rights standards, environmental protections, health and safety standards and food protections. All those great things the EU brought us in regard to an equalisation of standards that was such a proud marker of the EU are being rolled back with all of these omnibus proposals. I would love to hear the Minister's commentary on that and where that is going in the six months of Ireland's presidency.

I will only take one more minute so the Minister will have time to respond. On the security piece, often when we talk about security is through a very narrow lens and we are not talking about democratic security. I note in the Minister's intervention at the beginning that she talked about what happened in the North and the riots but we are seeing a co-ordinated attack, in online spaces, on democratic spaces and norms. This disinformation and misinformation is really disturbing and it is affecting how we interact with each other as a community and a society. That, I believe, is one of the biggest security threats we face as humanity at this moment in time. That, tied to the fact that these two omnibus proposals are reducing digital and AI protections, terrifies me. I feel we are not looking at this holistically. We are saying that removing the digital protections will allow for greater growth around the digital space and greater growth of AI but greater growth against what? It is against the norms and protections that we should be having, when we see all the hatred and vitriol we are seeing spread out at ease on online spaces. It is, I think, one of the greatest threats to our society on an international basis and on a human scale. I do not see any clear logic between the Government's rhetoric on the Grok scandal and concerns about the online space and online safety, and what we are doing then when it comes to the omnibus.

Is the rest of the time the Minister's?

Yes.

I thank the Senator. On her first point, the whole intention of the action I have been taking at a European level is to make sure we can be fully compliant so that we can move, collectively, to ban trade in the illegally occupied territories. That would cover all matters. We are moving on goods because of the reasons I outlined earlier.

That would be supported then by the action that we take at European level. Other countries have decided to do this-----

I do not agree with it but I just wanted to put my disagreement on the record.

The ruling itself of the ICJ does not specifically say what countries should do so the UK, Norway and Switzerland - some of the non-EU member states - are taking different actions that they believe would-----

It calls for a ban on trade and investment.

They doing different things as well. In terms of competitiveness, we are talking about a broad range of things. We are competing among ourselves and we are competing against others. Regarding barriers that we have placed upon ourselves, it is not about deregulation; it is about better regulation. It is about not having overlaps and so, for example, there is the 28th regime, which our own Commissioner, Michael McGrath, will bring forward. At the moment, a business setting up in Ireland has to go through all of the steps that it goes through. If a business wants to set up in France, it has to go through all of the steps and procedures in that country. Businesses have to duplicate every single thing and their ability to grow as a business, to earn more money and to develop, be it their product or produce, is hampered. Within the EU, that is essentially like a tariff of about 100% on services. It is a lower figure on goods. Because of regulation, barriers and duplications that we have put in place, we are actually slowing down and hampering innovation and growth of our own businesses. As I do not think that is a good thing, we want to make sure that within the EU, we are more innovative. The competitiveness agenda focuses on the savings and investments union. How can businesses and people have better access to money in a way that they cannot do now?

Regarding the omnibus packages, the Senator mentioned AI. We want to make sure that there is ability for better growth but that will not remove the regulatory piece. The Senator will know that in Ireland, we are moving forward legislation to adapt and to establish an AI oversight body that would be based in Ireland and that would have a regulatory oversight position but again-----

One of the omnibus packages is removing things. As it is going to allow for greater corporate and state surveillance of citizens of the EU, I would push against that agenda and idea that it is not reducing protections, because that is exactly what it is doing.

I am not sure about the particular point the Senator is referencing but there will still be a very strong oversight and regulatory piece to it. In respect of the omnibus packages, to look at some of the concrete examples, it is about simplification, reducing paperwork and making it easier for farmers to access EU funds. Regarding the delivery of affordable housing, it is looking at some of the mechanisms that have perhaps delayed things. It is about reducing red tape.

Regarding the Senator's point about the online world, work is being done at home in Ireland around what we should do when it comes to young people in the online space. Should we have a ban as the UK has now moved to do in the past two days? Should we have better implementation of the digital age of consent? Is there something more we need to do? During our Presidency, the Commission is bringing forward a number of proposals as to what we could do at an EU level, particularly when it comes to online safety and children. That is something that we are going to try to drive. That will be published probably around September. I met the Commission and that is the timeline it spoke of. We are keen to progress this at a European level so that if we introduce measures specifically for child safety online, whether it involves algorithms or things that young people are seeing on social media at the age of 15 or 16, which is certainly influencing some of the actions we have seen, or whether it is other types of content or other types of behaviours, we want to be able to move on that more broadly across the EU. To go back to my original point, when we move collectively on these things, we work better.

Finally, some of the work the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration is doing is about making sure that there are greater levels of information sharing between An Garda Síochána and other police services through Europol and other avenues to make sure that where issues are emerging, be it in fake news - although it is obviously more focused on illegal content - or certain criminal behaviours and activities, there is a greater level of sharing of information across the EU that can respond to these types of challenges.

It has been raised by the Senator and others previously and it would be a view of a good number of the members of the committee that we would support the competitiveness agenda simplification absolutely but to echo what the Senator said, our concern is that this would not enable shortcuts to be taken, that there will be safeguards that keep a strong eye on things and that simplification does not mean shortcuts and allowing people out the gap through not having to maintain the same level of safeguards

Child sexual abuse material online, which is a file that has taken a long time to progress, is something we are trying to progress as well, together with making sure that there is accountability for online platforms and a greater ability to access illegal content, in particular where there is child sexual abuse material. There are lots of different strands and ways in which we are moving to put in place better protections and enhance the systems that could then be accessed by An Garda Síochána or other police forces as well.

What about the workers' rights piece being mindful of that so that competitiveness and simplification do not allow a coach and four to be driven through the-----

Thankfully, the omnibus package contains a legislative piece that focuses on workers' rights and the labour market in general so it is not just about business. It is about people as well and it is about protecting workers' rights.

The first item I want to bring up is the recent controversy regarding Aughinish Alumina, which has gained significant attention in the international media. I cannot help but notice the timing of the story, which appeared just before Ireland's EU Presidency is set to begin in July. Is the Minister or her Department aware of whether the story has been formulated by an external actor for purposes beyond merely ownership of the company? Has the Department carried out an investigation into whether the story is being unduly used to pressure the Irish Government ahead of the EU Presidency? Has the Government observed anything suspicious or untoward regarding the issue and how it is being presented by certain third-party actors?

My understanding is that this has come about through investigative journalism and one of our own newspapers. That is something that we welcome and it is important that we protect the ability of journalists to do. We have all been somewhat alarmed by the reports that have been presented and that is why it is really important that we get the facts to find out exactly what is being shipped and where it is going. That body of work is happening at the moment. There is obviously engagement with the Commission throughout this. I have engaged directly with the-----

What is the Minister's role in this regard as the Minister with responsibility for trade?

In this case, there is none. The Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment takes on the role here. It is really important that we get the facts as soon as possible. We have told the Commission that once the facts are ascertained, we will engage with it on the facts. We are back and forth on that with the Commission and I have engaged directly with the number of member states that have spoken about it, particularly countries within that region,and in the Balkans in particular.

It is natural that as we move to take on the Presidency, we will start to see higher activity online. I have seen an increase in traffic on my social media and an increase in certain types of comments or specific types of issues being raised. That probably is something that comes with the Presidency and the fact that we now are in a position where we are guiding so many of the files. While we are very much playing the role of neutral arbiter, at the same time, we are going to be steering and leading a lot of the files.

Could the Minister elaborate on the preparations being made under EU participation for the G20 summit, which will be held in Florida in December? Does her Department anticipate that the EU Council Presidency will alter the character of Ireland's bilateral relations with the United States during that period?

The decision was taken by the US to reduce and limit the number of associated memberships or the number of countries not within the G20 attending. The South African presidency had a different approach and we attended quite a large number of events. My understanding is that the Minister for Finance has been invited to attend the finance meeting and the Taoiseach has been invited to attend. I am not sure if it is the summit or whether there are any other meetings beyond that. That is something we welcome . The fact that we are being invited when the numbers are limited is a representation of the strong relationship we have and it is certainly something that we would welcome. The next presidency will be the UK and we will certainly be advocating that we would have a presence and a role and that we would be part of as much of that as possible.

What steps is Ireland taking during the EU Council Presidency to enlarge the European Union? Does her Department anticipate significant works being conducted during the Irish Presidency to admit new members to the state of the European Union?

This is one of our priority areas and is something Ireland has always championed because of our own history and the fact we have benefited in the way we have from our EU membership.

There are several front-runners when it comes to the accession process, Montenegro probably being the most to the front, and then Albania coming soon after. This week, we also saw the opening of the clusters, which is the start of what is a lengthy process but an important first step for Moldova and Ukraine. There is a real momentum at present. These processes have taken a lot of time, given their nature. We are talking about huge changes taking place within a country, be it in terms of rule of law, the justice system or different legislative files or changes that need to take place as regards environment or agriculture. There is a lengthy process once a member state gets to those early stages. We would like to see all the files from Montenegro being closed during our Presidency. It would certainly be a push but it would mean that Montenegro could become members in a few short years. With Albania, we would like to see that progress and as many files as possible be closed, followed by Moldova and Ukraine depending on whether they stay together. That obviously depends on several things. There is an option or possibility that Moldova may move forward more quickly.

I would stress that there is a referendum taking place in Iceland through the month of August. If that were to be successful, or if people were to vote "Yes", a huge amount of that work will have already been done, so we could see Iceland joining in a very short period. The very fact Hungary has removed its blockage of Ukraine starting this whole process and open up negotiations has allowed for momentum to start and for there to be a real focus on the possibility of this happening for several member states. It is also something we would welcome.

I have a quick question, and I am going to be very parochial. One of my councillors down in Cork, Noel O'Flynn, was at a safety forum last night. He expressed his disappointment that several chief superintendents had not replied to emails sent by him locally. The explanation presented to him by An Garda Síochána that night was that the superintendents were very busy with the focus on the EU Presidency and that it was taking a tremendous amount of their time. Can we secure additional funding for An Garda Síochána to deal with the day-to-day matters of policing as well as the EU Presidency in Ireland and all the excess work that that surely entails for the Garda?

Certainly, there will be significant additional funding provided for the security of the State and for those visiting during the Presidency. The security element is being managed by An Garda Síochána, which will be delivering much of what is required. Of course, there will be elements of overtime and asking people to attend outside of their own jurisdictions, but that certainly should not impact on their day-to-day requirements, given that 75% of the meetings will take place in Dublin. The remaining 25% of events will happen outside of Dublin in other constituencies. Obviously, there will be an ask for members there. That is managed through An Garda Síochána. There will be an onus to make sure that the day-to-day work, community work and district work happens as well.

I welcome the Minister. I might begin with a very short, specific question. The Minister mentioned international law as a priority for Ireland. I am curious as to how standing up for international law will manifest within the Presidency. Sanctions have been placed on members of the International Criminal Court, ICC, by the United States and Russia. Does the Minister believe that the EU should use the blocking mechanism in order to protect its citizens, and will she be putting the blocking mechanism to use in order to protect ICC staff and justices on the agenda of the first meeting she holds?

I thank the Senator for her question. This will manifest itself in upholding international law as a horizontal matter, because you could be talking about the situation in Gaza and the role we have within the Foreign Affairs Council, where I have been advocating that we collectively respond to ensure that international law is upheld. That could be in our response in the development committee, which my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, will be hosting and where we will place a particular emphasis, through one of our key priorities and values, on ensuring that the international rules-based system, whether that is the UN, the ICC, International Court of Justice, ICJ, the WTO or the multilateral forms and structures, is protected and upheld and that where there are flagrant breaches of international law, we respond effectively where we can.

Ukraine is a perfect example of where we are imposing specific sanctions directly on Russia. We have imposed sanctions in respect of Sudan and other areas of conflict where there are very clear breaches of international law. As regards progressing our own priorities beyond that, we are seeking a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. That is uncontested, but at the same time, we have to set out what our priorities are. Those key priorities are making sure that we protect civil society and its human rights defenders, that we protect the right to adequate food, that gender equality and women's rights are upheld, and that the rights of LGBT persons and those with disabilities are upheld. In many instances-----

It was a very specific question, but I have a longer question that I might put to the Minister also. Does she have a specific "Yes" or "No" as regards whether Europe should be using the blocking mechanism with the International Criminal Court, and will she be placing it on the agenda of the meeting of EU ministers? I can then go on to my more substantive question after.

With regard to the EU ministers, that would be a decision for the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, but as we have done at various committees, we need to express our regret at the decisions that have been taken by the US and Russia and that we do not agree with them. We should always explore whatever avenues we have available to us to express our views clearly, be it in the EU or beyond.

The Minister had a meeting this week on this idea of a collective action piece. I am concerned, as the ICJ opinion is very clear when it says "prevent trade or investment" that contributes to the maintenance of the illegal situation. As the Minister outlined, we are not just talking about the maintenance of an illegal situation. Rather, we are now talking about a mass escalation of the illegal situation in terms of occupation and settlements. It is clear that it is trade, not just goods.

The Minister mentioned that Ireland was the 127th country to recognise Palestine. We came quite late to that. We are also coming quite late to something that Senator Black, others and I brought forward in 2017 when the situation was already illegal. Slovenia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway and Spain have acted. I am concerned, and the Minister might comment on this, that when she speaks at the meeting in question, is she advocating the more conservative approach that Ireland is taking just on goods or is she supporting Spain, which has sought, as this committee suggested, to push against the advertisement of services? This committee collectively said that it would be better to push for services, and if that were to be challenged, we would be confident this would set the useful precedent. Is setting a good precedent not the best way we can push for collective action? Is there a danger that we lower ambition with a lower approach? What position is the Minister taking when she goes in? What precedent does putting national economic interests ahead of international law set? I am very concerned about that. We know that Ireland is one of the largest trading partners.

The Minister might also comment on dual-use goods and if there are intentions for Ireland to look to the sixfold increase in our trade in same, which is our technology. That is my second question.

I will ask one last question. On the arms trade, the discoveries about Aughinish Alumina have been mentioned. Dual-use goods are a key issue for Ireland. There has been a sixfold increase since the military action started in Gaza. I know that the Department of enterprise seeks the opinion and advice of the Department of foreign affairs. Is the Department advising an end to dual-use goods going into this situation or what advice is it giving?

The Minister has less than a minute.

On the first question, the only country that has moved is Spain, and it has not moved through its Parliament, but through statutory instrument. No other country has moved.

Slovenia is going in the opposite way and opening an Israeli embassy because of the change in government. They are completely moving backwards. The Netherlands, Norway and Belgium are at the same timeline as us. Again, however, they do not have to go through parliament. We have been one of the most vocal, if not the most vocal, in wanting action at a European level. I cannot be any clearer in saying that what we have advocated for is that there would be a full ban on trade from the-----

Does that include goods and services?

It is trade full stop from the illegal occupied territories.

To clarify, is a ban on goods and services what the Government would like from Europe?

That is what I have advocated for. What we do not have yet is a proposal from the Commission as to what that would look like. We have been to the fore in advocating for action at an EU level. We have not watered things down. We have not tried to use different language.

We have watered it down. The Government has removed services from the occupied territories Bill. That is what my concern is. Are we weakening our hand in terms of EU action if we do not go in with a strong proposal that includes goods and services?

We are to the fore in bringing forward the legislation. I accept and acknowledge the work of Senators Black and Higgins and others in presenting this some time ago. However, we are one of the few countries across the world that are bringing forward this legislation. We want to make sure that others follow suit. Other countries are not including services. While Spain has acted on the advertisement of services, that is quite specific and I can get into that within the committee next week. We are bringing forward legislation that will ensure others follow suit, whereas by including services it would be extremely difficult to implement, for the reasons that I have outlined, whereby there is not a strong legal basis. As a Government, we have a responsibility to protect jobs at home as well. We are bringing forward legislation and sending a very strong signal that we do not support the actions of the Israeli Government in the West Bank, but-----

Dual use-----

-----at a European level we will be able to do more because it sends an even stronger message. That is what I have been doing. In the recent meetings, Norway has been advocating stronger than anybody. Slovenia had been to the fore but, unfortunately, with a new government, the position has changed. That happens when there are different governments.

Thanks, Minister. Within the-----

If it is possible, the Minister might comment on dual-use goods later in the meeting.

There will be a second round. It is important to note that the report this committee produced last year recognised that the optimal avenue open to the Government was to pursue a combined EU approach. I call Deputy Brennan.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and the Minister. This committee did significant work on the pre-legislative scrutiny of the occupied territories Bill. Despite the numerous meetings we had and the numerous experts, academics, international lawyers, business groups, etc., that we had before the committee, we only had resources to go so far. One of the recommendations that we put in our report, which was unanimously agreed on, was:

The Joint Committee notes that potential repercussions from the international community, in terms of both international relations and economically, are unknowable and recommends that the Minister undertakes efforts to establish and publish a range of likely scenarios.

I appreciate that these recommendations are non-binding and are open to numerous interpretations. The Department may choose not to act on them or may come at them from a different angle. Since this report was published, I have heard nothing on that particular recommendation. Certainly, there have been no details and no sign of anything formal coming from the Department. Will the Minister give us an update as to whether anything on that has been formally actioned or if it is just informal guidance? What is available there? What efforts and to what extent has the Department gone to establish potential repercussions?

I thank the Deputy. The challenge here is that many of the implications are unknown. For example, and this is where the focus lies, a number of states in the US have anti-boycott legislation and a number of states have said that if we were to implement the legislation, they would apply that anti-boycott legislation. That could then apply to companies that are based here. Obviously, the consequences would depend on how that was applied, how many states applied it and in what way. The consequences could vary. If a decision was taken by states not to apply the anti-boycott legislation, then the impact could be minimal.

It is difficult to quantify specifically without knowing exactly what the action or response might be. That is where the challenge lies and it will continue to be a challenge. Despite that, the Government has taken a decision to move forward with this legislation because we believe that this is the right approach. Certainly, there was a consideration in the detail of the legislation as to how we would bring forward elements of the Bill. As Government TDs, our role and responsibility is to take action to support those who need our help, but also to make sure that we protect people's jobs and livelihoods at home as well.

Yes. I note the US ambassador was going back to this very issue last week.

My thoughts on this are that we would be better off dealing with it on a multilateral level and using our power within the EU to bring about change there. In recent times, the Minister has spoken at length about the EU-Israel Association Agreement and the potential for using that particular instrument. I think it runs to the tune of about €42 billion or €43 billion per annum in trade. It would be substantial and would be something that Israel would have sit up and take note of. Obviously, that is problematic within Europe, although things are changing there. The position appears to be softening. We have changes of government in hold-out countries, such as Hungary. We are coming up to an important meeting next week where this is on the agenda. The Taoiseach wrote to António Costa to have it put there. What is the Minister's current assessment as to how far Europe has moved in the past number of months? How far do we have to go to get some agreement that would impact not necessarily the entire association agreement but certainly the trade elements of it?

At the moment, I do not believe there is a consensus to vote either unanimously or by qualified majority voting, QMV, for a banning of the EU-Israel Association Agreement or a pausing or suspension of it, or even of the trade elements of it. I do not believe that consensus is there. However, I do believe there is a desire from more member states now to do more. That was reflected in the number of countries yesterday that said that they would be willing to look at, assess and vote on other possible options that the Commission might put forward. There was a discussion around sanctioning particular ministers yesterday. That was not agreed. I regret that it was not possible for all countries to agree to sanction minister Ben-Gvir and another minister, but I believe there is a prospect and possibility that we could do so through QMV. That is why I advocated with other countries to put this down as a trade measure because that is where QMV can be taken as opposed to unanimity such that the banning of trade from the illegal occupied territories would be presented as an option, whereas it is not currently. The Commission has to propose it. It has not done so up until now. We have been advocating for it to do so. We were told yesterday that would happen. There may be a number of different options on the table regarding the legal implications, the types of votes that would need to take place and how they could be applied.

There was also a question raised as to how the current legal situation stands. At the moment, under the association agreement, the preferential treatment the EU gives to Israel does not and should not apply in the illegal occupied territories. The question is how that is being implemented and overseen already. Is there more that we can do in that regard? A number of options should be presented to us in the coming weeks before the next Council meeting, which we can debate and discuss.

I thank the Cathaoirleach. I welcome the Minister and her team to the committee. As my colleague said about the Passport Office team, I congratulate them and thank them for all their work. They have been excellent. They deal with all Deputies and Senators. It is very much welcome. I ask for that message to be passed on.

I will begin with a sporting question. What guidance, if any, has the Department provided to Irish sporting organisations regarding engagement with Israel, especially in the current circumstances?

We have not provided any advice. This would not be a decision, nor should it be a role for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, to engage on this matter. We have had quite an open debate and discussion on upcoming matches, but the FAI has made it very clear to the Government, and indeed to Departments, that this was a decision it would take.

It has made that decision and has decided where and when matches will take place. That was a matter for the FAI and this is not something that we as a Department would be involved in at all.

I thank the Minister, and I understand what she is saying. I brought this up because of a particular reference to the FAI. Other sporting organisations, however, will probably fall into the same situation if they are drawn against Israel, have to play against Israel or have connectivity with Israel in all different sporting contexts. Is there something we can learn from this situation to enable us to advise other sporting organisations? It is definitely a concern for all sporting bodies that have the possibility of facing this problem.

I think this should be left to the governing bodies of the different sports themselves. These conversations have come up in other areas as well, and individual governing bodies have made their own decisions. They have done that in consultation with the members.

More broadly, from my own view on this topic, we as a Government have been very clear that it is the actions of the Israeli Government that we oppose and that the decisions we are taking are in response to that Government’s decisions. The question is whether that should then penalise every other person who may completely condemn and not support the actions of the Israeli Government either. It is important that the governing bodies are able to engage with their members who can then decide and take that decision. This is what has happened, not just in relation to soccer but in a number of other instances.

My point is that these sporting organisations face a problem where they are criticised not for any blame attaching to themselves but just because they have been drawn against Israel. The criticism then comes back to that sporting organisation, which I think is totally unfair as well. I do agree with the Minister that sporting organisations have to make the decisions themselves but they are still criticised no matter what decisions they make, and that is-----

We need to respect the decisions that they take. The only people who would have missed out if that match did not go ahead would have been the Irish team and, potentially, the organisation and the governing body itself. It is, however, a matter for it to decide.

I thank the Minister for that response. Of all the foreign policy issues currently facing Ireland, which does the Minister regard as the most significant challenge to Ireland's international credibility and influence over the next 12 months?

The Minister has three and a half minutes to answer that broad question.

We will get the short answer from the Minister.

One of the things that will test us and that we will be judged on in the six months ahead is our role in the Presidency. This is something that comes about only every 13 and a half years. It is an opportunity for us as a country to show we can make progress on matters that are important to people, be it their business, their livelihoods, their lives more generally or the decisions we take at an international level that naturally impact us as well.

In my remit in my Department, naturally, it is about making sure that we continue to have a focus on Ukraine because this is a war that is happening on the European Continent. What happens there impacts all of us from a security perspective, and it is extremely important that we are driving forward the work done at a European level to put pressure on Russia and to support Ukraine. What happens in the Middle East impacts all of us as well because of the impact on the wider region. Our friend, Prince Faisal, from Saudi Arabia, recently told me that if we do not resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict, then there will never be peace within the region. This includes Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Lebanon. For many years, of course, we have had a significant investment in peace in Lebanon through our peacekeeping troops. The decisions that we take and the way in which we steer and manage these conversations in the next six months can have an impact on the overall outcome for many years to come.

When it comes to the decisions we take around our own security and defence, it is important that at a time when there is a changing security environment we are responding and working closely with other colleagues. I say this because there is often a perception that Ireland, as a small, militarily neutral country, does not have a role to play and that we are not playing our part when it comes to protecting our own citizens and EU citizens too. It is important that we show we do have a role to play and a significant contribution to make when it comes to our overall security and protecting citizens more broadly.

That is just a comment on what is within my own remit. There are obviously many other elements of the Presidency that will be important for people. The big one is making sure that we achieve a successful Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, in the next EU budget, which, at the moment, is presented as €2 trillion. It is about how much we get of that, where that fits into our own priorities, particularly in farming and fisheries, cohesion funding, investment in education and PEACEPLUS in Northern Ireland. That is extremely important.

To conclude, there is the work we are doing in support of the Good Friday Agreement in making sure it holds. There is also the aspect of continuing to work closely with our colleagues in the North and the UK in progressing legacy matters, and that relationship more broadly. That is an extremely important priority for this Government and one we need to manage carefully as well.

I thank the Minister for that good response. I too think we have a very important role to play. I again thank the Minister for all the work she has been doing.

It is my turn now. This committee covers four areas in respect of shadowing the Minister’s Department. We agreed this as a committee. I have four brief questions on each. These areas are: Anglo-Irish relations and North America; overseas development aid and the diaspora; international issues; and trade.

On the Anglo-Irish aspect, have the Minister’s officials been scoping out the potential consequences of a Reform Government in the UK and the implications for relations between Ireland and the UK?

Our focus is engagement with the current UK Government. That is where it needs to be. Our engagement is very positive, not just at a Prime Minister-to-Taoiseach level and at ministerial level but also at an official level. The ambition now is not to look beyond what we currently have. It is to make sure that while we are now in a good position, we can make as much progress as possible in strengthening the UK-Ireland relationship, managing and progressing issues like legacy, which have been extremely challenging in respect of previous UK Governments, and also trying to redevelop and re-establish the UK-EU relationship. I believe that while we are in the position we are in now, we need to make sure that is our focus and priority.

By the way, this is what we did with the Biden Administration, and we got caught to some degree. Anyway, that is a question for the international aspect.

Turning to overseas aid, any of the groups that come before us, including the different NGOs and the umbrella bodies, like Dóchas, and the Minister will be aware of this, mention the hit overseas aid has taken because of the hit that the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, has taken. They would not like this opportunity to go by without us saying that we, in representing their views and advocating for them, earnestly hope that development aid will be front and centre in our Presidency. I ask the Minister to speak to this point.

I reassure the committee and any of the organisations that this will be the case. We will be hosting a development council here, an informal one, and one in Brussels as well. While other countries have pulled back, Ireland has increased our overseas development aid. That is right, given the challenging world and environment we are living in. We are also conscious, however, of the fact that the US, in particular, has significantly decreased its funding, as have other parts of the world. This means that the EU is now the largest provider of overseas development aid. We need to readjust and reassess how that money is spent and make sure that those who need it most, those furthest behind, can access that money and support. This will be a key focus during the Presidency.

A new mechanism is being put in place, not to replace overseas aid but to look to see how we can invest better in countries and communities where help is needed the most, be it investment in critical infrastructure, economies and education. This is longer term investment to help bring countries out of poverty and address specific challenges or issues they are dealing with. This is something that will be progressed. It is called the Global Gateway. A number of strands are being worked on to see how we can readjust and be focused on the way we are providing aid at a time when other parts of the world are pulling back. We are, however, continuing to advocate that other countries and other parts of the world that are pulling back would reinstate that funding. This is something we will continue to work at as well.

I thank the Minister for that response. On the international context, the Minister said that, on the best day, she gets 16 or 17 colleagues sharing a view on the EU-Israel trade agreement. Taking those ten who do not share the view, what kinds of arguments do they use around the table for not moving?

I do not like to speak for other countries about their reasons, but there are countries that have long-standing historic relations with Israel. Quite simply, that may be the reason. There are countries that have historic ties, for example, Germany and Austria, where clearly there is a reluctance to move for very obvious reasons of which we are aware. At the same time, there is a view among all member states that the actions being taken by the Israeli Government are not appropriate and that they need to stop. That is the view of everybody around the table, but it is a case of how we respond and how we deal with it. Perhaps there is a view from some that engagement is the best approach, but at this point engagement is not working, which is why I have been advocating that we would move and take stronger action. We have been engaging, advocating and highlighting these issues for some time, but it has not changed the approach of the Israeli Government.

I am not asking the Minister to respond to this point, but I have a question on trade. We have consistently made the point in the committee - I have made it as Chair - that the Israelis have not told the truth about Ireland for a period. I hope that message is conveyed to different governments, because we must use every opportunity that we have. They have played games with the truth about where we are coming from. I have taken a pretty objective view, if only they would listen. We are doing a peace element in our committee whereby Ireland is available to help both sides at an international level. We have seen an appetite from different countries to assist in that as well – countries that would, like Ireland, have a reputation for independence and objectivity when it comes to it.

We have been clear. In any of my commentary or advocacy the objective is that the Israelis and Palestinians would live side by side. At the event we hosted - the global two-state alliance – earlier this year, there were many members from the Israeli community present. At the event hosted recently by my French colleague, there were members of the Israeli and Palestinian communities working side by side to try to bring about a peaceful solution. It is important to stress, as I mentioned earlier, that we have a Jewish community here in Ireland. In that context, it is important that the Government is clear that we do not tolerate antisemitism in any way. If issues emerge, we would put in place the strongest measures possible to push back on any form of hatred against any community.

I am one of the TDs whose constituency contains a small Jewish community, and I would reinforce that. Anti-Israeli Government sentiment is not anti-Jewish sentiment. There is a very clear distinction to be drawn between the two. It is important that those lines are not blurred by anybody for whatever reason, mischievous or otherwise.

I am indulging myself a little. My final question is on trade. Where are we expanding? Where are we looking to that we are not already operating in at the moment in a big way? The Minister has 30 seconds to respond.

During the Presidency, we hope to make further progress on India and Indonesia - that is obviously something that has been worked on for some time - as well as Australia, Malaysia and Thailand. The UAE is somewhere we have been engaging with, but the progress there has been slower. They are areas we hope to progress during our Presidency.

We are into the second round. Members will have four minutes each.

The Minister referenced in a general sense that the new multi-annual financial framework will be negotiated during our Presidency. She is acutely aware, both as a constituency TD and as a Minister, that there is a threat to the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, in the shape of a proposed 20% cut to funding. Is she confident that we can fight against and prevent that?

At the moment, there is a reduction in comparison with the current MFF. What is welcome is the first negotiating box, which is the overall figure and a breakdown of the different funding strands, was presented by the Cypriot Presidency recently. There was no further cut to the CAP. We are advocating for two things. The first is that we would try and increase the base figure. There is time to do that as this is going to take a number of months to negotiate. There are three different strands to the MFF. The national-regional partnership plan, NRPP, is essentially the funding that we get as a country, which is composed of CAP funding, cohesion funding and PEACEPLUS funding. There is an ability within that for member states to be able to top up certain areas of priority. Depending on the level of funding we get for the CAP and fisheries there may be an ability within this new strand of funding to top that up even further. Traditionally, this has been an extremely important part of the overall EU budget for us. It continues to be a really important part of it, so we will be working as arbiters throughout this process. We will be neutral but we will also be making sure that the priority areas continue to be a priority for us.

I thank the Minister for her response, because that matters to my area and to hers – to the entire country - in terms of primary and secondary jobs.

Along with colleagues, I had the privilege of observing Irish Aid, Concern and a number of other organisations operating in Liberia and Sierra Leone in Africa and of seeing the great work being done there. This will be the subject of further debate at another time by the committee. While I take the Minister's point about long-term infrastructural development, I would like an assurance from her that there would be no threat to the funding. In fact, rather than a threat to the funding, that we would be increasing the funding of the organisations that do front-line work such as nutrition and improving agricultural production. I saw books going into schools, sewage being treated and help being offered in respect of all of the immediate needs. While I understand that we need long-term infrastructure and economic development, I seek an assurance from the Minister that rather than cutting funding, we will enhance this front-line work that is so excellently done by Irish organisations.

I join Senator O'Reilly in commending what is done by Irish Aid, Concern and the many people who do unbelievable work, not just in parts of Africa but right across the world. I assure him that irrespective of whether there is further progress on the Global Gateway we have been advocating that this would not take away from the direct aid that is required. Again, our objective is to reach the furthest behind first and that we would support those who need help most. That is by addressing issues like hunger and starvation and making sure that the basic necessities are provided for people. That will continue to be a priority. If we look at our overall five priority objectives within the UN Human Rights Council, the focus is very much on food security and making sure that we protect the most vulnerable.

This is my final question. The Minister will not be surprised that I want to put it on record because I have been interacting with her and talking to her about the matter to which it relates. I support the earlier remarks about Mandy Kelly that were made by Deputy Bennett. I had the privilege of being rapporteur for the Council of Europe in North Macedonia. Massive progress has been made in North Macedonia, but that is not being matched by progress regarding its accession to the EU. Could the Minister look at the case of North Macedonia in the context of the Irish Presidency? I could bore her for an hour with a chronicle of all the things the Macedonians have done to improve their situation but it would not be appropriate to do so now.

No, now is not the time.

Can the Minister respond to that and look at the matter?

Will the Minister give a yes-no response?

We hope to progress all of the different files for front runners. North Macedonia is included in that group. The foreign minister is visiting tomorrow, so there will be lots of engagement on those issues. It is a slower process. It is not part of the four that are at the front, but we want to see all of the files move in some way.

It is regrettable that they are not at the front because they have made giant strides.

Yes.

I am listening with interest to what is being said about the EU's association agreement and the lack of action in that regard. It is hugely concerning.

As the Chair pointed out, this is not against the Israeli people. This is not against the Jewish people. However, we must question the Israeli Government. My concern is about the future. Will we be controlled by a country which is involved in so many disputes at the moment? People in ivory towers, most of them living in the USA, are literally dictating what is happening. You can look at Iran, Gaza or Lebanon. Let us look closer to home and look at the way citizens of Ireland were treated when they were taken off the flotilla. To me, those actions were not on. We have taken the lead on so many things but I ask for us to continue to take the lead because we are fighting for our kids. We cannot stand back and let people in their ivory towers control what is happening in the world. That is what is happening at the moment.

They are far away from the battlefield. You can look at the lobbying going on in the United States and it is a fact. It is there in black and white. Although there is a stalemate in Europe about challenging the association agreement with Israel, it should not be left to lie there. As I point out and as the Chair pointed out, this is not against the Jewish people. This is against the people who are running Israel. It is important to say that.

On Gaza and the rebuilding of Gaza, I have spoken privately with the Minister. I visited Egypt, as the Minister did, and saw what was going on. I saw the horror and the damage done to the buildings. When I was getting on the plane, my main concern was for the young people of Gaza. What will they be like in seven or eight years' time, when they are unleashed onto the world after going through the trauma they have gone through? Can our contribution to the rebuilding of Gaza be very much focused on the young people?

On this, we are advocating in a number of different ways for the rebuilding of Gaza and for the first phase of the peace agreement to be implemented fully. That is not happening. At a meeting yesterday after the foreign affairs Council, we met with Badr Abdelatty who is the Egyptian foreign minister. He was very clear about what was not happening on the ground in terms of the rebuilding efforts, aid getting through and the support young people need, be it from an education or health perspective. That is why we need to advocate for the peace agreement to be implemented but also for those responsible for it to be able to carry out and do that role and the jobs they have taken on. Unfortunately, given the conflict in Iran, that has taken the attention of many of those from a US perspective, other parts of the world and the Gulf as well. They have been focused on trying to resolve that conflict. It has taken attention away from the need to make progress in Gaza on the ground. We are advocating and will continue to advocate for that work to continue and to happen at pace.

We are providing funding to the Palestinian Authority and we are funding specific projects with an educational focus already. That work will continue. We are also part of what is called the Palestinian donor group and this is a group that represents countries not just from the EU but outside of it as well which provide support to the Palestinian Authority and advocate for it to be supported in its work rebuilding Gaza and Palestine. One of the biggest challenges it faces is there are billions of euro being withheld by the Israeli Government that are owed to the Palestinian Authority. We have advocated for that money to be released because that is money for schools, hospitals and children that is needed to pay people who have been working for months without being paid. We will continue to advocate for that.

Okay. We will do it for kids too?

We 100% will.

I thank the Minister.

I thank the Minister. I want to circle back to the intervention by Senator Higgins about the ICC. I know the Minister mentioned it is the brief of the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, but does she support the introduction of the EU blocking mechanism to protect the ICC in relation to the judges who have been sanctioned? There is the case of Francesca Albanese as well. EU citizens are basically being criminalised and there is a weaponisation of the sanctions regime against human rights defenders, basically. In practice, that is what we are seeing. It would be good to get a commitment from the Minister, as well as the Minister of State, on this. In Deputy McEntee's capacity as the line Minister, it would be most important coming from her.

If Ireland could seek and achieve this in our six-month Presidency, it would be a huge win for human rights and the protection of the international justice system. If it was something the Minister was able to deliver, it would actually be incredible because we have seen the severe weaponisation of sanctions. The Russians have sanctioned many members of the ICC but the impact of the US sanctions is much more vast as a consequence of Maestro, Visa, Microsoft and all of these companies on which we have a dependency. We are seeing an overcompliance. Companies, including some in Ireland, are overcomplying for fear of any retribution from the US system. They are going beyond the letter of the law and what is actually required. The EU blocking mechanism would provide them protections and assurances there will be no negative implications for them.

I urge the Minister to make that commitment as the line Minister because today, it is the ICC and that is horrendous but tomorrow, it could literally be any single one of us who is sanctioned by the US for speaking out for human rights.

It is completely unacceptable this is happening and, as the Senator says, people who are standing up for basic human rights are being targeted in this way. I apologise in terms of the reference earlier because the European committee was mentioned. Anything that comes to that committee is a matter for the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne. More broadly, Ireland, as a country, strongly supports any actions that would be taken in this regard.

Would the Minister recommend that? On the values piece, that is something I see sitting very comfortably under that. Is that something Ireland could do in the Presidency?

I will come back to the Senator directly as to where this is at. I know there are a number of different actions that are being progressed so I want to be clear as to exactly where it is. We have been vocal as Ireland but the EU as a whole has been vocal in our objection to this action.

When could the Minister do that?

I will come back to the committee as soon as possible on it.

That would be great because it is great to be vocal but this is actually an action we can take that goes beyond just condemning the sanctions. This is a way we can protect EU citizens from further sanctions. As I say, the ICC is still managing to do its work but it will have a chilling impact and effect on people when we see the sanctions regime weaponised so horrifically. Just to note, I invited the vice president from the ICC as he was here in Ireland last week. Unfortunately, officials from the Department of foreign affairs were not available to meet him. That commitment would be really important.

We have a really strong record of joining cases at an international level, including by our current Attorney General. It is something we do not shy away from as a country, including the current situation in Gaza and other scenarios as well. We do not shy away from joining cases or advocating in whatever way we can where there are clearly human rights abuses.

I thank the Minister. I want to follow up on dual-use goods. The rhetoric from Ireland has been strong but the fact is that Ireland is one of the largest trade partners for Israel - not per head but internationally. An area where there has been a six fold increase is with dual-use goods. Those are goods that can be used for weapons. We know those are very much in areas that fall within Ireland's remit. Their export has to be approved. This is an area of trade that can be acted upon directly by Ireland.

We heard before that the Department of enterprise seeks the advice of the Department of foreign affairs as to export dual-use goods or not. In that regard, with a six fold increase in dual-use goods, including technologies that are being used for the assault on human rights we are seeing, is that an area where there can be action? What advice is the Department of foreign affairs giving? That sits into a wider issue when we talk about security and stepping up. We have a very proud record we should not be shy about but that is in the area of disarmament. The Minister will be aware I am bringing forward a Bill tomorrow on the need for a global ban and Irish ban on autonomous weapons, which are not dealt with at EU level but need to be dealt with individually. The cluster munitions ban was one where Ireland led in the past and we know funding is going from the EU, with Ireland underwriting it, to cluster bombs.

Will the Minister comment on that, and also Aughinish Alumina and the continued failure to examine arms flights? On stepping up security, will part of that be honestly looking at the role Ireland is playing in relation to military exports and military machinery that are being used in breach of human rights and will there be appropriate follow-up action by the State?

The Minister said trade with Indonesia was being looked at. Given the record we have on the occupied Palestinian territories and Western Sahara - the Department has said there are substantive issues arising from the fact Western Sahara has been included in the EU-Morocco trade agreement - will Western Papua and the human rights abuses there be raised as part of the trade brief? Can Ireland bring an anti-colonial phrase? Is opposing colonialism part of Irish values? That is a unique thing we can bring to our colleagues in Europe in a constructive way.

In terms of the dual-use goods, a lot of those exports, including those to Israel but not specifically, are mainstream business ICT products, including hardware, software and networking and data storage products. There is a particular category and criteria they have to adhere to. Those are set out by the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, which has responsibility for the European Parliament and Council regulation. That Department engages with my Department and there is often advice sought, but the final decision is with the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment. A lot of different items are dual-use.

There is a sixfold increase that maps onto the war.

Again, there are very clear rules and regulations as to what can be considered dual-use and what can be approved. Companies and businesses have to go through appropriate measures. That is not to say we approve a product and nothing happens. If concerns are raised about where it is going or how it is being used, obviously there are mechanisms in place, similar to what is happening with Aughinish Alumina now, to review the matter and ascertain the facts. If changes need to be made or if there needs to be a response with the company, that happens. While I will not go into details, this has happened and there has been engagement with other companies in the past as well.

We will not oppose the Senator's legislation on Second Stage but we would like to engage with her further on it to ensure any legislation enacted in the House is in line with legislation that has been progressed at an international level. When we talk about AI, lethal weapons and the fast pace at which things are moving, we all need to make sure appropriate regulation and mechanisms are in place at an international level. I look forward to engaging with the Senator on that Bill.

We are a strong supporter of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which was adopted in Dublin in 2008. We are also a member of the core group of states that negotiated the Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention text. We then successfully negotiated the inclusion of provisions under the European defence industry programme to make prohibited weapons ineligible for EU funds. When I talk about stepping up and doing more in our security, it does not mean moving away from that work. We will continue to advocate to make sure we strengthen these types of programmes and provisions and that, where possible, we remove munitions and lethal weaponry. However, we also have to be conscious that we are living in an increasingly volatile world.

When we talk about strengthening our security, it is looking at security from the perspective of our underwater infrastructure and the impact it would have on our society if it was to be attacked. We talk about protecting our citizens from drone attacks that may take place. That is looking at counter-drone technology. We are not talking about developing, or being in any way part of the development of, lethal weaponry and our Constitution is very clear that in any of the programmes and ways we engage at European level that has to be taken into consideration.

The European Commission told the finance committee that Security Action for Europe, SAFE, loans can be used for cluster munitions and landmines. We are underwriting those loans, which is at odds with our previous position. I was present at Croke Park and I am very proud of that convention. I am signalling to the Minster that there is a concern about SAFE loans.

Will the Minister address the question on trade? On untied aid, are we advocating not just for more aid but better aid that is untied? The quality of aid from Ireland is something we are all very proud of.

We are advocating for more aid, better aid, aid that is targeted and aid that looks to the future as well. That is the new programme being developed, which will invest in critical and key infrastructure. However, we need to make sure we are advocating not just for Ireland and the EU to do this, but for other countries to do it as well. When I was in Jordan as part of my visit to Egypt and the Rafah crossing, I met with a number of organisations which, because of the reduction in aid from the US specifically, their programmes will have to be slashed. Obviously, they are looking at how those programmes can be more targeted. We too can be more focused and targeted. We need to make sure other countries-----

My final question was on trade and human rights.

Respecting and upholding human rights are part of any agreements we enter into, as is protecting our national interests and international interests. When it comes to the environment, the farming community and protecting basic human rights, these are elements that form part of any trade agreement.

There is an issue with Western Sahara and I am signalling that Western Papua could be an issue in relation to Indonesia.

I am happy to engage with the Senator on that as the matter progresses.

Is there anything the Senator feels was not answered?

I asked a question on colonialism. I believe this is something particular to our history and I worry we are entering a new era of neocolonialism, frankly, from a climate perspective, right through to straight land grabs. Is that something the Minister brings to the discussions? Ireland can bring a perspective that is different from the perspectives of countries with a different colonial experience from the top. How important is it that we talk about colonialism as a bad thing?

We need to use our own experience to engage with countries and people in these scenarios. We need to make sure that in any development of relationships, be that a trading relationship or any other type of engagement, that we work to address concerns there may be and use our experience and history to guide us in that regard.

I call Deputy Brennan.

I have spoken.

We have a little time left and I do not want anyone to leave feeling they did not get their money's worth.

I just have a small point that I did not get to. What is the Minister's guidance in relation to foreign travel, especially to the Middle East? I know the situation there is evolving. I ask the Minister to comment on that.

I would have to check exact locations because, obviously, there is different travel advice depending on where people are looking to travel to. There had been specific advice for the Middle East and the United Arab Emirates, in particular, at the time the conflict kicked off in Iran. I think that advice has since changed. We have the Travelwise checklist to advise people. If there is advice not to travel to a particular region, we ask that people take that on board. It is specific to each county. I apologise that I cannot give the Deputy a breakdown for the Middle East at the moment.

That is fine.

If there is an active conflict, the very clear travel advice to not to travel to the area. As regards some areas where a lot of Irish people live, that advice has naturally changed in recent months.

Will the Minister comment on the UK and Ireland post Brexit and how quickly the political scene is evolving in the UK?

Only yesterday, I read something from ten years ago and the time of Brexit. It is hard to believe it has been ten years. There have been a lot of ups and downs even since then. From the perspective of our relationship, we are probably in a better place that we have been for a long time. That is because of the ambition of the current UK Prime Minister. I believe there is a real ambition on the part of Prime Minister Keir Starmer to enhance and rebuild what had been damaged from the Brexit period. It has also been helped through the actions of the Cabinet and elected members across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The new structures we have put in place have also helped significantly. The first UK summit was held in Liverpool, with the most recent one held in Cork. Instead of being a summit where we just met and discussed things, there were tangible actions to follow through on, from the first to the second meeting and now from the second one onwards. For example, a new memorandum of understanding on defence was agreed before the most recent summit.

Key actions on youth engagement were agreed. I hosted an event with the British ambassador in my Department recently to look at the issues young people on both islands are concerned about, where they want to see the Government's focus on and how we take those actions forward, so there is a really collaborative approach. One of the key things that keep coming through is infrastructure, energy connectivity and energy security and there are key actions there for how we can be more interconnected, work more closely together and share information on the challenges to progressing critical infrastructure and how we can overcome them. There are some really tangible things that will benefit people on a day-to-day basis and help strengthen relationships even further.

Just to finish off on that point, I can see clearly that there is very strong co-operation and it is building and building, but in light of the recent by-elections over there, does the Minister have any concerns about a change of government and the leader who everyone has been speaking about as possibly being in power in a few years' time?

I do not like to comment on other elections or what might be the outcome. We really have to focus on the Government that is there and make sure that is our priority. If governments change, as they naturally do, we will have an ambition to work closely with any new government, whatever it might be. That can apply to lots of different countries where we have had challenges or had turbulent relationships in recent years. The focus has to be on how we look beyond one person or party and keep on track the relationship that has been built over many decades. That applies to the UK, the US and a lot of countries.

All right. I thank the Minister. That was very accomplished testimony to the committee. We are very grateful to you and to your officials. You did not lean on them much throughout the last few hours but they were there in case you needed them. I thank the officials here, that is, the clerk and her colleagues as well as our communications people, who broadcast the Minister's answers, God knows, globally even.

May I speak?

Of course. No man has the right to halt the march of a committee. It will be five minutes.

That is okay. Deputy Ó Laoghaire will be delighted that I technically got in here. Apologies, a Chathaoirligh, and I apologise to the Minister.

If I give you five minutes, is that okay?

I will try to keep to it.

Did I see an email saying MLAs are going to get access to a phone number for the Passport Office?

I can say it a third time. There is a new phone line, which they will have access to, and I will provide the number to the Deputy.

This is something I-----

This is the social media question, is it, Deputy?

No, this is something I have looked for. A number of people have. It is a particular issue for me given I represent a Border area. We often run out of our 20 tickets a week. It even happened last week. My office sent that to me so I am assuming they are delighted. Usually this is where we say this should have happened earlier but I am just delighted it has happened at all. I thank the Passport Office. A very particular issue was dealt with the last time a presentation was made here. It is always good when you can deliver. It was a kid on a first trip away and an issue to do with birth certificates arose. In fairness, the office facilitated no end, so I thank the team for that.

Now, a question, Deputy.

Okay, a question. This is not the first time we have had this discussion and I am sure the Minister dealt with it earlier, but what is the likelihood of any moves on the EU-Israel Association Agreement? We all know about the issues with Israel, namely, its genocidal actions, its genocidal intent and the fact it is absolutely committed to ensuring there is no Palestinian state. We can see what it is doing in the West Bank, we know what it has done across Gaza and is still doing in Lebanon, and we will see what the future holds in relation to that. When are we going to see anything, even if it is a qualified majority vote, that can get across the line?

Yesterday, at the Foreign Affairs Council, we discussed the need for the Commission to put forward a number of new proposals. We still have on the table a proposal that would suspend the trade element of the EU-Israel Association Agreement or the association agreement itself. There is very clearly not support for that or even for QMV. However, after I and the ministers of a number of other member states advocated for the Commission to put forward other proposals, an agreement was reached that it would do that before the next Foreign Affairs Council. What those proposals are exactly I cannot say, but we asked specifically for a ban on trade in the occupied territories to be put forward as a proposal. There is a proposal on the table to impose sanctions on a number of ministers. There is still the association proposal and the Commission may put forward others but I am hopeful we will have a discussion and potentially a vote on this matter at the next Foreign Affairs Council.

When is that?

The second week in July.

Is the Minister in any way hopeful of being able to get any of those across the line?

There has been a shift and a change in the number of member states that are willing to do more. When I joined the Department, at my first Council meeting, I would say the number was five or six. In the discussion yesterday, 17 or 18 member states advocated for proposals to be brought forward that could be discussed and debated. Whether all those would agree to a vote in the end is something I will be advocating for along with other member states, most notably-----

How much of that is down to persistent Irish advocacy?

We have been one of the strongest advocates for greater action at an EU level. At every European Council meeting and Foreign Affairs Council meeting, we have consistently called for greater levels of action, greater access to humanitarian aid in Gaza because not enough is getting in, a greater response to violent settlers and a stronger response to what is happening in Lebanon. In particular with the settlements, we have advocated a European response because we believe, and I think we all believe, that is the way you see response from the Israeli Government. We have consistently called for it. Spain has consistently called for it. Slovenia did so but, unfortunately, that has changed due to a change in government. The Netherlands, with its new Government, has become particularly vocal, so we have been collectively working on this. Portugal has also been vocal, as has Luxembourg in recent meetings, so it is starting to gain momentum, but we have been there from the very beginning.

On the issue of settlements, the latest proposal is almost a game-changer. It makes it almost impossible to have a two-state solution and I have to assume that is the intent. The Minister talked about sanctions on trade being one of the proposals for the occupied territories. Is this goods and services or just goods, no different from our own initiative?

We have advocated the banning of trade within the illegally occupied territories.

Trade full stop.

Trade full stop, but again the Commission will engage with us in the weeks ahead on how that is presented. The proposal for sanctions on violent settlers has already been voted on and agreed.

This is on the record already.

Yes. That was blocked by Hungary but that block has been lifted so we have approved sanctions against violent settlers as well as those responsible for the 7 October attack, or massacre. Still on the table is the suspension of the association agreement as well as sanctions on two ministers, but those were not successful at yesterday's meeting.

All right. The sanctions on ministers would need to be against more than just Ben-Gvir and Smotrich because obviously the entire Government of Israel is culpable for what is going on. It goes without saying everyone is disappointed the occupied territories Bill will not cover both goods and services. We all accept this will not stop what Benjamin Netanyahu and his crew are doing, but it is about ensuring we put pressure on them from the point of view of others joining, and then it is the old South African example. Stopping importing oranges from South Africa did not stop apartheid but it played a significant role. What Mary Manning did played a significant role when Dunnes Stores decided it would not sell South African goods and then it moved on from there. We really need to do the maximum.

As we are concluding, one of the answers the Minister gave, which the Deputy might reflect on, was to say that if we enact this occupied territories Bill, the Dáil will be the first parliament to do so.

I meant to mention that Deputy McEntee is the first Minister to appear before this committee to take general questions. Her predecessor appeared only to inform us about the Government's occupied territories Bill. We are grateful for her attendance. We look forward to seeing her again and wish her the very best as president of the European foreign affairs, trade and defence Council in the coming six months, from 1 July.